Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries provides the following sample definitions, [1] reproduced in The COPE report 1999: [2] Danish definition: "Intention or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist"
False evidence, fabricated evidence, forged evidence, fake evidence or tainted evidence is information created or obtained illegally in order to sway the verdict in a court case. Falsified evidence could be created by either side in a case (including the police/ prosecution in a criminal case ), or by someone sympathetic to either side.
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 ...
Allegations that part of a key 2006 study of Alzheimer's disease may have been fabricated has rocked the scientific research community.
Of the 900 incorrect hypotheses, 5% or 45 will be accepted because of type I errors. Adding the 45 false positives to the 80 true positives gives 125 positive results, or 36% specious. Dropping statistical power to 0.4, optimistic for many fields, would still produce 45 false positives but only 40 true positives, less than half. [2]
Leek summarized the key points of agreement as: when talking about the science-wise false discovery rate one has to bring data; there are different frameworks for estimating the science-wise false discovery rate; and "it is pretty unlikely that most published research is false", but that probably varies by one's definition of "most" and "false".
In scientific inquiry and academic research, data fabrication is the intentional misrepresentation of research results. As with other forms of scientific misconduct , it is the intent to deceive that marks fabrication as unethical, and thus different from scientists deceiving themselves .
Five years later, in 1996, an expert panel appointed by the federal government found no evidence of scientific fraud and cleared Imanishi-Kari of misconduct, although the paper was not reinstated. [38] 1982 John Darsee. Fabricated results in the Cardiac Research Laboratory of Eugene Braunwald at Harvard in the early 1980s. Initially thought to ...