Talk:Scientific integrity
Add topic | The content of Draft:Questionable research practices was merged into Scientific integrity on 20 June 2026. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education assignment: BIOL4410 senior seminar
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 7 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kitterbitter160, Jocelynmunozf, Tnr025 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mrl058, Mketr, Viri0831, Victorialbowles1042.
— Assignment last updated by Kitterbitter160 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Open access
[edit]Someone added "Clarification needed" in the section on open access and code. If my edits have sufficiently addressed the concern, can that tag be removed? Ed Gracely (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Merge proposal
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- consensus to merge ~ oklopfer (💬) 04:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
There's a new article on Draft:Questionable research practices, but its scope is so similar to that presented here that I think that it is best merged. Klbrain (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- I understand this argument. I felt that Questionable research practices needed its own page because it refers to a specific set of behaviors. It has really taken off in scientific research. There are many studies looking at "Questionable research practices". These deviate some from integrity, because many of them are not consciously undertaken. They are a product of environment, idiosyncratic features of the researcher and might be more learned than intentional behaviors. Integrity, suggests ethics and that people would do things consciously. But my main argument is that it is a strong emerging sub-field of scientific research referring to a set of behaviors that appears across disciplines for over a decade. Nbreznau (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Klbrain & FaviFake: what content did you support merging here? It's not immediately clear how much of this content actually fits. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Why do you think it might not fit? Their scope seems similar enough, at least from a quick glance. FaviFake (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's currently tagged as being essay-like, so a careful merge would require someone to read it and determine which passages are encyclopedic. The other option is a simple copy-and-paste. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sure, I agree. FaviFake (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Sure, I agree. FaviFake (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's currently tagged as being essay-like, so a careful merge would require someone to read it and determine which passages are encyclopedic. The other option is a simple copy-and-paste. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)