SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Scientific misconduct: the dark side of science
16 references·3 citing·32 second hop
Scientific misconduct: the dark side of science (2015)Scientific misconduct: the dark side of s…Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? (2013)Why Has the Number of Scienti…Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Who's Afraid of Peer Review?Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)Misconduct accounts for the m…Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling (2012)Measuring the Prevalence of Q…A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature (2012)A Comprehensive Survey of Ret…Science publishing: The trouble with retractions (2011)Science publishing: The troub…Retracted Science and the Retraction Index (2011)Retracted Science and the Ret…Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? (2011)Believe it or not: how much c…Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? (2010)Retractions in the scientific…How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)How Many Scientists Fabricate…Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated (2008)Why Most Discovered True Asso…Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science (2008)Why Current Publication Pract…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research F…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research F…Scientists behaving badly (2005)Scientists behaving badlyLittle Science, Big Science (1963)Little Science, Big ScienceHow do academia and society react to erroneous or deceitful claims? The case of retracted articles’ recognition (2020)How do academia and society r…Academic Fraud (2020)Academic FraudON THE ABUSE OF ONLINE SUBMISSION SYSTEMS, FAKE PEER REVIEWS AND EDITOR-CREATED ACCOUNTS (2016)ON THE ABUSE OF ONLINE SUBMIS…The case for motivated reasoning. (1990)False-Positive Psychology (2011)An Open, Large-Scale, Collaborative Effort to Estimate the Reproducibility of Psychological Science (2012)Recommendations for Increasing Replicability in Psychology (2013)Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science (2021)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience (2013)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007)How Big Is “Big”? Interpreting Effect Sizes in L2 Research (2014)Choosing Prediction Over Explanation in Psychology: Lessons From Machine Learning (2017)The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (1974)The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)Practical Meta-Analysis (2000)Networks of Scientific Papers (1965)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)Learning by Expanding (2014)Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis (2014)The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015 (2018)Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank (2013)Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition (2016)Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data (2010)Inferential Statistics as Descriptive Statistics: There Is No Replication Crisis if We Don’t Expect Replication (2019)How to Make More Published Research True (2014)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)The New Statistics (2013)The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False10,471 cited
  • 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False4,702 cited
  • 1963Little Science, Big Science4,272 cited
  • 2012Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling2,240 cited
  • 2009How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data1,909 cited
  • 2011Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?1,885 cited
  • 2008Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated1,489 cited
  • 2012Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications1,231 cited
  • 2005Scientists behaving badly1,089 cited
  • 2013Who's Afraid of Peer Review?934 cited
  • 2008Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science502 cited
  • 2013Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?415 cited
  • 2011Retracted Science and the Retraction Index405 cited
  • 2010Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?404 cited
  • 2012A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature355 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

  • 2011Science publishing: The trouble with retractions328 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2020Academic Fraud24 cited
    • 2016ON THE ABUSE OF ONLINE SUBMISSION SYSTEMS, FAKE PEER REVIEWS AND EDITOR-CREATED ACCOUNTS15 cited
    • 2020How do academia and society react to erroneous or deceitful claims? The case of retracted articles’ recognition12 cited