World Map of Scientific Misconduct

Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (5):1653-1656 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A comparative world map of scientific misconduct reveals that countries with the most rapid growth in scientific publications also have the highest retraction rate. To avoid polluting the scientific record further, these nations must urgently commit to enforcing research integrity among their academic communities.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1007/s11948-017-9939-6

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,829

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Scientific Misconduct: Three Forms that Directly Harm Others as the Modus Operandi of Mill’s Tyranny of the Prevailing Opinion.Marcoen J. T. F. Cabbolet - 2014 - Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (1):41-54.
Misconduct in science and the German law.Stefanic Stegemann-Bochl - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):57-62.
Using Criminalization and Due Process to Reduce Scientific Misconduct.Benjamin K. Sovacool - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (5):W1-W7.
Scientific Integrity in Brazil.Liliane Lins & Fernando Martins Carvalho - 2014 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 11 (3):283-287.
Prevalence of Scientific Misconduct Among a Group of Researchers in Nigeria.Patrick Okonta & Theresa Rossouw - 2012 - Developing World Bioethics 13 (3):149-157.
Prevalence of Scientific Misconduct Among a Group of Researchers in Nigeria.Theresa Rossouw Patrick Okonta - 2012 - Developing World Bioethics 13 (3):149-157.
Scientific Misconduct in Japan: The Present Paucity of Oversight Policy.Brian Taylor Slingsby, Satoshi Kodama & Akira Akabayashi - 2006 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15 (3):294-297.
The Swedish Research Council’s Definition of ‘Scientific Misconduct’: A Critique.Håkan Salwén - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1):115-126.
Scientific misconduct: Present problems and future trends.Barbara Mishkin - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):283-292.
Effectiveness of research guidelines in prevention of scientific misconduct.Eleanor G. Shore - 1995 - Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (4):383-387.
The american experience: Lessons learned. [REVIEW]Lawrence J. Rhoades - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):95-107.
How Frequently do Allegations of Scientific Misconduct Occur in Ecology and Evolution, and What Happens Afterwards?Gregorio Moreno-Rueda - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):93-96.
Research misconduct: Why are definitions so elusive?Robert Hauptman - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (4):443-444.
How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards.C. K. Gunsalus - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):51-64.
Commentary on “changing explanatory frameworks in the U.S. government’s attempts to define research misconduct”. [REVIEW]Margaret Dale - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):158-160.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-06-27

Downloads
23 (#681,424)

6 months
4 (#787,709)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references