ing with the principal investigator or a senior researcher may provide additional options.

DISCOVERING AN ERROR (Page 14)

When the scientific record contains errors, other researchers can repeat those errors or waste time and money discovering and correcting them. Marie and Yuan, the authors of the papers, have published erroneous results that could mislead other researchers. How should they tell the editors of the journals where the papers appeared about the errors and publish corrections?

FABRICATION IN A GRANT PROPOSAL (Page 17)

Even though Vijay did not introduce spurious results into science, he fabricated the submission of the research paper and therefore engaged in misconduct. Though his treatment by the department might seem harsh, fabrication strikes so directly at the foundations of science that it is not excusable.

This scenario also demonstrates that researchers and administrators in an institution may differ on the appropriate course of action to take when research ethics are violated. Researchers should think carefully about what courses of action could be taken in such a case.

IS IT PLAGIARISM? (Page 18)

Would it help, in all situations and in all fields, to simply place quotation marks around the borrowed sentences and attach a footnote? Writing a literature review requires judgment in the selection and interpretation of previous work. Professor Lee should consider whether copying the one-sentence summaries takes unfair advantage of the other author’s efforts, and whether those summaries relate to the proposal in the same way as the paper. In addition, because the literature review in the journal paper could be erroneous or incomplete,



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement