Difference between revisions of "Resource:Adad1721-62c8-46fd-83f9-617770437d90"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=Philosopher earns 14th retraction for plagiarism | |Title=Philosopher earns 14th retraction for plagiarism | ||
| − | |Is About=This case is about | + | |Is About=This case is about a philosophy professor at the University of Leuven. In 2010 an investigation found that his work is highly questionable in terms of scientific integrity. He had 14 retractions<ref>http://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/08/philosopher-earns-13th-retraction-for-plagiarism/</ref>. This is a factual case. |
| − | + | <references /> | |
| − | |||
| − | This is a factual case. | ||
|Important Because=When an author had a lot of retractions, one should be questioning his/her reliability. | |Important Because=When an author had a lot of retractions, one should be questioning his/her reliability. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 17: | Line 12: | ||
{{Related To}} | {{Related To}} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |Involves= | + | |Involves=Retraction Watch |
| − | |Has Timepoint= | + | |Has Timepoint=2010 |
| − | |Has Location=Belgium | + | |Has Location=Belgium; University of Leuven |
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty | |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty | ||
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Springer Retractions; Wiley Retractions | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Springer Retractions; Wiley Retractions | ||
|Related To Research Area=Philosophy, ethics and religion | |Related To Research Area=Philosophy, ethics and religion | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 14:54, 20 May 2020
ResourcesCases
Philosopher earns 14th retraction for plagiarism
What is this about?
This case is about a philosophy professor at the University of Leuven. In 2010 an investigation found that his work is highly questionable in terms of scientific integrity. He had 14 retractions[1]. This is a factual case.
Why is this important?
When an author had a lot of retractions, one should be questioning his/her reliability.
