159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32405024)
1. Meet this super-spotter of duplicated images in science papers.
Shen H
Nature; 2020 May; 581(7807):132-136. PubMed ID: 32405024
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Researchers have finally created a tool to spot duplicated images across thousands of papers.
Butler D
Nature; 2018 Mar; 555(7694):18. PubMed ID: 29493609
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Journals adopt AI to spot duplicated images in manuscripts.
Van Noorden R
Nature; 2022 Jan; 601(7891):14-15. PubMed ID: 34931057
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Give every paper a read for reproducibility.
Winchester C
Nature; 2018 May; 557(7705):281. PubMed ID: 29769684
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Hundreds of gibberish papers still lurk in the scientific literature.
Van Noorden R
Nature; 2021 Jun; 594(7862):160-161. PubMed ID: 34045760
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Fraud, not error, is why two thirds of biomedical papers are withdrawn.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]
7. AI peer reviewers unleashed to ease publishing grind.
Heaven D
Nature; 2018 Nov; 563(7733):609-610. PubMed ID: 30482927
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Misconduct is the main cause of life-sciences retractions.
Corbyn Z
Nature; 2012 Oct; 490(7418):21. PubMed ID: 23038445
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. China's clampdown on fake-paper factories picks up speed.
Else H
Nature; 2021 Oct; 598(7879):19-20. PubMed ID: 34594025
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Spotlight on plagiarism.
Mertens S
Dtsch Arztebl Int; 2010 Dec; 107(49):863-5. PubMed ID: 21191546
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Science publishing: The trouble with retractions.
Van Noorden R
Nature; 2011 Oct; 478(7367):26-8. PubMed ID: 21979026
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 - a new record.
Van Noorden R
Nature; 2023 Dec; 624(7992):479-481. PubMed ID: 38087103
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Mistakes and misconduct in the research literature: retractions just the tip of the iceberg.
Poulton A
Med J Aust; 2007 Mar; 186(6):323-4. PubMed ID: 17371220
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Self-plagiarism case prompts calls for agencies to tighten rules.
Reich ES
Nature; 2010 Dec; 468(7325):745. PubMed ID: 21150967
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors.
Campos-Varela I; Ruano-Raviña A
Gac Sanit; 2019; 33(4):356-360. PubMed ID: 29776690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Scientific misconduct. Reviewer's déjà vu, French science sleuthing uncover plagiarized papers.
Balter M
Science; 2012 Mar; 335(6073):1157-8. PubMed ID: 22403360
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. AI beats human sleuth at finding problematic images in research papers.
Oza A
Nature; 2023 Oct; 622(7982):230. PubMed ID: 37789202
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. How papers with doctored images can affect scientific reviews.
Kulkarni S
Nature; 2024 Apr; 628(8007):242-243. PubMed ID: 38565903
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
