A reviewer adopts numerous points drawn from funding proposals which they have reviewed; the reviewer then writes their own manuscript, which is then published shortly after the review. The applicant recognises the content of the proposal in this publication and requests an investigation into the suspicion that the reviewer has appropriated the applicant\u2019s original material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The investigation confirms the applicant\u2019s suspicion.<\/p>\n\n\n
Scientific misconduct by a reviewer<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","kommentar_cats":[258],"kommentar_tags":[178,179,256],"class_list":["post-6212","kommentare","type-kommentare","status-publish","hentry","kommentar_cats-practical-examples","kommentar_tags-conflict-of-interest-bias-favouritism","kommentar_tags-review-process","kommentar_tags-scientific-misconduct"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n