Difference between revisions of "Resource:729d6b14-e5f5-4dfd-94bc-b3bda16c245a"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=Questioning a Mentor | |Title=Questioning a Mentor | ||
| − | |Is About=This is a fictional case. | + | |Is About=A new graduate researcher suspects her supervisor of having falsified research for publications which were needed for his tenure. What should the researcher do? This is a fictional case. |
| − | |Important For=Researchers | + | |Important Because=It can be difficult for researchers to know what to do if they suspect misconduct but do not have concrete evidence. The extreme hierarchies present in scientific departments and labs can exacerbate the problem for junior researchers. |
| + | |Important For=Researchers; Early career researchers; ECR | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
Latest revision as of 14:25, 17 September 2020
ResourcesCases
Questioning a Mentor
What is this about?
A new graduate researcher suspects her supervisor of having falsified research for publications which were needed for his tenure. What should the researcher do? This is a fictional case.
Why is this important?
It can be difficult for researchers to know what to do if they suspect misconduct but do not have concrete evidence. The extreme hierarchies present in scientific departments and labs can exacerbate the problem for junior researchers.
