159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11788015)
1. Scientific misconduct.
Klotz LH
Can J Urol; 2001 Dec; 8(6):1392. PubMed ID: 11788015
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The peer-review process in medical publishing: a reviewer's perspective.
Sellke FW
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2003 Dec; 126(6):1683-5. PubMed ID: 14688671
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Scientific misconduct. Bell Labs fires star physicist found guilty of forging data.
Service RF
Science; 2002 Oct; 298(5591):30-1. PubMed ID: 12364753
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Next steps in the Schön affair.
Kennedy D
Science; 2002 Oct; 298(5593):495. PubMed ID: 12386303
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Quality of the scientific literature: all that glitters is not gold.
Diamandis EP
Clin Biochem; 2006 Dec; 39(12):1109-11. PubMed ID: 17052701
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Ethical issues related to publishing and reviewing.
Morgan GA; Harmon RJ; Gliner JA
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry; 2001 Dec; 40(12):1476-8. PubMed ID: 11765295
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Journals under pressure: publish, and be damned.
Adam D; Knight J
Nature; 2002 Oct; 419(6909):772-6. PubMed ID: 12397323
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Standards for papers on cloning.
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):243. PubMed ID: 16421524
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Journals should set a new standard in transparency.
Dellavalle RP; Lundahl K; Freeman SR; Schilling LM
Nature; 2007 Jan; 445(7126):364. PubMed ID: 17251958
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Fraud: anonymous 'stars' would not dazzle reviewers.
Bauch H
Nature; 2006 Mar; 440(7083):408. PubMed ID: 16554778
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Peer review: phony data, shoddy work or revolutionary results? "Truth will out".
Friedman JH
Med Health R I; 2000 Jul; 83(7):198. PubMed ID: 10934817
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Peer-reviewed publication: a view from inside.
Fisher RS; Powers LE
Epilepsia; 2004 Aug; 45(8):889-94. PubMed ID: 15270753
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Fraudulent and redundant publication.
Bulstrode C; Fulford P
J Bone Joint Surg Br; 1995 Nov; 77(6):845-6. PubMed ID: 7593092
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Retractions' realities.
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6927):1. PubMed ID: 12621394
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Publication ethics.
Hays JC
Public Health Nurs; 2009; 26(3):205-6. PubMed ID: 19386055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Standards for ethical publication.
Johnson JT; Niparko JK; Levine PA; Kennedy DW; Rudy SF; Weber P; Weber RS; Benninger MS; Rosenfeld RM; Ruben RJ; Smith RJ; Sataloff RT; Weir N
Am J Otolaryngol; 2007; 28(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 17162121
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Penalties plus high-quality review to fight plagiarism.
Wittmaack K
Nature; 2005 Jul; 436(7047):24. PubMed ID: 16001039
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. More questions about research misconduct.
Kennedy D
Science; 2002 Jul; 297(5578):13. PubMed ID: 12098673
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Conflict of interest.
Müller A
Nature; 1993 Jan; 361(6409):199. PubMed ID: 8461066
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Reflections on scientific fraud.
Nature; 2002 Oct; 419(6906):417. PubMed ID: 12368816
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
