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

From The Embassy of Good Science
Line 2: Line 2:
 
|Resource Type=Cases
 
|Resource Type=Cases
 
|Title=The Problem With Michael LaCour’s Rebuttal
 
|Title=The Problem With Michael LaCour’s Rebuttal
|Is About=This case is about Michael LaCour, 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.
+
|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.
 
 
 
 
This is a factual case.
 
|Important Because=Not all cases of retracted papers concern scientific fraud on purpose.
 
 
 
 
 
Website Blog (Discover)
 
 
|Important For=Researchers
 
|Important For=Researchers
 
}}
 
}}
Line 15: Line 8:
 
|Has Link=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2015/06/01/problem-michael-lacours-rebuttal/#.XBoikPnDJNr
 
|Has Link=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2015/06/01/problem-michael-lacours-rebuttal/#.XBoikPnDJNr
 
}}
 
}}
{{Related To}}
+
{{Related To
 +
|Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0
 +
}}
 
{{Tags
 
{{Tags
 
|Involves=Michael LaCour
 
|Involves=Michael LaCour

Revision as of 20:31, 26 May 2020

Cases

The Problem With Michael LaCour’s Rebuttal

What is this 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.

For whom is this important?

Other information

When
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