My second peer-reviewed publication, this time on Eysenck’s body of research, where we both look at how it evolved, and how central the articles deemed as “unsafe” by his own college, is to the rest of his work. We also note how he continually renewed the pool of scholars he worked with, possibly helping to rejuvenate his curiosity, and pulling him into every new research topics. We also note the devastating effect that conducting scientific fraud can have, both on results and on a persons reputation.
The draft we first submitted is available here:
Eysenck Final – presubmit For Sharing
