Literature DB >> 21566647

Exorcising ghostwriting…. Ghostwriting could potentially have serious repercussions for science and should therefore be treated as research misconduct.

Xavier Bosch1.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2011        PMID： 21566647      PMCID： PMC3128288          DOI： 10.1038/embor.2011.87

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  EMBO Rep        ISSN： 1469-221X            Impact factor:   8.807


× No keyword cloud information.
  21 in total

1.  Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability.

Authors:  Laurence Landow
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-01-24       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  [Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals].

Authors: 
Journal:  J Pediatr (Rio J)       Date:  1997 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.197

3.  Tie funding to research integrity.

Authors:  Sandra Titus; Xavier Bosch
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-07-22       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Managing financial conflict of interest in biomedical research.

Authors:  Sally J Rockey; Francis S Collins
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-05-24       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications.

Authors:  Adam Jacobs; Elizabeth Wager
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.580

6.  Ghost writing initiated by commercial companies.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Profits and plagiarism: the case of medical ghostwriting.

Authors:  Tobenna D Anekwe
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2009-02-16       Impact factor: 1.898

8.  'Ghostbusting' at blood.

Authors:  Cynthia E Dunbar; Martin S Tallman
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2009-01-15       Impact factor: 22.113

9.  Responsibility of applicants for promoting objectivity in research for which public health service funding is sought and responsible prospective contractors. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2011-08-25

10.  Authors, ghosts, damned lies, and statisticians.

Authors:  Elizabeth Wager
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 11.069
View more
  3 in total

1.  Coauthorship and institutional collaborations on cost-effectiveness analyses: a systematic network analysis.

Authors:  Ferrán Catalá-López; Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo; Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent; Manuel Ridao; Máxima Bolaños; Anna García-Altés; Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno; Salvador Peiró
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 2.  Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature.

Authors:  Serina Stretton
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Biosafety data as confidential business information.

Authors:  Kaare M Nielsen
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 8.029
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.