Good scientific practice: III. Scientific misconduct

Journal of B.U.ON.

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 203-207

  Marinković, Milica ^a   Vuckovic Dekic Lj ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR ONCOLOGY AND RADIOLOGY OF SERBIA   (Serbia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; ANTIBIOTIC AGENT; SCOPOLAMINE; STREPTOMYCIN; THALIDOMIDE;

ANTICOAGULATION; BIOMEDICINE; CAREER; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DRUG EFFECT; ETHICS; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MOTIVATION; PEPTIC ULCER; PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; TERATOGENICITY;

EID: 0344549709     PISSN: 11070625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Goodstein D. Scientific misconduct. Available at: http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=6206098&db=aph (site accessed 8.04 2003).
2. Savić J. How to Write, to Publish, and to Evaluate the Scientific Work in Biomedicine. Beograd: Kultura; 2001 (in Serbian).
3. Humphrey GF. Scientific fraud. The McBride case judgment. Med Sci Law 1994; 34: 299-236
4. Broad W, Wade N (eds). Betrayers of the Truth. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1982, p. 157.
5. Lock S. Fraud in medicine. Br Med J 1988; 296: 376-377.
6. NIH Committee on Scientific Conduct and Ethics. A Guide to the Handling of Scientific Misconduct Allegations in the Intramural Research Program at the NIH January 12, 2001. Available at: http://www1.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/ResEthicsCases/sm-booklet.htm (site accessed 8.04 2003).
7. Stewart WW, Feder N. The integrity of the scientific literature. Nature 1987; 325: 207-214.
8. Bell Labs announces results of inquiry into research misconduct. Available at: www.lucent.com/press/0902/020925.bla.html. (site acessed 4.02 2003).
9. Ryan KJ. Research misconduct in clinical research - The American experience and response. Acta Oncol 1999; 38: 93-97.
10. Koenig R. Panel calls falsification in German case "unprecedented". Science 1997; 277: 894.
11. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinshaft. Recommendations of the Commission on Professional self Regulation in Science. Proposals for safeguarding Good Scientific Practice. Available at: http://www.dfg.de/aktuelles_presse/reden_stellungnahmen/download/self_regul ation_98.pdf. (site accessed 4.02 2003).
12. Humphrey G F. Scientific fraud in Australia. Int J Biosci Law 1996; 1: 91-105.
13. Parrish DM. When Ethics Fails. Legal and administrative causes of action. In: Jones AH, McLellan F (eds). Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Baltimore & London: John Hopkins University Press; 2000, pp 197-221.
14. McLellan F. Ethics in Cyberspace. The challenges of electronic scientific publishing. In: Jones AH, McLellan F (eds). Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Baltimore & London: John Hopkins University Press; 2000, pp 167-193.
15. Eysenbach G. Report of a case of cyberplagiarism and reflections on detecting and preventing academic misconduct using Internet. J Med Internet Res Retrieved 1/7/2003. www.jmir.org./2000/1/e4/-49k-29 Jun 2003.
16. Horton R. The imagined author. In: Jones AH, McLellan (eds). Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Baltimore & London: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2000, pp 30-58.
17. Wilmhurst P. Institutional corruption in medicine. Br Med J 2002; 235: 1232-1235.
18. Masters JR. HeLa cells 50 years on: The good, the bad and the ugly. Nature Rev/Cancer 2002; 2: 315-319.
19. Lahrer S. Explorers of the Body. Beograd: Jugoslavija; 1981 (Serb transl).
20. Le Fanu J. Life-saving medicine can be hard to swallow at first. The Sunday Telegraph (London) Nov 14, 1999.
21. Evans I. The Medical Research Council's approach to allegations of scientific misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics 2000; 6: 91-94.
22. Rhoades LJ. The American Experience: Lessons learned. Sci Eng Ethics 2000; 6: 95-107.
23. Miloševí D, Vucković-Dekić Lj. Good Scientific Practice. II. Proposals for safeguarding good scientific practice. J BUON 2003; 8: 93-95.