195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16144092)
1. The Office of Scientific Integrity investigations: the importance of data analysis.
Price AA; Hallum JV
Account Res; 1992; 2(2):133-7. PubMed ID: 16144092
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Fraud in scientific research: the prosecutor's approach.
Willcox BL
Account Res; 1992; 2(2):139-51. PubMed ID: 16144093
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Due process in investigations of research misconduct.
Mello MM; Brennan TA
N Engl J Med; 2003 Sep; 349(13):1280-6. PubMed ID: 14507953
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. From Baltimore to Bell Labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct.
Resnik DB
Account Res; 2003; 10(2):123-35. PubMed ID: 14577424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Walters and Richards comment on the examination of terminal digits of questioned data as used by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the Public Health Service in misconduct cases.
Mosimann JE
IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag; 2002; 21(6):8-9; author reply 9-11. PubMed ID: 12613205
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Definitions and boundaries of research misconduct: perspectives from a federal government viewpoint.
Price AR
J Higher Educ; 1994; 65(3):286-97. PubMed ID: 11653365
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluating the oversight of scientific misconduct.
Redman BK; Merz JF
Account Res; 2005; 12(3):157-62. PubMed ID: 16634167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Salem comes to the National Institutes of Health: notes from inside the crucible of scientific integrity.
Needleman HL
Pediatrics; 1992 Dec; 90(6):977-81. PubMed ID: 1331947
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Policing fraud and deceit: the legal aspects of misconduct in scientific inquiry.
Protti M
J Infor Ethics; 1996; 5(1):59-71. PubMed ID: 11653390
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. "Thank God for the lawyers": some thoughts on the (mis)regulation of scientific misconduct.
Reynolds GH
Tenn Law Rev; 1999; 66(3):801-18. PubMed ID: 12625356
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 'Misconduct' dispute raises fears of litigation.
Dalton R
Nature; 1997 Jan; 385(6612):105. PubMed ID: 8990102
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Giving scientists their due. The Imanishi-Kari decision.
Dresser R
Hastings Cent Rep; 1997; 27(3):26-8. PubMed ID: 9219021
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. What to do about scientific misconduct.
Nature; 1994 May; 369(6478):261-2. PubMed ID: 8183349
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Regulation of scientific misconduct in federally funded research.
Steinberg NA
South Calif Interdiscip Law J; 2000; 10(1):39-105. PubMed ID: 12953675
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The role of federal regulations in assuring research integrity.
Friedman PJ
Account Res; 1993; 3(2-3):111-6. PubMed ID: 11652290
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The federal research misconduct regulations as viewed from the research universities.
Wright DE
Centen Rev; 1994; 38(2):249-72. PubMed ID: 11656759
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Scientific fraud and misconduct.
Klein DF
J Clin Psychopharmacol; 1991 Dec; 11(6):337-8. PubMed ID: 1663134
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. NIH misconduct procedures derailed.
Hamilton DP
Science; 1991 Jan; 251(4990):152-3. PubMed ID: 1846242
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Recent government decision refocuses attention on several cases of alleged scientific misconduct.
Marwick C
JAMA; 1993 Sep; 270(11):1286. PubMed ID: 8395607
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. An end to fraud?
Nature; 1993 Nov; 366(6451):95-6. PubMed ID: 8232562
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
