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
Evidence of a Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line Derived from a Cloned Blastocyst
Hwang, W. S., Ryu, Y. J., Park, J. H., Park, E. S., Lee, E., Koo, J. M., Jeon, H. Y., Lee, B. C., Kang, S. K., Kim, S. J., et al. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1094515 · Cited by 726
RetractedPatient-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) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1112286 · Cited by 480
RetractedWeaver, D. T., Reis, M. H., Albanese, C., Costantini, F. D., Baltimore, D., & Imanishi‐Kari, T. (1986) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(86)90389-2 · Cited by 100
RetractedPrinciples of Biomedical Ethics
(2012) · Thieves of Virtue · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9079.003.0009 · Cited by 13,453
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
Hutchison, T. W., & Popper, K. R. (1959) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2550489 · Cited by 7,629
Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.
Wenglinsky, M., & Milgram, S. (1975) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2064024 · Cited by 3,291
Publication bias in clinical research
Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., & Matthews, D. R. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y · Cited by 3,109
Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry
Longino, H. E. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9780691209753 · Cited by 3,092
What Makes Clinical Research Ethical?
Emanuel, E. J. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.20.2701 · Cited by 2,710
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
