Literature DB >> 11657850

Changing explanatory frameworks in the U.S. Government's attempt to define research misconduct.

David H Guston.   

Abstract

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Commission on Research Integrity; Legal Approach; National Academy of Sciences; Office of Science and Technology Policy; Public Health Service

Mesh：

Year:  1999        PMID： 11657850     DOI： 10.1007/s11948-999-0002-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN： 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


× No keyword cloud information.
  6 in total

1.  Fraud in science.

Authors:  Deena Weinstein
Journal:  Soc Sci Q       Date:  1979-03

2.  Fraud and the norms of science.

Authors:  Warren Schmaus
Journal:  Sci Technol Human Values       Date:  1983

3.  Responsibilities of awardee and applicant institutions for dealing with and reporting possible misconduct in science; final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  1989-08-08

4.  Definitions and boundaries of research misconduct: perspectives from a federal government viewpoint.

Authors:  Alan R Price
Journal:  J Higher Educ       Date:  1994 May-Jun

5.  The definition of misconduct in science: a view from NSF.

Authors:  D E Buzzelli
Journal:  Science       Date:  1993-01-29       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Policy development lessons from two federal initiatives: protecting human research subjects and handling misconduct in science.

Authors:  J P Porter; A K Dustira
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 6.893
  6 in total
  4 in total

1.  New common federal definition of research misconduct in the United States.

Authors:  S J Bird; A K Dustira
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 2.  Six domains of research ethics. A heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research.

Authors:  Kenneth D Pimple
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  The university and the responsible conduct of research: who is responsible for what?

Authors:  Katherine Alfredo; Hillary Hart
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 4.  How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.