There has been plenty of interest in scientific fraud and misconduct lately — and not just on Retraction Watch — from major news outlets and government agencies, among other parties. The rate of retractions is increasing, and some fraudsters are even setting new records. That has focused attention on how institutions can prevent misconduct — not something anyone thinks is easy to do. To try to figure it out, Columbia University’s Donald Kornfeld decided to review 146 U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) cases from 1992 to 2003, “based on 50 years of clinical experience in psychiatry and 19 years as the chairman of two institutional review boards.” (Of note, these only represent cases in which ORI concluded there was misconduct, as the agency doesn’t report on negative cases.) >>>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
This guest post is from Kayhan Kantarlı, a retired professor of physics from the University of Ege in Turkey. He published a first versio...
-
Jeffrey Beall This is a list of questionable, scholarly open-access publishers. I recommend that scholars not do any business with these pu...
-
The Yomiuri Shimbun Turkish national Serkan Anilir, recently stripped of the doctorate he obtained from the University of Tokyo over plagiar...
-
Richard Knox Many online journals are ready to publish bad research in exchange for a credit card number. That's the conclusion o...
-
When Robert Barbato of the E. Philip Saunders College of Business at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) heard he was being accused of p...
%20629394953%20Shutterstock.png){kind=avatar}
No comments:
Post a Comment