141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8426452)
1. Scientific misconduct. New definition, procedures, and office--perhaps a new leaf.
Rennie D; Gunsalus CK
JAMA; 1993 Feb; 269(7):915-7. PubMed ID: 8426452
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Scientific misconduct cases revealed.
Palca J
Science; 1990 Apr; 248(4953):297. PubMed ID: 2326642
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. NIH misconduct probes draw legal complaints.
Culliton BJ
Science; 1990 Jul; 249(4966):240-2. PubMed ID: 2374923
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. NIH misconduct procedures derailed.
Hamilton DP
Science; 1991 Jan; 251(4990):152-3. PubMed ID: 1846242
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Scientific misconduct and research integrity: federal definitions and approaches.
Pascal CB
Prof Ethics; 1999; 7(1):9-32. PubMed ID: 12569921
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. US Government inquiry bodies dismiss scientific misconduct charges against AIDS researchers.
Marwick C
JAMA; 1993 Dec; 270(22):2665-6. PubMed ID: 8133572
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Defining scientific misconduct. The relevance of mental state.
Dresser R
JAMA; 1993 Feb; 269(7):895-7. PubMed ID: 8373455
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Imanishi-Kari still in limbo.
Nature; 1994 Mar; 368(6466):1-2. PubMed ID: 8107875
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. An end to fraud?
Nature; 1993 Nov; 366(6451):95-6. PubMed ID: 8232562
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Rights to due process in instances of possible scientific misconduct.
Hallum JV; Hadley SW
Endocrinology; 1991 Feb; 128(2):643-4. PubMed ID: 1989853
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 'Misconduct' dispute raises fears of litigation.
Dalton R
Nature; 1997 Jan; 385(6612):105. PubMed ID: 8990102
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluating the oversight of scientific misconduct.
Redman BK; Merz JF
Account Res; 2005; 12(3):157-62. PubMed ID: 16634167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. From Baltimore to Bell Labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct.
Resnik DB
Account Res; 2003; 10(2):123-35. PubMed ID: 14577424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. ORI finds Imanishi-Kari guilty of misconduct, proposes 10-year ban.
Gavaghan H
Nature; 1994 Dec; 372(6505):391. PubMed ID: 7984221
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Scientific misconduct: new court challenge for OSI.
Anderson C
Nature; 1992 Apr; 356(6369):466. PubMed ID: 11642987
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Scientific misconduct. Baylor saga comes to an end.
Kaiser J
Science; 1999 Feb; 283(5405):1091. PubMed ID: 10075561
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Recent government decision refocuses attention on several cases of alleged scientific misconduct.
Marwick C
JAMA; 1993 Sep; 270(11):1286. PubMed ID: 8395607
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The American experience: lessons learned.
Rhoades LJ
Sci Eng Ethics; 2000 Jan; 6(1):95-107. PubMed ID: 11273443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Scientific misconduct. Investigations on trial in a Texas court.
Marshall E
Science; 1999 Feb; 283(5404):913-4. PubMed ID: 10075554
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
