186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9219021)
1. Giving scientists their due. The Imanishi-Kari decision.
Dresser R
Hastings Cent Rep; 1997; 27(3):26-8. PubMed ID: 9219021
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The federal research misconduct regulations as viewed from the research universities.
Wright DE
Centen Rev; 1994; 38(2):249-72. PubMed ID: 11656759
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Imanishi-Kari still in limbo.
Nature; 1994 Mar; 368(6466):1-2. PubMed ID: 8107875
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Appeals board exonerates Baltimore, Imanishi-Kari.
Marwick C
JAMA; 1996 Jul 24-31; 276(4):266. PubMed ID: 8656524
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Salem comes to the National Institutes of Health: notes from inside the crucible of scientific integrity.
Needleman HL
Pediatrics; 1992 Dec; 90(6):977-81. PubMed ID: 1331947
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Imanishi-Kari case. Marathon hearing gets under way.
Mervis J
Science; 1995 Jun; 268(5217):1561. PubMed ID: 7777851
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. What to do about scientific misconduct.
Nature; 1994 May; 369(6478):261-2. PubMed ID: 8183349
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 'Misconduct' dispute raises fears of litigation.
Dalton R
Nature; 1997 Jan; 385(6612):105. PubMed ID: 8990102
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Scientific misconduct. Back to the drawing board.
Anderson C
Nature; 1991 Mar; 350(6314):100. PubMed ID: 1848681
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Imanishi-Kari case: ORI finds fraud.
Stone R; Marshall E
Science; 1994 Dec; 266(5190):1468-9. PubMed ID: 7985007
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Imanishi-Kari case. Baltimore defends paper at center of misconduct case.
Stone R
Science; 1995 Jul; 269(5221):157. PubMed ID: 7618074
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. NIH office plans research on misconduct.
Dalton R
Nature; 1999 Jul; 400(6740):99. PubMed ID: 10408427
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. "Thank God for the lawyers": some thoughts on the (mis)regulation of scientific misconduct.
Reynolds GH
Tenn Law Rev; 1999; 66(3):801-18. PubMed ID: 12625356
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Imanishi-Kari ruling slams ORI.
Kaiser J; Marshall E
Science; 1996 Jun; 272(5270):1864-5. PubMed ID: 8658151
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Scientific misconduct. Ill-defined, redefined.
Palca J
Hastings Cent Rep; 1996; 26(5):4. PubMed ID: 8891701
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Science, integrity, and investigators' rights: current challenges.
Daniell WE
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1996 Aug; 24(1 Pt 2):S152-62. PubMed ID: 8921570
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Federal actions against plagiarism in research.
Price AR
J Infor Ethics; 1996; 5(1):34-51. PubMed ID: 11653389
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
