Disclosure in the best interests of science? or moral crusade?

Addiction

Volumn 104, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 1787-1788

  Davies, John B ^a   Rotgers, Frederick ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

^b Walden University   (United States)

Author keywords

Conflict of interest; Disclosure; Fraud

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ETHICS; FORGERY; GOVERNMENT; MORALITY; NOTE; ORGANIZATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE;

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DISCLOSURE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; PUBLICATION BIAS;

EID: 70349878766     PISSN: 09652140     EISSN: 13600443     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02679.x     Document Type: Note

References (7)

1. Goozner M., Caplan A., Moreno J., Kramer B. S., Babor T. F., Husser W. C. A common standard for conflict of interest disclosure in addiction journals. Addiction 2009 104 : 1779 1784.
2. Cameron D. The end of the peer show? Addict Res Theory 2001 187 192.
3. Davies J. B., Drucker E., Cameron D. The Farmington Consensus: guilt by association. Addict Res Theory 2002 329 334.
4. Heim D. Contested knowledge: introducing Fillmore, Kerr, Stockwell, Chikritzhs and Bostrom. Addict Res Theory 2006 97 9.
5. Colman, A. M. Facts, Fallacies and Frauds in Psychology. London : Hutchinson 1987.
6. Ellemann-Jensen P. The social costs of smoking revisited. Br J Addict 1991 957 966.
7. Edwards G. A paper which must be withdrawn from publication Editorial Note Addiction 2001 96 1099.