Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jones, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 19, No. 2, 123-124
© Oxford University Press 2002

Editorial

Research misconduct

Roger Jones

Jones R. Research misconduct. Family Practice 2002; 19: 123–124.

Last year, 51 cases of major research misconduct were reported to COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics in the UK. The Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries (ABPI) has identified a further significant number of high-profile cases of scientific fraud, and the General Medical Council (GMC) in the UK is overloaded with similar cases. There can be little doubt that our current mechanisms for preventing, identifying and acting on research misconduct are inadequate, and this was the reason for the third COPE seminar, set up to debate the proposition that the UK needs an independent review body to deal with biomedical research misconduct.

Fraud and misconduct can take place at many points along the research . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?