Ten Simple Rules for Protecting Research Integrity.
作者信息
Shaw David M, Erren Thomas C
机构信息
Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Institute and Policlinic for Occupational Medicine, Environmental Medicine and Prevention Research, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
出版信息
PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 Oct 1;11(10):e1004388. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004388. eCollection 2015 Oct.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Ten Simple Rules for Protecting Research Integrity.保护研究诚信的十条简单规则。
PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 Oct 1;11(10):e1004388. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004388. eCollection 2015 Oct.
2
Research fraud squad.科研欺诈调查小组。
Nurs Stand. 2001;16(11):12-3. doi: 10.7748/ns.16.11.12.s33.
3
Research ethics. Germany gets in step with scientific misconduct rules.
Science. 2002 Jun 7;296(5574):1778. doi: 10.1126/science.296.5574.1778a.
4
Out in the open.在户外。
Nat Biotechnol. 2005 Feb;23(2):153. doi: 10.1038/nbt0205-153.
5
An ethical analysis of the phenomenon of misconduct in research.对研究中的不当行为现象的伦理分析。
Acta Oncol. 1999;38(1):107-10. doi: 10.1080/028418699431889.
6
Research integrity: Journals should be clear on misconduct.研究诚信：期刊应明确不当行为。
Nature. 2013 May 2;497(7447):40. doi: 10.1038/497040c.
7
New guidance issued on promoting integrity in scientific research.发布了关于促进科研诚信的新指南。
BMJ. 2002 Jul 27;325(7357):182. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7357.182/c.
8
Changing guidelines on conflict of interest.关于利益冲突的不断变化的指导方针。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 May;37(6):1749-50. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(01)01295-5.
9
Research guidelines: it's all about integrity.研究指南：一切关乎诚信。
Acad Emerg Med. 2001 Jul;8(7):747-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb00196.x.
10
Consensus statement on the adoption of the COPE guidelines.关于采用《出版伦理委员会（COPE）指南》的共识声明。
Am J Surg. 2010 Jul;200(1):1. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.06.001.
引用本文的文献
1
"Doctored: fraud, arrogance, and tragedy in the quest to cure Alzheimer's": an important new book with direct relevance to GeroScience.《篡改：攻克阿尔茨海默病过程中的欺诈、傲慢与悲剧》：一本与老年科学直接相关的重要新书。
Geroscience. 2025 Apr 22. doi: 10.1007/s11357-025-01661-2.
2
Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen.欺骗性的科学研究，不当行为事件可能比预想的更为普遍。
Environ Sci Eur. 2022;34(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12302-022-00659-3. Epub 2022 Aug 23.
3
An Updated Framework for Industry Funding of Food and Nutrition Research: Managing Financial Conflicts and Scientific Integrity.更新的食品与营养研究产业资助框架：管理财务冲突和科学诚信
J Nutr. 2022 Aug 9;152(8):1812-1818. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxac106.
4
Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands.可疑研究行为、研究不端行为及其潜在解释因素的流行程度：荷兰学术研究人员的调查。
PLoS One. 2022 Feb 16;17(2):e0263023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263023. eCollection 2022.
5
Ten simple rules for starting research in your late teens.在十八九岁开始开展研究的十条简单规则。
PLoS Comput Biol. 2020 Nov 19;16(11):e1008403. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008403. eCollection 2020 Nov.
6
A brief guide to the science and art of writing manuscripts in biomedicine.生物医学稿件撰写的科学与艺术简要指南。
J Transl Med. 2020 Nov 10;18(1):425. doi: 10.1186/s12967-020-02596-2.
7
Establishing and Maintaining Research Integrity at Academic Institutions: Challenges and Opportunities.在学术机构中建立和维护研究诚信：挑战与机遇。
Am J Med. 2020 Mar;133(3):e87-e90. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.08.036. Epub 2019 Sep 12.
8
The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A Conceptual Schema.追求研究诚信的清晰性：概念框架。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Aug;25(4):1085-1093. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0052-2. Epub 2018 Mar 28.
9
The Value of Vagueness in the Politics of Authorship.作者身份政治中模糊性的价值。
J Bioeth Inq. 2017 Mar;14(1):13-15. doi: 10.1007/s11673-016-9768-3. Epub 2016 Dec 30.
10
The Virus of Vagueness in Authorship.作者身份的模糊性问题
J Bioeth Inq. 2016 Sep;13(3):361-2. doi: 10.1007/s11673-016-9734-0.
本文引用的文献
1
[Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals].[关于医学期刊中学术作品的撰写、报告、编辑及发表的建议]
Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2014 Oct;22(10):781-91.
2
A piece of my mind. Beyond conflicts of interest: disclosing medical biases.
JAMA. 2014 Aug 20;312(7):697-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.8035.
3
Publishing: Rise in retractions is a signal of integrity.出版：撤稿率上升是诚信的信号。
Nature. 2014 May 1;509(7498):33. doi: 10.1038/509033a.
4
The prisoners' dilemmas: Authorship guidelines and impact factors: between a rock and a hard place.囚徒困境：作者指南与影响因素：进退两难。
EMBO Rep. 2014 Jun;15(6):635-7. doi: 10.1002/embr.201338348. Epub 2014 Apr 29.
5
Multisystem failure: the story of anti-influenza drugs.多系统功能衰竭：抗流感药物的情况
BMJ. 2014 Apr 10;348:g2263. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2263.
6
How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set.如何在设定研究重点时增加价值和减少浪费。
Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):156-65. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1. Epub 2014 Jan 8.
7
Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign.为什么越来越多的撤稿是（主要）一个好迹象。
PLoS Med. 2013 Dec;10(12):e1001563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563. Epub 2013 Dec 3.
8
The UK should lead the way on research integrity.
BMJ. 2013 Apr 22;346:f2348. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2348.
9
Policies and initiatives aimed at addressing research misconduct in high-income countries.针对高收入国家研究不端行为的政策和举措。
PLoS Med. 2013;10(3):e1001406. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001406. Epub 2013 Mar 26.
10
Guidance on research integrity: no union in Europe.关于研究诚信的指导意见：欧洲尚无统一标准 。
Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1097-8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60759-X.
Zotero 插件