Difference between revisions of "Resource:Af266b39-20a3-4b97-a876-08eebb428fe6"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=Misconduct Ruling is Silent on Intent | |Title=Misconduct Ruling is Silent on Intent | ||
| − | |Is About= | + | |Is About=This is a factual case in which a psychologist who is found guilty of scientific misconduct. However, it is unclear whether the mistakes in the investigated publications are deliberately and thus a result of data fabrication or whether they are unintentional. This causes some to question whether the decision to declare the psychologist guilty is the right one, while others agree with the ruling. |
<references /> | <references /> | ||
| − | |Important Because= | + | |Important Because=This case demonstrates that it sometimes can be difficult to distinguish scientific misconduct from scientific errors. It shows that the definition of misconduct can be interpreted in different ways and it shows the importance of education of scientist to prevent ‘unintentional scientific misconduct’ and improve research integrity. |
|Important For=researchers; phd students; research leaders | |Important For=researchers; phd students; research leaders | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |||
|Has Timepoint=2002; 2010 | |Has Timepoint=2002; 2010 | ||
|Has Location=USA; United States | |Has Location=USA; United States | ||
Latest revision as of 14:30, 30 April 2021
ResourcesCases
Misconduct Ruling is Silent on Intent
What is this about?
This is a factual case in which a psychologist who is found guilty of scientific misconduct. However, it is unclear whether the mistakes in the investigated publications are deliberately and thus a result of data fabrication or whether they are unintentional. This causes some to question whether the decision to declare the psychologist guilty is the right one, while others agree with the ruling.
Why is this important?
This case demonstrates that it sometimes can be difficult to distinguish scientific misconduct from scientific errors. It shows that the definition of misconduct can be interpreted in different ways and it shows the importance of education of scientist to prevent ‘unintentional scientific misconduct’ and improve research integrity.
