Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Scientific misconduct

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Abandeali in topic Notable cases

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 (talkcontribs) 17:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply