We talked about standing down on publishing "dangerous" research in
one of the Responsible Conduct cases. Here's an update on the Bird-Flu
Research moratorium:
http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/34119/title/Bird-Flu-Research-to-Resume/
Another (an op-ed) from 27Jan13
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/the-bird-flu-experiments.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130127
Comments on these cases from the small textbook:
1) p. 14 "Discovering an Error" case
2) p. 18 "Is it Plagiarism"
"Discovering an Error"
ReplyDelete1. Both authors owe not only their professional colleagues, but also the scientific community, the correct and full truth regarding the research they conducted. Human error is inevitable, but should be limited so that future research is not impacted.
2. Although the main conclusions are not affected by the incorrect results, the two authors cannot be sure that another researcher has not or will not use the incorrect model to conduct other important research. Knowledge that others have already used the incorrect model should only reinforce the notion that Marie and Yuan should come forward with their new findings.
3. In my opinion, there really are no other options beyond publishing a formal correction with the journal. This is the only way to ensure honestly within the scientific community.
"Is it Plagiarism"
1. The basic concepts and definitions of standard mathematical notations are less likely to be plagiarism, considering much of this information is readily available and probably known throughout the scientific world. But, copying sentences directly from another journal paper constitutes plagiarism if the author is not given credit when due. In this specific situation for a research grant, Professor Lee should probably refrain from using information from other papers and stick with basic concepts to solidify background knowledge, followed by his own summary directly from his own research.
2. Lee should also include some sort of footnotes or citations within the paper to show the reader where exactly he is citing the other journal paper. Therefore, there will be no question of what is Lee's work and what is not.
"Discovering an Error"
ReplyDelete1. As scientists, Marie and Yuan are expected to avoid mistakes and neglegence. In order to maintain he integrity of themselves and their colleagues, they should make immediate corrections.
2. They should make corrections in order to keep others from using the mistakes that they made. Other people would be building off of the original neglegence.
3. They could put a note at the end of the original papers in order to explain the mistakes and correct them.
"Is It Plagiarism?"
1. Yes, copying any sentences would be considered plagiarism unless it were to be put into quotations and cited directly.
2. He should cite the specific parts that came from Lee's journal paper. Instead, he cited the paper as a whole.
"Discovering an Error"
ReplyDelete1. Yuan and Marie are obligated as scientists to provide accurate and error-free results to the best of their ability. This means that if they are aware of an error in their research, they are obligated to correct it no matter how minuscule the error may be. If their mistake were uncovered by a member of the scientific community, it would tarnish the record of their colleagues, and they would pay the price for a mistake that they didn't make.
2. If a scientist were to base their research on the incorrect assumptions and results presented in Yuan and Marie's model, this could lead to incorrect results in subsequent experimentation. If assumptions in the applied medical field were made based on Yaun and Marie's model or research based on their model, it could put the health of infection patients at risk. Their decisions should be affected greatly by this, because the possibility of putting the well-being of others at risk makes their decision an ethical one even more so.
3. They could correct the original paper in a corrigendum (note for an author’s error) or do nothing and pretend the mistake never happened (which isn't advisable).
“Is it Plagiarism?”
1. Yes, you must provide a citation in quotes if you copy something directly from another source, or it is plagiarism. This is true for every case, even if the ideas aren’t due to the other author.
2. No, Lee did not give proper credit to the author. He wrote a summary of the journal and then cited it there, rather than citing the sentences he copied. You must be specific with citations, so the reader knows exactly what parts of the paper are from other sources.
"Discovering an Error"
ReplyDelete1. As researchers Yaun and Marie have an obligation to publish results which are free of errors. When mistaken information is published, and it comes to the attention of the researchers, it is their obligation to report a correction, whether it damages the credibility of the report or not. Without correction, more serious consequences could result to the credibility and careers of the researchers. It is best to admit error, than make an attempt to conceal it.
2. The true danger in the case of not correcting a known error in research is the consequence it will have on future research. Scientists may base their future research off of findings from a prior research paper. This would result in a cascade of erroneous research, all of which resulted from an initial error. This could results. These incorrect results could transfer into practical treatments which may put the well-being of others at risk.
3. A revision of the paper could be submitted which contains the correct model.
"Is it Plagiarism"
1. Yes, the writer must cite any source from which he borrows ideas. Failure to cite the author of the original paper would deprive that author of due credibility. It would also endanger the credibility of the lab and researchers.
2. No, the citation only covered the information contained in the paper in general. It is important that the citation be specific enough to specify exactly what portions of information were used.
"Discovering Error"
ReplyDelete1. The two have the obligation to correct the mistake. Even though Yuan can post the correction on the web page, it is not the same as sending in the correction. It is their duty as researchers to publish the true results. It was an honest mistake in the beginning, but because an error was noticed, it can no longer be honest to leave the mistake published. The reputation of the two may be hindered slightly, but once the new information is seen to be true, they will once again be published. If their error was noticed by a reader, then it will be much worse for them.
2. If another researcher bases what they are concluding off of the model that is incorrect, then obviously they will draw correct conclusions too. This could lead to all kinds of problems with scientists using other researchers incorrect work and impact conclusions drawn about the spread of infections. These two are researchers and should be doing their work to better something in the world. By pretending there is no mistake in the original paper, they are not doing their duty.
3. Besides publishing a formal correction, there are not many options besides doing what they are doing (putting the correction on the website). They really need to publish the formal correction no matter the consequences for themselves.
"Is it Plagiarism"
1. Yes, copying the few isolated sentences in this case constitutes as plagiarism. Actually in any case it does. Everything taken word for word or paraphrased from another source must be cited. If you did not come up with the information on your own, you must cite it or it is as if you are pretending that you own it (even if you aren't doing so intentionally).
2. Lee has not given proper credit to the other author. Anything copied word for word must be in quotes and cited specifically. All the sentences used, taken from or based off, the other article must be cited.
“Discovering an Error”
ReplyDelete1.As scientist and researches Marie and Yaun have the obligation to publish results that are truthful. If a researcher find a mistake in their research is must be corrected no matter what. If they don’t fix the error when they find it, it could cause more trouble later.
2.Because the research community shares all of the published data, Marie and Yaun should retract their data and fix it. If another researcher sees their data and bases other research off of it, their data would also be wrong. This would lead to a long line of mistakes and incorrect data, which potentially could cause harm down the line.
3.The original paper should be retracted and a correction should be submitted stating the incorrect data and the newly corrected data.
“Is it Plagiarism”
1.Yes, all work must be cited if it is not the person’s original idea. This is true for all things, not just the science community. All sources used should be cited.
2.When citing a source is should be specific, so no, the paper was not given proper credit and should be cited more specifically.
"Discovering an Error"
ReplyDelete1. Marie and Yaun as scientists have an obligation to correct any mistakes they find and report truthful data. If you make a mistake it is not bad to go back and correct it. It is however wrong to ignore the mistake, it can cause so much more trouble not only for you but for other researchers who use some of your work in the future.
2. The research community works off one another and build off eachothers work. Because of this they should retract there article and fix it. If they dont there is no way of knowing what harm could come from it. It is like the ripple effect you throw a stone in a pond and it is going to ripple outward.
3.The paper should be retracted and the changes made then resubmit the correct paper and data.
"Is it Plagiarism"
1.Yes! If it is not your idea ie. you get it from someone else they should be credited/cited.
2.No the paper was not given proper credit. Citations should be specific that is put as much information down as possible to give full credit.
"Discovering an Error"
ReplyDelete1. Marie and Yuan have obligations to their professional colleagues, the rest of the scientific community, and the rest of human kind to post the corrected documents and honest data. It is fine to make a mistake (we are human) but it is important to fix mistakes to prevent further incorrect documents and experiments from taking place and being published.
2. Their decisions should not be affected by how the model is being used. Incorrect data should be fixed regardless of how it is used. The information can be used in different ways including to find new information and should therefore be fixed.
3. A revision must be made and submitted. I'm not sure how possible it is to retract a published document but if possible, that could be done as well and later fixed and published.
"Is it Plagiarism"
1. Yes, this is indeed plagiarism. The sentences were not Lee's ideas and were not written in Lee's words.
2. No, if Lee copied these sentences, they must be quoted and cited properly with the quotation indicating that they were the other author's words. If Lee is publishing a paper, it should mostly be a synthesis of information in his own words using his own thoughts and ideas.
"Discovering an Error"
ReplyDelete1. Marie and Yuan have a right to the scientific and human kind to provide correct data. Any mistakes that are made must be fixed, it is the right and safest thing to do.
2. Regardless of how the information is used, it has to be accurate information. Other research could be based off of this research so it is of the utmost importance to make sure it is correct.
3. If it is wrong, it must be fixed. Even if it is published, the scientific world will want and need the accurate document.
"Is it Plagiarism"
1. Yes, it is for sure plagiarism. Who ever came up with these ideas, must be credited.
2. No, it must be citied to the proper person/people if it is not Lee's words.