Revision as of 16:01, 26 October 2020

Resources

Cases

Mea Culpa: Scientific Misconduct - perspective of a research ethics board chair

This is a factual case.

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 |Resource Type=Cases
 |Title=Mea Culpa: Scientific Misconduct - perspective of a research ethics board chair
-|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 />
+|Is About=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>
+|Important Because=<br />
 <references />
 |Important For=Researchers