The DOI matches its Crossref record; 475 of the 475 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Responsible Conduct of Research
Abstract
Responsible Conduct of Research provides an overview of ethical, legal, and social issues in scientific research for science students, trainees, and professional scientists. Written by two leading scholars in the field of research ethics, one with a background in natural science and the other with a background in philosophy and law, the book incorporates insights from these diverse disciplines throughout the text. The book provides in-depth analyses of a wide array of topics, including ethical theory and decision-making, misconduct, questionable research practices, research record-keeping, data sharing, data auditing, reproducibility, authorship, publication, peer review, intellectual property, conflict of interest, mentoring, safe research environment, animal experimentation, research with human subjects, and social responsibility. The book also includes interesting case studies and provocative questions at the end of each chapter that can serve as a basis for further analysis and discussion. The concluding chapter of the book describes some steps that researchers, institutional officials, government agencies, and scientific organizations can take to promote ethical conduct in scientific research. The 4th edition of Responsible Conduct of Research includes updated references and discussions of new and evolving topics, such as digital image manipulation, text recycling (sometimes called self-plagiarism), retractions, publication on pre-print servers, sexual and other forms of harassment, research with human biological samples, revisions to the Common Rule for research with human subjects, dual use research, the COVID-19 pandemic, providing science advice, and interactions with the media.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In summary, LLMs should not be named as authors because they cannot be held legally and morally responsible for what they do, and authorship implies responsibility (Copyright Review Board, 2022; Shamoo and Resnik, 2022).”
From The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023) · cites this paper as Shamoo and Resnik, 2022
In the citing paper
“Although it is important to disclose how an LLM has been used to write or edit a manuscript, designating an LLM as an author is ethically problematic because widely accepted journal guidelines, such as those provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and research norms, such as those articulated by Shamoo and Resnik (2022) and Briggle and Mitcham (2012), imply that”
From The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023) · cites this paper as Shamoo and Resnik, 2022
In the citing paper
“In research, accountability is essential for promoting integrity, reproducibility, rigor, and other important epistemic and moral values (Shamoo and Resnik, 2022).”
From The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023) · cites this paper as Shamoo and Resnik, 2022
In the citing paper
“Although it is important to disclose how an LLM has been used to write or edit a manuscript, designating an LLM as an author is ethically problematic because widely accepted journal guidelines, such as those provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and research norms, such as those articulated by Shamoo and Resnik (2022) and Briggle and Mitcham (2012), imply that”
From The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023) · cites this paper as Shamoo and Resnik, 2022
In the citing paper
“Ethical principles, including openness, honesty, transparency, efficient use of resources, and fair allocation of credit (Shamoo and Resnik, 2022) demand disclosing the use of LLMs.”
From The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023) · cites this paper as Shamoo and Resnik, 2022
In the citing paper
“This reflects a growing consensus in publishing ethics that aligns with the conceptual framework's stipulation of human responsibility for all published outputs (Shamoo and David, 2022).”
From Use of artificial intelligence tools in the publishing process: expectations from publishers through author guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as Shamoo and David, 2022
In the citing paper
“However, bias may also occur intentionally; for example, when a scientist chooses a study that favors a predetermined result, i.e. “cooks the data.””
From Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Deliberately biasing a study is widely recognized as unethical [33].”
From Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“While we have little doubt that AI systems will soon be able to perform many different activities related to research planning, human involvement in this stage may remain essential for quite some time, because research planning is often based on preliminary data from research execution and one may need to revise an experimental protocol based on preliminary results if the experiment is unsuccess”
From Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Bias can be a significant problem not only in conceiving of research but also in planning it [33].”
From Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Honest errors, due to, for example, contamination of biological samples, mislabeling of data, mis-calibrated instruments, or mistaken calculations, occur frequently [33].”
From Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Evaluation can take many years as members of the scientific community must sift through conflicting studies to discern the truth and form judgments about the research [33].”
From Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Some AI systems are proficient at analyzing and interpreting data; yet they are not perfect and remain susceptible to error and bias [33, 57].”
From Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“The scientific values are expressed in the institutional norms for research proposed by Merton [95], which were later refined and expanded upon by others [33, 96, 97].”
From Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Most scientific research done by humans stems from personal, social, political, or economic values that drive inquiry [33, 50, 105].”
From Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“One of the problems with the current system of evaluation is that scientists rarely attempt to replicate each other’s experiments, despite widespread recognition that reproducibility is a defining feature of good science [33, 88].”
From Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Reduction of random errors, like reduction of bias, is widely recognized as essential to good scientific methodology and practice [207].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [207]
In the citing paper
“random errors can undermine the validity and reliability of scientific knowledge and have disastrous consequences for public health, safety, and social policy [207].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [207]
In the citing paper
“Openness, on the other hand, can be deemphasized to protect research participants’ privacy, intellectual property, classified information, or unpublished research [207].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [207]
In the citing paper
“Replication of results by independent researchers, journal peer review, and post-publication peer review also play a major role in error reduction [207].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [207]
In the citing paper
“placebo control groups are not used in clinical trials when receiving a placebo instead of an effective treatment would cause serious harm to the participant [207].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [207]
In the citing paper
“Bias can undermine the quality and trustworthiness of science and its social impacts [207].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [207]
In the citing paper
“The last topic we will address in this section has to do with education and mentoring in responsible conduct of research (RCR), which is widely recognized as essential to promoting ethical judgment, reasoning, and behavior in science [207].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [207]
In the citing paper
“Authorship on scientific papers is based not only on making a substantial contribution, but also on being accountable for the work [207].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [207]
In the citing paper
“Failure to appropriately control AI-related errors could make scientists liable for research misconduct, if they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly disseminate false data or plagiarize [207].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [207]
Citations
Cites
3 retracted
Items 201–400 of 475
Ethical and regulatory aspects of clinical research: readings and commentary
de Castro, L. D. (2004) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · doi:10.1590/s0042-96862004000700016 · Cited by 96
Journals step up plagiarism policing
Butler, D. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/466167a · Cited by 96
Swinging on the Pendulum: Shifting Views of Justice in Human Subjects Research
Mastroianni, A. C., & Kahn, J. P. (2001) · The Hastings Center Report · doi:10.2307/3527551 · Cited by 95
Effect of Institutional Prestige on Reviewers' Recommendations and Editorial Decisions
Garfunkel, J. M. (1994) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520020063017 · Cited by 95
From Baltimore to Bell Labs: Reflections on Two Decades of Debate about Scientific Misconduct
Resnik, D. B. (2003) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989620300508 · Cited by 95
Self-citationPeer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals
Klebel, T., Reichmann, S., Polka, J., McDowell, G. S., Penfold, N., Hindle, S. J., & Ross‐Hellauer, T. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239518 · Cited by 95
Taking Financial Relationships into Account When Assessing Research
Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2013) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.788383 · Cited by 94
Self-citationStavale, R., Ferreira, G. I., Galvão, J. A. M., Zicker, F., Novaes, M. R. C. G., de Oliveira, C. M., & Guilhem, D. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0214272 · Cited by 94
How Do We Know What Works? A Review and Critique of Current Practices in Ethics Training Evaluation
Steele, L., Mulhearn, T. J., Medeiros, K. E., Watts, L. L., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2016) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2016.1186547 · Cited by 92
University-Business Partnerships: An Assessment.
Fairweather, J. S., & Bowie, N. E. (1995) · The Journal of Higher Education · doi:10.2307/2943943 · Cited by 92
Privatizing the University--the New Tragedy of the Commons
Brown, J. R. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.290.5497.1701 · Cited by 91
Animal Research Is Vital to Medicine
Botting, J. H., & Morrison, A. R. (1997) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0297-83 · Cited by 89
RESEARCH INTEGRITY IN CHINA: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS
ZENG, W., & Resnik, D. B. (2009) · Developing World Bioethics · doi:10.1111/j.1471-8847.2009.00263.x · Cited by 89
Self-citationWakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent
British Medical Journal Publishing Group (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d1678 · Cited by 89
Who Will Pay for Public Access to Research Data?
Berman, F., & Cerf, V. G. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1241625 · Cited by 87
INFORMED CONSENT AND COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE DEVELOPING WORLD
Hyder, A. A., & Wali, S. (2006) · Developing World Bioethics · doi:10.1111/j.1471-8847.2006.00134.x · Cited by 87
Shock greets claim of CRISPR-edited babies
Normile, D. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.362.6418.978 · Cited by 87
Owning the Genome: A Moral Analysis of DNA Patenting
Resnik, D. B. (2004) · State University of New York Press eBooks · doi:10.1353/book4742 · Cited by 86
Self-citationResponses of Medical Schools to Institutional Conflicts of Interest
Ehringhaus, S. H. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.299.6.665 · Cited by 86
A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science
Resnik, D. B. (1997) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-997-0023-5 · Cited by 85
Self-citationPublication misconduct among medical professionals in India
Dhingra, D., & Mishra, D. (2014) · Indian Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.20529/ijme.2014.026 · Cited by 85
Science and social responsibility in public health.
Weed, D. L., & McKeown, R. E. (2003) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.6198 · Cited by 84
Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement
Resnik, D. B., & Stewart, C. N. (2012) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2012.650948 · Cited by 84
Self-citationScientific Judgment and the Limits of Conflict-of-Interest Policies
Elliott, K. C. (2008) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989620701783725 · Cited by 82
Digital images are data: and should be treated as such
Cromey, D. W. (2012) · Methods in Molecular Biology · doi:10.1007/978-1-62703-056-4_1 · Cited by 82
Effect of impact factor and discipline on journal data sharing policies
Resnik, D. B., Morales, M., Landrum, R. E., Shi, M., Minnier, J., Vasilevsky, N., & Champieux, R. (2019) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2019.1591277 · Cited by 82
Self-citationMisconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science
Smith, E. M. R., Williams–Jones, B., Master, Z., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., Paul‐Hus, A., Shi, M., & Resnik, D. B. (2019) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-019-00112-4 · Cited by 82
Self-citationSetting the Record Straight in the Breast-Cancer Trials
Angell, M. E., & Kassirer, J. P. (1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199405193302010 · Cited by 81
Improving nature? The science and ethics of genetic engineering
Fraser, F. C. (1997) · American Journal of Medical Genetics · doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-8628(1997)73:2 · Cited by 81
Malički, M., Jerončić, A., ter Riet, G., Bouter, L. M., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Goodman, S. N., & Aalbersberg, I. J. (2020) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17195 · Cited by 81
Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals
Steinbock, B. (1981) · Philosophical Books · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0149.1981.tb01034.x · Cited by 79
Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized
Zhang, Y.-H. H. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/467153d · Cited by 79
Human Relevance of Animal Carcinogenicity Studies
Cohen, S. M. (1995) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1006/rtph.1995.1012 · Cited by 77
Fry, S. T. (1981) · Advances in Nursing Science · doi:10.1097/00012272-198104010-00003 · Cited by 77
Automatic detection of image manipulations in the biomedical literature
Bucci, E. M. (2018) · Cell Death & Disease · doi:10.1038/s41419-018-0430-3 · Cited by 76
Conflicts of Interest--Moving Beyond Disclosure
Cech, T. R., & Leonard, J. S. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.291.5506.989 · Cited by 76
Singapore statement on research integrity
(2011) · Journal of Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1134/s1061934811060190 · Cited by 76
The evolution of editorial peer review
Burnham, J. C. (1990) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.263.10.1323 · Cited by 76
Science, Statistics, and Deception
Bailar, J. C. (1986) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-104-2-259 · Cited by 75
Strategies to Minimize Risks and Exploitation in Phase One Trials on Healthy Subjects*
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2006) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265160600686281 · Cited by 74
Self-citationThe Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics
Eckstein, S. (2012) · Medical Law Review · doi:10.1093/medlaw/fws022 · Cited by 74
Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018
Dal‐Ré, R., & Ayuso, C. (2019) · Journal of Medical Genetics · doi:10.1136/jmedgenet-2019-106137 · Cited by 74
When and Why Is Research without Consent Permissible?
Gelinas, L. C., Wertheimer, A., & Miller, F. G. (2016) · The Hastings Center Report · doi:10.1002/hast.548 · Cited by 73
Policies and Initiatives Aimed at Addressing Research Misconduct in High-Income Countries
Resnik, D. B., & Master, Z. (2013) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001406 · Cited by 72
Self-citationSpecified Principlism: What is it, and Does it Really Resolve Cases Better than Casuistry?
Strong, C. (2000) · The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine · doi:10.1076/0360-5310(200006)25:3;1-h;ft323 · Cited by 71
Liao, Q., Zhang, Y., Fan, Y., Zheng, M., Bai, Y., Eslick, G. D., He, X.-X., Zhang, S., Xia, H. H., & He, H. (2017) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9913-3 · Cited by 71
Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism
Kronick, D. A. (1990) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.263.10.1321 · Cited by 71
Research Ethics: Cases and Materials
Braxton, J. M., & Penslar, R. L. (1996) · The Journal of Higher Education · doi:10.1080/00221546.1996.11780252 · Cited by 69
The Clinical Investigator as Fiduciary: Discarding a Misguided Idea
Morreim, E. H. (2005) · The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics · doi:10.1111/j.1748-720x.2005.tb00521.x · Cited by 67
Cytochrome P450 pharmacogenetics in African populations
Alessandrini, M., Asfaha, S. M., Dodgen, T. M., Warnich, L., & Pepper, M. S. (2013) · Drug Metabolism Reviews · doi:10.3109/03602532.2013.783062 · Cited by 67
The cases for and against double-blind reviews
Cox, A. R., & Montgomerie, R. (2019) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.6702 · Cited by 67
Ethics in Social Science Research: Becoming Culturally Responsive
Lahman, M. K. E. (2018) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781071878750 · Cited by 67
At the Helm: Leading Your Laboratory
Barker, K. (2010) · Cited by 66
Financial Interests and Research Bias
Resnik, D. B. (2000) · Perspectives on Science · doi:10.1162/106361400750340497 · Cited by 65
Self-citationScientists Still Behaving Badly? A Survey Within Industry and Universities
Godecharle, S., Fieuws, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2017) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9957-4 · Cited by 65
Conflict of Interest in the Debate Over Calcium-Channel Antagonists
Stelfox, H. T., Chua, G., ROURKE, K. O., & Detsky, A. S. (1998) · Survey of Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/00132586-199812000-00057 · Cited by 64
University-Business Partnerships: An Assessment
Fairweather, J. S. (1995) · The Journal of Higher Education · doi:10.1080/00221546.1995.11774805 · Cited by 64
Protecting third parties in human subjects research.
Resnik, D. B., & Sharp, R. R. (2006) · PubMed · Cited by 63
Self-citationEffect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review
van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S. J. W., Smith, R. W., & Black, N. A. (1999) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.09058.x · Cited by 63
Resnik, D. B., & Dinse, G. E. (2012) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e318260fe5c · Cited by 63
Self-citationReframing the Framework: Toward Fair Inclusion of Pregnant Women as Participants in Research
Lyerly, A. D., Little, M. O., & Faden, R. (2011) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.560353 · Cited by 63
Data fabrication: Can people generate random digits?
Mosimann, J. E., Wiseman, C. V., & Edelman, R. E. (1995) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989629508573866 · Cited by 63
Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review
Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W. (1997) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-997-0015-5 · Cited by 62
Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of a peer review
van Rooyen, S. (2013) · doi:10.1186/isrctn83117960 · Cited by 61
The science and ethics of making part‐human animals in stem cell biology
Robert, J. S. (2006) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.05-4286lsf · Cited by 61
Yang, W. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1247700 · Cited by 60
Equity in authorship: A strategy for assigning credit when publishing
Digiusto, E. (1994) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90299-2 · Cited by 60
Incentives for Research Participants
Dickert, N. W., & Grady, C. (2008) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195168655.003.0037 · Cited by 60
Protecting Vulnerable Research Subjects Without Unduly Constraining Neuropsychiatric Research
Miller, F. G., & Fins, J. J. (1999) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.56.8.701 · Cited by 59
Masking, Blinding, and Peer Review: The Blind Leading the Blinded
Davidoff, F. (1998) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-128-1-199801010-00011 · Cited by 58
Statistics, ethics, and research: An agenda for education and reform
Resnik, D. B. (2000) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989620008573971 · Cited by 58
Self-citationde Melo‐Martín, I., Palmer, L. I., & Fins, J. J. (2007) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e318132f0ee · Cited by 58
Harassment should count as scientific misconduct
Marín-Spiotta, E. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-018-05076-2 · Cited by 58
Research Misconduct Policies of Social Science Journals and Impact Factor
Resnik, D. B., Patrone, D., & Peddada, S. D. (2010) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621003641181 · Cited by 57
Self-citationDisclosing Conflicts of Interest to Research Subjects: An Ethical and Legal Analysis
Resnik, D. B. (2004) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/03050620490512322 · Cited by 56
Self-citationAcademic Research Record-Keeping: Best Practices for Individuals, Group Leaders, and Institutions
Schreier, A. A., Wilson, K. L., & Resnik, D. B. (2006) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200601000-00010 · Cited by 56
Self-citationFrom global bioethics to ethical governance of biomedical research collaborations
Wahlberg, A., Rehmann‐Sutter, C., Sleeboom-Faulkner, M. E., Lu, G., Döring, O., Cong, Y., Łaska‐Formejster, A., Jing, H., Chen, H., Gottweis, H., et al. (2013) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.03.041 · Cited by 56
H5N1 Avian Flu Research and the Ethics of Knowledge
Resnik, D. B. (2013) · The Hastings Center Report · doi:10.1002/hast.143 · Cited by 56
Self-citationResnik, D. B., Konecny, B., & Kissling, G. E. (2016) · Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000000910 · Cited by 56
Self-citationConflict of Interest in Journal Peer Review
Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, S. A. (2018) · Toxicologic Pathology · doi:10.1177/0192623318754792 · Cited by 56
Self-citationIs it time to revise the definition of research misconduct?
Resnik, D. B. (2019) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2019.1570156 · Cited by 56
Self-citationThe Imperial Japanese Experiments in China
Tsuchiya, T. (2008) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195168655.003.0004 · Cited by 56
Human challenge trials in vaccine development
Sekhar, A., & Kang, G. (2020) · Seminars in Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.smim.2020.101429 · Cited by 55
Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey
(2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d7677 · Cited by 55
Conflicts of Interest in Science
Resnik, D. B. (1998) · Perspectives on Science · doi:10.1162/posc_a_00557 · Cited by 54
Self-citationDNA patents and scientific discovery and innovation: Assessing benefits and risks
Resnik, D. B. (2001) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-001-0023-9 · Cited by 54
Self-citationConfronting misconduct in science in the 1980s and 1990s: What has and has not been accomplished?
Steneck, N. H. (1999) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-999-0005-x · Cited by 54
International research collaborations : much to be gained, many ways to get in trouble
Anderson, M. S., & Steneck, N. H. (2011) · Routledge eBooks · Cited by 53
POST‐TRIAL ACCESS TO ANTIRETROVIRALS: WHO OWES WHAT TO WHOM?
Millum, J. (2009) · Bioethics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01736.x · Cited by 53
Plagiarism in Predatory Publications: A Comparative Study of Three Nursing Journals
Owens, J. K., & Nicoll, L. H. (2019) · Journal of Nursing Scholarship · doi:10.1111/jnu.12475 · Cited by 53
Empirical Issues in Informed Consent for Research
Flory, J., Wendler, D. S., & Emanuel, E. J. (2008) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195168655.003.0060 · Cited by 52
Trends and patterns in research and development expenditures in the United States
Jaffe, A. B. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.23.12658 · Cited by 52
Motivations for performing scholarly prepublication peer review: A scoping review
Mahmić-Kaknjo, M., Utrobičić, A., & Marušić, A. (2020) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2020.1822170 · Cited by 52
Inappropriate and Appropriate Selection of 'Peers' in Grant Review
Glantz, S. A. (1994) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520020040010 · Cited by 50
The Emergence of Biobanks in the Legal Landscape: Towards a New Model of Governance
Rial‐Sebbag, E., & Cambon‐Thomsen, A. (2012) · Journal of Law and Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6478.2012.00573.x · Cited by 50
Misconduct: Lessons from researcher rehab
DuBois, J. M., Chibnall, J. T., Tait, R. C., & Wal, J. S. V. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/534173a · Cited by 50
Institutional Conflict of Interest Policies at U.S. Academic Research Institutions
Resnik, D. B., Ariansen, J. L., Jamal, J., & Kissling, G. E. (2016) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000980 · Cited by 49
Self-citationCollaborative Research: Conflicts on Authorship, Ownership, and Accountability
Dreyfuss, R. C. (2000) · eYLS (Yale Law School) · Cited by 48
Designed to Kill: The Case Against Weapons Research
Forge, J. (2012) · Research ethics forum · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5736-3 · Cited by 48
Couzin, J. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.313.5791.1222 · Cited by 48
Survey of equal contributions in biomedical research publications
Resnik, D. B., Smith, E. M. R., Master, Z., & Shi, M. (2020) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2020.1722947 · Cited by 48
Self-citationAltered Inheritance: CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Genome Editing
Dickenson, D. L. (2020) · The New Bioethics · doi:10.1080/20502877.2020.1729578 · Cited by 48
Funk, C. L., Barrett, K. A., & Macrina, F. L. (2007) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989620701670187 · Cited by 47
Edel, A. (1992) · International Studies in Philosophy · doi:10.5840/intstudphil1992243137 · Cited by 47
Pesticide Testing on Human Subjects: Weighing Benefits and Risks
Resnik, D. B., & Portier, C. J. (2005) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.7720 · Cited by 46
Self-citationBioethics as Methodological Case Resolution: Specification, Specified Principlism and Casuistry
Iltis, A. S. (2000) · The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine · doi:10.1076/0360-5310(200006)25:3;1-h;ft271 · Cited by 46
Text Recycling in Scientific Writing
Moskovitz, C. A. (2018) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-017-0008-y · Cited by 46
Children as Research Subjects: A Dilemma
Kopelman, L. M. (2000) · The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine · doi:10.1093/jmp/25.6.745 · Cited by 46
Korean scandal will have global fallout
Check, E., & Cyranoski, D. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/4381056a · Cited by 45
Principles of Research Data Audit.
Garrett, A., & Shamoo, A. E. (1991) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · doi:10.2307/2348749 · Cited by 45
Self-citation"Inconvenient Truths" in the Pursuit of Scientific Knowledge and Public Health
Relman, D. A. (2013) · The Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/infdis/jit529 · Cited by 45
Equal Co-authorship Practices: Review and Recommendations
Hosseini, M. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00183-8 · Cited by 45
Enrolling Decisionally Impaired Adults in Clinical Research
Chen, D. T., Miller, F. G., & Rosenstein, D. L. (2002) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-200209001-00004 · Cited by 45
Resnik, D. B. (2009) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195375893.001.0001 · Cited by 44
Self-citationTo Tell or Not to Tell? The Ethical Dilemma of the Would-Be Whistleblower
Malek, J. (2010) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621003791929 · Cited by 44
Character and the ethical conduct of research
Pellegrino, E. D. (1992) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989629208573802 · Cited by 44
Dual-Use Review Policies of Biomedical Research Journals
Resnik, D. B., Barner, D. D., & Dinse, G. E. (2011) · Biosecurity and Bioterrorism Biodefense Strategy Practice and Science · doi:10.1089/bsp.2010.0067 · Cited by 44
Self-citationEthics, Practice, and Research in Public Health
MacQueen, K. M., & Buehler, J. W. (2004) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.94.6.928 · Cited by 44
HIV INTERNATIONAL CLINICAL RESEARCH: EXPLOITATION AND RISK
Ballantyne, A. (2005) · Bioethics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00459.x · Cited by 43
Informed Consent and Investigational New Drug Abuses in the U.S. Military
Cummings, M. L. (2002) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989620212967 · Cited by 43
The Communities of Scientists and Journal Peer Review
Knoll, E. (1990) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100030004 · Cited by 42
Patient-Specific Embryonic Stem Cells Derived From Human SCNT Blastocysts
Hwang, W. S., Roh, S. I., Lee, B. C., Kang, S. K., Kwon, D. K., Kim, S., Kim, S. J., Park, S. W., Kwon, H. S., Lee, C. K., et al. (2005) · Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey · doi:10.1097/01.ogx.0000175803.94873.2b · Cited by 42
Use of animals in experimental research: A scientist's perspective
Bulger, R. E. (1987) · The Anatomical Record · doi:10.1002/ar.1092190302 · Cited by 42
Office of Research Integrity: a reflection of disputes and misunderstandings.
Scheetz, M. D. (1999) · PubMed · Cited by 42
NIH Invites Activists Into the Inner Sanctum
Agnew, B. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.283.5410.1999 · Cited by 41
An ethics of expertise based on informed consent
Elliott, K. C. (2006) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-006-0062-3 · Cited by 41
Pasteur's Work on Rabies: Reexamining the Ethical Issues
Geison, G. L. (1978) · The Hastings Center Report · doi:10.2307/3560403 · Cited by 41
Data audit: Its place in auditing
Loeb, S. E., & Shamoo, A. E. (1989) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989628908573771 · Cited by 41
Self-citationBEASTLY CONDUCT: ETHICAL ISSUES IN ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION
Caplan, A. L. (1983) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1983.tb53500.x · Cited by 41
Ethical Concerns About Relapse Studies
Shamoo, A. E., & Keay, T. J. (1996) · Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics · doi:10.1017/s0963180100007180 · Cited by 41
Self-citationPrecautionary Reasoning in Environmental and Public Health Policy
Resnik, D. B. (2021) · The International Library of Bioethics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-70791-0 · Cited by 41
Self-citationGenomic research data: open vs. restricted access.
Resnik, D. B. (2010) · PubMed · Cited by 40
Self-citationInstitutional Conflicts of Interest in Academic Research
Resnik, D. B. (2019) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9702-9 · Cited by 40
Self-citationResearch Integrity, Academic Promotion, and Attribution of Authorship and Nonauthor Contributions
Mentzelopoulos, S. D., & Zakynthinos, S. G. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.11790 · Cited by 40
Experimentation with Human Beings
Rheingold, P. D., & Katz, J. (1973) · University of Pennsylvania Law Review · doi:10.2307/3311218 · Cited by 40
A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review
Laband, D. N. (1994) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.272.2.147 · Cited by 40
Enrolling decisionally impaired adults in clinical research.
Chen, D. T., Miller, F. G., & Rosenstein, D. L. (2002) · PubMed · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000023952.15394.88 · Cited by 39
Need a Reagent? Just Sign Here ...
Marshall, E. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.278.5336.212 · Cited by 38
Proliferation of authors on research reports in medicine
Drenth, J. P. H. (1996) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/bf02583933 · Cited by 38
Experimental Treatment Oxymoron or Aspiration?
King, N. M. P. (1995) · The Hastings Center Report · doi:10.2307/3562155 · Cited by 37
Patentability of Genes: A European Union PerspectivePreprint
Cole, P. (2014) · Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a020891 · Cited by 37
Louis Pasteur and the Hidden World of Microbes
Robbins, L. E. (2001) · Cited by 36
The world debates open-access mandates
Rabesandratana, T. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.363.6422.11 · Cited by 36
The Ethics of Creating and Using Human-Animal Chimeras
Devolder, K., Yip, L. J., & Douglas, T. (2019) · ILAR Journal · doi:10.1093/ilar/ilaa002 · Cited by 36
Burns, W., Strauss, A. L., Abate, R. S., Davies, G., Gardiner, S. M., Güssow, K., Hamilton, C., Hester, T., Horton, J. B., Kopp, R. E., et al. (2013) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139161824 · Cited by 35
Deception in Social Science Research: Is Informed Consent Possible?
Soble, A. (1978) · The Hastings Center Report · doi:10.2307/3561449 · Cited by 35
The History of Invention: From Stone Axes to Silicon Chips
Friedel, R., & Williams, T. (1989) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3105967 · Cited by 35
Pfizer settles with victims of Nigerian drug trial
Lenzer, J. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5268 · Cited by 35
The math of making mutant mice
Williams, R. W., Flaherty, L., & Threadgill, D. W. (2003) · Genes Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1034/j.1601-183x.2003.00017.x · Cited by 35
Legal and Regulatory Standards of Informed Consent in Research
Capron, A. M. (2008) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195168655.003.0058 · Cited by 35
Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications
Anonymous (2012) · Libra · doi:10.18130/7nje-5n57 · Cited by 35
Barinaga, M. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.289.5487.2024 · Cited by 34
White, M. T. (2007) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989620701290341 · Cited by 34
Scientific data audit—A key management tool
Glick, J. L. (1992) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989629208573811 · Cited by 34
Statistics and ethics in medical research
DeMets, D. L. (1999) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-999-0059-9 · Cited by 34
Responsibility in Nanotechnology Development
Arnaldi, S., Ferrari, A., Magaudda, P., & Marin, F. (2014) · The International library of ethics, law and technology · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9103-8 · Cited by 34
Scientific Misconduct in India: Causes and Perpetuation
Patnaik, P. R. (2015) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9677-6 · Cited by 33
Problems in research integrity arising from misconceptions about the ownership of research
Fields, K., & Price, A. R. (1993) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-199309000-00036 · Cited by 33
Ethics of reviewing scientific publications
Napolitani, F., Petrini, C., & Garattini, S. K. (2016) · European Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2016.12.011 · Cited by 33
Incorporating Principles and Practical Wisdom in Research Ethics Education: A Preliminary Study
Deming, N. M., Fryer-Edwards, K. A., Dudzinski, D. M., Starks, H. E., Culver, J. O., Hopley, E. K., Robins, L., & Burke, W. (2006) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.acm.0000250028.51329.6b · Cited by 32
Data Audit as a Way to Prevent/Contain Misconduct
Shamoo, A. E. (2013) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.822259 · Cited by 32
Self-citationFry, S. T. (1981) · Advances in Nursing Science · doi:10.1097/00012272-198110000-00003 · Cited by 32
The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research
(1987) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198702263160916 · Cited by 32
Research With Captive Populations Prisoners, Students, and Soldiers
Bonham, V. H., & Moreno, J. D. (2008) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195168655.003.0044 · Cited by 32
The responsible scientist: a philosophical inquiry
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-4389 · Cited by 31
Scientists fight for right to withhold data
Macilwain, C. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/17163 · Cited by 31
Data audit—historical perspective
Shamoo, A. E., & Annau, Z. (1990) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989629008573779 · Cited by 31
Self-citationMoral Problems in Assessing Research Risk
Kopelman, L. M. (2000) · IRB Ethics and Human Research · doi:10.2307/3564221 · Cited by 31
Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journalsPreprint
Klebel, T., Reichmann, S., Polka, J., et al. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.01.24.918995 · Cited by 31
Resnik, D. B., Lee, E., Jirles, B., Smith, E. M. R., & Barker, K. (2021) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2021.1983799 · Cited by 31
Self-citationResearch With Ethnic and Minority Populations
Lo, B., & Garan, N. (2008) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195168655.003.0040 · Cited by 30
Financial Conflicts Get More Scrutiny in Clinical Trials
Agnew, B. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.289.5483.1266 · Cited by 30
Research Records and the Resolution of Misconduct Allegations at Research Universities
Wilson, K. L., Schreier, A. A., Griffin, A., & Resnik, D. B. (2006) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989620601126017 · Cited by 30
Self-citationResearch Misconduct and The Scientific process: Continuing Quality Improvement
Koppelman‐White, E. (2006) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989620600848611 · Cited by 29
Plagiarism charge for Romanian minister
Abbott, A. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/485289a · Cited by 29
Franz Ingelfinger's Legacy Shaped Biology Publishing
Marshall, E. (1998) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.282.5390.861 · Cited by 29
Drug company 'suppressed' publication of research
Wadman, M. (1996) · Nature · doi:10.1038/381004b0 · Cited by 28
Responsible Authorship in Engineering Fields: An Overview of Current Ethical Challenges
Borenstein, J. (2011) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9272-4 · Cited by 28
F.D.A. approves a heart drug for African-Americans.
Saul, S. (2005) · PubMed · Cited by 28
Our responsibilities toward persons with mental illness as human subjects in research.
Shamoo, A. E. (1994) · PubMed · Cited by 28
Self-citationLooking Back and Judging Our Predecessors
Beauchamp, T. L. (1996) · Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal · doi:10.1353/ken.1996.0020 · Cited by 27
Uncapping Conflict of Interest?
Wood, S. F., & Mador, J. K. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1231955 · Cited by 27
Fenner, M. H. (2010) · doi:10.53731/r294649-6f79289-8cw4y · Cited by 27
Djerassi, C. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/16786 · Cited by 26
NSF Searches for Right Way to Help Women
Mervis, J. D. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.289.5478.379 · Cited by 26
Silent No Longer: 'Model Minority' Mobilizes
Lawler, A. J. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.290.5494.1072 · Cited by 26
Harvard and Monsanto: The $23-Million Alliance
Culliton, B. J. (1977) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.195.4280.759 · Cited by 26
Testing drugs in pediatric populations: The FDA mandate
Tauer, C. A. (1999) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989629908573941 · Cited by 26
Auditing biochemical research data: A case study
Glick, J. L., & Shamoo, A. E. (1991) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989629108573797 · Cited by 26
Self-citationThree Steps to Protecting Pediatric Research Participants from Excessive Risks
Wendler, D. S. (2006) · PLoS Clinical Trials · doi:10.1371/journal.pctr.0010025 · Cited by 26
Retrospective Reflections of a Whistleblower: Opinions on Misconduct Responses
Allen, M. A., & Dowell, R. D. (2013) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.822249 · Cited by 26
The pathology of research fraud: the history and politics of the US experience
LaFollette, M. C. (1994) · Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.1994.tb01046.x · Cited by 26
Efforts to Boost Diversity Face Persistent Problems
Mervis, J. D. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.284.5421.1757 · Cited by 25
Fraud in scientific research: The prosecutor's approach
Willcox, B. L. (1992) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989629208573810 · Cited by 25
Publishing Controversial Research
Miller, L. J., & Bloom, F. E. (1998) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.282.5391.1045 · Cited by 25
Fraud investigation rocks Danish university
Callaway, E. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/news.2011.703 · Cited by 25
Wendler, D. S. (2014) · PubMed · Cited by 25
Deception in Clinical Research
Wendler, D. S., & Miller, F. G. (2008) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195168655.003.0031 · Cited by 25
European Researchers Grapple With Animal Rights
Koenig, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.284.5420.1604 · Cited by 24
Research works printed but not linked: 249
- 1995, Final Report. Stock No. 061-000-00-848-9,
- 2012, The House of Wisdom_ How Arab Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave us the Renaissance
- 1995, Promises of Miracles: News Releases Go Where Journals Fear to Tread., New York Times
- 1997, Experts See Bias in Drug Data., New York Times
- 1988, Project on Scientific Fraud and Misconduct
- 2013, R #amp; D Budget and Policy Program
- 1997, Science on Trial
- 1996., Title 7 U.S. Code,
- 1984, Nichomachean Ethics
- Cleveland Clinic to Tighten Its Disclosure Policies., Wall Street Journal
- 1997, Test of AIDS Vaccine Sought., Denver Post
- 2013, Substantial Agreement of Referee Recommendations at a General Medical Journal—A Peer Review Evaluation at Deutsches Ärzteblatt.”, International. PLoS ONE
- 1996, Piltdown Meltdown: A Hoaxer Revealed., Washington Post
- 1988, Professional Ethics
- 2020, Beall’s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers
- 1977, Walter Reed and the Ordeal of Human Experiments., Bulletin of the History of Medicine
- 1994, Big-Time Biology., Scientific American
- 2000, Excess Heat—Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed
- 2014, Medical Research Misconduct Needs Regulatory Reforms., Indian Journal of Community Medicine
- 2003, Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research.”, Journal of the Americal Medical Assocation
- 1994, Regulations and Essential Requirements for Animals in Research
- 1994, Publication Bias and Public Health on Environmental Tobacco Smoke., Journal of the American Medical Association
- Bingham, C. 2000. “Peer Review and the Ethics of Internet Publishing.” In Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication, edited by A. Jones and F. McLellan, 85–112. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- 1986, The Piltdown Inquest
- 1995, Academic–Industry Relationships in the 1990s: Continuity and Change., Paper presented at the symposium Ethical Issues in Research Relationships between Universities and Industry,
- 1996, Participation of Life-Science Faculty in Relationships with Industry., New England Journal of Medicine
- 1996, Relationship between Academic Institutions and Industry in the Life Sciences—An Industry Survey., New England Journal of Medicine
- 1997, Withholding Research Results in Academic Life Science: Evidence from a National Survey of Faculty., Journal of the American Medical Association
- 2006, Bioethics.
- 1991, Peer Review Under Fire., Science News
- Bradley, G. 2000. “Managing Conflicting Interests.” In Scientific Integrity, edited by Francis Macrina, 131–156. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press.
- 1998, A Theory of the Good and the Right
- 1995, The Day the Universe Changed
- 2007, Copycat Trap., Nature
- 2002, Data Withholding in Academic Genetics: Evidence from a National Survey.”, Journal of the American Medical Association
- 1992, The Animals Issue
- 1991, The Nature of Suffering
- 1999, Perspectives on Genetic Patenting
- 1980, How to Register a Copyright and Protect Your Creative Work
- 1997, Letters to the Editor, Disclosing Conflicts of Interest., Lancet
- 2000, Accountability in Research
- 1990, Peerless Science
- 1991, What Next in the Gallo Case?”, Science
- 1981, Peer Review in the NSF: Phase Two
- Committee on Publication Ethics. 2020. “Peer Review Processes.” https://publicationethics.org/peerreview.
- 2009, On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research
- 2020, U.S. Research and Development Funding and Performance: Fact Sheet
- 1994, Tainted Truth
- 1986, A Randomised Controlled Trial of Prophylactic Neuroleptic Treatment., British Journal of Psychiatry
- 1990, Gallo Inquiry Takes Puzzling Turn., Science
- 2015, Collateral Damage: How a Case of Misconduct Brought a Leading Japanese Biology Institute to its Knees., Nature
- CRISPR-baby Scientist Fails to Satisfy Critics. He Jiankui Gives Talk about Controversial Claim of Genome Editing Babies, but Ethical Questions Remain., Nature
- 2001, Peers under Pressure., Nature
- 1993, S CT 2768
- 2003, Self-Experimentation.”, Accountability in Research
- 1982, Conflict of Interest., Business and Professional Ethics Journal
- 2000, Prevention of Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission in Resource-poor Countries: Translating Research into Policy and Practice.”, Journal of the American Medical Association
- 1995, Business Ethics
- 1997, The Messenger Under Attack—Intimidation of Research by Special-Interest Groups., New England Journal of Medicine
- 1980, 447 US:
- 1988, The New Politics of Science
- 1995, Between Politics and Science
- Dustira, A. K. 1992. “The Funding of Basic and Clinical Biomedical Research.” In Biomedical Research: Collaboration and Conflict of Interest, edited by R. J. Porter and T. E. Malone, 33–56. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- 1998, Ethical Aerobics: ACHREs Flight from Responsibility., Accountability in Research
- 1991, Origins of MIT Inquiry., Nature
- If the Lab-Leak Theory Is Right, What’s Next?”, The Atlantic
- 1994, Science.
- 2017, European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.
- 2019, Clinical Trials
- 1998, Prevalence of Articles with Honorary and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals., Journal of the American Medical Association
- 2013, Policies and Procedures for Handling Conflicts of Interest with FDA Advisory Committee Members, Consultants, and Experts.
- 2003, Enron—The Rise and Fall
- 1990, Moral Reasoning
- 1973, Ethics
- Frey, R. 1994. “The Ethics of the Search for Benefits: Experimentation in Medicine.” In Principles of Health Care Ethics, edited by R. Gillon, 1067–1075. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
- 1999, Evaluation of Conflict of Interest in New Drugs Used in Oncology., Journal of the American Medical Association
- 1990, The Impact of Fraudulent Research on the Scientific Literature—The Stephen Breuning Case., Journal of the American Medical Association
- 1999, Black’s Law Dictionary
- 1996, The Price of Silence: Does Profit-Minded Secrecy Retard Scientific Progress?”, Scientific American
- 311Godlee, F. 2000. “The Ethics of Peer Review.” In Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication, edited by A. Jones and F. McLellan, 59–84. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- 2002, Making Reviewers Visible—Openness, Accountability, and Credit., Journal of the American Medical Association
- 1993, Trying to Declaw the Campus Copycats., Insight Magazine
- 2019, Cold Fusion Remains Elusive—But These Scientists May Revive the Quest.”, National Geographic
- 1992, The Scientific Attitude
- 2003, Defending Science within Reason
- 1991, NIH Finds Fraud in Cell Paper., Science
- 1977, The Nature of Morality
- Research: Gender Bias in Peer Review.”, eLife
- 1994, Philip Morris Blocked ’83 Paper Showing Tobacco is Addictive, Panel Finds., New York Times
- 1976, The Patchwork Mouse
- 1998, Acres of Skin
- Hoy, Q. A. 2018. “Press Release, September 15, 2018: AAAS Approves Policy to Revoke Elected Fellows for Misconduct or Ethics Breach.” https://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-approves-policy-revoke-elected-fellows-misconduct-or-ethics-breach.
- 1988, Science as a Process
- Huth, E. 2000. “Repetitive and Divided Publication.” In Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication, edited by A. Jones and F. McLellan, 112–136. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- 1991, Biomedical Politics
- 2004, Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues
- 2014, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
- 2020, Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors
- 1993, Which Ethics for Science and Public Policy.”, Accountability in Research
- Jones, A. 2000. “Changing Traditions of Authorship.” In Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication, edited by A. Jones and F. McLellan, 3–29. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- 1981, Bad Blood
- Journal of Cell Biology. 2007. “Image Manipulation.” http://www.jcb.org/misc/ifora.shtml#image_AUuisition.
- 1998, Does Masking the Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?”, Journal of the American Medical Association
- 2013, Thinking: Fast and Slow
- 2013, The Research–Treatment Distinction: A Problematic Approach for Determining which Activities Should Have Ethical Oversight., Ethical Oversight of Learning Health Care Systems, Hastings Center Report Special Report
- 1995, Patent Practice, vol. 1
- 2006, Responding to Fraud.”, Science
- 1995, Experimental Design
- 1993, The Advancement of Science
- 2001, Scientific Misconduct: Wellcome Rules Widen the Net., Science
- 1998, Doing Harm_ Research on the Mentally Ill.”, The Boston Globe
- 2018, Lawrence Krauss and the Legacy of Harassment in Science.”, The Atlantic
- 1996, The Sources of Normativity
- 1996, Financial Interests of Authors in Scientific Publications., Science and Engineering Ethics
- 2007, Defining Scientific Misconduct: When Conflict-of-Interest is a Factor in Scientific Misconduct.”, Medicine and Law
- 2007, Testing Pesticides in Humans—Of Mice and Men Divided by Ten.”, Journal of the American Medical Association
- Kuflik, A. 1989. “Moral Foundations of Intellectual Property Rights.” In Owning Scientific and Technical Information, edited by V. Weil and J. Snapper, 29–39. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
- 1991, Fraud Buster., Washington Post Magazine
- 1996, Brute Science
- 2000, The Evaluation of the ‘Scientific Misconduct’ Issues: An Historical Overview.”, Proceedings for the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine
- 2019, NIH Annual Snapshot—FY 2018 By the Numbers.”, Open Mike, National Institutes of Health
- 2003, The Politics of Publication., Nature
- 2012, Bias in Peer Review., Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
- 2009, Criminal Law
- 2001, Equipoise and International Human-subjects Research., Bioethics
- 1990, Science as Social Knowledge
- 2000, Science
- 1984, After Virtue
- 2003, Bioethics,
- 2013, Scientific Integrity
- 1998, Science
- 1998, Embargoes: Good, Bad, or ‘Necessary Evil’?”, Science
- 1999, Duke Told to Stop Clinical Trials., Science News
- 2000, The Rise of the Mouse, Biomedicine’s Model Animal., Science
- 2019, Internet Deception is Here to Stay—So What Do We Do Now?”, Wired
- 2010, Octopus: The Ocean’s Intelligence Invertebrate
- 1947, Modern Library. Introduction to Aristotle
- 1995, Authorship in Biomedical Publications: How Many People Can Wield One Pen?”, American Medical Writers Association
- 1992, The Great Scientists
- 2020, COVID-19 Ethics and Research.”, Mayo Clinic Proceedings
- 1973, The Sociology of Science
- 2002, Science
- 2017, Justice. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- 2008, Neurobiology: The Roots of Morality., Science
- 2013, Robert Oppenheimer: His Life and Mind
- 1990, 51 Cal 3d 120
- 2000, Undue Risk—Secrete State Experiments on Humans
- 2001, Academic Relationships with Industry: A New Model for Biomedical Research., Journal of the American Medical Association
- 2005, Is Peer Review in Crisis?”, Oral Oncology
- 1992, Intervention and Reflection
- 1998, 80 Exemplary Ethics Statements
- 1992, Responsible Science—Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process
- 1997, Advisor, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and Engineering
- 2002, Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct
- 2011, Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration
- 2017, Fostering Integrity in Research
- 2018, Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
- 2019, Reproducibility and Reliability in Science
- 1998, Research Involving Persons with Mental Disorders That May Affect Decision making Capacity, Vol. 1, Report and Recommendations
- 1979, The Belmont Report
- 2003, NIH Data Sharing and Policy Implementation Guidance
- 2009, Update on the Requirement for Instruction in Responsible Conduct of Research
- 2020, Press Release, April 17, 2020: NIH to Launch Public–Private Partnership to Speed COVID-19 Vaccine and Treatment Options
- 2021, Guidelines for the Conduct of Research in the Intramural Program at NIH
- 1988, Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research
- 1996, Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
- 2004, Biotechnology in the Age of Terrorism
- 2009, Responsible Conduct of Research.”, Federal Register
- 1999, Policy on Papers’ Contributors., Nature
- 2002, The Ethics of Patenting DNA
- 2012, Case Summary: Marc Hauser
- 2000, Federal Research Misconduct Policy.”, Federal Register
- 1986, Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education
- 2012, Prevalence of Scientific Misconduct among a Group of Researchers in Nigeria., Developing World Bioethics
- 1999, Animal Rights—The Inhumane Crusade
- 2015, Psychology. Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.”, Science
- 1998, The Human Use of Animals
- 2019, How to Mentor Ethically., Monitor on Psychology
- Pence, G. 1995. “Animal Subjects.” In Classic Cases in Medical Ethics, by edited by G. Pence, 203–224. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- 2006, Professional Skills: The Merits of Training Mentors., Science
- 2020, Open Peer Review
- 2000, Poll Shows Researchers Favor Animal Lab Protection., Science
- 1995, Ethics
- Porter, D. 1993. “Science, Scientific Motivation, and Conflict of Interest in Research.” In Ethical Issues in Research, edited by D. Cheny, 114–125. Frederick, MD: University Press.
- 2000, The Kept University., The Atlantic Monthly
- 1988, Radical Hygiene—Medicine under the Nazis
- 1999, The Nazi War on Cancer
- 2006, Disclosing Individual Results to Research Participants., American Journal of Bioethics
- 1971, A Theory of Justice
- 1999, Science for Sale., Boston Phoenix
- 2006, Research Misconduct Policies of Highest Impact Biomedical Journals.”, Accountability in Research
- 1983, The Case for Animal Rights
- 2009, Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the World
- 1989, How Much Fraud? Let’s Do an Experimental Audit., AAAS Observer
- 1989, Editors and Auditors [see comments]., Journal of the American Medical Association
- 1998, The Ethics of Science
- 2006, A Survey of Research Practices at the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences. Proceedings from 2006 ORI Conference on Research on Research Integrity
- 2007, Conflicts of Interest in Scientific Research Involving Litigation or Regulation., The Journal of Philosophy, Science #amp; Law
- 2009, The Investigator–Subject Relationship: A Contextual Approach., ournal of Philosophy, Ethics, Humanities in Medicine
- 2011, A Troubled Tradition.”, American Scientist
200 of 249 shown
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using AI to write scholarly publications
Hosseini, M., Rasmussen, L. M., & Resnik, D. B. (2024) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2023.2168535 · Cited by 286
Self-citationThe ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts
Hosseini, M., Resnik, D. B., & Holmes, K. (2023) · Research Ethics · doi:10.1177/17470161231180449 · Cited by 341
Self-citationResnik, D. B., & Hosseini, M. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00493-8 · Cited by 228
Self-citationORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research
Steneck, N. H., & Zinn, D. (2004) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e639912011-001 · Cited by 178
Smith, E. M. R., & Williams–Jones, B. (2011) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9263-5 · Cited by 134
Metadata
- Authors
- Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B.
- Affiliations
- Professor, University of Maryland School of Medicine
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- ORCID
- Resnik, David B.
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressNew York
- Published
- 2022-05-19
- OpenAlex
- W4280589601
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 474
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 11
- FWCI
- 37.30
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- responsible conduct of research, research ethics, research misconduct, questionable research practices, data sharing, data auditing, reproducibility, authorship, peer review, intellectual property, conflicts of interest, mentoring, animal experimentation, human subjects research, Common Rule, dual-use research, COVID-19 pandemic, scientific advice, science and media, image editing, self-plagiarism, retraction, harassment, human samples
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review