Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research. A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries gave examples of policy definitions. In Denmark, scientific misconduct is defined as "intention[al] negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist", and in Sweden as "intention[al] distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways." [1] [2]
A 2009 systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data found that about 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying, fabricating, or modifying data at least once. [3]
Incidents should only be included in this list if the individuals or entities involved have their own Wikipedia articles, or in the absence of an article, where the misconduct incident is covered in multiple reliable sources.
It is 10 years, to the month, since Stephen Lock ...
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system. The system is based on journals inviting independent experts to critique submitted manuscripts. The stated aim is to weed out sloppy and bad research, ensuring the integrity of what it has published.
Please note that the essay "The Identity Conditions of Matter According to William of Ockham" previously published on this issue has been retracted by unappealable decision of Epekeina's Editorial Board.
pp 129-148, 'Must the Relation of Substantial Composition Be a Mode? William of Ockham's Answers.' Magali Roques. Article retiré à la demande de l'éditeur.