Search by property

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

List of results

Payments to young researchers in Malawi + (During a research project on children’s tr … During a research project on children’s transport and mobility in sub-Saharan Africa young people, (mostly under 18 years old) were invited from secondary schools in Malawi, Ghana and South Africa, to train as young researchers to collect data from their peers alongside adult researchers (www.dur.ac.uk/child.mobility).esearchers (www.dur.ac.uk/child.mobility).)
Diner Pensant Workshop + (During the workshop, the guests are asked … During the workshop, the guests are asked to reflect on their own experiences and practices, while discussing the cases presented, and to share views on how to promote and foster a culture of best scientific practices. The event is organised under the motto of a “dinner” event, where first there will be an Amuse for guests to know each other. Then, Starters will be served, where guests will be presented with three starters (cases) to choose and discuss one or the three. Four Main Courses (video-scenes) will be individually offered to guests to taste (watch) and share their opinions about them (food for thought discussion). And because “dessert goes to your heart and not to your belly”, this dinner could not have finished without a sweet moment of the day to enjoy (inspiring thoughts to end)![[File:Diner pensant video.png|center|frame|Here you can watch the introductory video: [https://youtu.be/Jb1mFJL1m2g Diner Pensant - Tasteful conversations to empower good practices in science]]]This course was developed by Mariette vd Hoven, Miriam van Loon, Marijn Prakke, Paulo Gomes, Julio Berlido Santos and PJ Wall.o Gomes, Julio Berlido Santos and PJ Wall.)
Editorial conflicts of interest + (Editorial conflicts of interest are a spec … Editorial conflicts of interest are a special type of conflict of interest (COI) in academia. They can happen when, for example, an editor of a scientific journal publishes his or her own work in the same journal. It is important to note that this is a potential conflict of interest and not an actual proof of misconduct. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000314-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000315-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000315-QINU`"')
Suspected image manipulation involving four journals + (Editorial office staff at journal A notice … Editorial office staff at journal A noticed possible image manipulation in two figures of a new paper submitted by author X. These suspected manipulations involved images of gels which appeared to contain multiple duplicated bands. This prompted editorial staff to look at the submission history of author X to journal A in more detail.It was found that author X had previously submitted to journal A numerous times. All previous submissions had been rejected for reasons unrelated to the concerns raised here but one paper had been accepted for publication. Unfortunately, this author X paper which journal A had published appeared to contain possible band duplications in two gel images, as did an earlier submission which had been rejected at the start of 2015. As at least three papers received by journal A from author X has suspected image problems, authors X’s recent publication history was examined.Similar possible gel issues along with a suspected image duplication relating to a photo of bacterial colonies were identified in three papers published in three different journals (journals B, C and D). Two members of editorial staff along with the editor-in-chief of journal A have considered all of the suspected issues and feel confident they are legitimate. As it currently stands, journal A has rejected the most recent submission from author X on the grounds of possible gel issues identified. However, the suspected issues identified in the four published papers in journals A, B, C and D were not mentioned in the rejection letter to allow time for an appropriate course of action to be decided.As the paper was only recently (12 August) rejected by journal A, it has yet to hear back from author X, if indeed it does at all.Journal A feels that it is important that journals B, C and D are made aware of the issues in the papers they have published. However, they also feel that it is important that they are made aware of all of the papers involved so they can appreciate the full picture as this may determine how they choose to handle the issues in their own respective journals.e issues in their own respective journals.)
Suspected image manipulation involving four journals + (Editorial office staff at journal A notice … Editorial office staff at journal A noticed possible image manipulation in two figures of a new paper submitted by author X. These suspected manipulations involved images of gels which appeared to contain multiple duplicated bands. This prompted editorial staff to look at the submission history of author X to journal A in more detail.It was found that author X had previously submitted to journal A numerous times. All previous submissions had been rejected for reasons unrelated to the concerns raised here but one paper had been accepted for publication. Unfortunately, this author X paper which journal A had published appeared to contain possible band duplications in two gel images, as did an earlier submission which had been rejected at the start of 2015. As at least three papers received by journal A from author X has suspected image problems, authors X’s recent publication history was examined.Similar possible gel issues along with a suspected image duplication relating to a photo of bacterial colonies were identified in three papers published in three different journals (journals B, C and D). Two members of editorial staff along with the editor-in-chief of journal A have considered all of the suspected issues and feel confident they are legitimate. As it currently stands, journal A has rejected the most recent submission from author X on the grounds of possible gel issues identified. However, the suspected issues identified in the four published papers in journals A, B, C and D were not mentioned in the rejection letter to allow time for an appropriate course of action to be decided.As the paper was only recently (12 August) rejected by journal A, it has yet to hear back from author X, if indeed it does at all.Journal A feels that it is important that journals B, C and D are made aware of the issues in the papers they have published. However, they also feel that it is important that they are made aware of all of the papers involved so they can appreciate the full picture as this may determine how they choose to handle the issues in their own respective journals.e issues in their own respective journals.)
Community's of Practice Datamanagement & Privacy + (Een online Community of Practice omgeving … Een online Community of Practice omgeving die specifiek is ingericht is samen met anderen te werken aan je onderzoeksvaardigheden. In de Communityomgeving kun je op elk gewenst moment (mede)studenten in een besloten online omgeving uitnodigen om samen te werken, te leren, te discussiëren en te delen. en, te discussiëren en te delen. )
Teaching methods for strengthening research ethics and integrity + (Effective RE/RI training benefits from act … Effective RE/RI training benefits from active learning, reflective practices, experiential learning, and ongoing feedback.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000005D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000005E-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-0000005F-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000060-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000061-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000062-QINU`"' This module provides an overview of methods and approaches to teaching, which according to extant research, are the best ways to support learning in the context of research ethics and integrity. These methods and approaches are compatible with the training materials and resources produced within the selected EU-funded projects and presented in the BEYOND trainer guide. Indeed, many of the activities described in the project materials draw on a case-based approach, scaffolding and collaborative learning. To underpin the use of these methods and approaches, this guide provides an overview of why and how they support RE/RI learning, so that trainers may make their teaching choice based on research evidence.'"`UNIQ--references-00000063-QINU`"'ence. '"`UNIQ--references-00000063-QINU`"')
Eigenfactor + (Eigenfactor is a method developed as an al … Eigenfactor is a method developed as an alternative metric to the impact factor (IF). Since IF does not consider sources of citations, those from prestigious journals seem to be worth no more than citations from less influential publications.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000505-QINU`"' Eigenfactor, on the other hand, aims to evaluate the influence of journals in order to help researchers navigate the scholarly literature.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000506-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000507-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000508-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000509-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000509-QINU`"')
HYBRIDA + (Embedding a comprehensive ethical dimension to organoid-based research and related technologies)
Empathy in History Research and Education + (Empathy refers to ability to put oneself i … Empathy refers to ability to put oneself in someone else’s, shoes even if the other person has different viewpoint.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004D2-QINU`"' In history research and education empathy is an important and useful tool that helps researchers and students to better understand historical figures and events,'"`UNIQ--ref-000004D3-QINU`"' and to avoid superficial, stereotypical and biased interpretations. stereotypical and biased interpretations.)
EnTIRE + (EnTIRE: developing The Embassy platform for the Research integrity and ethics communities)
RE4GREEN + (Environmental and climate-related challeng … Environmental and climate-related challenges are global and reach all sectors of society. However, research and innovation (R&I) activities that address these challenges, may carry substantial unintended implications. RE4GREEN aims to contribute to a European Research Area ethics and integrity framework for R&I activities designed to reduce the risk from such implications and to support the transition to a sustainable economy and society as envisioned by the European Green Deal. RE4GREEN will reflect diverse stakeholder views and relate them to cross-cutting environmental and climate ethics issues by applying a bottom-up social lab methodology. RE4GREEN’s framework will consist of operational research ethics and integrity guidelines, recommendations, and training materials for researchers, ethics and integrity experts and advisors, and ethics reviewers to ensure R&I activities support the Green Transition.nsure R&I activities support the Green Transition.)
Epistemic virtues + (Epistemology is a branch of philosophy tha … Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge and its relations to concepts and definitions of truth, belief and justification of belief.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' Virtue is often defined as moral excellence, and epistemic virtues are described as intellectual virtues. A critical, conscientious thinker, could also be described as epistemically virtuous.'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"'uous. '"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"')
Research Ethics + (Ethical research conduct implies the appli … Ethical research conduct implies the application of fundamental ethical principles and legislation to scientific research in all possible domains of research – for example biomedical research, nature sciences, social sciences and humanities. The ethics review procedure of the EC including ethics screening and ethics assessment is explained.eening and ethics assessment is explained.)
irecs + (Ethics in research is an essential ingredi … Ethics in research is an essential ingredient for good science. Maintaining high ethical standards is essential to winning public trust in scientific work. However, there are many challenges such as new technologies, increasing international collaboration in academic research and the absence of standardisation across Europe. The EU-funded irecs project will reinforce the reliability of science by advancing research ethics expertise and competencies. It will improve the understanding of research ethics in Europe and provide interactive, sustainable training programmes. Building on the European Network for Research Ethics and Research Integrity and the Embassy of Good Science as well as close collaboration with key stakeholder organizations, irecs will create a horizontal community unifying research ethics practitioners, policymakers and other stakeholders.ners, policymakers and other stakeholders.)
Gender bias + (Even though a majority of university stude … Even though a majority of university students are female, in most research areas a minority of senior professors are female. It is thought that one of the important causes of this is gender bias: women not being given the same professional opportunities as men. Often this bias is unconscious (so-called “implicit bias”)'"`UNIQ--ref-0000019F-QINU`"'. Gender is often considered to be different from ‘sex’(male/female). It can be perceived as a social construct of what it means to be a man, woman or non-binary. '"`UNIQ--references-000001A0-QINU`"'ry. '"`UNIQ--references-000001A0-QINU`"')
Not acknowledging contributors who do not qualify for authorship + (Every contribution to research should be p … Every contribution to research should be properly acknowledged. When someone provides help, but does not qualify for authorship, they should be mentioned as contributors in the acknowledgment section. Not acknowledging contributors is considered a questionable research practice.nsidered a questionable research practice.)
Institutional codes of conduct for research integrity + (Every institution where research is carrie … Every institution where research is carried out should have codes that regulate research procedure from its conceptualization to publication. Besides institution guidelines, there should be rules on a national or an even larger scale. Every researcher needs to get familiar with codes that apply to themselves.iliar with codes that apply to themselves.)
Insufficiently reported study flaws and limitations + (Every research has its flaws and limitatio … Every research has its flaws and limitations, a failure to report these however is a questionable research practice. Insufficiently reported study flaws and limitations are considered one of the most common questionable research practices or examples of ‘sloppy science’. Since these ‘sloppy’ practices are much more frequent, they are arguably more detrimental to science than research misconduct (falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism) '"`UNIQ--ref-00000457-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-00000458-QINU`"'U`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-00000458-QINU`"')
Universal Declaration of Human Rights + (Every research project that involves humans should balance harms and benefits.)
Balancing harms and benefits + (Every research project that involves humans should balance harms and benefits.)
Ara dönem uygulama çalışması + (Eğitim verdiğiniz katılımcılar, birinci ve … Eğitim verdiğiniz katılımcılar, birinci ve ikinci yüz yüze oturumlar arasında, yüz yüze eğitimin ilk kısmında öğrendikleri ve deneyimledikleri 5 alıştırmayı kolaylaştırıcı olarak yöneteceklerdir ([https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:36e82c9c-dc83-46cc-a043-df9d93f1801f Öz Beyan Yaklaşımı]; [https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:628b20aa-3ad4-41b8-919b-e45ad17b3d8f Münazara ve Diyalog]; [https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:35961b2d-6734-4bf9-a1d0-5893be9be3a5 Erdemler ve Normlar], [https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:D1cde436-f9a2-41fa-8706-95ee6389f009 Orta yol] ve İkilem oyunu). Katılımcıların bu deneyimleri hakkında bilgi sahibi olmak ve son yüz yüze grup oturumunu hazırlamak için eğitmenlerin katılımcılardan [https://www.dropbox.com/s/1fmppqv189jxlqj/Self%20reflection%20form.pdf?dl=0 özdüşünüm formlarını] toplamaları ve analiz etmeleri gerekmektedir. Bu formlar, eğitimin son oturumunda hangi konuların üzerinde durulması ve hangi alıştırmalar için daha fazla pratik yapılması gerektiğini belirlemede eğitmenlere yardımcı olacaktır.ası ve hangi alıştırmalar için daha fazla pratik yapılması gerektiğini belirlemede eğitmenlere yardımcı olacaktır.)
Fabrication + (Fabrication is one of the most severe viol … Fabrication is one of the most severe violations of research integrity. It is considered serious research misconduct. In the European Code of Conduct fabrication is defined as “making up results and recording them as if they were real”. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' Presenting fabricated data to be true can have serious adverse consequences for the general public and the scientific community.'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"'nity. '"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"')
Forensic Statistics to detect Data Fabrication + (Fabrication of numerical data is frequently described as an example of research misconduct that can occur in all areas of research. It can be detected by statistical tools, like the chi-square test for uniformity of digit distributions.)
Facebook Manipulated 689,003 Users' Emotions For Science + (Facebook is the best human research lab ev … Facebook is the best human research lab ever. There’s no need to get experiment participants to sign pesky consent forms as they’ve already agreed to the site’s data use policy. A team of Facebook data scientists are constantly coming up with new ways to study human behavior through the social network. When the team releases papers about what it's learned from us, we often learn surprising things about Facebook instead -- such as the fact that it can keep track of the status updates we never actually post.the status updates we never actually post.)

Bioethicists Call for Investigation Into Nutritional Experiments on Aboriginal People + (Factual cases of research on people without their approval.)

Fake peer-reviewing + (Fake reviewing, or self-reviewing, involve … Fake reviewing, or self-reviewing, involves recommending a fake reviewer during the peer-review process.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000376-QINU`"' Fake or self-review manipulates the review process and guarantees a paper receives a positive review. This is considered a questionable research practice.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000377-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000378-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000378-QINU`"')
Falsification + (Falsifcation is altering a part of the res … Falsifcation is altering a part of the research process, often to let the results appear more sensational and relevant than they are in reality. Next to fabrication and plagiarism, falsifcation is considered as serious research misconduct. It is defined by the European Code of Conduct as “manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing, ommitting or suppressing data or results without justification”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"')
The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity + (Five principles to reward researchers' beh … Five principles to reward researchers' behavior to foster research integrity: *responsible research practices;*transparent reporting;*open science (open research);*valuing a diversity of types of research;*recognizing all contributions to research and scholarly activitybutions to research and scholarly activity)
Research integrity in practice: dealing with everyday dilemmas + (For some, an important aspect of research … For some, an important aspect of research integrity (RI) training is to make clear links between educational material and the “real life” practices of researchers. Discussing dilemmas in practice can be a valuable method to reflect broadly on how to be ‘good’ researchers.t broadly on how to be ‘good’ researchers.)
Statements About Professional Experience + (Franklin Academic is asked by his PI to im … Franklin Academic is asked by his PI to improve a grant proposal by exaggerating his experience in conducting complex surveys. The case study asks about the ways academics should present their experience and the appropriate course of action in situations similar to the one described.n situations similar to the one described.)
Funders + (Funding for research comes from many sourc … Funding for research comes from many sources, including from universities, industry, philantrophists and research funding organizations (RFOs). RFOs are the financiers of many research projects and provide grants to research projects, collaborations and individual researchers. The responsibility for ensuring that the funds and resources are utilized optimally without any misconduct lies with researchers, research performing organizations, ethics committees, and the funding organizations. This calls for the development of a code for appropriate utilization of funds, and to ensure academic autonomy, integrity, freedom and the rights of scholars in academic–industry relationships.holars in academic–industry relationships.)
Researchers Pressured to Store Animal Subjects + (Geneticists working on groundbreaking research and funded by a large NIH grant fail to find a safe place to store their lab rats. Their haphazard solution may cost them.)
Feedback of findings in genome-wide association studies + (Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) tes … Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) test the association between genomic variants and diseases or quantitative traits. In order to perform such analyses, researches are genotyping a large number of genomic variants for a large number of individuals. The information from a GWA scan is derived from DNA, which is a powerful personal identifier and can provide information not just on the individual, but also on the individual’s relatives, related groups and populations.relatives, related groups and populations.)
The influence of pharmaceutical company on drug availability + (Given that the research is sponsored by a pharmaceutical company and that they deliver the drug to Croatia (drug is not available in Croatia), shipments of the drug may be delayed.)
Integrity Factor Glossary + (Glossary on research integrity terms.)
Good scientific practice for courses in science and medicine + (Good scientific practice for courses in science and medicine: report; german)
Guidance on the Management of Clinical Trials during the COVID-19 Pandemic + (Guidance for all stakeholders involved in … Guidance for all stakeholders involved in clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. This document aims to provide guidance and prevent the disruption of clinical trials during the ongoing crisis. Even when health systems reach their limits, the integrity of trials, the rights, and the safety of the trial participants and staff must be preserved and protected. For this reason, this guideline provides harmonized, simplified and pragmatic measures.onized, simplified and pragmatic measures.)
Data driven hypotheses without disclosure (‘HARKing’) + (HARKing i.e. Hypothesizing After the Resul … HARKing i.e. Hypothesizing After the Results are Known or post hoc testing, as it is more widely known, is not unfamiliar to many researchers. In scientific methodology or statistics class in grad school, many of us have been told that such practice was flawed, but few of us has ever heard the rationale behind it. HARKing is considered to be a detrimental research practice.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000241-QINU`"' This thematic page will try to address the logic behind HARKing and hopefully shed some light on its nature and validity.'"`UNIQ--references-00000242-QINU`"'dity. '"`UNIQ--references-00000242-QINU`"')
HEIRRI courses + (HEIRRI is a Horizon 2020 project that crea … HEIRRI is a Horizon 2020 project that created training programmes for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). There are ten HEIRRI training programmes in total, for high school level, undergraduate and graduate students, PhD students, and a train-the-trainer course. They can be used independently and allow great teacher flexibilty.dently and allow great teacher flexibilty.)
Humanities in the European Research Area (HERA) + (HERA is a network that includes 26 nationa … HERA is a network that includes 26 national funding agencies with aim of leading and developing funding opportunities for humanities researchers in Europe. Together with the European Commission, HERA has funded 55 transnational humanities-focused projects.transnational humanities-focused projects.)
Honorary or gift authorship + (Honorary authorship and gift authorship ar … Honorary authorship and gift authorship are two types of authorship frauds in research. Both honorary and gift authorship refers to assigning authorship to those who have not contributed significantly to study but are named authors for other reasons, such as enhanced funding and publication opportunities.ced funding and publication opportunities.)
How to be a good lab partner + (How to coexist in the laboratory without c … How to coexist in the laboratory without committing a homicide/suicide? A few of the most typical laboratory difficulties that need to be handled are organization and staff issues. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000945-QINU`"'Because of that, it is important to nourish the virtues of collaborative spirit, patience, and humility at the workplace.'"`UNIQ--references-00000946-QINU`"'lace. '"`UNIQ--references-00000946-QINU`"')
Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing) + (Hypothesizing after the results are known … Hypothesizing after the results are known ('''HARKing''') refers to the practice of presenting unexpected findings as a priori hypotheses or failing to report empirically unsupported hypotheses that were derived a priori and guided the research. In other words, research reports suffer from HARKing if they include one or more post hoc hypotheses (that is, hypotheses developed after the results of the data analysis are known) that are misrepresented as a priori (that is, as developed prior to the data analysis) or if they exclude one or more a priori hypotheses that were empirically disconfirmed. Consequently, HARKed reports misrepresent the ratio of empirically confirmed and disconfirmed a priori hypotheses by elevating exploratory findings to a priori expectations and suppressing a priori expectations unsupported by the data at hand. Thus, HARKing misportrays the research process by falsely describing hypothesis generating exploratory research as hypothesis testing confirmatory research or by failing to report hypotheses that could not be corroborated and therefore deceives readers.This theme page describes the practice of HARKing and its detrimental consequences on research in some more depth, briefly explains how initiatives such as preregistration aim to reduce HARKing and differentiates pure HARKing from transparent forms of HARKing that are not necessarily detrimental to the research endeavor.rily detrimental to the research endeavor.)
INTEGRITY + (INTEGRITY: Empowering students for Responsible Research Conduct (RCR) through evidence-based, scaffolded learning.)
Ignoring substantial safety risks of studies + (Ignoring safety risks when planning and co … Ignoring safety risks when planning and conducting a study is a questionable research practice in study design. Not considering potential physical, psychological, social, legal or economic risks can harm researchers, research participants, and wider community.esearch participants, and wider community.)
The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct + (In "The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct, … In "The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct," you become the lead characters* in an interactive movie and make decisions about integrity in research that can have long-term consequences. The simulation addresses Responsible Conduct of Research topics such as avoiding research misconduct, mentorship responsibilities, handling of data, responsible authorship, and questionable research practices.'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000002-QINU`"'The four available perspectives are: graduate student, postdoctoral researcher, principal investigator, research administratorcipal investigator, research administrator)
Mad Scientist: The Unique Case of a Published Delusion + (In 1951, entomologist Jay Traver published … In 1951, entomologist Jay Traver published in the ''Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington'' her personal experiences with a mite infestation of her scalp that resisted all treatment and was undetectable to anyone other than herself. Traver is recognized as having suffered from Delusory Parasitosis: her paper shows her to be a textbook case of the condition. The Traver paper is unique in the scientific literature in that its conclusions may be based on data that was unconsciously fabricated by the author’s mind. The paper may merit retraction on the grounds of error or even scientific misconduct “by reason of insanity,” but such a retraction raises the issue of discrimination against the mentally ill.f discrimination against the mentally ill.)
Imposter Syndrome + (In 1978, the term "imposter syndrome" was … In 1978, the term "imposter syndrome" was used for the first time. According to research, high-achieving women did not internalize their achievement; rather, they attributed it to chance or luck. These women admitted that they were afraid that their peers would suspect them of being incompetent imposters despite their degrees and achievements. Since then, other studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that many academics and professionals suffer from imposter syndrome. For instance, in a study conducted in 2016 with more than 100 medical students, approximately two-thirds of students expressed having those symptoms [1].ents expressed having those symptoms [1].)
The decision on ice + (In 1983, Trounson and Mohr'"`UNIQ--ref-000 … In 1983, Trounson and Mohr'"`UNIQ--ref-00000964-QINU`"' announced the first human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing, and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Since then, embryo cryopreservation became a crucial tool that complements a standard in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure by maximizing its effectiveness and reducing the risk of multiple pregnancies by limiting the number of embryos transferred. However, as a consequence, a growing supply of embryos in cryostorage has been reported worldwide'"`UNIQ--ref-00000965-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000966-QINU`"'.0965-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000966-QINU`"'.)
Baltimore Case - In Brief + (In 1986, Thereza Imanishi-Kari co-authored … In 1986, Thereza Imanishi-Kari co-authored a scientific paper on immunology with five other authors including Nobel laureate David Baltimore '"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"'. Margot O'Toole, who was a postdoc in Imanishi-Kari's laboratory and also acknowledged in the paper “for critical reading of the manuscript”, reported Imanishi-Kari for fabrication after discovering laboratory notebook pages with conflicting data. Baltimore refused to retract the paper and Imanishi-Kari dismisses O'Toole from the laboratory. After a series of published statements in Nature and a bitter debate within the biomedical community '"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"', Baltimore and three co-authors then retracted the paper. Baltimore publicly apologized for defense of fabricated data and not taking a whistle-blower's accusations seriously '"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"'. The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found Imanishi-Kari guilty for data fabrication and attempts of covering up those fabrications with additional frauds. However, the appeals panel of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ruled that the ORI had failed to prove misconduct by Imanishi-Kari and dismissed all charges against her '"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"'. This is a factual case.'"`UNIQ--references-0000000A-QINU`"'case. '"`UNIQ--references-0000000A-QINU`"')