Difference between revisions of "Resource:3758c3d9-cde3-4011-af46-4ebe9ac04d99"
From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Reproducibility of methodology |Is About=The case focuses on editorial decision-making regarding controversial methodology and post-publ...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Title=Reproducibility of methodology | |Title=Reproducibility of methodology | ||
|Is About=The case focuses on editorial decision-making regarding controversial methodology and post-publication peer review. Two published articles focused on the effect of energy healing on an in-vitro model of disease. Whistleblower concerns were raised about the appropriateness and reproducibility of the energy healing methodology used. | |Is About=The case focuses on editorial decision-making regarding controversial methodology and post-publication peer review. Two published articles focused on the effect of energy healing on an in-vitro model of disease. Whistleblower concerns were raised about the appropriateness and reproducibility of the energy healing methodology used. | ||
| − | |Important For=Editors | + | |Important For=Editors; Peer reviewers; Researchers |
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|Involves=COPE | |Involves=COPE | ||
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability | |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability | ||
| + | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Reproducability | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 16:10, 18 June 2021
ResourcesCases
Reproducibility of methodology
What is this about?
The case focuses on editorial decision-making regarding controversial methodology and post-publication peer review. Two published articles focused on the effect of energy healing on an in-vitro model of disease. Whistleblower concerns were raised about the appropriateness and reproducibility of the energy healing methodology used.
