117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10206895)
1. Plant science. Data in key papers cannot be reproduced.
Balter M
Science; 1999 Mar; 283(5410):1987, 1989. PubMed ID: 10206895
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Scientific publishing. Retracted papers spur million-dollar lawsuit.
Travis J
Science; 2005 Oct; 310(5747):425. PubMed ID: 16239453
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Scientific misconduct. Misconduct by postdocs leads to retraction of papers.
Miller G
Science; 2010 Sep; 329(5999):1583. PubMed ID: 20929816
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Scientific misconduct. Even retracted papers endure.
Unger K; Couzin J
Science; 2006 Apr; 312(5770):40-1. PubMed ID: 16601165
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Accurate science requires that we base our work on accurate publications.
Carney Almroth B; Jutfelt F; Bour A
Environ Pollut; 2020 Jun; 261():114238. PubMed ID: 32156432
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Publication rates after the first retraction for biomedical researchers with multiple retracted publications.
Mistry V; Grey A; Bolland MJ
Account Res; 2019 Jul; 26(5):277-287. PubMed ID: 31025884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Scientific misconduct. Cleaning up the paper trail.
Couzin J; Unger K
Science; 2006 Apr; 312(5770):38-43. PubMed ID: 16601164
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Scientific misconduct. Researcher faces prison for fraud in NIH grant applications and papers.
Kintisch E
Science; 2005 Mar; 307(5717):1851. PubMed ID: 15790813
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Don't dodge retraction of fraudulent papers.
DeCoursey TE
Nature; 2022 Oct; 610(7930):34. PubMed ID: 36195664
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Scientific publishing. Hoax-detecting software spots fake papers.
Bohannon J
Science; 2015 Apr; 348(6230):18-9. PubMed ID: 25838360
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Retracted science and the retraction index.
Fang FC; Casadevall A
Infect Immun; 2011 Oct; 79(10):3855-9. PubMed ID: 21825063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Update to readers and authors on ethical and scientific misconduct: retraction of the "Boldt articles".
Miller DR
Can J Anaesth; 2011 Sep; 58(9):777-9, 779-81. PubMed ID: 21800211
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. On rejection, resilience, and retraction.
Lanzafame RJ
Photomed Laser Surg; 2013 Jan; 31(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 23234336
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Scientific misconduct and breach of publication ethics: one editor's experience.
Daroff RB
Med Law; 2007 Sep; 26(3):527-33. PubMed ID: 17970250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Dealing with charges of scientific misconduct.
Galyean M
J Anim Sci; 2008 May; 86(5):1035. PubMed ID: 18417753
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. An analysis of retractions of papers authored by Scott Reuben, Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii.
McHugh UM; Yentis SM
Anaesthesia; 2019 Jan; 74(1):17-21. PubMed ID: 30144024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 - a new record.
Van Noorden R
Nature; 2023 Dec; 624(7992):479-481. PubMed ID: 38087103
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Figure errors, sloppy science, and fraud: keeping eyes on your data.
Williams CL; Casadevall A; Jackson S
J Clin Invest; 2019 Mar; 129(5):1805-1807. PubMed ID: 30907748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. For the record.
Krimsky S
Nat Genet; 2002 Feb; 30(2):139-40. PubMed ID: 11818959
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Science publishing: The trouble with retractions.
Van Noorden R
Nature; 2011 Oct; 478(7367):26-8. PubMed ID: 21979026
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
