Literature DB >> 16803444

What can we learn from the Hwang and Sudbø affairs?

Paul Gerber1.   

Abstract

The recent publication, in prestigious scientific journals, of two major studies that were subsequently shown to contain fabricated data may compel reviewers and editors to adopt a more rigorous policy in accepting articles for publication. The current manner of peer reviewing research articles provides no assurance that the proffered work is not the result of fraud. The present guidelines for contributors in large team investigations may need to be updated to avoid giving credit to co-authors who may have made little, if any, contribution to the work.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16803444     DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00420.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  3 in total

1.  Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers.

Authors:  Nikolaos A Trikalinos; Evangelos Evangelou; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Scientific dishonesty--a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway.

Authors:  Bjørn Hofmann; Anne Ingeborg Myhr; Søren Holm
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 2.652

3.  Scientific misconducts and authorship conflicts: Indian perspective.

Authors:  Mohanchandra Mandal; Dipanjan Bagchi; Sekhar Ranjan Basu
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2015-07
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.