Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 53–74 | Cite as

Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions

  • Nicholas H. SteneckEmail author


Over the last 25 years, a small but growing body of research on research behavior has slowly provided a more complete and critical understanding of research practices, particularly in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. The results of this research suggest that some earlier assumptions about irresponsible conduct are not reliable, leading to the conclusion that there is a need to change the way we think about and regulate research behavior. This paper begins with suggestions for more precise definitions of the terms “responsible conduct of research,” “research ethics,” and “research integrity.” It then summarizes the findings presented in some of the more important studies of research behavior, looking first at levels of occurrence and then impact. Based on this summary, the paper concludes with general observations about priorities and recommendations for steps to improve the effectiveness of efforts to respond to misconduct and foster higher standards for integrity in research.


Research Integrity Research Misconduct Responsible Conduct of Research Research Behavior Questionable Research Practices 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    St. James-Roberts, I. (1976). Cheating in science. New Scientist 72: 466–469.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koshland, D. E. J. (1987). Fraud in science. Science 235: 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oxford University Press. (2002). Oxford English Dictionary. Available at: Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Microsoft Corporation (1999). Encarta World English Dictionary, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Office of Research Integrity (2005). Research on Research Integrity. Available at: Scholar
  6. 6.
    Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments, National Research Council (U.S.), et al. (2002). Integrity in scientific research. Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rhoades, L. (2004). ORI closed investigations into misconduct allegations involving research supported by the Public Health Service: 1994–2003. Available at:–2003-2.pdf. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rhoades, L. (2004). New institutional research misconduct activity: 1992–2001. Available at: Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Science Foundation. Office of Inspector General (2005). Semiannual Report to Congress. Available at: Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glick, J. L. (1989). On the potential cost effectiveness of scientific audits. Accountability in Research 1 (1): 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tangney, J. P. (1987). Fraud will out—or will not? New Scientist 115 (August 6): 62–63.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hals, A. and Jacobsen, G. (1993). [Dishonesty in medical research. A questionnaire study among project administrators in Health Region 4]. Tidsskrift for Den Norske Laegeforening 113 (25): 3149–52.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobsen, G. and Hals, A. (1995). Medical investigators’ views about ethics and fraud in medical research. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians, London 29 (5): 405–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wenger, N. S., Korenman, S. G., et al. (1997). The ethics of scientific research: an analysis of focus groups of scientists and institutional representatives. Journal of Investigative Medicine 45 (6): 371–80.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ranstam, J., Buyse, M., et al. (2000). Fraud in medical research: an international survey of biostatisticians. ISCB Subcommittee on Fraud. Controlled Clinical Trials 21 (5): 415–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Swazey, J. P., Anderson, M. S., et al. (1993). Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist 81 (November/December): 542–53.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bekkelund, S. I., Hegstad, A.-C., et al. (1995). [Scientific misconduct and medical research in Norway]. Tidsskrift for Den Norske Laegeforening 115 (25): 3148–51.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCabe, D. L. (1997). Classroom cheating among natural science and engineering majors. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (3): 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stimmel, B. and Yens, D. (1982). Cheating by medical students on examinations. American Journal of Medicine 73 (2): 160–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simpson, D. E., Yindra, K. J., et al. (1989). Medical students’ perceptions of cheating. Academic Medicine 64 (4): 221–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bailey, P. A. (1990). Cheating among nursing students. Nurse Educator 15 (3): 32–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Satterwhite, W. M., 3rd, Satterwhite, R. C., et al. (1998). Medical students’ perceptions of unethical conduct at one medical school. Academic Medicine 73 (5): 529–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rizk, D. E. and Elzubeir, M. A. (2004). Self-reported assessment by medical students and interns of unprofessional practice. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 16 (1): 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kalichman, M. W. and Friedman, P. J. (1992). A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine 67 (11): 769–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Geggie, D. (2001). A survey of newly appointed consultants’ attitudes towards research fraud. Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (5): 344–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brown, S. and Kalichman, M. W. (1998). Effects of training in the responsible conduct of research: A survey of graduate students in experimental sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (4): 487–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gardner, W., Lidz, C. W., et al. (2005). Authors’ reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials 26 (2): 244–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rossner, M. (2004). Digital images and the journal editor. 2004 ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity, San Diego, CA, November 12–14. Available at: Scholar
  29. 29.
    Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., et al. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435 (7043): 737–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (U.S.). Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research (1992). Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hebert, R. S., Smith, C. G., et al. (2003). Minimal prevalence of authorship misrepresentation among internal medicine residency applicants: do previous estimates of “misrepresentation” represent insufficient case finding? Annals of Internal Medicine 138 (5): 390–2.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sekas, G. and Hutson, W. R. (1995). Misrepresentation of academic accomplishments by applicants for gastroenterology fellowships. Annals of Internal Medicine 123 (1): 38–41.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gurudevan, S. V. and Mower, W. R. (1996). Misrepresentation of research publications among emergency medicine residency applicants. Annals of Emergency Medicine 27 (3): 327–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bilge, A., Shugerman, R. P., et al. (1998). Misrepresentation of authorship by applicants to pediatrics training programs. Academic Medicine 73 (5): 532–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goe, L. C., Herrera, A. M., et al. (1998). Misrepresentation of research citations among medical school faculty applicants. Academic Medicine 73 (11): 1183–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Panicek, D. M., Schwartz, L. H., et al. (1998). Misrepresentation of publications by applicants for radiology fellowships: is it a problem? American Journal of Roentgenology 170 (3): 577–81.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dale, J. A., Schmitt, C. M., et al. (1999). Misrepresentation of research criteria by orthopaedic residency applicants. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 81 (12): 1679–81.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Baker, D. R. and Jackson, V. P. (2000). Misrepresentation of publications by radiology residency applicants. Academic Radiology 7 (9): 727–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McAlister, W.P., Velyvis, J.H., et al. (2000). Misrepresentation of research criteria by orthopaedic residency applicants. Jnl. of Hand Surgery. American Volume 82-A (10): 1512–3.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Patel, M. V., Pradhan, B. B., et al. (2003). Misrepresentation of research publications among orthopedic surgery fellowship applicants: a comparison with documented misrepresentations in other fields. Spine 28 (7): 632–6; discussion 631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roellig, M. S. and Katz, E. D. (2004). Inaccuracies on applications for emergency medicine residency training. Academic Emergency Medicine 11 (9): 992–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2005). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. Available at: Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shapiro, D. W., Wenger, N. S., et al. (1994). The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. Journal of the American Medical Association 271 (6): 438–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Flanagin, A., Carey, L. A., et al. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association 280 (3): 222–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hoen, W. P., Walvoort, H. C., et al. (1998). What are the factors determining authorship and the order of the authors’ names? A study among authors of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine). Journal of the American Medical Association 280 (3): 217–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tarnow, E. (1999). The authorship list in science: Junior physicists’ perceptions of who appears and why. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (1): 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mowatt, G., Shirran, L., et al. (2002). Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. Journal of the American Medical Association 287 (21): 2769–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bates, T., Anic, A., et al. (2004). Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms. Journal of the American Medical Association 292 (1): 86–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Marusic, M., Bozikov, J., et al. (2004). Authorship in a small medical journal: a study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (3): 493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tarnow, E., De Young, B. R., et al. (2004). Coauthorship in pathology, a comparison with physics and a survery-generated and member-preferred authorship guideline. MedGenMed 6 (3): 1–2.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Drenth, J. P. (1998). Multiple authorship: the contribution of senior authors. Journal of the American Medical Association 280 (3): 219–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Waldron, T. (1992). Is duplicate publishing on the increase? British Medical Journal 304: 1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Barnard, H. and Overbeke, A. J. (1993). [Duplicate publication of original manuscripts in and from the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde]. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde 137 (12): 593–7.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Blancett, S. S., Flanagin, A., et al. (1995). Duplicate publication in the nursing literature. Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship 27 (1): 51–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tramer, M. R., Reynolds, D. J., et al. (1997). Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. British Medical Journal 315 (7109): 635–40.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jefferson, T. (1998). Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or necessity? Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (2): 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bloemenkamp, D. G., Walvoort, H. C., et al. (1999). [Duplicate publication of articles in the Dutch Journal of Medicine in 1996]. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde 143 (43): 2150–3.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Corson, S. L. and Decherney, A. H. (2005). Duplicate editorial on duplicate publication. Fertility and Sterility 83 (4): 855–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bailey, B. J. (2002). Duplicate publication in the field of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery 126 (3): 211–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    San Roman Teran, C. M., Alcala-Zamora Salinas, J., et al. (2004). [Poor scientific behavior in communication of biomedical results]. Revista Clinica Espanola 204 (8): 393–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    von Elm, E., Poglia, G., et al. (2004). Different patterns duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. Journal of the American Medical Association 291 (8): 974–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Office of Science and Technology Policy. Office of the President (2000). Federal Research Misconduct Policy, 65 Federal Register 235 76260–76264.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Eichorn, P. and Yankauer, A. (1987). Do authors check their references? A survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals. American Journal of Public Health 77 (8): 1011–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Doms, C. A. (1989). A survey of reference accuracy in five national dental journals. Journal of Dental Research 68 (3): 442–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Evans, J. T., Nadjari, H. I., et al. (1990). Quotational and reference accuracy in surgical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (10): 1353–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Putterman, C. and Lossos, I. S. (1991). Author, verify your references! Or, the accuracy of references in Israeli medical journals. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 27 (2): 109–12.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hobma, S. O. and Overbeke, A. J. (1992). [Errors in literature references in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde]. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde 136 (13): 637–41.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    McLellan, M. F., Case, L. D., et al. (1992). Trust, but verify. The accuracy of references in four anesthesia journals. Anesthesiology 77 (1): 185–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Goldberg, R., Newton, E., et al. (1993). Reference accuracy in the emergency medicine literature. Annals of Emergency Medicine 22 (9): 1450–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    George, P. M. and Robbins, K. (1994). Reference accuracy in the dermatologic literature. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 31 (1): 61–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hansen, M. E. and McIntire, D. D. (1994). Reference citations in radiology: accuracy and appropriateness of use in two major journals. American Journal of Roentgenology 163 (3): 719–23.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Nishina, K., Asano, M., et al. (1995). The accuracy of reference lists in Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 39 (5): 577–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Pulido, M., Carles Gonzalez, J., et al. (1995). [Errors in bibliographic references: a retrospective study in Medicina Clinica (1962–1992)]. Medicina Clinica 104 (5): 170–4.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ngan Kee, W. D., Roach, V. J., et al. (1997). The accuracy of references in the Hong Kong Medical Journal. Hong Kong Medical Journal 3 (4): 377–380.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Schulmeister, L. (1998). Quotation and reference accuracy of three nursing journals. Image — the Journal of Nursing Scholarship 30 (2): 143–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Fenton, J. E., Brazier, H., et al. (2000). The accuracy of citation and quotation in otolaryngology/head and neck surgery journals. Clinical Otolaryngology 25 (1): 40–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lok, C. K., Chan, M. T., et al. (2001). Risk factors for citation errors in peer-reviewed nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing 34 (2): 223–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Rastegar, D. A. and Wolfe, L. (2002). Experience, expertise, or specialty? Uses and misuses of a reference. Journal of Family Practice 51 (2): 168.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Gosling, C. M., Cameron, M., et al. (2004). Referencing and quotation accuracy in four manual therapy journals. Manual therapy 9 (1): 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Friedman, P. J. (1990). Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication. Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (10, March 9): 1416–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Garfield, E. and Welljams-Dorof, A. (1990). The impact of fraudulent research on the scientific literature. Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (10): 1424–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Pfeifer, M. P. and Snodgrass, G. L. (1990). The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (10): 1420–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., et al. (1998). Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. Journal of the American Medical Association 280 (3): 296–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., et al. (1999). Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. Bulletin of the Medical Libraries Association 87 (4): 437–43.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Pitkin, R. M., Branagan, M. A., et al. (1999). Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. Journal of the American Medical Association 281 (12): 1110–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Pitkin, R. M., Branagan, M. A., et al. (2000). Effectiveness of a journal intervention to improve abstract quality. Journal of the American Medical Association 283 (4): 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Harris, A. H., Standard, S., et al. (2002). The accuracy of abstracts in psychology journals. Journal of Psychology 136 (2): 141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ward, L. G., Kendrach, M. G., et al. (2004). Accuracy of abstracts for original research articles in pharmacy journals. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 38 (7–8): 1173–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Harrison, J. E. (2003). Clinical trials in orthodontics II: assessment of the quality of reporting of clinical trials published in three orthodontic journals between 1989 and 1998. Journal of Orthodontics 30 (4): 309–15; discussion 297–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Soares, H. P., Daniels, S., et al. (2004). Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. British Medical Journal 328 (7430): 22–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Mulsant, B. H., Kastango, K. B., et al. (2002). Interrater reliability in clinical trials of depressive disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry 159 (9): 1598–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Gardner, M. J. (1990). An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (March 10): 1355–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Gardenier, J. S. and Resnik, D. B. (2002). The misuse of statistics: concepts, tools, and a research agenda. Accountability in Research 9 (2): 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Dickersin, K. (1997). How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Education and Prevention 9 (1 Suppl): 15–21.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Link, A. M. (1998). US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. Journal of the American Medical Association 280 (3): 246–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Garfunkel, J. M., Ulshen, M. H., et al. (1994). Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers’ recommendations and editorial decisions. Journal of the American Medical Association 272 (2): 137–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Joyce, J., Rabe-Hesketh, S., et al. (1998). Reviewing the reviews: the example of chronic fatigue syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association 280 (3): 264–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Ezzo, J., Bausell, B., et al. (2001). Reviewing the reviews. How strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 17 (4): 457–66.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Shamoo, A. E., Irving, D. N., et al. (1997). A review of patient outcomes in pharmacological studies from the psychiatric literature, 1966–1993. Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Johansen, H. K. and Gotzsche, P. C. (1999). Problems in the design and reporting of trials of antifungal agents encountered during meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association 282 (18): 1752–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Rogler, L. H., Mroczek, D. K., et al. (2001). The neglect of response bias in mental health research. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 189 (3): 182–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Kjaergard, L. L. and Gluud, C. (2002). Citation bias of hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 55 (4): 407–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Anyanwu, A. C. and Treasure, T. (2002). Unrealistic expectations arising from mortality data reported in the cardiothoracic journals. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 123 (1): 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Puffer, S., Torgerson, D., et al. (2003). Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals. British Medical Journal 327 (7418): 785–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., et al. (1996). Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. New England Journal of Medicine 335 (23): 1734–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Blumenthal, D., Causino, N., et al. (1996). Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences—an industry survey. New England Journal of Medicine 334 (6): 368–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Blumenthal, D., Causino, N., et al. (1997). Academic-industry research relationships in genetics: a field apart. Nature Genetics 16 (1): 104–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S., et al. (1997). Relationship between market competition and the activities and attitudes of medical school faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association 278 (3): 222–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Campbell, E. G., Louis, K. S., et al. (1998). Looking a gift horse in the mouth: corporate gifts supporting life sciences research. Journal of the American Medical Association 279 (13): 995–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Weissman, J. S., Saglam, D., et al. (1999). Market forces and unsponsored research in academic health centers. Journal of the American Medical Association 281 (12): 1093–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Boyd, E. A. and Bero, L. A. (2000). Assessing Faculty Financial Relationships With Industry: A Case Study. Journal of the American Medical Association 284: 2209–2214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S., et al. (2001). Market competition and patient-oriented research: the results of a national survey of medical school faculty. Academic Medicine 76 (11): 1119–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Davis, R. M. and Mullner, M. (2002). Editorial independence at medical journals owned by professional associations: a survey of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (4): 513–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Buchkowsky, S. S. and Jewesson, P. J. (2004). Industry sponsorship and authorship of clinical trials over 20 years. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 38 (4): 579–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., et al. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association 289 (4): 454–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., et al. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. British Medical Journal 326 (7400): 1167–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Friedman, L. S. and Richter, E. D. (2004). Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. Journal of General Internal Medicine 19 (1): 51–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Misakian, A. L. and Bero, L. A. (1998). Publication bias and research on passive smoking: comparison of published and unpublished studies. Journal of the American Medical Association 280 (3): 250–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Stelfox, H., Chua, G., et al. (1998). Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. New England Journal of Medicine 338 (2): 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Angell, M. (2004). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it, Random House, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest: has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    anon. (2002). A major scientific fraud has just been confirmed. The Economist, September 26.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Begley, S. (2002). Science breaks down when cheaters think they won’t be caught. Wall Street Journal. New York City, September 27.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Chang, K. (2002). His reputation is shredded. What about his papers? New York Times. New York City, October 15.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Chang, K. (2002). On scientific fakery and the systems to catch it. New York Times. New York City, October 15.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Morgan, R. (2002). Prominent physicist, accused of fraud, is fired from Lawrence Berkeley National lab. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, DC, July 15.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Press, A. (2002). Lab cites misconduct in ‘discovery’. Gaurdian. London, June 14.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Crewdson, J. (2002). Science fictions: A scientific mystery, a massive coverup and the dark legacy of Robert Gallo, 1st, Little Brown, Boston.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Goldberg, C. and Allen, S. (2005). Researcher admits fraud in grant data. Boston Globe. Boston, MA, March 18.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Kintisch, E. (2005). Scientific misconduct. Researcher faces prison for fraud in NIH grant applications and papers. Science 307 (5717): 1851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Smallwood, S. (2005). Former scientist at U. of Vermont to plead guilty to vast research fraud. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, DC, March 18.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    National Library of Medicine (2004). Statistical Reports on MEDLINE/PubMed Baseline Data. Available at: Scholar
  133. 133.
    Kaufman, M. (2000). Clinical trial sanctions urged. Washington Post. Washington, DC, May 24.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Gose, B. (2000). U. of Pennsylvania, doctors, and ethicist are named in suit over gene-therapy death. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, DC, September 20.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Brainard, J. (2000). Penn disputes charges stemming from death in research. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, DC, February 25.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Brainard, J. (2000). Citing patient’s death, key senator urges better oversight of gene-therapy trials. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, DC, February 11.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Stolberg, S. G. (1999). The biotech death of Jesse Gelsinger. New York Times Magazine. New York, New York, November 28: 136–140, 149–150.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Reuters (2001). Illnesses in 1978 study foreshadowed Hopkins Death. Reuters, July 27.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Curry, D. (2001). U.S. halts federally supported research involving human subjects at Johns Hopkins U. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, DC, July 20.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Curry, D. (2001). Patient dies in lung study at Johns Hopkins U. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, DC, June 15.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Gillis, J. (2002). Panel targets conflicts in medical research schools’ financial relationships cited. Washington Post. Washington, DC, September 24.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    (2003). Findings of scientific misconduct, 68 Federal Register 231 67450.Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    (2004). Findings of scientific misconduct, 69 Federal Register 152 48246.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Cohen, J. (2005). Research integrity is job one. AAMC Reporter (September 2005). Available at: Scholar
  145. 145.
    United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. (1981). Fraud in biomedical research. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, first session, March 31, April 1, 1981, U.S. G.P.O., Washington.Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Health Research Extension Act of 1985. Public Law 99-158.Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Public Health Service (1996). Responsibility of PHS awardee and applicant institutions for dealing with and reporting possible misconduct in science, 42 Code of Federal Regulations 50, Subpart A 50.102.Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Schachman, H. K. (1993). What is misconduct in science? Science 261 (July 9): 148-9+.Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Redman, B. K. and Merz, J. F. (2005). Evaluating the oversight of scientific misconduct. Accountability in Research 12 (3): 157–162.Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    American Association of Medical Colleges. AAMC-ORI Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Program for Academic Societies. Available at: Scholar
  151. 151.
    Moses, H., 3rd, Dorsey, E. R., et al. (2005). Financial anatomy of biomedical research. Journal of the American Medical Association 294 (11): 1333–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Research Integrity, HHSUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations