110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20724607)
21. Scientific misconduct. Japan's universities take action.
Normile D
Science; 2007 Jan; 315(5808):26. PubMed ID: 17204614
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Retraction notice.
Shafer SL
Anesth Analg; 2009 Apr; 108(4):1351. PubMed ID: 19299814
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. [Plagiarism is the emerged part of scientific misconduct].
Maisonneuve H
Ann Fr Anesth Reanim; 2013 Jan; 32(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 23246179
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Paolo Macchiarini is not guilty of scientific misconduct.
Lancet; 2015 Sep; 386(9997):932. PubMed ID: 26369448
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. [Universities against scientific misconduct].
Benestad HB
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2007 Feb; 127(3):322. PubMed ID: 17279120
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Journals question integrity of almost 200 papers by Japanese anaesthetist.
Torjesen I
BMJ; 2012 Apr; 344():e2490. PubMed ID: 22474308
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Foibles and peccadillos in the research environment.
Elwood TW
J Allied Health; 2012; 41(4):147. PubMed ID: 23224279
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Retraction rates are on the rise.
Cokol M; Ozbay F; Rodriguez-Esteban R
EMBO Rep; 2008 Jan; 9(1):2. PubMed ID: 18174889
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Can we trust your data?
Moore S
Oncol Nurs Forum; 2011 Nov; 38(6):615. PubMed ID: 22037323
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Investigation into data fraud results in heart researcher's dismissal.
Dyer O
BMJ; 2011 Sep; 343():d6208. PubMed ID: 21952465
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. On the scientific misconduct: a letter from Russia.
Jargin S
Einstein (Sao Paulo); 2013; 11(1):135. PubMed ID: 23579761
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Correcting the scientific record.
Nat Chem Biol; 2008 Jul; 4(7):381. PubMed ID: 18560424
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Prominent Canadian researcher loses libel case against documentary makers.
Dyer O
BMJ; 2015 Jul; 351():h4129. PubMed ID: 26228946
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Universite de Montréal in the dark about fraud.
Kondro W
CMAJ; 2005 May; 172(10):1278. PubMed ID: 15883394
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. [The case "Scott Reuben"].
Pogatzki-Zahn EM; Strumpf M; Treede RD
Schmerz; 2009 Jun; 23(3):229-30. PubMed ID: 19449038
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. NIH scientists retract published report.
Marwick C
JAMA; 1992 Aug; 268(7):848, 851. PubMed ID: 1640595
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. The Scott Reuben saga: one last retraction.
White PF; Rosow CE; Shafer SL;
Anesth Analg; 2011 Mar; 112(3):512-5. PubMed ID: 21350225
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Managing research misconduct: is anyone getting it right?
Tavare A
BMJ; 2011 Dec; 343():d8212. PubMed ID: 22207043
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Scientific community. Targets of misconduct probe launch a legal counterattack.
Servick K
Science; 2015 Jan; 347(6217):13. PubMed ID: 25554768
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Fraud, not error, is why two thirds of biomedical papers are withdrawn.
Roehr B
BMJ; 2012 Oct; 345():e6658. PubMed ID: 23033379
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
