Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Scientific misconduct.
Can J Urol. 2001 Dec;8(6):1392.
2
The peer-review process in medical publishing: a reviewer's perspective.医学出版中的同行评审过程：审稿人的视角
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003 Dec;126(6):1683-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2003.07.014.
3
Scientific misconduct. Bell Labs fires star physicist found guilty of forging data.科研不端行为。贝尔实验室解雇了被判伪造数据罪名成立的明星物理学家。
Science. 2002 Oct 4;298(5591):30-1. doi: 10.1126/science.298.5591.30.
4
Next steps in the Schön affair.朔恩事件的后续进展。
Science. 2002 Oct 18;298(5593):495. doi: 10.1126/science.298.5593.495.
5
Quality of the scientific literature: all that glitters is not gold.
Clin Biochem. 2006 Dec;39(12):1109-11. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2006.08.015. Epub 2006 Sep 15.
6
Ethical issues related to publishing and reviewing.与出版和评审相关的伦理问题。
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001 Dec;40(12):1476-8. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200112000-00020.
7
Journals under pressure: publish, and be damned.面临压力的期刊：发表文章，后果自负。
Nature. 2002 Oct 24;419(6909):772-6. doi: 10.1038/419772a.
8
Standards for papers on cloning.克隆相关论文的标准。
Nature. 2006 Jan 19;439(7074):243. doi: 10.1038/439243a.
9
Journals should set a new standard in transparency.期刊应在透明度方面树立新的标准。
Nature. 2007 Jan 25;445(7126):364. doi: 10.1038/445364a.
10
Fraud: anonymous 'stars' would not dazzle reviewers.
Nature. 2006 Mar 23;440(7083):408. doi: 10.1038/440408c.
Zotero 插件