Research misconduct

Fiona Jane Gilbert, Alan Richard Denison

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Good research practice is important to the scientific community. An awareness of what constitutes poor practice is important. Various types of research misconduct are defined in this article. The extent of research misconduct in the field of radiology has been assessed by contacting five English language radiology journals. Redundant or duplicate publication has been reported infrequently, Radiology (1), American Journal of Roentgenology (3), Clinical Radiology (3), British Journal of Radiology (2) and European Radiology (1). The issue of how the radiology community might tackle research misconduct is discussed with reference to guidance from the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Committee of Publication Ethics. (C) 2003 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)499-504
Number of pages5
JournalClinical Radiology
Volume58
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2003

Keywords

  • fraud
  • scientific misconduct
  • research misconduct
  • duplicate publication
  • plagiarism
  • good research practice.
  • MAGNETIC-RESONANCE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY
  • DUPLICATE PUBLICATION
  • DIRECT CHOLANGIOGRAPHY
  • DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY
  • MEDICAL-RESEARCH
  • NOTICE
  • CHOLEDOCHOLITHIASIS
  • PLAGIARISM
  • AUTHORSHIP

Cite this

Gilbert, F. J., & Denison, A. R. (2003). Research misconduct. Clinical Radiology, 58(7), 499-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(03)00176-4

Research misconduct. / Gilbert, Fiona Jane; Denison, Alan Richard.

In: Clinical Radiology, Vol. 58, No. 7, 2003, p. 499-504.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gilbert, FJ & Denison, AR 2003, 'Research misconduct', Clinical Radiology, vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 499-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(03)00176-4
Gilbert, Fiona Jane ; Denison, Alan Richard. / Research misconduct. In: Clinical Radiology. 2003 ; Vol. 58, No. 7. pp. 499-504.
@article{6458cc834b024939a73db8ab0bf52a8e,
title = "Research misconduct",
abstract = "Good research practice is important to the scientific community. An awareness of what constitutes poor practice is important. Various types of research misconduct are defined in this article. The extent of research misconduct in the field of radiology has been assessed by contacting five English language radiology journals. Redundant or duplicate publication has been reported infrequently, Radiology (1), American Journal of Roentgenology (3), Clinical Radiology (3), British Journal of Radiology (2) and European Radiology (1). The issue of how the radiology community might tackle research misconduct is discussed with reference to guidance from the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Committee of Publication Ethics. (C) 2003 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.",
keywords = "fraud, scientific misconduct, research misconduct, duplicate publication, plagiarism, good research practice., MAGNETIC-RESONANCE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY, DUPLICATE PUBLICATION, DIRECT CHOLANGIOGRAPHY, DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY, MEDICAL-RESEARCH, NOTICE, CHOLEDOCHOLITHIASIS, PLAGIARISM, AUTHORSHIP",
author = "Gilbert, {Fiona Jane} and Denison, {Alan Richard}",
year = "2003",
doi = "10.1016/S0009-9260(03)00176-4",
language = "English",
volume = "58",
pages = "499--504",
journal = "Clinical Radiology",
issn = "0009-9260",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Research misconduct

AU - Gilbert, Fiona Jane

AU - Denison, Alan Richard

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - Good research practice is important to the scientific community. An awareness of what constitutes poor practice is important. Various types of research misconduct are defined in this article. The extent of research misconduct in the field of radiology has been assessed by contacting five English language radiology journals. Redundant or duplicate publication has been reported infrequently, Radiology (1), American Journal of Roentgenology (3), Clinical Radiology (3), British Journal of Radiology (2) and European Radiology (1). The issue of how the radiology community might tackle research misconduct is discussed with reference to guidance from the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Committee of Publication Ethics. (C) 2003 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

AB - Good research practice is important to the scientific community. An awareness of what constitutes poor practice is important. Various types of research misconduct are defined in this article. The extent of research misconduct in the field of radiology has been assessed by contacting five English language radiology journals. Redundant or duplicate publication has been reported infrequently, Radiology (1), American Journal of Roentgenology (3), Clinical Radiology (3), British Journal of Radiology (2) and European Radiology (1). The issue of how the radiology community might tackle research misconduct is discussed with reference to guidance from the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Committee of Publication Ethics. (C) 2003 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

KW - fraud

KW - scientific misconduct

KW - research misconduct

KW - duplicate publication

KW - plagiarism

KW - good research practice.

KW - MAGNETIC-RESONANCE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY

KW - DUPLICATE PUBLICATION

KW - DIRECT CHOLANGIOGRAPHY

KW - DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY

KW - MEDICAL-RESEARCH

KW - NOTICE

KW - CHOLEDOCHOLITHIASIS

KW - PLAGIARISM

KW - AUTHORSHIP

U2 - 10.1016/S0009-9260(03)00176-4

DO - 10.1016/S0009-9260(03)00176-4

M3 - Article

VL - 58

SP - 499

EP - 504

JO - Clinical Radiology

JF - Clinical Radiology

SN - 0009-9260

IS - 7

ER -