Difference between revisions of "Resource:36c3c63d-3041-43d1-8543-0315d17e4939"
From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=What should a journal do when a scientist who committed misconduct submits a new paper? |Is About=Linked to the case of Olivier Voinnet,...") |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|Related To Resource=Resource:4603212b-89c1-41d9-a4f5-c8fa706cc0b1 | |Related To Resource=Resource:4603212b-89c1-41d9-a4f5-c8fa706cc0b1 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Tags | + | {{Tags}} |
| − | |||
| − | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:37, 28 June 2021
ResourcesCases
What should a journal do when a scientist who committed misconduct submits a new paper?
What is this about?
Linked to the case of Olivier Voinnet, the blog presents an example of publishers' response to authors whose past papers have been retracted or have had corrections issued on them.
Why is this important?
Whether it is purposeful attempt to deceit and knowingly one manipulates data, images, results, or, corrections in publications are the outcome of honest mistakes, this blog raises the editors' dilemma in accepting new submission by these authors. An interesting example for discussion mainly for those involved in publishing.
