Price of poor research can surpass $5,000,000
A recent article in Nature Medicine finds that the price of misconduct probes can surpass $500,000. Sure, that may be expensive
Suchergebnisse für: misconduct
Accurate reporting
One of the PLoS editors has a vocal report on a recent meeting “Why accurate reporting is an ethical duty“. When dealing here with a misconduct case, I had the impression that many colleagues as well as some other editors think of
To be honest
Bruce Alberts, the new editor-in-chief of Science magazine, has in his March, 21 editorial a nice comment that I would like to highlight here Scientists share a common way of reaching conclusions that is based not only on the evidence and logic, but also requires honesty, creativity, and openess to new ideas. Struggling in an … To be honest weiterlesen
The Lucifer effect
I am currently reading “The Lucifer effect” by Philipp Zimbardo. Having seen many terrible things like a woman killed by more than 30 stabs with knife I know that theodicy is the main problem in theology – when the bad “situational power triumphs over individual power”. Zimbardo examines the process of transformation when good or … The Lucifer effect weiterlesen
6 sigma (TM)
No, this is not a post about another case of scientific misconduct (the sigma factor in transcription initiation published in Cell last October) but about Six Sigma, a process developed at Motorola in 1986 for measuring defects and improving quality of the production process (Motorola owns the trademark for Six Sigma). Read more at the … 6 sigma (TM) weiterlesen
Prevention of fraud
Donald Kennedy is writing in this week’ Science editorial about Responding to Fraud. The editorial is even more about prevention of fraud: The external reviewers ask for future risk assessment of potential fraud. Science will think in the future … which papers deserve particularly careful editorial scrutiny. Papers that are of substantial public interest, present … Prevention of fraud weiterlesen
Nylenna-Simonsen-Chalmers Misconduct Diagram
The Lancet (10 June 2006, p 1882) had one of the best descriptions of scientific misconduct that I have ever seen (yes, I am also admiring Geoffrey Rose). The authors argue that our current view of misconduction is wrong those caught for fraud being a few “bad apples”. Instead we are facing a continuum ranging … Nylenna-Simonsen-Chalmers Misconduct Diagram weiterlesen