| Title |
Incarceration, Restitution, and Lifetime Debarment: Legal Consequences of Scientific Misconduct in the Eric Poehlman Case
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-010-9228-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Samuel J. Tilden |
| Abstract |
Following its determination of a finding of scientific misconduct the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) will seek redress for any injury sustained. Several remedies both administrative and statutory may be available depending on the strength of the evidentiary findings of the misconduct investigation. Pursuant to federal regulations administrative remedies are primarily remedial in nature and designed to protect the integrity of the affected research program, whereas statutory remedies including civil fines and criminal penalties are designed to deter and punish wrongdoers. This commentary discusses the available administrative and statutory remedies in the context of a specific case, that of former University of Vermont nutrition researcher Eric Poehlman, and supplies a possible rationale for the legal result. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 200% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Italy | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 14 | 82% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 24% |
| Professor | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 12% |
| Librarian | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2012.
All research outputs
#19,440,618
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#835
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,353
of 98,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 98,401 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.