None of the articles was marked to indicate that the article had been subsequently retracted. Is this a problem? I think it is. Skip to content Almost a decade ago, a scientific misconduct scandal shocked social psychologists. M Less pain and more to gain: Why high-status group members blame their failure on discrimination.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 , Cited 7 times since Google Scholar gives 9 hits, but 2 appear to be duplicates.
Ruggiero, K. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, Cited 2 times since Group status and attributions to discrimination: Are low- or high-status group members more likely to blame their failure on discrimination? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, The investigators concluded that Ruggiero fabricated data of three experiments, including data allegedly obtained from subjects participating in her trials.
She later used the same faked results in her application for a research grant submitted to the National Institute of Mental Health in October Ruggiero admitted to fabricating her results.
She also confessed to misconduct in this case. She later used fake research results three more times in her efforts to obtain financing for her work. The penalty was not severe. Ruggiero agreed that for five years she would not sign any contract with any institution funded by the US government, neither as a contractor nor as a subcontractor. She also agreed not to participate in any research financed by the Public Health Service.
The period mentioned in her sentence passed on November 26 th , Early in she already worked as an Editor-in-Chief of Behavioral Health journal published by the same institution. The journals, where Ruggiero published her fake results, issued appropriate notifications errata informing of retraction of her articles. Unfortunately full-text versions of her fraudulent work are still publicly available, not only in printed versions of the journals, but also in electronic databases.
It seems that her fraud did not prevent her from continuing her career in the field. A psychology professor resigns amid accusations of research fraud at Harvard.
Liberal publications were equally strong in praise of his book. Garry Wills, writing in the New York Times, said: "Bellesiles has dispersed the darkness that covered the gun's early history in America. Eventually, both sides -- Bellesiles and his detractors -- asked Randolph Roth, an Ohio State University professor, to endorse their side of the argument.
Roth's specialty is the history of Vermont, and Bellesiles said he had acquired part of his data by examining Vermont's probate records to see how frequently guns show up in inventories of estates. His interest piqued, Roth decided to check those records anyway, and he compared what Bellesiles' book claimed was in those archives with what he himself found in the documents.
Bellesiles said that guns were present in only 14 percent of estates. Roth found them in 40 percent. The Boston Globe checked out another thesis advanced by Bellesiles, who says that not only were guns scarce in early America, many of those that did exist weren't serviceable. For instance, in Bellesiles' version of the story, a certain Vermonter, Cotton Fletcher, had a "broken gun. James Lindgren, a Northwestern University law professor, was drawn to a note in Bellesiles' book reporting that he had used records from 19th Century San Francisco.
Thinking to have his own students analyze those documents, he asked Bellesiles where they were. Bellesiles said he found them in the archives of the San Francisco Superior Court. Confronted with the discrepancy, Bellesiles who didn't respond to a request for an interview for this story told supporters and critics that he must have seen those records someplace else, though he couldn't remember where.
Last weekBellesiles e-mailed colleagues that he finally remembers drawing his data, not from records in San Francisco but from those in the entirely different county of Contra Costa, records housed in the Contra Costa County Historical Society. Kathleen Mero, a longtime archivist there, says she and other staff members are quite familiar with the controversy surrounding Bellesiles' book. She says she doesn't remember Bellesiles doing research at the group's storefront archives.
Bellesiles' critics are also put off by a certain "the-dog-ate-my-homework" quality to his responses when others ask to see the raw data of his research.
For example, he said his original papers were destroyed when a flood struck the building where he has his office. But other Emory faculty don't remember the flooding as that destructive. And when, to answer one particular line of criticism, he posted material on his Web site that proved inaccurate, he surmised that his computer must have been hacked, a claim Emory officials say they cannot verify. Bellesiles continues to have supporters.
Yet their defense sometimes seems more of a left-handed compliment. Paul Finkleman, a law professor at the University of Tulsa, says Bellesiles' book remains an important contribution, despite its critics. Other former supporters have turned critics, among them Donald Hickey, a history professor at Wayne State College in Nebraska.
Bellesiles previewed the thesis of his book in a scholarly article that he submitted to the Journal of American History. On receipt, the editor asked Hickey to "referee" it according to the time-honored process by which one scholar's work is evaluated by another. Hickey recommended its publication, saying it made a persuasive case that guns weren't widely owned in America's early days.
0コメント