Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://link.springer.com/doi/10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6 below:

Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys

• Allen, G. N., Ball, N. L., & Smith, H. J. (2011). Information systems research behaviors: What are the normative standards? MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 533–551.

  Google Scholar 

• Anderson, M. S., & Steneck, N. H. (2011). The problem of plagiarism. Urologic Oncology, 29(1), 90–94.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics and Behavior, 19(5), 379–402.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Baždarić, K. (2012). Plagiarism detection-quality management tool for all scientific journals. Croatian Medical Journal, 53(1), 1–3.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Baždarić, K., Bilić-Zulle, L., Brumini, G., & Petrovečki, M. (2012). Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the Croatian medical journal. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 223–239.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bebeau, M. J., & Davis, E. L. (1996). Survey of ethical issues in dental research. Journal of Dental Research, 75(2), 845–855.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bedeian, A., Taylor, S., & Miller, A. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9, 715–725.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Biagioli, M. (2012). Recycling texts or stealing time? Plagiarism, authorship, and credit in science. International Journal of Cultural Property, 19, 453–476.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Borkowski, S., & Welsh, M. (2000). Ethical practice in the accounting publishing process: Contrasting opinions of authors and editors. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 15–31.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bosch, X., Hernandez, C., Pericas, J. M., Doti, P., & Marusic, A. (2012). Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51928.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bouville, M. (2008). Plagiarism: Words and ideas. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 311–322.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Burgess, G. L., & Mullen, D. (2002). Observations of ethical misconduct among industrial hygienists in England. AIHA Journal, 63(2), 151–155.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Butler, D. (2010). Journals step up plagiarism policing. Nature, 466(7303), 167.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cossette, P. (2004). Research integrity: An exploratory survey of administrative science faculties. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(3), 213–234.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Dhingra, D., & Mishra, D. (2014). Public misconduct among medical professionals in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 11(2), 104–107.

  Google Scholar 

• Dotterweich, D., & Garrison, S. (1998). Research ethics of business academic researchers at AACSB institutions. Teaching Business Ethics, 1(4), 431–447.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Eastwood, S., Derish, P., Leash, E., & Ordway, S. (1996). Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(1), 89–114.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Errami, M., Hicks, J., Fisher, W., Trusty, D., Wren, J., Long, T. C., et al. (2008). Deja vu a study of duplicate citations in medline. Bioinformatics, 24(2), 243–249.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Errami, M., Sun, Z., Long, T. C., George, A. C., and Garner, H. R. (2009). Déjà vu: A database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature. Nucleic Acids Research, 37(Database issue), D921-4.

• Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS ONE, 5, e10068.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Fanelli, D. (2013). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine, 10(12), e1001563.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Fanelli, D., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e66938.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Fanelli, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2013). US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(37), 15031–15036.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS, 109(42), 17028–17033.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Geggie, D. (2001). A survey of newly appointed consultants’ attitudes towards research fraud. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27(5), 344–346.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Giles, J. (2005). Taking on the cheats. Nature, 435, 258–259.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013). Guidance on research integrity: No union in Europe. Lancet, 381, 1097–1098.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Greenberg, M., & Goldberg, L. (1994). Ethical challenges to risk scientists: An exploratory analysis of survey data. Science, Technology and Human Values, 19(2), 223–241.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Honig, B., & Bedi, A. (2012). The fox in the hen house: A critical examination of plagiarism among members of the academy of management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 101–123.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Horrom, T. A. (2012). Response to Horrom TA. The perils of copy and paste: Plagiarism in scientific publishing. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 49(8), vii–xii.

• Ioannidis, J. P. (2008). Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 14(5), 951–957.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• John, L., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kalichman, M. W., & Friedman, P. J. (1992). A pilot-study of biomedical trainees perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine, 67(11), 769–775.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kattenbraker, M. S. (2007). Health education research and publication: Ethical considerations and the response of health educators. PhD thesis, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, United States.

• Kleikamp, E. (2013). CrossCheck-EES integration go-live date announced. http://editorsupdate.elsevier.com/short-communications/crosscheck-ees-integration-go-live-date-announced/. Accessed 9 July 2014.

• Koklu, N. (2003). Views of academicians on research ethics. Journal of Educational Sciences & Practices, 2(4), 138–151.

  Google Scholar 

• Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2000). Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Ltd.

  Google Scholar 

• Macaskill, P., Walter, S. D., & Irwig, L. (2001). A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 20(4), 641–654.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Martin, B. R. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42(5), 1005–1014.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., Crain, A. L., & Vries, R. D. (2006). Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 1(1), 51–66.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Martinson, B. C., Crain, A. L., De Vries, R., & Anderson, M. S. (2010). The importance of organizational justice in ensuring research integrity. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(3), 67–83.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Marušić, A., Bošnjak, L., & Jerončić, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e23477.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• May, C., Campbell, S., & Doyle, H. (1998). research misconduct: A pilot study of British addiction researchers. Addiction Research & Theory, 6(4), 371–373.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Nilstun, T., Löfmark, R., & Lundqvist, A. (2010). Scientific dishonesty—questionnaire to doctoral students in Sweden. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(5), 315–318.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• NSF. (2013). Semiannual Report to the Congress. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/oig14001/oig14001.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2014.

• Okonta, P., & Rossouw, T. (2013). Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in nigeria. Developing World Bioethics, 13(3), 149–157.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• ORI. (1994). Policy on plagiarism. ORI Newsletter, 3(1).http://ori.hhs.gov/ori-policy-plagiarism. Accessed 8 Augest 2014.

• ORI. (2000–2011). The office of research integrity annual report. http://ori.hhs.gov/annual_reports. Accessed 14 March 2014.

• Plagiarism pinioned. (2010). Nature, 466(7303): 159–160.

• Randall, D., & Fernandes, M. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(11), 805–817.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Reich, E. (2010). Self-plagiarism case prompts calls for agencies to tighten rules. Nature, 468, 745.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Resnik, D. (1998). The ethics of science. New York: Routledge.

  Google Scholar 

• Resnik, D., & Master, Z. (2013). Policies and initiatives aimed at addressing research misconduct in high-income countries. PLoS Medicine, 10(3), e1001406.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Resnik, D. B., & Zeng, W. (2010). Research integrity in China: Problems and prospects. Developing World Bioethics, 10(3), 164–171.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Steneck, N. H. (1994). Research universities and scientific misocnduct. Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 310–330.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Supak-Smolcic, V., & Simundic, A. M. (2013). Biochemia medica has started using the crosscheck plagiarism detection software powered by iThenticate. Biochemia Medica, 23(2), 139–140.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Swazey, J., Anderson, M., & Louis, K. (1993). Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist, 81, 542–553.

  Google Scholar 

• Tangney, J. P. (1987). Fraud will out-or will it? New Scientist, 115(1572), 62–63.

  Google Scholar 

• Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., Lau, J., & Olkin, I. (2003). Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 2113–2126.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A., & Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453(7198), 980.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• U.S. Federal Research Misconduct Policy. (2000) http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/federalpolicy.cfm. Accessed 12 May 2014.

• Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.

  Google Scholar 

• Wager, E. (2011). How should editors respond to plagiarism? COPE discussion paper. http://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents. Accessed 12 June 2014.

• Wager, E., Fiack, S., Graf, C., Robinson, A., & Rowlands, I. (2009). Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: Results of an international survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 348–353.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Zhang, Y. H., & Jia, X. (2012). A survey on the use of CrossCheck for detecting plagiarism in journal articles. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE (A/B/C) PR China, 25(4), 292–307.

  Google Scholar 

Download references

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4