543 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16452946)
21. Standards for papers on cloning.
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):243. PubMed ID: 16421524
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Fraud offers big rewards for relatively little risk.
Fenning TM
Nature; 2004 Jan; 427(6973):393. PubMed ID: 14749800
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Impact factors aren't top journals' sole attraction.
Törnqvist TE
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774096
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Citation rate unrelated to journals' impact factors.
Waheed AA
Nature; 2003 Dec; 426(6966):495. PubMed ID: 14654813
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Reviewers peering from under a pile of 'omics' data.
Nicholson JK
Nature; 2006 Apr; 440(7087):992. PubMed ID: 16625173
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Complacency about misconduct.
Nature; 2004 Jan; 427(6969):1. PubMed ID: 14702049
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
van Loon AJ
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. The 'self-plagiarism' oxymoron: can one steal from oneself?
Chrousos GP; Kalantaridou SN; Margioris AN; Gravanis A
Eur J Clin Invest; 2012 Mar; 42(3):231-2. PubMed ID: 22268677
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. A simple system of checks and balances to cut fraud.
Yang X; Eggan K; Seidel G; Jaenisch R; Melton D
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482128
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Japan ponders steps to probe data errors.
Cyranoski D
Nature; 2002 Nov; 420(6914):348. PubMed ID: 12459746
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Peer review and fraud.
Nature; 2006 Dec; 444(7122):971-2. PubMed ID: 17183274
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Retractions' realities.
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6927):1. PubMed ID: 12621394
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. A case of plagiarism: lessons for editors, authors, reviewers, readers, and plagiarists.
Alspach JG
Crit Care Nurse; 2014 Oct; 34(5):12-6. PubMed ID: 25274760
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Impact factors: target the funding bodies.
Insall R
Nature; 2003 Jun; 423(6940):585. PubMed ID: 12789312
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Bad peer reviewers.
Nature; 2001 Sep; 413(6852):93. PubMed ID: 11557930
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Scientific misconduct, stem cells, and the way ahead.
Lindblad WJ
Wound Repair Regen; 2006; 14(2):101. PubMed ID: 16630096
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?
Steen RG
J Med Ethics; 2011 Apr; 37(4):249-53. PubMed ID: 21186208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Clamp down on copycats.
Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7064):2. PubMed ID: 16267511
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Reflections on scientific fraud.
Nature; 2002 Oct; 419(6906):417. PubMed ID: 12368816
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
