Difference between revisions of "Resource:9a3c7e5f-08d6-4de7-9acd-8304127300a3"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*First one is about Uri Simonsohn of University of Pennsylvania who calls himself a data-whisperer. Uri was the one who blew the whistle on two famous cases of data fabrication and data manipulation, namely those involving Dirk Smeesters and Lawrence Sanna. | *First one is about Uri Simonsohn of University of Pennsylvania who calls himself a data-whisperer. Uri was the one who blew the whistle on two famous cases of data fabrication and data manipulation, namely those involving Dirk Smeesters and Lawrence Sanna. | ||
| − | *The second case is about Helen | + | *The second case is about Helen Hill of University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey who persisted for nearly 14 years to expose Anupam Bishayee's misconduct and repeatedly failed. |
*The third person uses the pseudonym "Clare Francis" to flag suspicious cases of plagiarism or figure manipulation/duplication. | *The third person uses the pseudonym "Clare Francis" to flag suspicious cases of plagiarism or figure manipulation/duplication. | ||
Latest revision as of 20:39, 16 November 2020
ResourcesCases
3 Ways to Blow the Whistle
What is this about?
This article introduces three whistle-blowers and describes their journey in blowing a whistle.
- First one is about Uri Simonsohn of University of Pennsylvania who calls himself a data-whisperer. Uri was the one who blew the whistle on two famous cases of data fabrication and data manipulation, namely those involving Dirk Smeesters and Lawrence Sanna.
- The second case is about Helen Hill of University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey who persisted for nearly 14 years to expose Anupam Bishayee's misconduct and repeatedly failed.
- The third person uses the pseudonym "Clare Francis" to flag suspicious cases of plagiarism or figure manipulation/duplication.
Why is this important?
It describes different strategies that may be used for whistle-blowing and highlights the fact that not every suspicion is always worthy of exposure.
