Conflict of interest in science communication: more than a financial issue. Report from Esteve Foundation discussion group, April 2009
A systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that around 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once. Up to 33% admit other questionable practices such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, undisclosed changes in pre-research protocols or dubious ethical behavior. There can be...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2010 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya) |
| Repositorio: | Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:recercat.cat:2445/156778 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2445/156778 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Recerca Indústria farmacèutica Discussió Research Pharmaceutical industry Discussion |
| Sumario: | A systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that around 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once. Up to 33% admit other questionable practices such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, undisclosed changes in pre-research protocols or dubious ethical behavior. There can be no doubt that discovered cases of research and publication misconduct represent a tip of an iceberg and many cases go unreported. |
|---|