Talk:Scientific misconduct: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 23:53, 21 November 2024

Science Mid‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Logic / Ethics / Science Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Ethics
	Philosophy of science

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen

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 web sites.

Upload

Archives

Archive 1

Ten Simple Rules for Scientific Fraud & Misconduct

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)[reply]

Unusual edit

Someone please review [1] 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

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]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 :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. --[[User:学問ポリス|学問ポリス]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 02:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
+== Motivations ==
+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. [[User:PointlessUsername|PointlessUsername]] ([[User talk:PointlessUsername|talk]]) 23:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)