Difference between revisions of "Resource:532a3274-515c-46e6-b153-7eb76a515dfe"
From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Journal calls 2012 paper “deeply offensive to particular minorities” |Is About=In this factual case, a paper claiming that there mig...") |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|Is About=In this factual case, a paper claiming that there might be a link between pigmentation and aggression/sexual violence was retracted following a petition against its publication. | |Is About=In this factual case, a paper claiming that there might be a link between pigmentation and aggression/sexual violence was retracted following a petition against its publication. | ||
|Important Because=This is yet one more of several [[Springer Nature ‘continuing to investigate the concerns raised’ about paper linking obesity and lying|cases]] of a study that has been retracted following concerns that its conclusions might cause damage to certain minority groups. Questions on whether certain conclusion from research on animals can be transferable (without strong evidence) to human are also raised. Finally, whilst in supporting an argument researchers need to carefully choose the literature as appropriate, '''citing selectively to enhance own findings''<nowiki/>' (ECCRI, 2017: 6)<ref>ECCRI: [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]</ref> is considered as unacceptable practice. | |Important Because=This is yet one more of several [[Springer Nature ‘continuing to investigate the concerns raised’ about paper linking obesity and lying|cases]] of a study that has been retracted following concerns that its conclusions might cause damage to certain minority groups. Questions on whether certain conclusion from research on animals can be transferable (without strong evidence) to human are also raised. Finally, whilst in supporting an argument researchers need to carefully choose the literature as appropriate, '''citing selectively to enhance own findings''<nowiki/>' (ECCRI, 2017: 6)<ref>ECCRI: [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]</ref> is considered as unacceptable practice. | ||
| + | <references /> | ||
|Important For=Researchers; Peer reviewers; Editors | |Important For=Researchers; Peer reviewers; Editors | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/29/journal-calls-2012-paper-deeply-offensive-to-particular-minorities/#more-119814 | |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/29/journal-calls-2012-paper-deeply-offensive-to-particular-minorities/#more-119814 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Resource=Resource:7720ec0f-d2a2-41e2-bd0f-5b0ebce81a69 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
|Involves=Philippe Rushton; Donald Templer | |Involves=Philippe Rushton; Donald Templer | ||
Latest revision as of 14:23, 21 June 2021
ResourcesCases
Journal calls 2012 paper “deeply offensive to particular minorities”
What is this about?
In this factual case, a paper claiming that there might be a link between pigmentation and aggression/sexual violence was retracted following a petition against its publication.
Why is this important?
This is yet one more of several cases of a study that has been retracted following concerns that its conclusions might cause damage to certain minority groups. Questions on whether certain conclusion from research on animals can be transferable (without strong evidence) to human are also raised. Finally, whilst in supporting an argument researchers need to carefully choose the literature as appropriate, 'citing selectively to enhance own findings' (ECCRI, 2017: 6)[1] is considered as unacceptable practice.
