But as the group’s influence grew, more of its members were supported by the sports federations to which the group was supposed to advise. These relationships have led critics to question whether the group can really provide a rigorous and unbiased explanation for head injury research.
said David Michaels, former assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and author of “The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception.” “This does not mean that they are deliberately hiding the truth. But we know that financial self-interest blinds them to what is out there.”
Accusations of plagiarism have called McCrory’s credibility into question.
The first accusation of plagiarism against McCrory was due to an op-ed he wrote in 2005 for the British Journal of Sports Medicine, which he edited at the time. But Steve Hack, a professor of mathematical engineering in Sheffield, England, notes that about half of the piece has been lifted from Article posted by Hacky Five years ago in the world of physics.
This post has not pursued this issue. Last year, Hack raised the issue with the British Journal of Sports Medicine, which eight months later, on February 28, slashed a microroy piece due to “unlawful and unjustified infringement of copyright”.
Hack was not satisfied.
“I would like there to be some punishment for such blatant plagiarism, as it is for the students,” Haake Books On the Retraction Watch website. “If anyone can ever steal our words and get away with it, what’s the point?”
McCrory did not respond to a request for comment, but told Retraction Watch that the case of plagiarism It was “isolated”. By then, Nick Brown, a doctor who runs a popular blog documenting flaws, had discovered in published research 2 more cards McCrory published in the potentially plagiarized British newspaper. McCrory said that in one of them, a draft article was uploaded prematurely and that he had asked the magazine to withdraw the article. In the other case, he said the typesetting did not include the necessary quotation marks.
“In both cases, the errors were not intentional or intentional but nonetheless required correction because what was posted is plagiarism,” McCrory told Retraction Watch. “Once again I apologize for my mistake.”
“Total coffee junkie. Tv ninja. Unapologetic problem solver. Beer expert.”