Difference between revisions of "Resource:F243f440-69e9-44f8-b95a-5e0c2009f700"
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=Mea Culpa: Scientific | + | |Title=Mea Culpa: Scientific Misconduct |
| − | |Is About=Much had been written recently in the anesthesia literature about scientific misconduct, precipitated in large part by revelations and ongoing allegations of misconduct | + | |Is About=Much had been written recently in the anesthesia literature about scientific misconduct, precipitated in large part by revelations and ongoing allegations of misconduct and that required retraction of more than 60 articles from the medical literature<ref>Hall, Richard I. "Mea culpa: scientific misconduct." ''Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia'' 26.2 (2012): 181-185.</ref>. In this article the writer wrote an opinion from the perspective of the chair of a research ethics board. This is a factual case.<references /> |
| − | + | |Important Because=An article that contains false information, once published and even if retracted, often continues to be cited and included in reviews, lectures, and meta-analyses. These, in turn, could affect medical practice and public policy for considerable periods<ref>Hall, Richard I. "Mea culpa: scientific misconduct." ''Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia'' 26.2 (2012): 181-185.</ref> | |
| − | In this article the writer wrote an opinion from the perspective of the chair of a research ethics board. | ||
| − | |Important Because=An article that contains false information, once published and even if retracted, often continues to be cited and included in reviews, lectures, and meta-analyses. These, in turn, could affect medical practice and public policy for considerable periods<ref> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 16: | Line 9: | ||
|Has Link=https://www.jcvaonline.com/article/S1053-0770(11)00858-5/fulltext | |Has Link=https://www.jcvaonline.com/article/S1053-0770(11)00858-5/fulltext | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
|Involves=Joachim Boldt | |Involves=Joachim Boldt | ||
Revision as of 19:59, 26 May 2020
ResourcesCases
Mea Culpa: Scientific Misconduct
What is this about?
Much had been written recently in the anesthesia literature about scientific misconduct, precipitated in large part by revelations and ongoing allegations of misconduct and that required retraction of more than 60 articles from the medical literature[1]. In this article the writer wrote an opinion from the perspective of the chair of a research ethics board. This is a factual case.
- ↑ Hall, Richard I. "Mea culpa: scientific misconduct." Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia 26.2 (2012): 181-185.
Why is this important?
An article that contains false information, once published and even if retracted, often continues to be cited and included in reviews, lectures, and meta-analyses. These, in turn, could affect medical practice and public policy for considerable periods[1]
For whom is this important?
Other information
Who
Virtues & Values
Good Practices & Misconduct
Research Area
- ↑ Hall, Richard I. "Mea culpa: scientific misconduct." Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia 26.2 (2012): 181-185.
