Pressures to Publish: Catalysts for the Loss of Scientific Writing Integrity?;Presión para publicar: Catalizadores de la pérdida de integridad en la publicación científica

Fisheries

Volumn 38, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 352-355

  Hayer, Cari Ann ^a   Kaemingk, Mark ^a   Breeggemann, Jason J ^a   Dembkowski, Daniel ^a   Deslauriers, David ^a   Rapp, Tobias ^a  

^a SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883478803     PISSN: 03632415     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03632415.2013.813845     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Angell, M. 1986. Publish or perish: a proposal. Annals of Internal Medicine, 104: 261 - 262.
2. Bennett, D. M. and Taylor, D. M. 2003. Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine, 15: 263 - 270.
3. Broad, W. J. 1981. The publishing game: getting more for less. Science, 211: 1137 - 1139.
4. Brown, M. L. and Guy, C. S. 2007. " Science and statistics in fisheries research ". In Analysis and interpretation of freshwater fisheries data, Edited by: Guy, C. S. and Brown, M. C. 3 Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society.
5. Claxton, L. D. 2005. Scientific authorship part 1. A window into scientific fraud?. Mutation Research, 589: 17 - 30.
6. Davis, M. S., Riske-Morris, M. and Diaz, S. R. 2007. Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: evidence from ORI case files. Science Engineering Ethics, 13: 395 - 414.
7. De Rond, M. and Miller, A. N. 2005. Publish or perish: bane or boon of academic life?. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14: 321 - 329.
8. De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S. and Martinson, B. C. 2006. Normal misbehavior: scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1: 43 - 50.
9. Fanelli, D. 2010. Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from U.S. states data. Plos One, 5: e10217
10. Fang, F. C. and Casadevall, A. 2012. Intense competition among scientists has gotten out of hand. American Scientist, 307: 13
11. Fang, F. C., Grant Steen, R. and Casadevall, A. 2012. Msconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109: 17028 - 17033.
12. Hillborn, R. 2006. Faith-based fisheries. Fisheries, 31: 554 - 555.
13. Jolley, J. C. and Graeb, B. D. S. 2007. Writing, publishing, and reviewing: the students' perspective. Fisheries, 32: 40 - 43.
14. Lee, J. A. 1999. The scientific endeavor: a primer on scientific principles and practice, San Francisco: Addison Wesley Longman.
15. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S. and De Vries, R. 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435: 737 - 739.
16. Statzner, B. and Resh, V. H. 2010. Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: potential causes and consequences. Freshwater Biology, 55: 2639 - 2653.
17. Steneck, N. H. 2006. Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12: 53 - 74.
18. Strange, K. 2008. Authorship: why not just toss a coin? American Journal of Physiology - Cell Physiology, 295: C567 - C575.