Difference between revisions of "Resource:F243f440-69e9-44f8-b95a-5e0c2009f700"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title=Mea Culpa: Scientific Misconduct | + | |Title=Mea Culpa: Scientific Misconduct - perspective of a research ethics board chair |
|Is About=Much had been written recently in the anesthesia literature about scientific misconduct, precipitated in large part by revelations and ongoing allegations of misconduct and that required retraction of more than 60 articles from the medical literature<ref>Hall, Richard I. "Mea culpa: scientific misconduct." ''Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia'' 26.2 (2012): 181-185.</ref>. In this article the writer wrote an opinion from the perspective of the chair of a research ethics board. This is a factual case.<references /> | |Is About=Much had been written recently in the anesthesia literature about scientific misconduct, precipitated in large part by revelations and ongoing allegations of misconduct and that required retraction of more than 60 articles from the medical literature<ref>Hall, Richard I. "Mea culpa: scientific misconduct." ''Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia'' 26.2 (2012): 181-185.</ref>. In this article the writer wrote an opinion from the perspective of the chair of a research ethics board. This is a factual case.<references /> | ||
|Important Because=An article that contains false information, once published and even if retracted, often continues to be cited and included in reviews, lectures, and meta-analyses. These, in turn, could affect medical practice and public policy for considerable periods<ref>Hall, Richard I. "Mea culpa: scientific misconduct." ''Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia'' 26.2 (2012): 181-185.</ref> | |Important Because=An article that contains false information, once published and even if retracted, often continues to be cited and included in reviews, lectures, and meta-analyses. These, in turn, could affect medical practice and public policy for considerable periods<ref>Hall, Richard I. "Mea culpa: scientific misconduct." ''Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia'' 26.2 (2012): 181-185.</ref> | ||
| + | <references /> | ||
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 15:19, 5 August 2020
ResourcesCases
Mea Culpa: Scientific Misconduct - perspective of a research ethics board chair
What is this about?
Much had been written recently in the anesthesia literature about scientific misconduct, precipitated in large part by revelations and ongoing allegations of misconduct and that required retraction of more than 60 articles from the medical literature[1]. In this article the writer wrote an opinion from the perspective of the chair of a research ethics board. This is a factual case.
- ↑ Hall, Richard I. "Mea culpa: scientific misconduct." Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia 26.2 (2012): 181-185.
Why is this important?
An article that contains false information, once published and even if retracted, often continues to be cited and included in reviews, lectures, and meta-analyses. These, in turn, could affect medical practice and public policy for considerable periods[1]
- ↑ Hall, Richard I. "Mea culpa: scientific misconduct." Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia 26.2 (2012): 181-185.
