Difference between revisions of "Resource:E3a1be4e-2ff9-4b7f-b44c-abd409fe225a"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title= | + | |Title='I am really sorry': Peer Reviewer Stole Text for Own Paper |
| − | |Is About=This case is about | + | |Is About=This case is about a chemist at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. In 2009 he and a colleague published a paper. In that paper, some paragraphs were copied from a paper he was asked to review. He states that his colleague copied those paragraphs and that he didn't know that. This is a factual case. |
| − | + | |Important Because=One can also be indirectly involved in scientific fraud and plagiarism. | |
| − | |||
| − | This is a factual case. | ||
| − | |Important Because=One can also be indirectly involved in scientific fraud and plagiarism. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Important For=Researchers; Peer reviewers; Reviewers | |Important For=Researchers; Peer reviewers; Reviewers | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 15: | Line 9: | ||
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/14/i-am-really-sorry-peer-reviewer-stole-text-for-own-paper/ | |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/14/i-am-really-sorry-peer-reviewer-stole-text-for-own-paper/ | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |Involves=Yi-Chou Tsai | + | |Involves=Yi-Chou Tsai; Retraction Watch |
|Has Timepoint=14-3-2016 | |Has Timepoint=14-3-2016 | ||
|Has Location=Taiwan | |Has Location=Taiwan | ||
Revision as of 21:26, 26 May 2020
ResourcesCases
'I am really sorry': Peer Reviewer Stole Text for Own Paper
What is this about?
This case is about a chemist at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. In 2009 he and a colleague published a paper. In that paper, some paragraphs were copied from a paper he was asked to review. He states that his colleague copied those paragraphs and that he didn't know that. This is a factual case.
Why is this important?
One can also be indirectly involved in scientific fraud and plagiarism.
