6 ms·
Plagiarism and data falsification found in work from prominent cancer lab
- elmolino89 4y agoAnother case of 'Good Tsar, Bad Boyars'? Either the lab got so big that the supervision was close to non-existent, or like a Titanic lab went full steam ahead publishing anything, lack of reproducible results be dammed. BTW, I doubt one is forced to retract an article because few sentences in the intro or discussion were nicked verbatim from another paper.
- sorokod 4y agoThe modern version of "Good Tsar, Bad Boyars" is Plausible Deniability.
- egberts1 4y agoTFA smells like character assassination of a scientist who has made poor choices of co-authors for his publications.
- elmolino89 4y agoin the link: "[..] in papers they’d authored while in Croce’s laboratory." You may not be able to check what your collaborators on the other side of the world or the street are doing. But as a group leader you are not a cashier machine distributing salaries and $$$ for experiments to some free agents who just happen to pass through the spaces you rented. No?
- egberts1 4y agoYeah, so possibly a bad office manager too. I would be too if I were a science genius.
- braingravy 4y agoLol. Is that you Croce? If you bankroll false data and your career benefits from them, you’re culpable.
- egberts1 4y agoSad, uh? Probably a common dilemma for most true geniuses. That’s why you don’t use the same lab assistants for proofing of paper, when their name is on the header portion of your white papers, that are trailing your name. If your name is second on the header, you send it to your peers for reviews especially if you’re paying these other names on the header. It is also a reminder to the readers of any white papers that if all the names on the header work for the same organization, you would need to reprove their premise; different organizations, not so much.