ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2014
Fraud in scientific research - birth of the Concordat to uphold research integrity in the United Kingdom.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fraud in a population-based study of headache: prevention, detection and correction.The journal of headache and pain · 2014Trial
- Modern Plastic Surgical Practice: Technical Competence Alone Is Not Enough.World journal of plastic surgery · 2020Review
- COVID-19 research: pandemicForensic sciences research · 2020Article
- The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles.Current sociology. La Sociologie contemporaine · 2017Review
- The CanMEDS scholar: the neglected competency in tomorrow's doctors.Advances in medical education and practice · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fraud in research has risen exponentially and recent high profile cases may just be the tip of the iceberg. This threatens to have a major impact on public health, with policy makers and clinicians acting on erroneous data. To address this, the new research "Concordat", a consensus statement on research misconduct, has been published. Can it hold the key to rebuilding public confidence in scientific research in the United Kingdom? This review focuses on the concept of research misconduct, highlighting prominent cases and discussing strategies in order to restore confidence in the validity of scientific research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.