Difference between revisions of "Links on problems in academia"

(Fraud and retraction)
(Fraud and retraction)
Line 63: Line 63:
 
* [http://www.annals.org/content/144/8/609.full Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case]
 
* [http://www.annals.org/content/144/8/609.full Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case]
 
* [http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57449/ 10 retractions and counting]
 
* [http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57449/ 10 retractions and counting]
 +
* [http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/uconn-resveratrol-researcher-dipak-das-fingered-in-sweeping-misconduct-case/ UConn fraud case]
  
 
===Peer review===
 
===Peer review===

Revision as of 08:39, 13 January 2012

This is just a backup of a bookmark folder, will structure it later.

Academic career

Generic

Ph.D.

Postdocs

Coming back

  • Reentering Academia - A Success Story I knew that I could be a reasonable scientist given the chance. I eventually managed to convince people here in Oxford that I could be taken back on as a postdoc.


Finding a job after academia

Academia as a workplace

Fraud and retraction

Peer review

Plagiarism


Philosophical defenses

Inefficiencies

Italy

Open science