357 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16144093)
1. 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]
2. More gold and more fleece: improving the legal sanctions against medical research fraud.
O'Reilly JT
Adm Law Rev; 1990; 42(3):393-422. PubMed ID: 15991411
[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. Using criminalization and due process to reduce scientific misconduct.
Sovacool BK
Am J Bioeth; 2005; 5(5):W1-7. PubMed ID: 16179287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. "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]
10. Beautification and fraud.
Nat Cell Biol; 2006 Feb; 8(2):101-2. PubMed ID: 16450003
[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. Biomedical research and insider trading.
Ferguson JR
N Engl J Med; 1997 Aug; 337(9):631-4. PubMed ID: 9271488
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Fellow scientists begin to get suspicious about data.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 2001 Oct; 16(10):6-7. PubMed ID: 11833573
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Both accused researchers and whistle-blowers stay anonymous when no misconduct is found.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 2005 Jul; 20(7):8. PubMed ID: 16270443
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Researcher sues government and specific agency official over misconduct investigation.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 2001 Feb; 16(2):9. PubMed ID: 12530382
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. An unwelcome discovery. Walter DeNino was a young lab technician who analyzed data for his mentor, Eric Poehlman. What he found was that Poehlman was not the scientist he appeared to be.
Interlandi J
N Y Times Mag; 2006 Oct; ():98-103. PubMed ID: 17115505
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Sitting in judgement.
Check E
Nature; 2002 Sep; 419(6905):332-3. PubMed ID: 12353003
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Scientific misconduct: undue process.
Efron R
Account Res; 1993; 3(2-3):223-38. PubMed ID: 11652297
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
