These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
71 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11090526)
1. Investigating allegations of research misconduct. It is time to learn the lessons from Stoke. Hall D BMJ; 2000 Nov; 321(7272):1346-7; author reply 1348-9. PubMed ID: 11090526 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Guidelines for investigation of allegations of dishonesty in research. University of Chicago. Committee on Honesty in Research Minerva; 1987; 25(3):358-61. PubMed ID: 11645797 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Is peer review in crisis? Mulligan A Oral Oncol; 2005 Feb; 41(2):135-41. PubMed ID: 15695114 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Readers' response to "so what is a sham peer review?". Gluckmann ET MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):83; author reply 82. PubMed ID: 16955549 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Readers' response to "so what is a sham peer review?". Kramer SN MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):83; author reply 82. PubMed ID: 16955548 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Readers' response to "so what is a sham peer review?". Blumsohn A MedGenMed; 2006 Mar; 8(1):83; author reply 82. PubMed ID: 16915213 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Readers' responses to the letter by Chalifoux and the editorial by Bond in regard to "sham peer review". Huntoon LR MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):34; author reply 33. PubMed ID: 16967526 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Readers' responses to the letter by Chalifoux and the editorial by Bond in regard to "sham peer review". McDonnell MF MedGenMed; 2006 Feb; 8(1):34; author reply 33. PubMed ID: 16915164 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Readers' responses to the letter by Chalifoux and the editorial by Bond in regard to "sham peer review". Majerus J MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):34; author reply 33. PubMed ID: 16967528 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Readers' responses to the letter by Chalifoux and the editorial by Bond in regard to "sham peer review". Wright J MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):34; author reply 33. PubMed ID: 16967527 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Investigating allegations of research misconduct. Nothing but the truth must emerge from these investigations. Mellor P BMJ; 2000 Nov; 321(7272):1347; author reply 1348-9. PubMed ID: 11090527 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes. Fox MF J Higher Educ; 1994; 65(3):298-309. PubMed ID: 11653366 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Institutional policies for responding to allegations of research fraud. Greene PJ; Durch JS; Horwitz W; Hooper VS IRB; 1986; 8(4):1-7. PubMed ID: 11653742 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Criminal liability for misconduct in scientific research. Kuzma SM Univ Mich J Law Reform; 1992; 25(2):357-421. PubMed ID: 11651584 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Investigating allegations of research misconduct. CNEP trial was greatly flawed. Henshall C; Henshall D BMJ; 2000 Nov; 321(7272):1345-6; author reply 1348-9. PubMed ID: 11090524 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Investigating allegations of research misconduct. Response to concerns raised by Mr. and Mrs. Henshall. Hey E BMJ; 2000 Nov; 321(7272):1348-9. PubMed ID: 11186441 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Investigating allegations of research misconduct. British association of perinatal medicine welcomes analysis of Griffiths report. Wilkinson A; Rennie J BMJ; 2000 Nov; 321(7272):1346; author reply 1348-9. PubMed ID: 11090525 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Cancer fraud case stuns research community, prompts reflection on peer review process. Vastag B J Natl Cancer Inst; 2006 Mar; 98(6):374-6. PubMed ID: 16537825 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Journal policy on ethics in scientific publication. Callaham ML Ann Emerg Med; 2003 Jan; 41(1):82-9. PubMed ID: 12514687 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]