166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23234336)
1. On rejection, resilience, and retraction.
Lanzafame RJ
Photomed Laser Surg; 2013 Jan; 31(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 23234336
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Scientific misconduct. Cleaning up the paper trail.
Couzin J; Unger K
Science; 2006 Apr; 312(5770):38-43. PubMed ID: 16601164
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Scientific misconduct. Even retracted papers endure.
Unger K; Couzin J
Science; 2006 Apr; 312(5770):40-1. PubMed ID: 16601165
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Author of retracted BMJ paper is ordered to pay $C1.6m to Canadian broadcaster.
White C
BMJ; 2015 Nov; 351():h6211. PubMed ID: 26577443
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Update to readers and authors on ethical and scientific misconduct: retraction of the "Boldt articles".
Miller DR
Can J Anaesth; 2011 Sep; 58(9):777-9, 779-81. PubMed ID: 21800211
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. For the record.
Krimsky S
Nat Genet; 2002 Feb; 30(2):139-40. PubMed ID: 11818959
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Wager E; Barbour V; Yentis S; Kleinert S;
Obes Rev; 2010 Jan; 11(1):64-6. PubMed ID: 20653849
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. [Stop citing fraudulent and duplicate articles].
Maisonneuve H
Presse Med; 2007 May; 36(5 Pt 1):749-52. PubMed ID: 17398065
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Peer-Review Fraud--Hacking the Scientific Publication Process.
Haug CJ
N Engl J Med; 2015 Dec; 373(25):2393-5. PubMed ID: 26488392
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Dubious data remain in print two years after misconduct inquiry.
Abbott A; Schwarz J
Nature; 2002 Jul; 418(6894):113. PubMed ID: 12110849
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Commentary: the power of the unrelenting impact factor--is it a force for good or harm?
Smith R
Int J Epidemiol; 2006 Oct; 35(5):1129-30. PubMed ID: 16987843
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Retractions' realities.
Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6927):1. PubMed ID: 12621394
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The role and responsibilities of coauthors.
Lancet; 2008 Sep; 372(9641):778. PubMed ID: 18774402
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Spoof research paper is accepted by 157 journals.
Hawkes N
BMJ; 2013 Oct; 347():f5975. PubMed ID: 24096966
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Retraction ends furore over cancer vaccine.
Abbott A
Nature; 2003 Sep; 425(6953):4. PubMed ID: 12955102
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. [Scientific communication during the current pandemic and some considerations on expressions of concern - retractions].
Vanegas L J; Villalón C M
Rev Med Chil; 2020 Sep; 148(9):1374-1375. PubMed ID: 33399718
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Science publishing: The trouble with retractions.
Van Noorden R
Nature; 2011 Oct; 478(7367):26-8. PubMed ID: 21979026
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Accurate science requires that we base our work on accurate publications.
Carney Almroth B; Jutfelt F; Bour A
Environ Pollut; 2020 Jun; 261():114238. PubMed ID: 32156432
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Does it still make sense to believe published scientific literature? Editorial.
Esposito M
Eur J Oral Implantol; 2018; 11(1):5-6. PubMed ID: 29557397
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?
Steen RG
J Med Ethics; 2011 Feb; 37(2):113-7. PubMed ID: 21081306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
