ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2018
Responsibility for scientific misconduct in collaborative papers.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Authorship Accountability and Transparency: A Standardized Model from the Global Andrology Forum.The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- Authorship and Citizen Science: Seven Heuristic Rules.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Scientific misconduct responsibility attribution: An empirical study on byline position and team identity in Chinese medical papers.PloS one · 2024Article
- Highly cited forensic practitioners in the discipline legal and forensic medicine and the importance of peer-review and publication for admission of expert testimony.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2022Article
- Elucidating authorship issues as an element of research quality at Thailand's National Science and Technology Development Agency.Forensic sciences research · 2021Article
- Allonymous science: the politics of placing and shifting credit in public-private nutrition research.Life sciences, society and policy · 2020Article
- Coauthors' Email Addresses: A Neglected Journal-Level Measure to Uphold Authorship Integrity in Research Collaboration.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Authorship: from credit to accountability. Reflections from the Editors' Network.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019Review
- Authorship: from credit to accountability : Reflections from the Editors' Network.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2019Article
- Authorship: From Credit to Accountability Reflections From the Editors´ Network.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2019Article
- Scientific misconduct and accountability in teams.PloS one · 2019Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper concerns the responsibility of co-authors in cases of scientific misconduct. Arguments in research integrity guidelines and in the bioethics literature concerning authorship responsibilities are discussed. It is argued that it is unreasonable to claim that for every case where a research paper is found to be fraudulent, each author is morally responsible for all aspects of that paper, or that one particular author has such a responsibility. It is further argued that it is more constructive to specify what task responsibilities come with different roles in a project and describe what kinds of situations or events call for some kind of action, and what the appropriate actions might be.
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.