172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9732854)
1. Arizona professor files lawsuit after being fired for misconduct.
Dalton R
Nature; 1998 Aug; 394(6696):817. PubMed ID: 9732854
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 'Misconduct' dispute raises fears of litigation.
Dalton R
Nature; 1997 Jan; 385(6612):105. PubMed ID: 8990102
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. "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]
4. Due process in investigations of research misconduct.
Mello MM; Brennan TA
N Engl J Med; 2003 Sep; 349(13):1280-6. PubMed ID: 14507953
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Fraud in scientific research: the prosecutor's approach.
Willcox BL
Account Res; 1992; 2(2):139-51. PubMed ID: 16144093
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Baylor backed over 'falsified data' claims.
Dalton R
Nature; 1997 Apr; 386(6627):747. PubMed ID: 9126718
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Misconduct: lower ranks take most of the blame.
Clouthier SG
Nature; 2005 Jul; 436(7050):460. PubMed ID: 16049448
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Scientific misconduct. Baylor saga comes to an end.
Kaiser J
Science; 1999 Feb; 283(5405):1091. PubMed ID: 10075561
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Federal actions against plagiarism in research.
Price AR
J Infor Ethics; 1996; 5(1):34-51. PubMed ID: 11653389
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Policing fraud and deceit: the legal aspects of misconduct in scientific inquiry.
Protti M
J Infor Ethics; 1996; 5(1):59-71. PubMed ID: 11653390
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Both accused researchers and whistle-blowers stay anonymous when no misconduct is found.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 2005 Jul; 20(7):8. PubMed ID: 16270443
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. University of Arizona misconduct investigation ruled improper.
Ready T
Nat Med; 2000 Feb; 6(2):120. PubMed ID: 10655084
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Researcher sues government and specific agency official over misconduct investigation.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 2001 Feb; 16(2):9. PubMed ID: 12530382
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Sitting in judgement.
Check E
Nature; 2002 Sep; 419(6905):332-3. PubMed ID: 12353003
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Federal agency says researcher misled colleagues and institutional administrators.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 2001 Sep; 16(9):6-7. PubMed ID: 11833568
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Confidentiality is essential in misconduct inquiries.
Mason S; Rutledge C
Nature; 2007 Mar; 446(7135):492. PubMed ID: 17392764
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Scientific misconduct: individual deviance or system complacency?
Luft P; Sprague RL
J Infor Ethics; 1996; 5(1):72-81. PubMed ID: 11653391
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Named and shamed.
Cyranoski D
Nature; 2006 May; 441(7092):392-3. PubMed ID: 16724027
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
