ライフサイエンスコーパス: misconduct

1 amwork, deceptive communication, and ethical misconduct.

2 nd damage to the careers of those committing misconduct.

3 f retractions are associated with scientific misconduct.

4 rch had been retracted because of scientific misconduct.

5 or have been retracted because of scientific misconduct.

6 s an honest mistake, not fraud or scientific misconduct.

7 n-combatants, and reduced reports of ethical misconduct.

8 opardized by a serious episode of scientific misconduct.

9 itutions, or individuals to prove scientific misconduct.

10 ssociated with more frequent observations of misconduct.

11 ct, and potential methods to reduce research misconduct.

12 sampled reported having observed scientific misconduct.

13 ated in any activity amounting to Scientific Misconduct.

14 eate a process for addressing allegations of misconduct, 72% thought that the Association should deve

15 We found that papers retracted due to misconduct accounted for approximately $58 million in di

16 e failed to prove its findings of scientific misconduct after the commitment of substantial resources

17 n actually goes about adjudicating claims of misconduct against its members.

18 the complainant and respondent, the types of misconduct alleged, and the outcomes of the review, incl

19 explore increasing concerns about scientific misconduct and data irreproducibility in some areas of s

20 leaders had observed many more instances of misconduct and other problematic research practices than

21 ntries, summarize some high profile cases of misconduct, and make suggestions on ways forward.

22 structional examples of egregious scientific misconduct, and potential methods to reduce research mis

23 the site visit, Bezwoda admitted scientific misconduct by using a different control chemotherapy reg

24 ost retractions are associated with research misconduct, entailing financial costs to funding sources

25 Scientific misconduct has been defined as fabrication, falsificatio

26 Scientific misconduct has occurred throughout the history of scienc

27 h Integrity's (ORI's) findings of scientific misconduct have called its role into question.

28 article examines problems in the scientific misconduct hearing process and suggests that the process

29 rch has been retracted because of scientific misconduct, hydroxyethyl starch was associated with a si

30 iatives for preventing and managing research misconduct in high-income countries, summarize some high

31 of state statutes that broadly define sexual misconduct in psychotherapy.

32 nt began to take systematic interest in such misconduct in the 1980s.

33 t, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%),

34 s that the university completed a scientific misconduct investigation involving research published by

35 and indicate that exposing tobacco industry misconduct is an essential first step.

36 gives rise to mistaken allegations of sexual misconduct is often given in private, and because sexual

37 these respondents did not think that serious misconduct or sloppy science occurred more often in AADR

38 dividual scientists have observed scientific misconduct or were involved in it.

39 believe that their allegations of scientific misconduct should have been upheld, and by the accused f

40 ations, and those responsible for scientific misconduct, supporting hypotheses that connect bias to s

41 nd greater willingness to report and address misconduct than in those before training.

42 The contested findings of scientific misconduct that have been tried before the hearing body

43 on to studies of the incidence of scientific misconduct, this review considers the recent increase in

44 eople go beyond merely explaining away their misconduct to actively deceiving themselves.

45 cles; results could not be replicated in 38; misconduct was evident in 86; and no clear reason was gi

46 ed on the subset of retractions for which no misconduct was identified, in order to identify the majo

47 nding of researchers found to have committed misconduct were determined.

48 f Research Integrity (ORI) to have committed misconduct were reviewed from public databases.