Responsible conduct in research

Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):13-21 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify and describe published research articles that were named in official findings of scientific misconduct and to investigate compliance with the administrative actions contained in these reports for corrections and retractions, as represented in PubMed. Between 1993 and 2001, 102 articles were named in either the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts ( Findings of Scientific Misconduct ) or the U.S. Office of Research Integrity annual reports as needing retraction or correction. In 2002, 98 of the 102 articles were indexed in PubMed. Eighty-five of these 98 articles had indexed corrections: 47 were retracted; 26 had an erratum; 12 had a correction described in the comment field. Thirteen had no correction, but 10 were linked to the NIH Guide Findings of Scientific Misconduct , leaving only 3 articles with no indication of any sort of problem. As of May 2005, there were 5,393 citations to the 102 articles, with a median of 26 citations per article (range 0–592). Researchers should be alert to Comments linked to the NIH Guide as these are open access, and the Findings of Scientific Misconduct’ reports are often more informative than the statements about the retraction or correction found in the journals

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,199

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Scientific misconduct: Present problems and future trends.Barbara Mishkin - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):283-292.
Accountability and responsibility in research.Patricia K. Woolf - 1991 - Journal of Business Ethics 10 (8):595 - 600.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-01

Downloads
40 (#293,701)

6 months
1 (#448,894)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?