Ethics in Scientific Publication: Plagiarism and other Scientific Misconduct.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Editorial bullying: an exploration of acts impacting publication ethics and related environment.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2024
   Review
2. Writing a Research Proposal to The Research Council of Oman.Oman medical journal · 2017
   Review
3. Research Misconduct: The Peril of Publish or Perish.Oman medical journal · 2016
   Review
4. Attitude of Indian dental professionals toward scientific publications: A questionnaire based study.Journal of natural science, biology, and medicine · 2015
   Article
5. A new example of unethical behaviour in the academic journal "medical archives".Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2014
   Article
6. Ethics beyond Plagiarism.Contemporary clinical dentistry
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.