Stanford University is looking at possible research misconduct involving papers co-authored by its president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne.
Cell
paper to the journal in 2015, but its editors found no correction was necessary, Stanford spokesperson Dee Mostofi told the“Scientific integrity is of the utmost importance both to the university and to me personally,” Tessier-Lavigne said in Stanford’s statement. “I support this process and will fully cooperate with it.” He did not immediately respond to an email fromfamily of journals, said Tessier-Lavigne submitted corrections to bothnever posted them.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne under fire for errors in four scientific papers - Silicon Valley Business JournalQuestions about the content in several scientific research papers involving Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne go back years, according to a story in The Stanford Daily.
Read more »
Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne under fire for errors in four scientific papers - Silicon Valley Business JournalQuestions about the content in several scientific research papers involving Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne go back years, according to a story in The Stanford Daily.
Read more »
Stanford Football: Stanford Football Head Coaching Hot Board: Nov. 30th
Read more »
Pandemic stress prematurely aged teens’ brains, Stanford study findsBrain aging seen in study of Bay Area kids likened to that in children who suffered violence or neglect.
Read more »
Photos: Hannah Jump’s 19 points lead No. 2 Stanford by Santa ClaraHannah Jump scored 19 points with four 3-pointers, Kiki Iriafen added 16 points, and No. 2 Stanford beat Bay Area neighbor Santa Clara 82-69.Fran Belibi contributed 12 points and eight rebounds off…
Read more »
Report: Stanford University president’s research under fire for potential scientific misconductResearcher tells student newspaper that some of the papers had “a lot of visible errors” and “some duplications are suggestive (of) an intention to mislead.”
Read more »