248 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11644383)
1. The process of publication.
Koshland DE
Science; 1989 Aug; 245(4918):573. PubMed ID: 11644383
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Allocating credit and blame in science.
Chubin DE
Sci Technol Human Values; 1988; 13(1-2):53-63. PubMed ID: 11650139
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. New censors in the academy: two approaches to curb their influences.
Davis RD
Sci Technol Human Values; 1988; 13(1-2):64-74. PubMed ID: 11650140
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. How far do you trust your colleagues?
Neufeld A
New Sci; 1987 Jan; 113(1543):59. PubMed ID: 11655810
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Science's faulty fraud detectors.
Broad WJ; Wade N
Psychol Today; 1982 Nov; 16(11):51-54, 57. PubMed ID: 11649505
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. What do we know about fraud and other forms of intellectual dishonesty in science? Part 2: why does fraud happen and what are its effects?
Garfield E
Curr Contents Clin Med; 1987 Apr; 15(15):3-10. PubMed ID: 11649943
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Cheating in science and publishing.
Altman LK
CBE Views; 1981; 4(4):19-25. PubMed ID: 11649550
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Procedures for Responding to Charges of Unethical Research Practices, Revised March 1985 Report of the Faculty Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate Research Fraud, 30 September 1986.
University of California, San Diego. School of Medicine
Minerva; 1987; 25(4):502-12. PubMed ID: 11650156
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The persistence of fraud in the literature: the Darsee case.
Kochan CA; Budd JM
J Am Soc Inf Sci; 1992 Aug; 43(7):488-93. PubMed ID: 11653988
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: scientific misconduct or necessity?
Jefferson T
Sci Eng Ethics; 1998 Apr; 4(2):135-40. PubMed ID: 11657769
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Deceit in science: does it really matter?
Birch AJ
Interdiscip Sci Rev; 1990 Dec; 15(4):334-43. PubMed ID: 11651223
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Research fraud, misconduct, and the IRB.
Hilgartner S
IRB; 1990; 12(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 11651971
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Many journals have not retracted "fraudulent" research.
Cooper-Mahkorn D
BMJ; 1998 Jun; 316(7148):1850. PubMed ID: 11645074
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Fraud in science: a plea for a new culture in research.
Müller MJ; Landsberg B; Ried J
Int J Obes (Lond); 2014 Apr; 38(4):572-6. PubMed ID: 24709671
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. On the hazards of whistleblowers and on some problems of young biomedical scientists in our time.
Edsall JT
Sci Eng Ethics; 1995 Oct; 1(4):329-40. PubMed ID: 11657783
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Misconduct in science is not rare, a survey finds.
Hilts PJ
N Y Times Web; 1993 Nov; ():A22. PubMed ID: 11647007
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Fraud in biomedical science.
Satyanarayana K
Natl Med J India; 1992; 5(3):134-6. PubMed ID: 1304290
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Science, journalism, and whistle-blowing.
Koshland DE
Science; 1988 Apr; 240(4852):585. PubMed ID: 11644303
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. When good scientists turn bad.
Roman MB
Discover; 1988 Apr; 9(4):50-55, 57-58. PubMed ID: 11653808
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
