戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 cantly more likely to engage in professional misconduct.
2 amwork, deceptive communication, and ethical misconduct.
3 ct, and potential methods to reduce research misconduct.
4  sampled reported having observed scientific misconduct.
5 ated in any activity amounting to Scientific Misconduct.
6  than twice as likely to engage in corporate misconduct.
7 nd damage to the careers of those committing misconduct.
8 f retractions are associated with scientific misconduct.
9 rch had been retracted because of scientific misconduct.
10 or have been retracted because of scientific misconduct.
11  of the code and 35% lacked consequences for misconduct.
12 s an honest mistake, not fraud or scientific misconduct.
13 n-combatants, and reduced reports of ethical misconduct.
14 opardized by a serious episode of scientific misconduct.
15 itutions, or individuals to prove scientific misconduct.
16 ssociated with more frequent observations of misconduct.
17 be recognized as a frontline defense against misconduct.
18 entify and avoid this relatively new type of misconduct.
19  Only 30.7% said they would report suspected misconduct.
20 ll help to develop interventions that reduce misconduct.
21 decades, predominantly driven by intentional misconduct.
22 and their engagement in GAI-related academic misconduct.
23 ct (233 [49.50%]) and intentional procedural misconduct (210 [44.60%]).
24 he most common reasons were intentional data misconduct (233 [49.50%]) and intentional procedural mis
25 eate a process for addressing allegations of misconduct, 72% thought that the Association should deve
26        We found that papers retracted due to misconduct accounted for approximately $58 million in di
27 higher education institutions who had sexual misconduct accusations against them between 1982 and 201
28 e failed to prove its findings of scientific misconduct after the commitment of substantial resources
29 n actually goes about adjudicating claims of misconduct against its members.
30 the complainant and respondent, the types of misconduct alleged, and the outcomes of the review, incl
31 ences with codes, 43% did not mention sexual misconduct and 17% did not mention identity-based discri
32 tool that journals can use to deter research misconduct and alert their audience to erroneous content
33                                     Research misconduct and consequential harms have been inflicted u
34 , pursuing a small fraction of the estimated misconduct and consolidation in the pharmaceutical marke
35 explore increasing concerns about scientific misconduct and data irreproducibility in some areas of s
36 ow codes of conduct address issues of sexual misconduct and identity-based discrimination.
37  leaders had observed many more instances of misconduct and other problematic research practices than
38 tutions and journals to ensure that research misconduct and publication ethics are managed properly a
39 ever, some edits are instances of scientific misconduct and undermine the integrity of the presented
40 ntries, summarize some high profile cases of misconduct, and make suggestions on ways forward.
41 structional examples of egregious scientific misconduct, and potential methods to reduce research mis
42                                    Regarding misconduct behaviors, Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, a
43 ersonality traits and both GAI attitudes and misconduct behaviors.
44  not provide additional predictive value for misconduct beyond personality traits.
45 peer misconduct increases an officer's later misconduct by 8%.
46 heating, and 11.9% had knowledge of research misconduct by colleagues.
47 by the University of Liverpool into research misconduct by Dr Daniel Antoine, the remaining authors e
48  the site visit, Bezwoda admitted scientific misconduct by using a different control chemotherapy reg
49 reconsideration of some fundamental research misconduct concepts, and journal policy changes.
50 ost retractions are associated with research misconduct, entailing financial costs to funding sources
51 g retractions, as they do not always signify misconduct; further analysis on a case-by-case basis is
52                                   Scientific misconduct has been defined as fabrication, falsificatio
53                                   Scientific misconduct has occurred throughout the history of scienc
54 h Integrity's (ORI's) findings of scientific misconduct have called its role into question.
55  article examines problems in the scientific misconduct hearing process and suggests that the process
56 rch has been retracted because of scientific misconduct, hydroxyethyl starch was associated with a si
57 s the pandemic to human error and scientific misconduct in a Chinese lab, and the Nature Narrative de
58 rity and mitigate the impacts of adversarial misconduct in a Federated Learning scenario.
59                                      Alleged misconduct in enforcement actions involved anticompetiti
60 iatives for preventing and managing research misconduct in high-income countries, summarize some high
61 of state statutes that broadly define sexual misconduct in psychotherapy.
62 h Integrity (ORI) is tasked with rooting out misconduct in research funded by the National Institutes
63 nt began to take systematic interest in such misconduct in the 1980s.
64 t, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%),
65    We find that a 10% increase in prior peer misconduct increases an officer's later misconduct by 8%
66  retraction (categorized as intentional data misconduct, intentional procedural misconduct, unintenti
67 nst injections of tampered models (or "model misconduct") into the collaborative pipeline, without ex
68 s that the university completed a scientific misconduct investigation involving research published by
69  and indicate that exposing tobacco industry misconduct is an essential first step.
70                                   Scientific misconduct is an issue rife with controversy, from its f
71 gives rise to mistaken allegations of sexual misconduct is often given in private, and because sexual
72 bstantially decrease incidents of scientific misconduct or other unethical behavior.
73 these respondents did not think that serious misconduct or sloppy science occurred more often in AADR
74 dividual scientists have observed scientific misconduct or were involved in it.
75 ess identity-based discrimination and sexual misconduct, provide channels for anonymous impartial rep
76 believe that their allegations of scientific misconduct should have been upheld, and by the accused f
77 ations, and those responsible for scientific misconduct, supporting hypotheses that connect bias to s
78 nd greater willingness to report and address misconduct than in those before training.
79         The contested findings of scientific misconduct that have been tried before the hearing body
80 techniques and exploit the variation in peer misconduct that results when officers switch peer groups
81 on to studies of the incidence of scientific misconduct, this review considers the recent increase in
82 eople go beyond merely explaining away their misconduct to actively deceiving themselves.
83                                  The alleged misconduct, type of legal action taken, timing, and outc
84 onal data misconduct, intentional procedural misconduct, unintentional data errors, unintentional pro
85    We estimate causal peer effects in police misconduct using data from about 35,000 officers and sta
86  academic cheating was 16.7% and of research misconduct was 3.7%.
87 cles; results could not be replicated in 38; misconduct was evident in 86; and no clear reason was gi
88 ed on the subset of retractions for which no misconduct was identified, in order to identify the majo
89 nding of researchers found to have committed misconduct were determined.
90 f Research Integrity (ORI) to have committed misconduct were reviewed from public databases.
91             Understanding the antecedents of misconduct will help to develop interventions that reduc