Difference between revisions of "Resource:45af2d0e-4238-4d3b-8431-9b7682eb9691"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science |Is About=. |Important Because=. Journal Factual |Important For...") |
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science | |Title=Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science | ||
| − | |Is About=. | + | |Is About=The authors analyze a convenience sample of fraud cases to see whether (social) psychology is more susceptible to fraud than other disciplines. They also evaluate whether the peer review process and replications work well in practice to detect fraud. This is a factual case. |
| − | |Important Because=. | + | |Important Because=There is no evidence that psychology is more vulnerable to fraud than the biomedical sciences, and most frauds are detected through information from whistleblowers with inside information. On the basis of this analysis, the authors suggest a number of strategies that might reduce the risk of scientific fraud. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 14: | Line 9: | ||
|Has Link=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691612460687 | |Has Link=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691612460687 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Resource=Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:Af266b39-20a3-4b97-a876-08eebb428fe6;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01 | ||
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | + | |Has Timepoint=2012 | |
| − | |Has Timepoint= | ||
|Has Location=United States | |Has Location=United States | ||
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty | |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty | ||
| − | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification | + | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Fraud; Misconduct; Peer Review |
|Related To Research Area=Psychology | |Related To Research Area=Psychology | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:11, 25 October 2020
ResourcesCases
Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science
What is this about?
The authors analyze a convenience sample of fraud cases to see whether (social) psychology is more susceptible to fraud than other disciplines. They also evaluate whether the peer review process and replications work well in practice to detect fraud. This is a factual case.
Why is this important?
There is no evidence that psychology is more vulnerable to fraud than the biomedical sciences, and most frauds are detected through information from whistleblowers with inside information. On the basis of this analysis, the authors suggest a number of strategies that might reduce the risk of scientific fraud.
