butterfly/kb
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Scrape wikipedia-science: 1243 new, 977 updated, 2275 total (kb-cron)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
turtle89431 2026-05-04 21:28:04 -07:00
parent 79525b6fd6
commit 093e1ea1bd
23 changed files with 632 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

BIN
_index.db
View File

Binary file not shown.

39
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_proxalutamide_trial_in_Brazil-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
---
title: "COVID-19 proxalutamide trial in Brazil"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_proxalutamide_trial_in_Brazil"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:56.502524+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
In the wake of the global COVID-19 pandemic, several lines of research targeted the development of a pharmaceutical treatment or cure for the disease. One of those researches involved a clinical trial that took place in Brazil and was led by Brazilian endocrinologist Flávio Cadegiani.
== Background ==
In the beginning of the pandemic, it was believed that men were generally more prone to the illness than women and as a result of that, some researchers explored human male hormone blockers, also known as antiandrogens, as a treatment. The trial led by Cadegiani looked at the experimental prostate cancer and antiandrogen proxalutamide, and people from the Brazilian region of Amazon were recruited as patients in the study, given the surge in COVID-19 cases in that region in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil which would, according to the study's author, favor the accuracy of the research.
Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro backed the unproven use of proxalutamide drug to treat COVID-19 as well as he previously did with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, both of which are also unproven treatments for the virus.
== Method ==
A total of 645 patients with COVID-19 were administered proxalutamide at nine hospitals in the Brazilian Amazon region. When they were first admitted to hospital, none required mechanical ventilation at the start of the study. The care consisted of medicines such as enoxaparin, colchicine, methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, or antibiotic therapy as necessary and some of them were given unproven COVID-19 treatments drugs such as ivermectin. Altogether, 317 patients received proxalutamide and 328 a placebo. Brazilian National Health Council (CNS) later reported such treatment was prescribed by doctors in a private hospital network as if it were an established medical treatment, despite it was approved only for clinical trial studies. The number of people who were given the drug was also larger than the number approved for the trial.
The trial, which was not peer-reviewed, reported that the 14 day recovery rate of patients was 81.4% with proxalutamide and 35.7% with placebo. Jesem Orellana, an epidemiologist who closely watched the effects of the gamma variant of COVID-19 on the Amazon region at Brazil's leading public health institute Fiocruz, said "the reported results would be a miracle — if they were true" adding that "everything about this trial is suspicious and is anything but clinical and randomised".
== Aftermath ==
Brazil's National Ethics Commission on Research (CONEP) found that 200 people died after undergoing the study and at least 40 deaths were hidden in the study's conclusions. The consent form handed to the study's patients omitted the risk of birth defects and other potential injuries from the procedures, according to the commission. It was later reported that the patients, some of which were hospitalised in intensive care units at the time, trusted the doctors participating in the study because they were desperate for a COVID-19 treatment or cure for their relatives or themselves, as the region was hit the hardest in the world at the time the study was being conducted and the entire local healthcare system had collapsed due to a major surge in COVID-19 cases.
After the study's preprint was published in June 2021, several scientists warned it was deeply flawed and a Brazilian research ethics commission opened an investigation into it. Science Magazine also reported that Applied Biology, a Californian hair loss company, where Cadegiani is a clinical director, teamed up with Kintor Pharmaceuticals, proxalutamide's manufacturer based in China. Additionally, UNESCO office for Latin America and Caribbean found the way the study was conducted is "alarming" and that several gross ethics violations were committed. It said the study could be one of the gravest ethical scientific misconduct in the region's history and urged an investigation into the case.
On September 2, 2021, Brazil's health regulator Anvisa suspedend the prescription, usage and importation of proxalutamide in the country, and opened a separate probe about the study. On September 3, 2021, a criminal complaint was filed before Brazil's Public Prosecutor office in order to investigate the actions taken during the study as well as the consequences of it, including the patients deaths.
On June 27, 2022, academic journal Frontiers in Medicine retracted the mentioned study it had initially published in July 2021. Similarly, the BMJ Case Reports journal issued another article based on the same study and authored by Cadegiani an expression of concern, and later issued a retraction. On August 25, 2022, Brazilian Federal Police carried out several search and seizure warrants against public officials, doctors and researchers who led proxalutamide trials in the Brazilian southern state of Rio Grande do Sul and elsewhere in the country. Although no names of the suspects targeted by the operation were revealed, Cadegiani said on his social media that his house and clinic were raided by the police.
In August 2022 Brazilian Federal prosecutors charged two researchers who ran the medical trial in two separate civil lawsuits as well as three hospital officials who reportedly aided them. The defendants can be fined in at least R$10 million (about US$1,917,582) in both suits if convicted.
== See also ==
Scientific misconduct
Patient abuse
Unethical human experimentation
COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil
== References ==

22
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_cartel-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
---
title: "Citation cartel"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_cartel"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:53.892368+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
A citation cartel is a group of academic authors who collude to cite one another's publications in order to artificially increase their citation impact. In many cases the cited works have no strong relevance to the works they are cited in. The practice of making excessive or spurious citations is known as citation stacking.
Mutual citation can occur naturally when small numbers of authors publish in a specialist field, but the term "citation cartel" is usually used to describe the situation where mutual citation is done without reasonable excuse. Because of the difficulty of proving intent, publishers are reluctant to use the term "citation cartel", but are known to deal with individual journals and authors when cartel-like behavior is suspected.
Alleged citation cartels have been found in numerous academic fields, including mathematics, medicine and dentistry. Possible citation cartels can be detected by network analysis of the citation graph.
Some citation cartels submit papers claiming to be from developing countries to avoid publication fees in open-access journals.
== See also ==
Clique
Coercive citation
== References ==

24
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
---
title: "Conflict of interest"
chunk: 1/10
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:55.281412+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual or organization might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party.
An "interest" is a commitment, obligation, duty or goal associated with a specific social role or practice. By definition, a "conflict of interest" occurs if, within a particular decision-making context, an individual is subject to two coexisting interests that are in direct conflict with each other ("competing interests"). This is important because under these circumstances, the decision-making process can be disrupted or compromised, affecting the integrity or reliability of the outcomes.
Typically, a conflict of interest arises when an individual occupies two social roles simultaneously, generating opposing benefits or loyalties. The interests involved can be pecuniary or non-pecuniary. The existence of such conflicts is an objective fact, not a state of mind, and does not in itself indicate any lapse or moral error. However, especially where a decision is being taken in a fiduciary context, it is important that the contending interests are clearly identified and the process for separating them is rigorously established. Typically, this will involve the conflicted individual either giving up one of the conflicting roles or recusing themselves from the particular decision-making process.
The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of inappropriateness. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. A conflict of interest exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (based on past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that a decision may be unduly influenced by other, secondary interests, and not on whether a particular individual is actually influenced by a secondary interest.
A widely used definition is: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public officers. Secondary interest includes personal benefit and is not limited to only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement, or the wish to do favors for family and friends. These secondary interests are not treated as wrong in and of themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests. Conflict of interest rules in the public sphere mainly focus on financial relationships since they are relatively more objective, fungible, and quantifiable, and usually involve the political, legal, and medical fields.
A conflict of interest is a set of conditions in which professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as a patient's welfare or the validity of research) tends to be unduly influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain). Conflict-of-interest rules [...] regulate the disclosure and avoidance of these conditions.
== In the practice of law ==
Conflicts of interest have been described as the most pervasive issue facing modern lawyers. Legal conflicts rules are at their core corollaries to a lawyer's two basic fiduciary duties: (1) the duty of loyalty and (2) the duty to preserve client confidences. The lawyer's duty of loyalty is fundamental to the attorney-client relationship and has developed from the biblical maxim that no person can serve more than one master. Just as fundamental is the lawyer's duty to maintain client confidences, which protects clients' legitimate expectations that they can make full disclosure of all facts to their attorneys without fear of exposure.
The basic formulation of the conflicts of interest rule is that a conflict exists "if there is a substantial risk that the lawyer's representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer's own interests or by the lawyer's duties to another current client, a former client, or a third person." The duty of loyalty requires an attorney not to act directly adverse to an existing client, even on an unrelated matter where the lawyer has no client confidences. Such a loyalty conflict has been labeled a concurrent conflict of interest. The duty of confidentiality is protected in rules prohibiting so-called successive conflicts of interest, when a lawyer proposes to act adversely to the interests of a former client. A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter is precluded from representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former client. These two basic formulations – that a lawyer may not act directly adverse to a current client or adverse to a former client on a substantially related matter – form the cornerstone of modern legal conflicts of interest rules.
=== Concurrent conflicts of interest ===

29
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
---
title: "Conflict of interest"
chunk: 2/10
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:55.281412+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
==== Direct adversity to current client ====
An attorney owes the client undivided loyalty. The courts have described this principle as "integral to the nature of an attorney's duty". Without undivided loyalty, irreparable damage may be done "to the existing client's sense of trust and security – features essential to the effective functioning of the fiduciary relationship..." A key feature of the duty of loyalty is that an attorney may not act directly adverse to a current client or represent a litigation adversary of the client in an unrelated matter. The damage done is to the client's confidence that the lawyer is serving their interests faithfully. An example of a lawyer acting directly adverse to a client is when the lawyer sues the client. At the other end of the spectrum is when a lawyer represents business competitors of the client who are not adverse to it in a lawsuit or negotiation. Representing a client's business competitors in unrelated matters does not constitute direct adversity nor give rise to a loyalty conflict. As one state bar ethics committee has noted:
Direct adversity may arise in litigation when an attorney sues a client or defends an adversary in an action their client has brought. It may also arise in business negotiations, when a lawyer negotiates on behalf of an adversary against a current client, even if the matter is unrelated to any matter the lawyer is handling for the client. However, merely advocating opposite sides of the same legal issue does not give rise to direct adversity. Even if a lawyer's advocacy in an unrelated matter may make unfavorable law for another client, such effects are only indirect and not subject to the conflicts rules. There is no conflict in advocating positions that may be unfavorable to another client so long as the lawyer is not directly litigating or negotiating against that client.
===== Identity of the client – corporations =====
One of the most frequently arising questions in corporate practice is whether parent corporations and their subsidiaries should be treated as the same or different entities for conflicts purposes. The first authority to rule on this question was the California State Bar Ethics Committee, which issued a formal opinion ruling that parent corporations and their subsidiaries are to be considered distinct entities for conflicts purposes. The California committee considered a situation where an attorney undertook a representation directly adverse to the wholly owned subsidiary of a client, when the lawyer did not represent the subsidiary. Relying on the entity as client framework in Model Rule 1.13, the California committee opined that there was no conflict as long as the parent and subsidiary did not have a "sufficient unity of interests." The committee announced the following standard for evaluating the separateness of parent and subsidiary:
As one commentator has noted, "For a state ethics opinion, California Opinion 1989-113 has been unusually influential, both with courts there, with ethics committees elsewhere, and through the latter set of ethics committee opinions, with... recent decisions in other jurisdictions." The California opinion has been followed by ethics committees in such jurisdictions as New York, Illinois and the District of Columbia, and served as the basis of ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 95-390. The law in most jurisdictions is that parent corporations and their subsidiaries are treated as distinct entities, except in limited circumstances noted by the California ethics committee where they have a unity of interests.
The Second Circuit has adopted a variation of the California standard. In GSI Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. BabyCenter LLC, the court ruled that parent corporations and their subsidiaries should be treated as the same entity for conflicts purposes when both companies rely "on the same in-house legal department to handle their legal affairs." However, the court ruled that the lawyer and client can contract around this default standard. The court quoted with approval the opinion of the City of New York Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics, which stated, "corporate family conflicts may be averted by ... an engagement letter ... that delineates which affiliates, if any, of a corporate client the law firm represents..."
===== Material limitation conflicts =====
A concurrent conflict will also exist when "there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer." Comment 8 to Model Rule 1.7 states, by way of example, that an attorney representing multiple persons forming a joint venture may be materially limited in recommending the courses of action that any jointly represented client may take because of the lawyer's duty to the other participants in the joint venture.
The Supreme Court of Minnesota found a material limitation conflict in In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Christopher Thomas Kalla. In Kalla, an attorney was disciplined for representing a borrower bringing suit against her lender for charging a usurious interest rate while simultaneously representing the mortgage broker who arranged the loan as a third-party defendant in the same lawsuit. Although neither client had brought an action against the other, the court found a material limitation conflict: "Advocating for Client A would potentially harm Client B, who was potentially liable for contribution. Kalla's ability to fully advocate for both was materially limited by Kalla's dual representation."
==== Consent to concurrent conflicts of interest ====
===== Consent to current conflicts =====
A concurrent conflict of interest may be resolved if four conditions are met. They are:

36
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest-2.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
---
title: "Conflict of interest"
chunk: 3/10
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:55.281412+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
the representation is not prohibited by law;
the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and
each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
Informed consent requires that each affected client be fully advised about the material ways that the representation could adversely affect that client. In joint representations, the information provided should include the interests of the lawyer and other affected clients, the courses of action that could be foreclosed due to the joint representation, the potential danger that the client's confidential information might be disclosed, and the potential consequences if the lawyer had to withdraw at a later stage in the proceedings. Merely telling the client that there are conflicts, without further explanation, is not adequate disclosure. The lawyer must fully disclose the potential impairment to the lawyer's loyalty and explain how another unconflicted attorney might better serve the client's interests.
===== Prospective consent to future conflicts =====
It is not unusual in the current legal environment of large multinational and global law firms to seek advance or prospective waivers of future conflicts from their clients. A law firm is particularly likely to seek a prospective waiver when a large corporation seeks the firm's specialized knowledge in a small matter, without a high likelihood of repeat business. As the ABA stated in its Ethics Opinion 93-372:
Prospective waivers are most likely to be upheld by the courts when they are given by sophisticated corporate clients represented by independent counsel in the negotiation of the waiver. However, in Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., the California Supreme Court held that a prospective waiver that did not make specific disclosure of an actual current conflict was not effective to waive that conflict. As the court said,
The Sheppard Mullin case does not invalidate prospective waivers in California. It only holds that waivers of current and actual conflicts must specifically disclose those conflicts, an unremarkable conclusion.
===== The hot potato doctrine =====
If a client will not consent to a conflict and allow a lawyer to take on another representation, the lawyer cannot then withdraw from the existing representation, thus turning the existing client into a former client and ending the duty of loyalty. As the courts have stated, the lawyer cannot "drop a client like a hot potato" to cure a conflict. This label has stuck, and the doctrine is now aptly called the "hot potato" doctrine. However, as one commentator has pointed out, the reasoning underlying this line of cases has been sparse, and few courts have attempted to justify this result through an analysis of the ethics rules. The unstated rationale behind the Hot Potato doctrine is that a withdrawal attempted without good cause under Model Rule 1.16(b) is an ineffective withdrawal, which does not successfully terminate the existing attorney-client relationship. When viewed in this light, a withdrawal accomplished with good cause should be an effective withdrawal that does permit a lawyer to take on a representation that would otherwise be conflicting, as long as there is no substantial relationship with the prior matter. The standard used to assess conflicts involving such former clients will be discussed in the next section.
==== Successive conflicts of interest ====
===== The substantial relationship test =====
Conflicts of interest rules involving former clients are primarily designed to enforce the attorney's duty to preserve a client's confidential information. Model Rule 1.9(a) sets forth this doctrine in a rule that has come to be known as the substantial relationship test. The rule states:
Without the substantial relationship test, a client attempting to prove that its former lawyer possesses its confidential information might have to disclose publicly the very confidential information it is trying to protect. The substantial relationship test was designed to protect against such disclosures. Under this test, the attorney's possession of the former client's confidential information is presumed if "confidential information material to the current dispute would normally have been imparted to the attorney by virtue of the nature of the former representation." The substantial relationship test reconstructs whether confidential information was likely to be imparted by the former client to the lawyer by analyzing "the similarities between the two factual situations, the legal questions posed, and the nature and extent of the attorney's involvement with the cases."
===== Imputation of conflicts =====
The conflicts of an individual lawyer are imputed to all attorneys who "are associated with that lawyer in rendering legal services to others through a law partnership, professional corporation, sole proprietorship, or similar association". This imputation of conflicts can lead to difficulties when attorneys from one law firm leave and join another firm. The issue then arises whether the conflicts of the itinerant lawyer's former firm are imputed to their new firm.
In Kirk v. First American Title Co., the court ruled that an itinerant lawyer's conflicts are not imputed to their new law firm if that firm timely sets up an effective ethics screen preventing the lawyers from imparting any confidential information to the lawyers in the new firm. An effective ethics screen rebuts the presumption that the itinerant lawyers shared confidential information with the lawyers in the new firm. The components of an effective ethics screen, as described by the court in Kirk, are:

32
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest-3.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
---
title: "Conflict of interest"
chunk: 4/10
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:55.281412+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
physical, geographic, and departmental separation of attorneys;
prohibitions against and sanctions for discussing confidential matters;
established rules and procedures preventing access to confidential information and files;
procedures preventing a disqualified attorney from sharing in the profits from the representation;
continuing education in professional responsibility.
Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, refers to the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a court case/legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. Applicable statutes or canons of ethics may provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or presiding officer must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned.
In the practice of law, the duty of loyalty owed to a client prohibits an attorney (or a law firm) from representing any other party with interests adverse to those of a current client. The few exceptions to this rule require informed written consent from all affected clients, i.e., an "ethical wall". In some circumstances, a client can never waive a conflict of interest. In perhaps the most common example encountered by the general public, the same firm should not represent both parties in a divorce or child custody matter. Found conflict can lead to denial or disgorgement of legal fees, or in some cases (such as the failure to make mandatory disclosure), criminal proceedings. In 1998, a Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy partner was found guilty of failing to disclose a conflict of interest, disbarred, and sentenced to 15 months of imprisonment. In the United States, a law firm usually cannot represent a client if the client's interests conflict with those of another client, even if separate lawyers within the firm represent the two clients, unless (in some jurisdictions) the lawyer is segregated from the rest of the firm for the duration of the conflict. Law firms often employ software with their case management and accounting systems to meet their duties, monitor their exposure to conflicts of interest, and assist in obtaining waivers.
== Outside of the practice of law ==
More generally, conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit.
Depending upon the law or rules related to a particular organization, the existence of a conflict of interest may not, in and of itself, be evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. A conflict of interest can, however, become a legal matter, for example, when an individual tries (and/or succeeds in) influencing the outcome of a decision for personal benefit. A director or executive of a corporation will be subject to legal liability if a conflict of interest breaches their duty of loyalty.
There is often confusion over these two situations. Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny it exists because they did not act improperly. A conflict of interest can exist even if no improper acts result from it. (One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two roles—an individual who owns stock and is also a government official, for example—may experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated—see below—but it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly incentivize improper acts in some circumstances.)
As an example, in the sphere of business and control, according to the Institute of Internal Auditors:
conflict of interest is a situation in which an internal auditor, who is in a position of trust, has a competing professional or personal interest. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfil their duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the internal auditor, the internal audit activity, and the profession. A conflict of interest could impair an individual's ability to perform their duties and responsibilities objectively.
A few examples of conflict of interest are:
When a member of the commissioners of a state highway commission owns a piece of property, the state will have to condemn it. The conflict of interest comes in because the commission will want to acquire the property at the lowest possible price (subject to it being at least fair market value) while, as the property owner, they will want the highest possible price they can get.
When an officer or director of a corporation owns a patent or copyright that either was developed before they were involved with the corporation (which means it cannot be subject to a contractual right of assignment or work for hire) or that it was developed for a type of product not related to the scope of their employment. Authors or inventors will want a large license fee or royalty, while as an officer of the corporation, they are expected to offer as little as possible.
A judge deciding a bench trial or an arbitrator in binding arbitration must not decide a case where a relative, acquaintance, or business partner is a party. Because they may give overly favorable terms to that party, or where they might impose excessively harsh terms (such as a judge having their estranged child, parent, or ex-spouse as a criminal defendant being sentenced before them).
== Organizational ==

39
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest-4.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
---
title: "Conflict of interest"
chunk: 5/10
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:55.281412+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
An organizational conflict of interest (OCI) may exist in the same way as described above, for instance where a corporation provides two types of service to the government and these services conflict (e.g.: manufacturing parts and then participating in a selection committee comparing parts manufacturers). Corporations may develop simple or complex systems to mitigate the risk or perceived risk of a conflict of interest. These risks can be evaluated by a government agency (for example, in a U.S. Government RFP) to determine whether the risks create a substantial advantage to the organization in question over its competition, or will decrease the overall competitiveness of the bidding process.
== Types ==
The following are the most common forms of conflicts of interests:
Self-dealing, in which an official who controls an organization causes it to enter into a transaction with the official, or with another organization that benefits the official only. The official is on both sides of the "deal."
Outside employment, in which the interests of one job conflict with another.
Nepotism, in which a spouse, child, or other close relative is employed (or applies for employment) by an individual, or where goods or services are purchased from a relative or from a firm controlled by a relative. To avoid nepotism in hiring, many employment applications ask if the applicant is related to a current employee of the company. This allows recusal if the employed relative has a role in the hiring process. If this is the case, the relative could then be recused from any hiring decisions.
Gifts from friends who also do business with the person receiving the gifts or from individuals or corporations who do business with the organization in which the gift recipient is employed. Such gifts may include non-tangible things of value such as transportation and lodging.
Pump and dump, in which a stockbroker who owns a security artificially inflates the price by "upgrading" it or spreading rumors, sells the security and adds a short position, then "downgrades" the security or spreads negative rumors to push the price down.
Other improper acts that are sometimes classified as conflicts of interest may have a better classification. For example, accepting bribes can be classified as corruption, the use of government or corporate property or assets for personal use is fraud, and unauthorized distribution of confidential information is a security breach. For these improper acts, there is no inherent conflict.
COI is sometimes termed competition of interest rather than "conflict", emphasizing a connotation of the natural competition between valid interests—rather than the classical definition of conflict, which would include by definition including a victim and unfair aggression. Nevertheless, this denotation of conflict of interest is not generally seen.
== Examples ==
=== Academic and professional standards ===
Many professions are governed by standards of impartiality, including law, public administration, social work, and academia. Obligations of academic disclosure of may be covered in style guides addressing professional ethics.
=== Charity trustees ===
Trustees are required to identify and manage any conflicts of interest which might impact on their decision-making. In England and Wales, the Charity Commission notes that trustees must avoid allowing conflicts of interest to influence their decisions or even to "seem to" influence them.
=== Consulting firms ===
When working for governments, consulting firms face potential conflicts of interest. We can identify four of them: personal connections and interests, working with conflicting clients and assignments, providing for-profit advice, and using personal connections within government to influence decisions.
=== Environmental hazards and human health ===
Nena Baker summarized 176 studies of the potential impact of Bisphenol A on human health as follows:
Lawrence Lessig noted that this does not mean that the funding source influenced the results. However, it does raise questions about the validity of the industry-funded studies specifically, because the researchers conducting those studies have a conflict of interest; they are subject at minimum to a natural human inclination to please the people who paid for their work. Lessig provided a similar summary of 326 studies of the potential harm from cell phone usage with results that were similar but not as stark.

25
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest-5.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
---
title: "Conflict of interest"
chunk: 6/10
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:55.281412+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
=== Finance industry and economists ===
Economists (unlike other professions such as sociologists) do not formally subscribe to a professional ethical code. Close to 300 economists have signed a letter urging the American Economic Association (the discipline's foremost professional body), to adopt such a code. The signatories include George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate, and Christina Romer, who headed Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.
This call for a code of ethics was supported by the public attention the documentary Inside Job (winner of an Academy Award) drew to the consulting relationships of several influential economists. This documentary focused on conflicts that may arise when economists publish results or provide public recommendations on topics that affect industries or companies with which they have financial links. Critics of the profession argue, for example, that it is no coincidence that financial economists, many of whom were engaged as consultants by Wall Street firms, were opposed to regulating the financial sector.
In response to criticism that the profession not only failed to predict the 2008 financial crisis but may actually have helped create it, the American Economic Association has adopted new rules in 2012: economists will have to disclose financial ties and other potential conflicts of interest in papers published in academic journals. Backers argue such disclosures will help restore faith in the profession by increasing transparency which will help in assessing economists' advice.
Economist Joseph Stiglitz argued that the Great Recession was partly created because, "Bankers acted greedily because they had incentives and opportunities to do so". They did this by making consumer financial products, like retail banking services and home mortgages, complex to enable charging higher fees. While more informed consumers may have been able to find better options than the major bank's primary offerings, many did not, which may have contributed to the financial industry's increased profits.
Stiglitz has faced criticism over a conflict of interest and violating Columbia University's transparency policies by not disclosing his status as a paid consultant to the Argentinian government, while writing articles defending Argentina's planned default on over $1 billion in bond debt during the 1998–2002 Argentine great depression. He has also been criticized for failing to disclose his paid consultancy to the Greek government while downplaying the risk of Greece defaulting on its debt during the Greek government-debt crisis of 2009.
Some economists have argued that a major portion of this increase and a driving force behind the Great Recession was the influence of money in politics. Between 1998 and 2008, the finance industry contributed an estimated $1.7 billion to political campaigns and spent $3.4 billion on lobbying, totaling $5.1 billion. Some argue this financial influence created conflicts of interest for legislators and the U.S. President, who may have been disincentivized from enacting policies that would negatively impact the finance industry, rather than protecting the public.
=== Finance industry and elected officials ===
Conflicts of interest among elected officials are part of the story behind the increase in the percentage of U.S. corporate domestic profits captured by the finance industry (depicted in the accompanying figure).
From 1934 to 1985, the finance industry's share of U.S. domestic corporate profit averaged 13.8%. This increased to 23.5% between 1986 and 1999, and further increased to 32.6% between 2000 and 2010. Part of this increase may be due to increased efficiency from banking consolidation and innovations in new financial products, which benefit consumers. However, if most consumers had refused to accept financial products they did not understand (e.g. negative amortization loans), the finance industry would not have been as profitable as it has been, and the Great Recession might have been avoided or postponed.
If the finance industry's increased profit share from 23.5% to 32.6% is only attributed to governmental actions (subject to conflicts of interest created by campaign contributions), this suggests that the finance industry realized $270 billion in profit. This figure implies a return of over $50 for every $1 spent on political campaigns and finance industry lobbying. On a per capita basis, this would amount to almost $1,000 per U.S. resident. Few other investments have yielded such a high return in such a short time.
=== Government officials ===

26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest-6.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
---
title: "Conflict of interest"
chunk: 7/10
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:55.281412+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Regulating conflict of interest in government is an aim of political ethics. Public officials are expected to put service to the public and their constituents ahead of their personal interests. Conflict of interest rules are intended to prevent officials from making decisions in circumstances that could reasonably be perceived as violating this duty of office. Limiting conflicts is vital to the success of a democracy.
Rules in the executive branch tend to be stricter and easier to enforce than in the legislative branch. This is visible through one study that highlights how members of Congress with specific stock investments may vote on regulatory and interventionist legislation. Two problems make legislative ethics of conflicts difficult and distinctive.
First, as James Madison wrote, legislators should share a "communion of interests" with their constituents. Legislators cannot adequately represent their constituents' interests without also representing some of their own. As Senator Robert S. Kerr said, "I represent the farmers of Oklahoma, although I have large farm interests. I represent the oil business in Oklahoma...and I am in the oil business...They don't want to send a man here who has no community of interest with them, because he wouldn't be worth a nickel to them." The problem is distinguishing special interests from all constituents' general interests.
Second, the "political interests" of legislatures include campaign contributions, which they need to get elected and which are generally not illegal and not the same as a bribe. But under many circumstances, they can have the same effect. The problem is how to keep the secondary interest in raising campaign funds from overwhelming what should be their primary interest—fulfilling the duties of office.
Political campaign contributions dominate politics in the United States in many ways. Candidates are often not considered "credible" unless they have a campaign budget far beyond what could reasonably be raised by citizens of ordinary means. The impact of this money can be found in many places, most notably in studies of how campaign contributions affect legislative behavior. For example, sugar in the United States has been roughly double the international price for over half a century. In the 1980s, this added $3 billion to the annual budget of U.S. consumers, according to Stern, who provided the following summary of one part of how this happens:
This $3 billion translates into $41 per household per year. This is, in essence, a tax collected by a nongovernmental agency. It is a cost imposed on consumers by governmental decisions, but never considered in any standard tax collection data.
Stern notes that sugar interests contributed $2.6 million to political campaigns, representing well over a $1,000 return for each $1 contributed to political campaigns. This, however, does not include the cost of lobbying. Lessig cites six studies that consider the cost of lobbying with campaign contributions on various issues considered in Washington, D.C. These studies produced estimates of the anticipated return on each $1 invested in lobbying and political campaigns ranging from $6 to $220. Lessig notes that clients who pay tens of millions of dollars to lobbyists typically receive billions.
Lessig insists that this does not mean any legislator has sold their vote. One of the possible explanations Lessig gives for this phenomenon is that the money helped elect candidates who were more supportive of the issues pushed by the large amount of money spent on lobbying and political campaigns. He notes that if any money perverts democracy, it is the large contributions beyond the budgets of citizens of ordinary means; small contributions from common citizens have long been considered to support democracy.
When such large sums become virtually essential to a politician's future, it generates a substantive conflict of interest, contributing to a fairly well-documented distortion of the nation's priorities and policies.
Beyond this, whether elected or not, governmental officials often leave public service to work for companies affected by legislation they helped enact or companies they used to regulate. This practice is called the "revolving door". Former legislators and regulators are accused of (a) using inside information for their new employers or (b) compromising laws and regulations in hopes of securing lucrative employment in the private sector. This possibility creates a conflict of interest for all public officials whose future may depend on the revolving door.
=== Healthcare ===
The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on medical research has been a major cause for concern. In 2009, a study found that "a significant number of academic institutions" do not have clear guidelines for relationships between Institutional Review Boards and industry. The medical-industrial complex describes the interaction between physicians' conflict of interest with for-profit healthcare, continuing medical education, and patients' ethical considerations.
In contrast to this viewpoint, an article and associated editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2015 emphasized the importance of pharmaceutical industry-physician interactions for the development of novel treatments, and argued that moral outrage over industry malfeasance had unjustifiably led many to overemphasize the problems created by financial conflicts of interest. The article noted that major healthcare organizations such as the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the World Economic Forum, the Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the Food and Drug Administration had encouraged greater interactions between physicians and industry to bring greater benefits to patients.

22
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest-7.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
---
title: "Conflict of interest"
chunk: 8/10
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:55.281412+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
=== Insurance claims adjusters ===
Insurance companies retain claims adjusters to represent their interest in adjusting claims. It is in the best interest of the insurance companies that the very smallest settlement is reached with its claimants. Based on the adjuster's experience and knowledge of the insurance policy it is very easy for the adjuster to convince an unknowing claimant to settle for less than what they may otherwise be entitled which could be a larger settlement. There is always a very good chance for a conflict of interest existing when one adjuster tries to represent both sides of a financial transaction such as an insurance claim. This problem is exacerbated when the claimant is told or believes, the insurance company's claims adjuster is fair and impartial enough to satisfy both their and the insurance company's interests. These types of conflicts could easily be avoided by the use of a third-party platform, independent of the insurers, which is agreed to, and named in the policy.
=== News media ===
Commercial news media have a conflict of interest in discussing anything that may impact their ability to communicate with their audience. Most news outlets, when reporting a story that involves a parent company or a subsidiary, will explicitly report this fact as part of the story, to alert the audience that their reporting has the potential for bias due to the possible conflict of interest.
The business model of commercial media organizations (i.e., any that accept advertising) is selling behavior change in their audience to advertisers. However, few in their audience are aware of the conflict of interest between the profit motive and the altruistic desire to serve the public and "give the audience what it wants".
Many major advertisers test their ads in various ways to measure the return on investment in advertising. Advertising rates are set as a function of the size and spending habits of the viewing audience as measured by the Nielsen Ratings. Media action expressing this conflict of interest is illustrated in the reaction of Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of News Corporation (the owner of Fox Broadcasting, to changes in data collection methodology adopted by Nielsen in 2004 to measure viewing habits more accurately. The results corrected a previous overestimate of Fox's market share. Murdoch reacted by getting leading politicians to denounce the Nielsen Ratings as "racist". Susan Whiting, president and CEO of Nielsen Media Research, responded by quietly sharing Nielsen's data with her leading critics. The criticism disappeared, and Fox paid Nielsen's fees. Murdoch had a conflict of interest between the reality of his market and his finances.
Commercial media organizations can lose money if they provide content that offends their audience or advertisers. The substantial media consolidation that has occurred since the 1980s has reduced the alternatives available to the audience, thereby making it easier for the ever-larger companies in this increasingly oligopolistic industry to hide news and entertainment potentially offensive to advertisers without losing audience.
If the news media provide too much information on how Congress spends its time, a major advertiser could be offended and could reduce their advertising expenditures with the offending media company. This is one of the ways the market system has determined which companies won and which either went out of business or were purchased by others during this period of media consolidation. (Advertisers do not like to feed the mouth that bites them, and often do not. Similarly, commercial media organizations are not eager to bite the hand that feeds them.) Advertisers have been known to fund media organizations with editorial policies they find offensive if that media outlet provides access to a sufficiently attractive audience segment they cannot efficiently reach otherwise.
Election years are a major boon to commercial broadcasters because virtually all political advertising is purchased with minimal planning, therefore, paying the highest rates. The commercial media have a conflict of interest in anything that could make it easier for candidates to get elected with less money.
Accompanying this trend in media consolidation has been a substantial reduction in investigative journalism, reflecting this conflict of interest between the business objectives of the commercial media and the public's need to know what government is doing in their name. This change has been tied to substantial changes in law and culture in the United States. To cite only one example, researchers have tied this decline in investigative journalism to an increased coverage of the "police blotter". This has further been tied to the fact that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
Beyond this, virtually all commercial media companies own substantial copyrighted material. This gives them an inherent conflict of interest in any public policy issue affecting copyrights. McChesney noted that the commercial media have lobbied successfully for changes in copyright law that have led "to higher prices and a shrinking of the marketplace of ideas", increasing the power and profits of the large media corporations at public expense. One result of this is that "the people cease to have a means of clarifying social priorities and organizing social reform". A free market has a mechanism for controlling abuses of power by media corporations: If their censorship becomes too egregious, they lose audience, which in turn reduces their advertising rates. However, the effectiveness of this mechanism has been substantially reduced over the past quarter century by "the changes in the concentration and integration of the media." Would the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement have advanced to the point of generating substantial protests without the secrecy behind which that agreement was negotiated—and would the government attempts to sustain that secrecy have been as successful if the commercial media had not been a primary beneficiary and had not had a conflict of interest in suppressing discussion thereof?

35
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest-8.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
---
title: "Conflict of interest"
chunk: 9/10
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:55.281412+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
=== Purchasing agents and sales personnel ===
A person working as the equipment purchaser for a company may earn a bonus proportionate to the amount the company is under budget at year-end. However, this becomes an incentive for the employee to purchase inexpensive, substandard equipment. Therefore, this is counter to the interests of those in the company who must actually use the equipment. W. Edwards Deming listed "purchasing on price alone" as number 4 of his famous 14 points, and he often said things to the effect that "He who purchases on price alone deserves to get rooked."
=== Real estate agents ===
Real estate brokers have an inherent conflict of interest with the sellers they represent, because the usual commission structures of brokers motivate them to sell quickly rather than to sell at a higher price. However, a broker representing a buyer has a distinct disincentive to negotiate a lower price on behalf of their client, because they will simultaneously be negotiating their own commission lower.
=== Self-regulation ===
Self-regulation of any group may also be a conflict of interest. If an entity, such as a corporation or government bureaucracy, is asked to eliminate unethical behavior within its own group, it may be in its interest in the short run to eliminate the appearance of unethical behavior, rather than the behavior itself, by keeping any ethical breaches hidden, instead of exposing and correcting them. An exception occurs when the ethical breach is already known by the public. In that case, it could be in the group's interest to end the ethical problem of which the public has knowledge, but keep the remaining breaches hidden.
=== Stockbrokers ===
A conflict of interest is a manifestation of moral hazard, particularly when a financial institution provides multiple services and the potentially competing interests of those services may lead to a concealment of information or dissemination of misleading information. A conflict of interest exists when a party to a transaction could potentially make a gain from taking actions that are detrimental to the other party in the transaction.
There are many types of conflicts of interest such as a pump and dump by stockbrokers. This is when a stockbroker who owns a security artificially inflates the price by upgrading it or spreading rumors, and then sells the security and adds short position. They will then downgrade the security or spread negative rumors to push the price back down. This is an example of stock fraud. It is a conflict of interest because the stockbrokers are concealing and manipulating information to make it misleading for the buyers. The broker may claim to have the "inside" information about impending news and will urge buyers to buy the stock quickly. Investors will buy the stock, which creates a high demand and raises the prices. This rise in prices can entice more people to believe the hype and then buy shares as well. The stockbrokers will then sell their shares and stop promoting, the price will drop, and other investors are left holding stock that is worth nothing compared to what they paid for it. In this way, brokers use their knowledge and position to gain personally at the expense of others.
The Enron scandal is a major example of pump and dump. Executives participated in an elaborate scheme, falsely reporting profits, thus inflating its stock prices, and covered up the real numbers with questionable accounting; 29 executives sold overvalued stock for more than a billion dollars before the company went bankrupt.
A financial institution with a conflict of interest may also be charged with market manipulation. Stockbrokers that act as market makers have a duty to establish bona fide. A conflict of interest serves against that regulation. Stockbrokers have to prove that their trading interests and transacting interests do not interfere with serving the interests of investors at brokerages.
== Mitigation ==
=== Removal ===
Sometimes, people who may be perceived to have a conflict of interest resign from a position or sell a shareholding in a venture, to eliminate the conflict of interest going forward. For example, Lord Evans of Weardale resigned as a non-executive director of the UK National Crime Agency after a tax-avoidance-related controversy about HSBC, where Lord Evans was also a non-executive director. This resignation was stated to have taken place in order to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.
=== "Blind trust" ===
Blind trusts can perhaps mitigate conflicts of interest scenarios by giving an independent trustee control of a beneficiary's assets. The independent trustee must have the power to sell or transfer interests without knowledge of the beneficiary. Thus, the beneficiary becomes "blind" to the impact of official actions on private interests held in trust.
As an example, a politician who owns shares in a company that may be affected by government policy may put those shares in a blind trust with themselves or their family as the beneficiary. It is disputed whether this really removes the conflict of interest, however.
Blind trusts may in fact obscure conflicts of interest, and for this reason it is illegal to fund political parties in the UK via a blind trust if the identity of the real donor is concealed.

38
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest-9.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
---
title: "Conflict of interest"
chunk: 10/10
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:55.281412+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
=== Disclosure ===
Commonly, politicians and high-ranking government officials are required to disclose financial information—assets such as stock, debts such as loans, and/or corporate positions held, typically annually. To protect privacy (to some extent), financial figures are often disclosed in ranges such as "$100,000 to $500,000" and "over $2,000,000". Certain professionals are required either by rules related to their professional organization, or by statute, to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. In some instances, the failure to provide full disclosure is a crime.
However, there is limited evidence regarding the effect of conflict of interest disclosure despite its widespread acceptance. A 2012 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that routine disclosure of conflicts of interest by American medical school educators to pre-clinical medical students were associated with an increased desire among students for limitations in some industry relationships. However, there were no changes in the perceptions of students about the value of disclosure, the influence of industry relationships on educational content, or the instruction by faculty with relevant conflicts of interest.
One line of research suggests that disclosure can have "perverse effects" or, at least, is not the panacea regulators often take it to be.
=== Recusal ===
Those with a conflict of interest are expected to recuse themselves from (i.e., abstain from) decisions where such a conflict exists. The imperative for recusal varies depending upon the circumstance and profession, either as common sense ethics, codified ethics, or by statute. For example, if the governing board of a government agency is considering hiring a consulting firm for some task, and one firm being considered has, as a partner, a close relative of one of the board's members, then that board member should not vote on which firm is to be selected. In fact, to minimize any conflict, the board member should not participate in any way in the decision, including discussions.
Judges are supposed to recuse themselves from cases when personal conflicts of interest may arise. For example, if a judge has participated in a case previously in some other judicial role he/she is not allowed to try that case. Recusal is also expected when one of the lawyers in a case might be a close personal friend, or when the outcome of the case might affect the judge directly, such as whether a car maker is obliged to recall a model that a judge drives. This is required by law under Continental civil law systems and by the Rome Statute, organic law of the International Criminal Court.
== See also ==
== References ==
== Further reading ==
Acocella, N. and Di Bartolomeo, G. and Piacquadio, P.G. [2009], Conflict of interest, (implicit) coalitions and Nash policy games, in: Economics Letters, 105: 303–305.
Black, William K. (2005). The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-292-72139-5.
Davis, Michael; Andrew Stark (2001). Conflict of interest in the professions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-512863-5.
Lessig, Lawrence (2011). Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress -- and a Plan to Stop It. Twelve. ISBN 978-0-446-57643-7.
Lo, Bernard; Marilyn J. Field (2009). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-13188-9.
Porter, Roger J.; Thomas E. Malone (1992). Biomedical research: collaboration and conflict of interest. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-4400-3.
Thompson, Dennis (1995). Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 978-0-8157-8423-4.
Thompson, Dennis (1993). "Understanding financial conflicts of interest". New England Journal of Medicine. 329 (8): 573–76. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.466.1945. doi:10.1056/NEJM199308193290812. PMID 8336759.
== External links ==
Thacker, Paul D. (November 2006). "Environmental journals feel pressure to adopt disclosure rules". Environmental Science & Technology. 40 (22): 6873–6875. Bibcode:2006EnST...40.6873T. doi:10.1021/es062808a. PMID 17153989.
McDonald, Michael. "Ethics and Conflict of Interest". W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics. Archived from the original on 2007-11-03.

22
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Committees_on_Scientific_Dishonesty-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
---
title: "Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Committees_on_Scientific_Dishonesty"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:57.639685+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (Danish: Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed, or UVVU) are a set of three committees under the Danish Ministry of Research and Information Technology: a committee for natural science, agricultural and veterinary science and technical science; a committee for health and medical science; and a committee for social science and the humanities. They have a common chairman.
Previously obscure, the DCSD became embroiled in controversy after its January 2003 decision that the 2001 book The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg was "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice", due to the author's systematically biased choice of data, and objectively was scientifically irredeemable, but Lomborg himself could not be subjectively convicted of intentional or gross negligence. Lomborg had argued in his book that claims by environmentalists about global warming, overpopulation, deforestation, and other matters are not scientifically substantiated. The DCSD further held that because of Lomborg's lack of scientific expertise, he had not shown intentional or gross negligence, and acquitted him of the accusations of scientific dishonesty.
In February 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint with the Ministry, and in December 2003, the Ministry found that the DCSD's handling of the investigation in the case had been improper, and remitted it for re-examination. In March 2004, the DCSD stated that since its finding had been to acquit Lomborg of the charges of scientific dishonesty (although they had criticized his biased selection of data), there was no basis to re-open the investigation, and dismissed the case.
The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition among Danish academics. 308 scientists, many of them from the social sciences, criticised the DCSD's methods in the case and called for the DCSD to be disbanded. The Danish Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation then asked the Danish Research Agency to form an independent working group to review DCSD practices. In response to this, another group of Danish scientists collected over 600 signatures (primarily from the medical and natural sciences community) to support the continued existence of the DCSD and presented their petition to the Danish Research Agency.
The DCSD was involved in another controversy investigating a paper on sex and intelligence authored by Helmuth Nyborg. After the DCSD cleared Nyborg of the charges of scientific misconduct, two Aarhus University professors, Lise Togeby and Jens Mammen resigned from their positions in the DCSD, citing that the DCSD operated from too narrow of a framework. Togeby explained that "Roughly speaking, these committees can only decide whether a researcher has cheated or not. We cannot consider the issue of academic quality, or decide whether research has been carried out in accordance with good academic standards".
== References ==
== External links ==
Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (in Danish)

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Colada-0.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Colada"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:57:45.094692+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:58.802282+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

30
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
---
title: "Data dredging"
chunk: 1/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:00.034910+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Data dredging, also known as data snooping or p-hacking, is the misuse of data analysis to find patterns in data that can be presented as statistically significant, thus dramatically increasing and understating the risk of false positives. This is done by performing many statistical tests on the data and only reporting those that come back with significant results. Thus data dredging is also often a misused or misapplied form of data mining.
The process of data dredging involves testing multiple hypotheses using a single data set by exhaustively searching—perhaps for combinations of variables that might show a correlation, and perhaps for groups of cases or observations that show differences in their mean or in their breakdown by some other variable.
Conventional tests of statistical significance are based on the probability that a particular result would arise if chance alone were at work, and necessarily accept some risk of mistaken conclusions of a certain type (mistaken rejections of the null hypothesis). This level of risk is called the significance. When large numbers of tests are performed, some produce false results of this type; hence 5% of randomly chosen hypotheses might be (erroneously) reported to be statistically significant at the 5% significance level, 1% might be (erroneously) reported to be statistically significant at the 1% significance level, and so on, by chance alone. When enough hypotheses are tested, it is virtually certain that some will be reported to be statistically significant (even though this is misleading), since almost every data set with any degree of randomness is likely to contain (for example) some spurious correlations. If they are not cautious, researchers using data mining techniques can be easily misled by these results. The term p-hacking (in reference to p-values) was coined in a 2014 paper by the three researchers behind the blog Data Colada, which has been focusing on uncovering such problems in social sciences research.
Data dredging is an example of disregarding the multiple comparisons problem. One form is when subgroups are compared without alerting the reader to the total number of subgroup comparisons examined. When misused it is a questionable research practice that can undermine scientific integrity.
== Types ==
=== Drawing conclusions from data ===
The conventional statistical hypothesis testing procedure using frequentist probability is to formulate a research hypothesis, such as "people in higher social classes live longer", then collect relevant data. Lastly, a statistical significance test is carried out to see how likely the results are by chance alone (also called testing against the null hypothesis).
A key point in proper statistical analysis is to test a hypothesis with evidence (data) that was not used in constructing the hypothesis. This is critical because every data set contains some patterns due entirely to chance. If the hypothesis is not tested on a different data set from the same statistical population, it is impossible to assess the likelihood that chance alone would produce such patterns.
For example, flipping a coin five times with a result of 2 heads and 3 tails might lead one to hypothesize that the coin favors tails by 3/5 to 2/5. If this hypothesis is then tested on the existing data set, it is confirmed, but the confirmation is meaningless. The proper procedure would have been to form in advance a hypothesis of what the tails probability is, and then throw the coin various times to see if the hypothesis is rejected or not. If three tails and two heads are observed, another hypothesis, that the tails probability is 3/5, could be formed, but it could only be tested by a new set of coin tosses. The statistical significance under the incorrect procedure is completely spurious—significance tests do not protect against data dredging.
=== Optional stopping ===
Optional stopping is a practice where one collects data until some stopping criteria is reached. While it is a valid procedure, it is easily misused. The problem is that p-value of an optionally stopped statistical test is larger than what it seems. Intuitively, this is because the p-value is supposed to be the sum of all events at least as rare as what is observed. With optional stopping, there are even rarer events that are difficult to account for, i.e. not triggering the optional stopping rule, and collect even more data, before stopping. Neglecting these events leads to a p-value that's too low. In fact, if the null hypothesis is true, then any significance level can be reached if one is allowed to keep collecting data and stop when the desired p-value (calculated as if one has always been planning to collect exactly this much data) is obtained. For a concrete example of testing for a fair coin, see p-value § Optional stopping.
Or, more succinctly, the proper calculation of p-value requires accounting for counterfactuals, that is, what the experimenter could have done in reaction to data that might have been. Accounting for what might have been is hard, even for honest researchers. One benefit of preregistration is to account for all counterfactuals, allowing the p-value to be calculated correctly.
The problem of early stopping is not just limited to researcher misconduct. There is often pressure to stop early if the cost of collecting data is high. Some animal ethics boards even mandate early stopping if the study obtains a significant result midway.
=== Post-hoc data replacement ===
If data is removed after some data analysis is already done on it, such as on the pretext of "removing outliers", then it would increase the false positive rate. Outliers should only be removed from a data set after proper identification and agreement or concurrence that there is special cause variation responsible for the unusual data. Replacing "outliers" by replacement data increases the false positive rate further.

31
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
---
title: "Data dredging"
chunk: 2/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:00.034910+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
=== Post-hoc grouping ===
If a dataset contains multiple features, then one or more of the features can be used as grouping, and potentially create a statistically significant result. For example, if a dataset of patients records their age and sex, then a researcher can consider grouping them by age and check if the illness recovery rate is correlated with age. If it does not work, then the researcher might check if it correlates with sex. If not, then perhaps it correlates with age after controlling for sex, etc. The number of possible groupings grows exponentially with the number of features.
=== Hypothesis suggested by non-representative data ===
Suppose that a study of a random sample of people includes exactly two people with a birthday of August 7: Mary and John. Someone engaged in data dredging might try to find additional similarities between Mary and John. By going through hundreds or thousands of potential similarities between the two, each having a low probability of being true, an unusual similarity can almost certainly be found. Perhaps John and Mary are the only two people in the study who switched minors three times in college. A hypothesis, biased by data dredging, could then be "people born on August 7 have a much higher chance of switching minors more than twice in college."
The data itself taken out of context might be seen as strongly supporting that correlation, since no one with a different birthday had switched minors three times in college. However, if (as is likely) this is a spurious hypothesis, this result will most likely not be reproducible; any attempt to check if others with an August 7 birthday have a similar rate of changing minors will most likely get contradictory results almost immediately.
=== Systematic bias ===
Bias is a systematic error in the analysis. For example, doctors directed HIV patients at high cardiovascular risk to a particular HIV treatment, abacavir, and lower-risk patients to other drugs, preventing a simple assessment of abacavir compared to other treatments. An analysis that did not correct for this bias unfairly penalized abacavir, since its patients were more high-risk so more of them had heart attacks. This problem can be very severe, for example, in the observational study.
Missing factors, unmeasured confounders, and loss to follow-up can also lead to bias. By selecting papers with significant p-values, negative studies are selected against, which is publication bias. This is also known as file drawer bias, because less significant p-value results are left in the file drawer and never published.
=== Multiple modelling ===
Another aspect of the conditioning of statistical tests by knowledge of the data can be seen while using the system or machine analysis and linear regression to observe the frequency of data. A crucial step in the process is to decide which covariates to include in a relationship explaining one or more other variables. There are both statistical (see stepwise regression) and substantive considerations that lead the authors to favor some of their models over others, and there is a liberal use of statistical tests. However, to discard one or more variables from an explanatory relation on the basis of the data means one cannot validly apply standard statistical procedures to the retained variables in the relation as though nothing had happened. In the nature of the case, the retained variables have had to pass some kind of preliminary test (possibly an imprecise intuitive one) that the discarded variables failed. In 1966, Selvin and Stuart compared variables retained in the model to the fish that don't fall through the net—in the sense that their effects are bound to be bigger than those that do fall through the net. Not only does this alter the performance of all subsequent tests on the retained explanatory model, but it may also introduce bias and alter mean square error in estimation.
== Examples ==
=== In meteorology and epidemiology ===
In meteorology, hypotheses are often formulated using weather data up to the present and tested against future weather data, which ensures that, even subconsciously, future data could not influence the formulation of the hypothesis. Of course, such a discipline necessitates waiting for new data to come in, to show the formulated theory's predictive power versus the null hypothesis. This process ensures that no one can accuse the researcher of hand-tailoring the predictive model to the data on hand, since the upcoming weather is not yet available.
As another example, suppose that observers note that a particular town appears to have a cancer cluster, but lack a firm hypothesis of why this is so. However, they have access to a large amount of demographic data about the town and surrounding area, containing measurements for the area of hundreds or thousands of different variables, mostly uncorrelated. Even if all these variables are independent of the cancer incidence rate, it is highly likely that at least one variable correlates significantly with the cancer rate across the area. While this may suggest a hypothesis, further testing using the same variables but with data from a different location is needed to confirm. Note that a p-value of 0.01 suggests that 1% of the time a result at least that extreme would be obtained by chance; if hundreds or thousands of hypotheses (with mutually relatively uncorrelated independent variables) are tested, then one is likely to obtain a p-value less than 0.01 for many null hypotheses.

41
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging-2.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
---
title: "Data dredging"
chunk: 3/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:00.034910+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
== Appearance in media ==
One example is the chocolate weight loss hoax study conducted by journalist John Bohannon, who explained publicly in a Gizmodo article that the study was deliberately conducted fraudulently as a social experiment. This study was widespread in many media outlets around 2015, with many people believing the claim that eating a chocolate bar every day would cause them to lose weight, against their better judgement. This study was published in the Institute of Diet and Health. According to Bohannon, to reduce the p-value to below 0.05, taking 18 different variables into consideration when testing was crucial.
== Remedies ==
While looking for patterns in data is legitimate, applying a statistical test of significance or hypothesis test to the same data until a pattern emerges is prone to abuse. One way to construct hypotheses while avoiding data dredging is to conduct randomized out-of-sample tests. The researcher collects a data set, then randomly partitions it into two subsets, A and B. Only one subset—say, subset A—is examined for creating hypotheses. Once a hypothesis is formulated, it must be tested on subset B, which was not used to construct the hypothesis. Only where B also supports such a hypothesis is it reasonable to believe the hypothesis might be valid. (This is a simple type of cross-validation and is often termed training-test or split-half validation.)
Another remedy for data dredging is to record the number of all significance tests conducted during the study and simply divide one's criterion for significance (alpha) by this number; this is the Bonferroni correction. However, this is a very conservative metric. A family-wise alpha of 0.05, divided in this way by 1,000 to account for 1,000 significance tests, yields a very stringent per-hypothesis alpha of 0.00005. Methods particularly useful in analysis of variance, and in constructing simultaneous confidence bands for regressions involving basis functions are Scheffé's method and, if the researcher has in mind only pairwise comparisons, the Tukey method. To avoid the extreme conservativeness of the Bonferroni correction, more sophisticated selective inference methods are available. The most common selective inference method is the use of Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate controlling procedure: it is a less conservative approach that has become a popular method for control of multiple hypothesis tests.
When neither approach is practical, one can make a clear distinction between data analyses that are confirmatory and analyses that are exploratory. Statistical inference is appropriate only for the former.
Ultimately, the statistical significance of a test and the statistical confidence of a finding are joint properties of data and the method used to examine the data. Thus, if someone says that a certain event has probability of 20% ± 2% 19 times out of 20, this means that if the probability of the event is estimated by the same method used to obtain the 20% estimate, the result is between 18% and 22% with probability 0.95. No claim of statistical significance can be made by only looking, without due regard to the method used to assess the data.
Academic journals increasingly shift to the registered report format, which aims to counteract very serious issues such as data dredging and HARKing, which have made theory-testing research very unreliable. For example, Nature Human Behaviour has adopted the registered report format, as it "shift[s] the emphasis from the results of research to the questions that guide the research and the methods used to answer them". The European Journal of Personality defines this format as follows: "In a registered report, authors create a study proposal that includes theoretical and empirical background, research questions/hypotheses, and pilot data (if available). Upon submission, this proposal will then be reviewed prior to data collection, and if accepted, the paper resulting from this peer-reviewed procedure will be published, regardless of the study outcomes."
Methods and results can also be made publicly available, as in the open science approach, making it yet more difficult for data dredging to take place.
== See also ==
== Notes ==
== References ==
== Further reading ==
Graham Elliott, Nikolay Kudrin, Kaspar Wüthrich. 2025. "The Power of Tests for Detecting p-Hacking." The Review of Economics and Statistics.
Ioannidis, John P.A. (August 30, 2005). "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". PLOS Medicine. 2 (8) e124. San Francisco: Public Library of Science. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. ISSN 1549-1277. PMC 1182327. PMID 16060722.
Head, Megan L.; Holman, Luke; Lanfear, Rob; Kahn, Andrew T.; Jennions, Michael D. (13 March 2015). "The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science". PLOS Biology. 13 (3) e1002106. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106. PMC 4359000. PMID 25768323.
Insel, Thomas (November 14, 2014). "P-Hacking". NIMH Director's Blog. Archived from the original on December 15, 2016.
Smith, Gary (2016). Standard Deviations: Flawed Assumptions, Tortured Data, and Other Ways to Lie with Statistics. Gerald Duckworth & Co. ISBN 978-0-7156-4974-9.
Stefan, Angelika M.; Schönbrodt, Felix D. (February 1, 2023). "Big little lies: a compendium and simulation of p-hacking strategies". Royal Society Open Science. 10 (2) 220346. Bibcode:2023RSOS...1020346S. doi:10.1098/rsos.220346. PMC 9905987. PMID 36778954.
== External links ==
A bibliography on data-snooping bias
Spurious Correlations, a gallery of examples of implausible correlations
StatQuest: P-value pitfalls and power calculations on YouTube
Video explaining p-hacking by "Neuroskeptic", a blogger at Discover Magazine
Step Away From Stepwise, an article in the Journal of Big Data criticizing stepwise regression

37
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_fabrication-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
---
title: "Data fabrication"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_fabrication"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:01.264404+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
In scientific inquiry and academic research, data fabrication is the intentional misrepresentation of research results. As with other forms of scientific misconduct, it is the intent to deceive that marks fabrication as unethical, and thus different from scientists deceiving themselves. There are many ways data can be fabricated. Experimental data can be fabricated by reporting experiments that were never conducted, and accurate data can be manipulated or misrepresented to suit a desired outcome. One of the biggest problems with this form of scientific fraud is that "university investigations into research misconduct are often inadequate, opaque and poorly conducted. They challenge the idea that institutions can police themselves on research integrity."
Sometimes intentional fabrication can be difficult to distinguish from unintentional academic incompetence or malpractice. Examples of this include the failure to account for measurement error, or the failure to adequately control experiments for any parameters being measured.
Fabrication can also occur in the context of undergraduate or graduate studies wherein a student fabricates a laboratory or homework assignment. Such cheating, when discovered, is usually handled within the institution, and does not become a scandal within the larger academic community (as cheating by students seldom has any academic significance).
== Consequences ==
A finding that a scientist engaged in fabrication will often mean the end to their career as a researcher. Scientific misconduct is grounds for dismissal of tenured faculty, as well as for forfeiture of research grants. Given the tight-knit nature of many academic communities, and the high stakes involved, researchers who are found to have committed fabrication are often effectively (and permanently) blacklisted from the profession, with reputable research organizations and universities refusing to hire them; funding sources refusing to sponsor them or their work, and journals refusing to consider any of their articles for publication. In some cases, however, especially if the researcher is senior and well-established, the academic community can close ranks to prevent injury to the scientist's career.
Fabricators may also have previously earned academic credentials removed. Two cases:
In 2004, Jan Hendrik Schön was stripped of his doctorate degree by the University of Konstanz after a committee formed by Bell Labs found him guilty of fabrication related to research done during his employment there. This action was undertaken even though Schön was not accused (in the matter in question) of any fabrication or other misconduct relating to his work which led to or supported the degree—the doctorate was revoked, according to University officials, solely due to Schön behaving "unworthily" in the Bell Labs affair.
In 2001, peer reviewers at the academic journal Nutrition raised suspicions about a publication draft submitted by Dr. Ranjit Chandra, a world-renowned Canadian nutrition researcher at Memorial University of Newfoundland. It was confirmed through investigation that Dr. Chandra had published the results of a series of studies, stretching over more than a decade, which reported claims based on incorrectly represented analysis of, in some cases, non-existent data. By that time, Dr. Chandra had already been invited to the Order of Canada, which was subsequently revoked in 2015. Dr. Chandra retired in 2002, and Memorial University established the Marilyn Harvey Award to Recognize the Importance of Research Ethics in honour of the nurse researcher who first raised the alarm about Dr. Chandra's findings in the early 1990s.
Not all alleged fraud is found to be so, and debates are part of the scientific community. An interesting case is the accusation against Dr. Margaret Mead, a world-renowned anthropologist who published field work conducted early in her life, which proclaimed that Samoan culture was more relaxed and harmonious about sexual relations and mores. Her truthfulness and research process were roundly criticized by a later researcher in Samoa, Dr. Derek Freeman. More recently, Dr. Freeman's own research quality has come under scrutiny, with a hint that perhaps his own views on sexuality and his research with Elders in Samoa led him to reject Dr. Mead's findings. Dr. Freeman's allegations harmed Dr. Mead's reputation at a time when few women were scientists
== See also ==
Cyril Burt
Junk science
Research Integrity Risk Index
Research paper mill
Retraction
== References ==
== Further reading ==
Lewis-Kraus, Gideon, "Big Little Lies: Dan Ariely and Francesca Gino got famous studying dishonesty. Did they fabricate some of their work?", The New Yorker, 9 October 2023, pp. 40-53.

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing-0.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:48:58.925081+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:02.473355+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing-1.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:48:58.925081+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:02.473355+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

58
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_V._M._Bishop-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
---
title: "Dorothy V. M. Bishop"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_V._M._Bishop"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:52.728788+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Dorothy Vera Margaret Bishop (born 14 February 1952) is a British psychologist specialising in developmental disorders specifically, developmental language impairments. She is Emeritus Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology at the University of Oxford, where she worked from 1998 until her retirement in 2022. She is an honorary fellow of St John's College, Oxford.
== Early life and education ==
Bishop was born in Ilford, East London, on 14 February 1952. In 1973, she earned a Bachelor of Arts degree with Honours in Experimental Psychology from St Hugh's College, Oxford. In 1975, she completed her Master of Philosophy in Clinical Psychology at the University of London. In 1978, Bishop completed her Doctor of Philosophy at University of Oxford.
While studying for her undergraduate degree, Bishop developed an interest in cognitive disorders. After her MPhil, she returned to Oxford to work with Freda Newcombe at the Neuropsychology Unit in Radcliffe Infirmary. Newcombe steered Bishop towards cases of children with developmental language disorders and launched her career as a developmental neuropsychologist.
== Research and career ==
Bishop's research spanned Psychology, Neuroscience, Genetics, Language and Developmental Disorders.
She is one of the co-founders of the video-led campaign, RALLI ("Raising Awareness of Language Learning Impairments", now called RADLD), which aims to develop awareness of language learning impairments, including Specific language impairment.
Bishop has published some of her academic work as D.V.M. Bishop. This is to avoid any prejudices that may be held against her as a female academic.
Dorothy Bishop was Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology at the University of Oxford where, funded by the Wellcome Trust, she led a series of research of children's communication disorders. Her research has also been funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC). She retired in 2022.
=== Children's Communication Checklist ===
In 1998, Bishop created what she called the Children's Communication Checklist (CCC). The goal of the CCC was to help diagnose children who did not have an apparent reason for communication errors. The CCC specifically looked to identify pragmatic language and specific language impairments. The CCC allowed Bishop and other researchers to reliably identify language impairments but give clues to other potential disorders which may not have been apparent such as high functioning autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or Williams syndrome. A second, updated, edition of the CCC was released in 2001.
=== CATALISE ===
When Bishop began her studies of cognitive disorders, research into language development was relatively limited. Though more research has been conducted, there is not a cohesive framework of research for specialists to rely on when assessing and diagnosing children with language disorders. In 2016, Bishop began a multiple part Delphi project. In this particular project, Bishop was attempting to define a set criteria for identifying children who may need intervention through a multinational and multidiscipline study. In the first phase of this study, participation of 59 experts from fields such as education, speech-language therapy, and pediatrics from several countries including New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and United States of America provided a range of expertise and experience. The researchers submitted findings to a panel who agreed with an 80% consensus. In phase two of this project, similar parameters were followed to determine what terminology should be accepted in studies and treatment.
=== RADLD ===
Because of her intense study of children's language impairments, Bishop co-founded RADLD ("Raising Awareness of Developmental Language Disorder", formerly known as RALLI). RADLD is an international advocacy organisation, with a mission statement to "foster a substantial increase in international awareness of DLD". Its committee comprises members from the UK, USA, Canada, China and Australia. RADLD provides resources in over 20 languages, and has ambassadors in over 40 countries.
=== Awards and honours ===
Bishop was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 2014 for "substantial contributions to the improvement of natural knowledge". Her nomination read:
Dorothy Bishop is the leading researcher on developmental disorders affecting language and communication. Her work has been foundational for the genetics of developmental disorders: she has been a pioneer in the use of twin data to reveal genetic contributions to language disorders, using theoretically motivated measures to refine the heritable phenotype. She has devised measures that differentiate types of language impairment and are now indispensable for both research and clinical diagnosis. By comparing and contrasting dyslexia, specific language impairment and autism, Bishop has challenged views of these as discrete conditions, and illuminated what is shared and distinctive about each disorder.
On 25 November 2024, Bishop announced that she had resigned from the Royal Society because Elon Musk was also a member, and she no longer wanted to share this affiliation in view of his anti-scientific statements.
Bishop is also a Fellow of the British Academy (FBA) and a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences (FMedSci). She has honorary degrees from Lund University, the University of Western Australia and Newcastle University.
Since 2022, the UK Reproducibility Information Network has hosted the annual "Dorothy Bishop Award", to recognise and reward the achievements of early career researchers based in the UK who are improving research and open research practices. The award includes a small financial contribution and also what they call a "Doscar", which is a Lego minifigure of Dorothy Bishop.
== Personal life ==
Bishop married fellow psychologist Patrick Rabbitt in 1976. As "Deevy Bishop", Bishop has written several humorous crime novels for Amazon Kindle.
== Links ==
Her academic ORCID: 0000-0002-2448-4033
Her blog, BishopBlog, received the runner up recognition for the Good Thinking Society: UK Science Blog Prize 2012.
== References ==
This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

43
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EASE_Guidelines_for_Authors_and_Translators_of_Scientific_Articles-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
---
title: "EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EASE_Guidelines_for_Authors_and_Translators_of_Scientific_Articles"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:28:03.735343+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English (often shortened to EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators or EASE Guidelines) were first published by the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) in 2010. Updated versions are periodically released at the EASE Guidelines page of the EASE website. EASE Guidelines summarize the most important editorial recommendations, aiming to make international scientific communication more efficient and to aid in preventing scientific misconduct. They also support the global initiative Healthcare Information For All by 2015 by advising authors to make abstracts of their papers highly informative, reliable, and easily understandable. The document has been translated into many languages to facilitate its popularization worldwide and help scientists from non-Anglophone countries.
== History ==
EASE Guidelines are a result of long discussions on the electronic EASE Forum and during the 2009 EASE conference in Pisa, as well as subsequent consultations within the EASE Council.
== Contents ==
The document includes a succinct set of practical guidelines explaining how to write complete, concise and clear manuscripts. It is supplemented with a list for further reading as well as several short appendices (Abstracts; Ambiguity; Cohesion; Ethics; Plurals; Simplicity; Spelling; Text-tables) that present selected issues in greater detail or provide more examples.
EASE Guidelines emphasize the need for proper structuring of the article (e.g. making the tested hypothesis clear in the Introduction), making the abstract highly informative (including most important data and conclusions), and writing understandably, so that the readers are not discouraged or confused. Ethical issues are also taken into account, e.g. authorship criteria, plagiarism, redundant publications, and other types of scientific misconduct. The 2013 edition of the publication ethics checklist was presented at the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity in Montreal in May 2013. It can be used routinely during submission, as one short form instead of many separate forms to be filled by authors.
== Perspectives ==
The EASE Council plans to add more appendices on specific subjects and more translations (made mostly by volunteers), as well as to review EASE Guidelines annually.
Non-commercial printing of the document is allowed, so it can be used as a handout, e.g. for courses in scientific writing and publication ethics.
== See also ==
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Conflicts of interest in academic publishing
European Association of Science Editors
International Council for Science (ICSU)
IMRAD
Scientific misconduct
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals
United States Office of Research Integrity
== References ==
== External links ==
http://www.ease.org.uk Archived 2010-11-24 at the Wayback Machine