• Authorship of scientific publications and contribution to research (2023)https://recercaiuniversitats.gencat.cat/en/detalls/article/Autoria-de-publicacions-cientifiques-i-contribucio-a-la-recerca

    Table of contents: Justification, Definition and determination of authorship, Order of authorship and conflicts

  • Summary of LOWI decision 2018-101 Pages

    Keywords: admissibility of Petition to LOWI, exceeding of deadline

  • Summary of LOWI decision 2018-091 Pages

    Keywords: competence of LOWI, admissibility of petition, written refusal by Board

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2018-082 Pages

    Keywords: competence of LOWI, duty to forward to Research Integrity Committee (RIC)

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2018-072 Pages

    Keywords: academic responsibility of university, research in a personal capacity, scope of university’s complaints procedure

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2018-064 Pages

    Keywords: duty to disclose commercial interests, conflict of interest, primary interest of academic practice, secondary interests of the scientist.

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2018-053 Pages

    Keywords: characteristics of academic practice, expertise, independence, public access

  • Summary of LOWI decision 2018-041 Pages

    Keywords: admissible petition, duty of confidentiality, substantiation of complaint

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2018-032 Pages

    Keywords: duty to forward to Research Integrity Committee (RIC), procedural and substantive review by LOWI, academic practice, performance interviews

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2018-022 Pages

    Keywords: significant contribution, criteria for co-authorship, recusal of Research Integrity Committee (RIC)

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2018-012 Pages

    Keywords: publication of erratum, time lag for correction of errors.

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2017-142 Pages

    Keywords: retrospective study, prospective study, Medical Ethics Review Committee, Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act [WMO]

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2017-132 Pages

    Keywords: language of communication for proceedings, audio recordings of hearing, PhD supervisor, co-authorship, complaints proceedings

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2017-122 Pages

    Keywords: invention, scientific contribution, patent application, academic freedom Relevant provisions: Elaboration 1.4 Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice

  • Annual report 2017, Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI)14 Pages

    The report of the Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI) describes the developments, opinions and decisions of 2017.

  • LOWI summaries (2017)https://www.lowi.nl/en/Opinions

    The Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI) publishes its opinions (in anonymised form).

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2017-092 Pages

    Keywords: cooperation (agreements), reuse of data, data management Relevant provisions: Elaboration 3.3, 5.3 of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2017-052 Pages

    Keywords: violation of duty of confidentiality, online publications, social media, competence to discontinue complaints proceedings Relevant provisions: Article 2(4) of the VSNU Model Academic Integrity Complaints Procedure, Article 10 of the LOWI Regulations

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2017-042 Pages

    Keywords: LOWI’s competence to investigate, new CWI opinion, popular science publication Relevant provisions: Article 8.3 of the LOWI Regulations

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2017-032 Pages

    Keywords: negligent source reference, confidential reports, authorship Relevant provisions: Principle 3 of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice, Elaboration 1.1 and 1.4 of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice

  • Summary of LOWI opinion 2017-011 Pages

    Keywords: accusation of plagiarism, assessment criteria, book not essential source Relevant provisions: Elaboration 1.3 of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice

  • Diederik Stapel (Netherlands)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel

    Field: Psychology. Diederik Alexander Stapel is a Dutch former professor of social psychology at Tilburg University and before that at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. In 2011 Tilburg University suspended Stapel for fabricating and manipulating data for his research publications. This scientific misconduct took place over a number of years and affected at least 55 publications.

  • Report: Flawed science. The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel (2012)https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/over/profiel/kwaliteit-voorop/commissie-levelt/

    Information about the Diederik Stapel case: Report: Flawed science. The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. English Version: Speech Rector Philip Eijlander. Rejoinder to commentary on the Stapel fraud report.

  • Case Summary: Jon Sudbo by ORIhttps://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-sudbo-jon

    Information about the Jon Sudbo Case.

  • Case Summary: Eric Poehlman by ORIhttps://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-poehlman-eric-t

    Detailed information about the Poehlman Case by ORI. Press Release, Case Summary, List of Retracted / Corrected Publications (Updated - March 23, 2005) (PDF), Voluntary Exclusion Agreement (PDF, 1.6MB), University of Vermont Report (PDF, 19MB), Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Notice, Civil Complaint and Settlement (PDF).

  • Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (Germany)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg

    Field: Political sience. In February 2011 it was discovered that Guttenberg's thesis contained texts of other authors without citation. This led to plagiarism accusations against Guttenberg. Guttenberg denied any plagiarism, but asked the University of Bayreuth to revoke his title, admitting "severe errors in workmanship".

  • Marc Straus (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Straus

    Field: Oncology. Marc Straus has admitted that as lead researcher he took responsibility for fabricated data in oncology studies at the Boston University School of Medicine in the late 1970s.

  • Dipak Das (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipak_K._Das

    Field: Cardiovasculary research. Dipak Das was found guilty of 145 counts of fabrication or falsification of data at the University of Connecticut Health Center.

  • John Darsee (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Darsee

    Field: Cardiology. Data fabrication as well as errors/discrepancies on 16 of 18 full-length research articles, and an unknown number of over 100 additional abstracts and book chapters.

  • Yoshitaka Fujii (Japan)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshitaka_Fujii

    Field: Anesthesiology. Fujii was found to have fabricated data in at least 172 scientific papers, setting what is believed to be a record for the number of papers by a single author requiring retractions.

  • Jan Hendrik Schön (Germany)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal

    Field: Semiconductors. Schön forged results, using the same graph image in different contexts.

  • Silvia Bulfone-Paus (Germany)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvia_Bulfone-Paus

    Field: Immunology, 13 peer-reviewed journal articles retracted following investigations of alleged misconduct

  • Joachim Boldt (Germany)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Boldt

    Field: Anesthesiology, Drug research. Joachim Boldt stripped of his professorship, under criminal investigation for possible forgery of up to 90 research studies.

  • Milena Penkowa (Denmark)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milena_Penkowa

    Field: Neuroscience. Milena Penkowa (neuroscience), resigned her professorship after accusations of scientific misconduct, fraud, and embezzlement of research funds.

  • Bruno Frey (Switzerland)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Frey

    Field: Economics. In 2011, Frey was criticised for and admitted to self-plagiarism.

  • Danut Marcu (Romania)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%83nu%C8%9B_Marcu

    Field: Mathematics Dănuț Marcu, a Romanian mathematician and computer scientist, who was banned from several journals due to plagiarism. He had submitted a manuscript which was more-or-less word for word the same as a paper written by another author.

  • Mart Bax (Netherlands)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart_Bax

    Field: Antropology. Various kinds of serious scientific misconduct. For example, in two cases Bax stated to have relied on one single local informant who told him improbable stories about public events that were not confirmed by anyone else. Bax did not check the stories and wrote them down in detail as if these they were historical facts. The commission that investigated Bax' research was unable to interview these two informants, so data fabrication by Bax could not be proven.

  • Jon Sudbo (Norway)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Sudb%C3%B8

    Field: Medicine. Jon Sudbø is a Norwegian dentist, physician, and former medical researcher, who was exposed as a scientific fraudster in 2006. Over a period of several years, he fabricated results in the field of oncology which he published in leading medical journals. The article that led to his downfall, which was published in The Lancet, was based on 900 patients Sudbø had fabricated entirely. The editor of The Lancet described this as the biggest scientific fraud conducted by a single researcher ever.

  • Hwang Woo-Suk (Korea)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk

    Hwang Woo-suk is a South Korean veterinarian and researcher. He was a professor of theriogenology and biotechnology at Seoul National University (dismissed on March 20, 2006) who became infamous for fabricating a series of experiments, which appeared in high-profile journals, in the field of stem cell research. Until November 2005, he was considered one of the pioneering experts in the field, best known for two articles published in the journal Science in 2004 and 2005 where he reported he had succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning.

  • Raj Persaud (United Kingdom)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_Persaud

    Field: Psychiatry. Rajendra Persaud, also known as Raj Persaud (born 13 May 1963) is an English consultant psychiatrist, broadcaster and author of popular books about psychiatry. In October 2008, Persaud resigned from his position as consultant psychiatrist at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, following a 3-month suspension by the General Medical Council for dishonesty.

  • Andrew Wakefield (United Kingdom)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

    Field: Medicine. Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 3 September 1956) is a British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease

  • Eric Poehlman (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Poehlman

    Eric T. Poehlman (born c. 1956), a scientist in the field of human obesity and aging, was the first academic in the United States to be jailed for falsifying data in a grant application. He had published fraudulent research alleging hormone replacement injections as a therapy for menopause, when in fact they had no proven medical benefits at all.

  • Dick van Velzen (United Kingdom)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alder_Hey_organs_scandal

    The Alder Hey organs scandal involved the unauthorised removal, retention, and disposal of human tissue, including children’s organs, during the period 1988 to 1995. During this period organs were retained in more than 2,000 pots containing body parts from around 850 infants.

  • William Summerlin (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Summerlin

    Field: Medicine. William T. Summerlin (born 1938) is a dermatologist who, as a medical researcher, perpetrated a notorious scientific fraud.

  • Piltdown Man (1912)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

    The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human.

  • The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty – Decisionshttp://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/councils-and-commissions/the-danish-committees-on-scientific-dishonesty/decisions

    Here you can find decisions from the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in anonymised form.

  • The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) – Case Summarieshttps://ori.hhs.gov/case_summary

    This page contains cases in which administrative actions were imposed due to findings of research misconduct.

  • Online Ethics Center (OEC) – Caseshttp://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/profpractice/ppcases.aspx

    List and description of cases that are at least loosely based on real incidents, in order to give a realistic impression of the moral problems that face engineers.

    48 documents or links were found