Bogus evidence

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 118-125

  Hunsucker, R Laval ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879002926     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1715720X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.18438/B8TW39     Document Type: Note

References (27)

1. Anderson, M. S. (2007). Collective openness and other recommendations for the promotion of research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 387-394. doi:10.1007/s11948-007-9047-0
2. Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists' misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853-860. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c
3. Bonetta, L. (2006). The aftermath of scientific fraud. Cell, 124(5), 873-875. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.02.032
4. Bosch, X. (2012). Research integrity on the horizon. The Lancet, 379(9827), 1679-1680. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60317-1
5. Burke, M., Chang, M., Davis, C., Hernon, P., Nicholls, P., Schwartz, C., Shaw, D., Smith, A., & Wiberley, S. (1996). Editorial: Fraud and misconduct in library and information science research. Library & Information Science Research, 18(3), 199-206. doi:10.1016/S0740-8188(96)90040-7
6. Curry, A. (2005). Unreliable research: Are librarians liable. IFLA Journal, 31(1), 28-34. doi:10.1177/0340035205052640
7. Eldredge, J. D. (2012). The evolution of evidence based library and information practice, part I: Defining EBLIP. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(4), 139-145. Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/18572/14514
8. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5), e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
9. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(42), 17028-17033. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109
10. Fisher, W. (1999). When write is wrong: Is all our professional literature on the same page. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 23(1), 61-72. doi:10.1016/S1464-9055(98)00126-2
11. Heijden, P. F. v. d., Fokkema, J., Lamberts, S. W. J., Mols, G. P. M. F., Hartogh, G. A. d., Stouthard, M. E. A., & Post, A. A. (2012). De Nederlandse gedragscode wetenschapsbeoefening: Principes van goed wetenschappelijk onderwijs en onderzoek, revised version. Den Haag: Vereniging van Universiteiten VSNU. Retrieved from http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/Onderzoek/Code_wetenschapsbeoefening_2004_%282012%29.pdf (English translation: Retrieved from http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Feiten_en_Cijfers/The_Netherlands_Code_of_Conduct_for_Scientific_Practice_2012.pdf).
12. Hernon, P., & Altman, E. (1999). Misconduct: Infecting the literature, but do we really care. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(5), 402-404. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(99)80061-5.
13. Hernon, P., & Calvert, P. J. (1997). Research misconduct as viewed from multiple perspectives. In E. Altman & P. Hernon (Eds.), Research misconduct: Issues, implications, and strategies (pp. 71-89). Greenwich, CT [etc.]: Ablex.
14. InterAcademy Council, & IAP (2012). Responsible conduct in the global research enterprise: A policy report. Amsterdam: IAC Secretariat; Trieste: IAP Secretariat. Retrieved from http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=19789
15. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G, & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524-532. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953
16. Koufogiannakis, D. (2012). The state of systematic reviews in library and information studies. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(2), 91-95. Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/17089/14045
17. Lelgemann, M., & Sauerland, S. (2010). Gefälschte Studien und nicht publizierte Daten: Auswirkung auf die Erarbeitung von Leitlinien und evidenzbasierten Empfehlungen. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen, 104(4), 284-291. doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2010.03.035
18. Macilwain, C. (2012a). Scientific misconduct: More cops, more robbers. Cell, 149(7), 1417-1419. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.001
19. Macilwain, C. (2012b). The time is right to confront misconduct. Nature, 488(7409), 7. doi:10.1038/488007a
20. Marathe, S. (1989). Scientific fraud. Nature, 340(6231), 259. doi:10.1038/340259c0
21. Neugebauer, E. A. M., Becker, M., Sauerland, S., & Laubenthal, H. (2009). Wissenschaftsbetrug/Gefälschte Studien: Auswirkungen auf die S3-Leitlinie? Deutsches ärzteblatt, 106(15), A703. Retrieved from http://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/64093/Wissenschaftsbetrug-Gefaelschte-Studien-Auswirkungen-auf-die-S3-Leitlinie
22. Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (2011). The Tri-Agency framework: Responsible conduct of research. Ottawa: Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research. Retrieved from http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/framework-cadre/
23. Relman, A. S. (1983). Lessons from the Darsee affair. The New England Journal of Medicine, 308(23), 1415-1417. doi:10.1056/NEJM198306093082311
24. Second World Conference on Research Integrity (2010). Singapore statement on research integrity. Retrieved from http://www.singaporestatement.org/downloads/singpore%20statement_A4size.pdf
25. Sobel, B. E. (2012). On thwarting the seeds of scientific fraud. Coronary Artery Disease, 23(8), 560-562. doi:10.1097/MCA.0b013e32835a05e9
26. Stroebe, W, Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670-688. doi:10.1177/1745691612460687
27. Trikalinosa, N. A., Evangeloua, E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(5), 464-470. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.019