184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15668655)
21. Research ethics.
Shahan JB; Kelen GD
Emerg Med Clin North Am; 2006 Aug; 24(3):657-69. PubMed ID: 16877135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Publish or be damned.
Vines G
New Sci; 1997 Sep; 155(2099):53. PubMed ID: 16127834
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Texas cancer fund seeks fresh start.
Baker M
Nature; 2012 Oct; 490(7421):459-60. PubMed ID: 23099380
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Module six: special issues.
Schneider B; Schüklenk U
Dev World Bioeth; 2005 Mar; 5(1):92-108. PubMed ID: 15748180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Passing the headline test.
Reider B
Am J Sports Med; 2007 Nov; 35(11):1807-8. PubMed ID: 17954929
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. In the dark: drug companies should be forced to publish all the results of clinical trials.
Chalmers I
New Sci; 2004 Mar 6-12; 181(2437):19. PubMed ID: 15139350
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Survey of conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of ophthalmology journals.
Anraku A; Jin YP; Trope GE; Buys YM
Ophthalmology; 2009 Jun; 116(6):1093-6. PubMed ID: 19376583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. What authors need to know about the way editors think: report from the congress on peer review in biomedical publication.
Neale AV
Fam Med; 2002 Feb; 34(2):138-9. PubMed ID: 11874024
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Merchants of mayhem.
Nelson B
Cancer Cytopathol; 2016 May; 124(5):301-2. PubMed ID: 27176736
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Modern Healthcare rules. Our editorial code of ethics guides our coverage of the industry.
Burda D
Mod Healthc; 2005 Oct; 35(44):18. PubMed ID: 16300208
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection.
Gallo SA; Lemaster M; Glisson SR
Sci Eng Ethics; 2016 Feb; 22(1):189-97. PubMed ID: 25649072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Ethics and stem cell therapeutics for cardiovascular disease.
Sugarman J
Prog Cardiovasc Dis; 2007; 50(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 17631433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Peer review: the best of the blemished?
Alpert JS
Am J Med; 2007 Apr; 120(4):287-8. PubMed ID: 17398217
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. [Ghostwriting].
Haug C
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2008 May; 128(9):1039. PubMed ID: 18451881
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Commentary on Long T, Fallon, D (2007) Ethics approval, guarantees of quality and the meddlesome editor. Journal of Clinical Nursing 16, 1398-1404.
Watson R
J Clin Nurs; 2008 Jun; 17(11):1534-5. PubMed ID: 18482151
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. The corporate coauthor.
Fugh-Berman A
J Gen Intern Med; 2005 Jun; 20(6):546-8. PubMed ID: 15987332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Commentary: publishing cancer clinical trial results: a scientific and ethical imperative.
Doroshow JH
Oncologist; 2008 Sep; 13(9):930-2. PubMed ID: 18794215
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Statement of principles for health care journalists.
Schwitzer G
PLoS Med; 2005 Mar; 2(3):e84. PubMed ID: 15783266
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Reports of clinical trials: ethical aspects.
Sade RM
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2006 Aug; 132(2):245-6. PubMed ID: 16872943
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Conflicts of interest and scientific integrity.
Friedman L; Richter ED
Int J Occup Environ Health; 2005; 11(2):205-6. PubMed ID: 15875898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
