All Stories

  1. Good Practice for Conference Abstracts and Presentations: GPCAP
  2. UK universities compliance with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity: findings from cross-sectional time-series
  3. UK universities compliance with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity: findings from cross-sectional time-series
  4. A cross-sectional bibliometric study showed suboptimal journal endorsement rates of STROBE and its extensions
  5. Plagiarism in research: a survey of African medical journals
  6. Response to letter to the editor by Mc Sween-Cadieux et al (2017)
  7. No difference in knowledge obtained from infographic or plain language summary of a Cochrane systematic review: three randomized controlled trials
  8. Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers
  9. The STROBE extensions: protocol for a qualitative assessment of content and a survey of endorsement
  10. Cooperation And Liaison Between Universities And Editors (CLUE): Recommendations On Best Practice
  11. Why we should worry less about predatory publishers and more about the quality of research and training at our academic institutions
  12. Do declarative titles affect readers’ perceptions of research findings? A randomized trial
  13. Cochrane review on preventing research misconduct
  14. Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study
  15. Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus
  16. Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: GPP3
  17. Too much of a good thing? An observational study of prolific authors
  18. Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor
  19. Are prolific authors too much of a good thing?
  20. Evidence-informed recommendations to reduce dissemination bias in clinical research: conclusions from the OPEN (Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) project based on an international consensus meeting
  21. Why are retractions so difficult?
  22. Publication Ethics: Whose Problem is It?
  23. How Should Journal Editors Respond to Cases of Suspected Misconduct?
  24. Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Editors
  25. Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Authors
  26. Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries
  27. Uploading garbage files to the DOI system of a journal: a new type of misconduct
  28. Why should clinical trials be registered?
  29. Awareness and enforcement of guidelines for publishing industry-sponsored medical research among publication professionals: the Global Publication Survey
  30. Publicação responsável de pesquisa: padrões internacionais para editores
  31. Publicação responsável de pesquisa: padrões internacionais para autores
  32. Fate of Articles That Warranted Retraction Due to Ethical Concerns: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study
  33. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research
  34. Defining and responding to plagiarism
  35. "Hardly worth the effort"? Medical journals' policies and their editors' and publishers' views on trial registration and publication bias: quantitative and qualitative study
  36. Defining publication bias: protocol for a systematic review of highly cited articles and proposal for a new framework
  37. The UK should lead the way on research integrity
  38. Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication
  39. Publication ethics: whose problem is it?
  40. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Objectives and achievements 1997–2012
  41. Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
  42. Who is responsible for investigating suspected research misconduct?
  43. Who is responsible for investigating suspected research misconduct?
  44. Editorial code of conduct
  45. Research misconduct in the UK
  46. Why has the committee on publication ethics developed guidelines for cooperation between journals and research institutions?
  47. Why Has COPE Developed Guidelines for Cooperation Between Journals and Research Institutions
  48. Publishing ethics and integrity
  49. Cooperation Between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity Cases: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE
  50. Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: Guidance from the committee on publication ethics
  51. How journals can prevent, detect and respond to misconduct
  52. Coping with scientific misconduct
  53. Exploring Why and How Journal Editors Retract Articles: Findings From a Qualitative Study
  54. Ethical issues in preparing and publishing systematic reviews
  55. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008
  56. JAMA Published Fewer Industry-Funded Studies after Introducing a Requirement for Independent Statistical Analysis
  57. Enhancing transparency and efficiency in reporting industry-sponsored clinical research: report from the Medical Publishing Insights and Practices initiative
  58. Competing interests of professional societies
  59. Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
  60. The Committee on Publication Ethics Flowcharts
  61. Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
  62. Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
  63. Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
  64. Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics
  65. Lessons from a case of overlapping publications
  66. Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey
  67. What Should Be Done To Tackle Ghostwriting in the Medical Literature?
  68. Recognition, reward and responsibility: Why the authorship of scientific papers matters
  69. Medical editors and trial reporting: A betrayal of patient care
  70. Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals
  71. Reporting the findings of clinical trials: a discussion paper
  72. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration
  73. CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration
  74. CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts
  75. Ethical publishing: the innocent author's guide to avoiding misconduct
  76. Making medical messages stick
  77. Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals
  78. Authors, Ghosts, Damned Lies, and Statisticians
  79. Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: a Publisher's Perspective
  80. Publishing Clinical Trial Results: The Future Beckons
  81. What is it for? Analysing the purpose of peer review.
  82. A concern that drug companies cannot ignore
  83. Good practice for publishing the results of clinical trials
  84. Response to “The corporate coauthor”
  85. Comments on EuropeanMedical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications
  86. European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications
  87. The need for trial identifiers
  88. Integrity and bias in academic psychiatry
  89. Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals
  90. Raising the quality of publications: Now we have GPP!
  91. Good publication practice for pharmaceutical companies: why we need another set of guidelines
  92. Good publication practice for pharmaceutical companies
  93. Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals
  94. Realities of trial registration: the Glaxo Wellcome experience
  95. Cardiac arrhythmias reported during treatment with cisapride
  96. Ghostwriting
  97. A comparison of two cohort studies evaluating the safety of cisapride: Prescription-Event Monitoring and a large phase IV study