Difference between revisions of "Resource:81d54c73-e442-47d8-923c-7576d7bdd60e"

From The Embassy of Good Science
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Resource
 
{{Resource
 
|Resource Type=Cases
 
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Problem With Michael LaCour’s Rebuttal
+
|Title=One PhD student, a retraction, and an unconvincing rebuttal
|Is About=This case is about a political science PhD student, who was accused of scientific fraud. He did not agree with the retraction of his paper which was requested by his co-author. This is a factual case.
+
|Is About=This factual case is about a political science PhD student, who was accused of scientific fraud. He did not agree with the retraction of his paper which was requested by his co-author.
 
|Important For=Researchers
 
|Important For=Researchers
 
}}
 
}}
Line 12: Line 12:
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Tags
 
{{Tags
|Involves=Michael LaCour
+
|Has Timepoint=1-6-2015; 2015
|Has Timepoint=1-6-2015
 
 
|Has Location=USA; United States
 
|Has Location=USA; United States
 
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
 
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty

Latest revision as of 10:04, 15 October 2020

Cases

One PhD student, a retraction, and an unconvincing rebuttal

What is this about?

This factual case is about a political science PhD student, who was accused of scientific fraud. He did not agree with the retraction of his paper which was requested by his co-author.

For whom is this important?

Other information

Virtues & Values
Good Practices & Misconduct
Research Area
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
5.1.6