Difference between revisions of "Resource:F8de9607-459e-41f5-908d-de63eb375ce8"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Harvard probe kept under wraps: Researchers call for the release of findings of the Marc Hauser misconduct investigation |Is About=. |Im...") |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title= | + | |Title=Researchers Call For the Release of Findings of a Misconduct Investigation |
| − | |Is About=. | + | |Is About=This factual case is about a psychologist who committed scientific misconduct and describes the investigation into this misconduct by his institution. The institution refuses to release details on this case. This provokes the fear by scientists that the case may cause harm to the whole field of research rather than only to the individual researcher. |
| − | |Important Because=. | + | |Important Because=With cases of scientific misconduct such as these, it is important that details about the investigation are given. As mentioned by scientists commenting on the case, the refusal to communicate the details of the case at hand may discredit the entire research field of the scientist under investigation by instigating rumors. In addition, denying to openly share the details of the investigation renders all findings of the accused scientist unusable, as scientist cannot distinguish the reliable outcomes from the untrustworthy ones. Thus, details should be disclosed to prevent the unnecessary loss of precious research funding and to preserve the reputation of the research field and the investigation itself. |
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100817/full/466908a.html | |Has Link=https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100817/full/466908a.html | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
|Has Timepoint=2010 | |Has Timepoint=2010 | ||
| − | |Has Location=USA | + | |Has Location=USA; 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 | ||
|Related To Research Area=Psychology | |Related To Research Area=Psychology | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 16:51, 30 April 2021
ResourcesCases
Researchers Call For the Release of Findings of a Misconduct Investigation
What is this about?
This factual case is about a psychologist who committed scientific misconduct and describes the investigation into this misconduct by his institution. The institution refuses to release details on this case. This provokes the fear by scientists that the case may cause harm to the whole field of research rather than only to the individual researcher.
Why is this important?
With cases of scientific misconduct such as these, it is important that details about the investigation are given. As mentioned by scientists commenting on the case, the refusal to communicate the details of the case at hand may discredit the entire research field of the scientist under investigation by instigating rumors. In addition, denying to openly share the details of the investigation renders all findings of the accused scientist unusable, as scientist cannot distinguish the reliable outcomes from the untrustworthy ones. Thus, details should be disclosed to prevent the unnecessary loss of precious research funding and to preserve the reputation of the research field and the investigation itself.
