{"id":73,"date":"2006-08-13T10:00:38","date_gmt":"2006-08-13T08:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/146.107.134.84\/wordpress\/index.php\/2006\/08\/13\/revised-nylenna-simonsen-chalmers-misconduct-diagram\/"},"modified":"2020-11-22T08:41:21","modified_gmt":"2020-11-22T08:41:21","slug":"revised-nylenna-simonsen-misconduct-diagram","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/sciencesurf\/2006\/08\/revised-nylenna-simonsen-misconduct-diagram\/","title":{"rendered":"Nylenna-Simonsen-Chalmers Misconduct Diagram"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.thelancet.com\/journals\/lancet\/article\/PIIS0140673606688211\/abstract\">The Lancet (10 June 2006, p 1882)<\/a> 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 &#8220;bad apples&#8221;. Instead we are facing a continuum ranging from honest and inevitable errors to outright fraud. I agree up to here, however, I do not believe so much in a &#8220;slippery slope&#8221; &#8211; in my experience the intentional selection of certain entry and exit levels is more common.<\/p>\n<p>Here is my expansion of the original N-S-C diagram:<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2006\/08\/fraud6.png\" data-rel=\"key-image-0\" data-rl_title=\"\" data-rl_caption=\"\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-5959\" title=\"\" src=\"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2006\/08\/fraud6.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"450\" height=\"338\" \/><\/a>.<\/p>\n<h3>Addendum 22 Nov 2020<\/h3>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-17505\" src=\"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2006\/08\/s-620x391.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"620\" height=\"391\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2006\/08\/s-620x391.jpg 620w, https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2006\/08\/s-793x500.jpg 793w, https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2006\/08\/s-768x484.jpg 768w, https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2006\/08\/s.jpg 1506w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 620px) 100vw, 620px\" \/><\/p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"bottom-note\">\n  <span class=\"mod1\">CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 10.04.2026<\/span>\n <\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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 &#8220;bad apples&#8221;. Instead we are facing a continuum ranging &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/sciencesurf\/2006\/08\/revised-nylenna-simonsen-misconduct-diagram\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Nylenna-Simonsen-Chalmers Misconduct Diagram<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[3,4,2946,97,95,96],"class_list":["post-73","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophy-of-science","tag-ethics-law","tag-population-epidemiology","tag-philosophy-of-science","tag-continuum","tag-geoffrey_rose","tag-misconduct"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=73"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17507,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73\/revisions\/17507"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}