Talk:Scientific misconduct
Add topic| This It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| It is requested that an image or photograph of Scientific misconduct be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other websites. |
| An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate. |
Ten Simple Rules for Scientific Fraud & Misconduct
[edit]I've written a (provocative) article about scientific fraud & misconduct (see https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01562601/document). It is a collection of the most common forms of fraud and misconduct (with references to specific cases). Since I'm the author, I cannot add it to the references but I think it might be worth a look by some wikipedians to see if it relevant or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas P. Rougier (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Unusual edit
[edit]Someone please review and tell me if you think it looks like a oblique threat or not, please. "学問ポリス" means "academic police." Ping me back, please. EllenCT (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- I am "学問ポリス." I thought it is appropriate to recognize the evolution of fraud-busters in the "See also" section of Bik, who may be the best and ultimate fraud-buster on the earth. I picked up the best historical fraud-busters before Bik. Thanks. --学問ポリス (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. I was concerned that you were trying to imply such people get sued often, which I am sure is true but I couldn't discern the nuance and motivation. Those narratives would be more appropriate in Scientific misconduct incidents. EllenCT (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Motivations
[edit]The way the "Motivations" section is worded, it sounds like monetary gain is one of three factors identified by Goodstein, but that article actually states the opposite: "Simple monetary gain is seldom, if ever, a factor in scientific fraud". In fact it seems to me the monetary gain bit of the section is unsourced. PointlessUsername (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Questionable research practices
[edit]There are a few strong sources (meta-analysis, definition) showing notability for "questionable research practices" as a concept at Draft:Questionable research practices, which I have argued should be rewritten and could be merged. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Notable cases
[edit]I wonder if notable cases section should be changed to have non-medical examples. Some existing examples in the section dont really explain why the cases are notable and perhaps could be replaced. abandeali (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- C-Class science articles
- Mid-importance science articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class logic articles
- Mid-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- C-Class ethics articles
- Mid-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- C-Class philosophy of science articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of science articles
- Philosophy of science task force articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- Wikipedia requested images

