Difference between revisions of "Resource:2958e5c9-7d9e-44c9-aca0-7e3c0ad7afe8"
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=Florida | + | |Title=Florida Researcher 'Cherry Picked' Data, University Investigation Finds |
| − | |Is About=This case is about | + | |Is About=This case is about a professor of biomedical engineering, and a former postdoc and scientist, whose paper got retracted because only certain data points were reported that supported the paper's conclusion. This is a factual case. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | This is a factual case. | ||
|Important Because=Scientific fraud is not only presenting false data, but also publishing only parts of the available data. | |Important Because=Scientific fraud is not only presenting false data, but also publishing only parts of the available data. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 15: | Line 9: | ||
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2017/10/24/florida-researcher-cherry-picked-data-university-investigation-finds/ | |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2017/10/24/florida-researcher-cherry-picked-data-university-investigation-finds/ | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |Involves=Huabei Jiang; Lei Yao | + | |Involves=Huabei Jiang; Lei Yao; Retraction Watch |
|Has Timepoint=24-10-2017 | |Has Timepoint=24-10-2017 | ||
|Has Location=USA; United States | |Has Location=USA; United States | ||
Revision as of 15:54, 26 May 2020
ResourcesCases
Florida Researcher 'Cherry Picked' Data, University Investigation Finds
What is this about?
This case is about a professor of biomedical engineering, and a former postdoc and scientist, whose paper got retracted because only certain data points were reported that supported the paper's conclusion. This is a factual case.
Why is this important?
Scientific fraud is not only presenting false data, but also publishing only parts of the available data.
