Scientific Online Resource System

Social Medicine

Отклоняване от истината в биомедицинските публикации - значим проблем за добрата изследователска практика

A. Kерековска

Full Text


Загорчев, Ив. Етика на научната публикация. (Из примера на природо-математическите науки). Списание на Българската академия на науките, 2001; кн. 4-6, стр. 57-63.

Загорчев, Ив. Научни грешки и научна измама в геологията. Минно дело и геология, кн. 6, 2001, стр. 44-47.

Цакова, В. Аспекти на научната етика. Виолета Цакова. Научни трудове. Университет за национално и световно стопанство; 2008, Т.2, стр.57-90 (;

AHRP. Fraudulent Science: What's Retracted, What's Not. 2012. (accessed at:

Association of Universities in the Netherlands. The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice: Principles of good scientific teaching and research, 2004, revision 20121. (accessed at:

Atlas, M.C. Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 2004, 92 (2), 242-250.

Bailey, C.D., J.R. Hasselback, J.N. Karcher. Research misconduct in account in literature: a survey of the most prolific researchers` actions and beliefs. Abacus, 2001, 37 (1), 26-54.

Bornmann, L. Research Misconduct: Definitions, Manifestations and Extent. Publications, 2013, 1, 87-98.

Council of Science Editors. Digital images and misconduct. CSE`s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012, (accessed at:

Couzin, J. Scientific fraud. Science, 2006, Vol. 314, No 5807, p. 1853.

Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Rules and Regulations. Final Rule. Federal Register, 2005; 70(94) (Accessed at:

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

Fanelli, D. Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign. PLoS Med, 2013; 10(12): e1001563.

Fang, F.C., R.G. Steen, A. Casadevall. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2012; 109 (42):17028-33.

Furman, J.L., K. Jensenc, F. Murrayd. Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Research Policy, 2012; 41, 276-290.

List, J.A., C.D. Bailey, P.J. Euzent, T.L. Marti. Academic economists behaving badly? A survey on three areas of unethical behavior. Economic Inquiry, 2001; 39 (1),162-170.

Liu, S.V. Top Journals' Top Retraction Rates. Scientific Ethics, 2006; 1: 91-93.

Liverani, M., B. Hawkins, J.O. Parkhurst. Political and Institutional Influences on the Use of Evidence in Public Health Policy. A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE, 2013; 8(10): e77404.

Office of Research Integrity. Report on the 2002 Institutional Annual Report on Possible Research Misconduct August 2003 [Online]. Rockville, MD: United States Department of Health and Human Services. . 20. Office of Research Integrity. Definition of scientific misconduct [On-line].

Office of Science and Technology Policy. Federal policy on research misconduct. Fed Regist 2000; 65(235): 76260-4.

Ranstam J. Fraud in Medical Research: An International Survey of Biostatisticians. Controlled Clinical Trials, 2000; 21(5): 5415-5427.

Reich, E.S. Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World. Palgrave-Macmillan, New York NY, 2009.

Steen, G.R. Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research? J Med Ethics, 2011; 37(11): 688-692.



Font Size