Difference between revisions of "Resource:Dd7bd3da-ee07-4642-8b4e-23e18d16fa4b"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=The case of Vipul Bhrigu and the federal definition of research misconduct |Is About=. |Important Because=. |Important For=Researchers }...") |
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=The case of Vipul Bhrigu and the federal definition of research misconduct | |Title=The case of Vipul Bhrigu and the federal definition of research misconduct | ||
| − | |Is About=. | + | |Is About=The Office of Research Integrity found in 2011 that Vipul Bhrigu, a postdoctoral researcher who sabotaged a colleague’s research materials, was guilty of misconduct<ref>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-013-9459-y</ref>. This case describes when something is considered as scientific misconduct and whether this really was the case. |
| − | |Important Because=. | + | |
| + | |||
| + | This is a factual case. | ||
| + | |Important Because=When accuding someone for committing scientific fraud, it is important that the definition is clear en interpretative by everybody. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Journal | ||
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 13: | Line 19: | ||
|Involves=Vipul Bhrigu | |Involves=Vipul Bhrigu | ||
|Has Timepoint=2009 | |Has Timepoint=2009 | ||
| − | |Has Location=USA | + | |Has Location=USA; United States |
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect | |Has Virtue And Value=Respect | ||
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Sabotage | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Sabotage | ||
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine | |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 14:15, 18 May 2020
ResourcesCases
The case of Vipul Bhrigu and the federal definition of research misconduct
What is this about?
The Office of Research Integrity found in 2011 that Vipul Bhrigu, a postdoctoral researcher who sabotaged a colleague’s research materials, was guilty of misconduct[1]. This case describes when something is considered as scientific misconduct and whether this really was the case.
Why is this important?
When accuding someone for committing scientific fraud, it is important that the definition is clear en interpretative by everybody.
