Short pages
From The Embassy of Good Science
50 s ordered by recently added
- (hist) How Earnest Research Into Gay Genetics Went Wrong [1,071 bytes]
- (hist) Guidelines for Tailoring the Informed Consent Process in Clinical Studies [1,071 bytes]
- (hist) Self-plagiarism and suspected salami publishing [1,073 bytes]
- (hist) Who Rules the Ruler? On the Misconduct of Journal Editors [1,079 bytes]
- (hist) European Federation of Psychologists' Associations (EFPA) Meta-Code of Ethics [1,080 bytes]
- (hist) Research published by Hans Eysenck is unsafe [1,081 bytes]
- (hist) Agriculture researcher up to 15 retractions for fake peer review [1,084 bytes]
- (hist) Mentoring: time constraints [1,088 bytes]
- (hist) UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science [1,092 bytes]
- (hist) How trustworthy? [1,092 bytes]
- (hist) Prominent Video Game-Violence Researcher Loses Another Paper to Retraction [1,093 bytes]
- (hist) Government Sanctions Harvard Psychologist [1,093 bytes]
- (hist) Researcher 'Cherry Picked' Data, University Investigation Finds [1,094 bytes]
- (hist) Medical students' decisions about authorship in disputable situations: intervention study [1,094 bytes]
- (hist) Training materials [1,095 bytes]
- (hist) Protecting an endangered species: training physicians to conduct clinical research. [1,096 bytes]
- (hist) M-power [1,097 bytes]
- (hist) Research misconduct in a grant application for the National Institutes of Health [1,097 bytes]
- (hist) Institutional policies and procedures for research misconduct [1,097 bytes]
- (hist) Irish Council for Bioethics' Recommendations for Promoting Research Integrity [1,099 bytes]
- (hist) Local resources on improving science: basic study [1,100 bytes]
- (hist) Ten short cases on publication ethics [1,101 bytes]
- (hist) Law on Science and Studies of the Republic of Lithuania [1,102 bytes]
- (hist) Suborning science for profit: Monsanto, glyphosate, and private science research misconduct [1,106 bytes]
- (hist) The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity [1,106 bytes]
- (hist) Gene Editing: Ethical Frontiers and Scientific Integrity [1,108 bytes]
- (hist) Pressure to disclose confidential research findings [1,109 bytes]
- (hist) Manchester University's Data Protection Policy [1,109 bytes]
- (hist) One in six of the papers you cite in a review has been retracted. What do you do? [1,110 bytes]
- (hist) KFPE Guide - 11 Principles & 7 Questions [1,110 bytes]
- (hist) Duty to Report Ethical Violations of Others [1,112 bytes]
- (hist) Australian Codes for the Responsible Conduct of Research [1,114 bytes]
- (hist) Attempting to Assure Accuracy [1,114 bytes]
- (hist) Lithuanian Implementation and Maintenance Recommendations for Higher Education Institutions [1,116 bytes]
- (hist) Statutes and Procedures of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences [1,116 bytes]
- (hist) Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity [1,117 bytes]
- (hist) The Ethics Codes Collection [1,120 bytes]
- (hist) A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Disputes in Authorship (1) [1,120 bytes]
- (hist) New Tools and Services for Reproducibility [1,125 bytes]
- (hist) Long distance collaboration [1,129 bytes]
- (hist) Reporting censurable conditions for employees at University of Oslo (whistleblowing) [1,130 bytes]
- (hist) Mad Scientist: The Unique Case of a Published Delusion [1,131 bytes]
- (hist) Image manipulation research [1,133 bytes]
- (hist) Collaboration dispute [1,134 bytes]
- (hist) Postdoc randomly chose data during figure assembly [1,136 bytes]
- (hist) Integrity in scientific research videos [1,137 bytes]
- (hist) Inconsistent Findings Between Trainee and Researcher [1,142 bytes]
- (hist) The Orphan Embryos: A Case Study in Bioethics [1,143 bytes]
- (hist) Long Distance Collaboration [1,144 bytes]
- (hist) Think. Check. Submit. [1,144 bytes]
