Research misconduct: Can Australia learn from the UK's stuttering system?

Medical Journal of Australia

Volumn 185, Issue 11-12, 2006, Pages 616-618

  Marcovitch, Harvey ^a  

^a British Medical Journal Technology Assessment Group   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; POLICY; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 33846036975     PISSN: 0025729X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00730.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Sabbagh K. A Rum affair: a true story of botanical fraud. London: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1999,
2. Horton R. Retraction of: Sudbø J, Lee JJ, Lippman SM, et al. Non-steroidal anti-inflamatory drugs and the risk of oral cancer: a nested case-control study. Lancet 2005; 366: 1359-1366.
3. Horton R. Lancet 2006; 367: 382.
4. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005; 435: 737-738.
5. Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Fraud and malpractice in the context of clinical research. London: ABPI, 1992.
6. Royal College of Physicians of London. Report on fraud and misconduct in medical research. London: RCP, 1991.
7. Wells FO. Management of research misconduct - in practice. J Intern Med 1994; 235:115-121.
8. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Report of the independent committee into the circumstances surrounding the publication of two articles in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in August 1994. London: RCOG, 1995.
9. Lock S. Lessons from the Pearce affair: handling scientific fraud [editorial]. BMJ 1995; 310: 1547.
10. Wager L. Outcomes of editors' attempts to investigate research misconduct. http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/reports/2005/outcomes/ (accessed Oct 2006).
11. Smith R. Time to face up to research misconduct [editorial]. BMJ 1996, 312: 789-790
12. Baty P. Watchdog eyes scientific fraud. Times Higher Education Supplement 2006; 14 Apr. http://www.thes.co.uk/search/ story.aspx?story_id=2029311 (accessed Nov 2006).
13. General Medical Council. Research: the role and responsibilities of doctors. Good practice in research. London: GMC, 2002. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/archive/library/research.asp (accessed Nov 2006).
14. Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation. http://forsk.dk/ portal/page/pr04/FIST/FORSIDE/DIVERSE_SIDER/DANISH_RESEARCH_AGENCY/ THE_DANISH_RESEARCH_COUNSELLING_SYSTEM/ THE_DANISH_COMMITTEES_ON_SCIENTIFIC_DISHONESTY/PUBLICATIONS (accessed Nov 2006).
15. Office of Research Integrity Model policy for responding to allegations of scientific misconduct. http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/ model_policy_responding_allegations.pdf (accessed Oct 2006).
16. Smith R. Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author. BMJ 2005; 331: 288-291.
17. Wilmshurst P. Institutional corruption in medicine. BMJ 2002; 325: 1232-1235. [Erratum in BMJ 2002; 326; 333.]
18. Weatherall D. Academia and industry: increasingly uneasy bedfellows. Lancet 2000; 355: 1574.
19. Eisman J. Statement of concern. Eastell R, Barton I, Hannon RA, et al. Relationship of early changes in bone resorption to the reduction in fracture risk with risedronate. http://www.jbmronline.org/ (accessed Oct 2006).
20. Boucher R. Letter to Ms G Thorpe, 21 Jun 2006. CAFAS Update No. 51. 3 Jul 2006:19. http://www.cafas.org.uk/update51.pdf (accessed Oct 2006).
21. White C. Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth. BMJ 2005; 331: 281-288.
22. Interlandi J. An unwelcome discovery. New York Times 2006; 22 Oct. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/magazine/22sciencefraud.html (accessed Oct 2006).