Talk:Scientific misconduct
Template:WikiProject banner shell Template:Mbox Template:Image requested Template:Archives
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)
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)
- 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
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
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)