The changing face of scientific misconduct

Clinical and Investigative Medicine

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 117-119

  Bevan, David ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CANCER RESEARCH; DATA ANALYSIS; ECTOPIC PREGNANCY; EDITORIAL; ETHICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; NORTH AMERICA; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

GUIDELINES; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 4544362408     PISSN: 0147958X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Editorial

References (9)

1. Lock S. Research misconduct: a résumé of recent events. In: Lock S, Wells F, editors. Fraud and misconduct in medical research. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group; 1993. p. 5-22.
2. Pearce JM, Manyonda IT, Chamberlain GVP. Term delivery after intrauterine relocation of an ectopic pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynœcol 1994;101:716-7.
3. Japan Times. 1994 Nov 12.
4. Angell M, Kassirer JP. Setting the record straight in the breast cancer trials. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1448-9.
5. Brugger W, Heimfeld S, Berenson R, Mertelsmann R, Kanz L. Reconstitution of hematopoiesis after high dose chemotherapy by autologous progenitor cells generated ex vivo. N Engl J Med 1995;333:283-7.
6. Committee on Publication Ethics. The COPE Report 2003. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2003. Available: www.publicationethics.org.uk/cope2003/ pages2003/contents.phtml (accessed 2004 Jun 4).
7. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: updated October 2001. Philadelphia: the Committee; 2001. Available: www.icmje.org (accessed 2004 Jun 4).
8. Naylor CD. Early Toronto experience with new standards for industry-sponsored clinical research: a progress report. CMAJ 2002;166:453-6.
9. Schulman KA, Seils DM, Timbie JW, Sugarman J, Dame LA, Weinfurt KP, Mark DB, Califf RM. A national survey of provisions in clinical-trial agreements between medical schools and industry sponsors. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1335-41.