235 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3832437)
1. Scientific fraud probed at AAAS meeting.
Smith RJ
Science; 1985 Jun; 228(4705):1292-3. PubMed ID: 3832437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A view of misconduct in science.
Racker E
Nature; 1989 May; 339(6220):91-3. PubMed ID: 2716839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Scientific misconduct: a form of white coat crime.
Kline S
J Pharm Law; 1993; 2(1):15-34. PubMed ID: 11653114
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Science needs vigilance not vigilantes.
Woolf PK
JAMA; 1988 Oct; 260(13):1939-40. PubMed ID: 3418857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Fraud squad moves in on universities.
Cross M; Connor S; Anderson I
New Sci; 1985 Jun; 106(1459):8. PubMed ID: 11655696
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. NIH sees plagiarism in vision paper.
Culliton BJ
Science; 1989 Jul; 245(4914):120-2. PubMed ID: 2535671
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Scientific misconduct in academia: a survey and analysis of applicable law.
Sise CB
San Diego Law Rev; 1991; 28(2):401-28. PubMed ID: 11651628
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The Harvard fraud case: where does the problem lie?
Knox R
JAMA; 1983 Apr; 249(14):1797-99, 1802-7. PubMed ID: 6339751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. NIH panel finds no fraud in Cell paper but cites errors.
Culliton BJ
Science; 1988 Dec; 242(4885):1499. PubMed ID: 3201234
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Whistle-blowers air cases at house hearings.
Holden C
Science; 1988 Apr; 240(4851):386-7. PubMed ID: 3358123
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Reduce fraud in seven easy steps.
Norman C
Science; 1984 May; 224(4649):581. PubMed ID: 6710157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Coping with fraud: the Darsee Case.
Culliton BJ
Science; 1983 Apr; 220(4592):31-5. PubMed ID: 6828878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Fraud in research, 1986-1992: an annotated bibliography.
Anderson J
J Infor Ethics; 1994; 3(2):64-89. PubMed ID: 11656481
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. NIH grapples with misconduct.
Broad WJ
Science; 1982 Jul; 217(4556):227. PubMed ID: 7089558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Scientific fraud. The system defends itself.
David P
Nature; 1983 Jun 2-8; 303(5916):369. PubMed ID: 6855889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Questions of scientific responsibility: the Baltimore case.
Lang S
Ethics Behav; 1993; 3(1):3-72. PubMed ID: 11653082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Fraudulent research in science: the responsibility of the peer reviewer.
MacDermott RP
Cancer Invest; 1991; 9(6):703-5. PubMed ID: 1747796
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Deception in scientific research.
Woolf PK
Jurimetrics; 1988; 29(1):67-95. PubMed ID: 11654908
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. No misconduct or fraud in Baltimore case.
Anderson A
Nature; 1988 Dec; 336(6199):505. PubMed ID: 11644320
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Definitions and boundaries of research misconduct: perspectives from a federal government viewpoint.
Price AR
J Higher Educ; 1994; 65(3):286-97. PubMed ID: 11653365
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
