Detalhe da pesquisa
1.
Institutional Approaches to Research Integrity in Ghana.
Sci Eng Ethics;
26(6): 3037-3052, 2020 12.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-32779114
2.
Correctable Myths About Research Misconduct in the Biomedical Sciences.
Sci Eng Ethics;
25(2): 621-629, 2019 04.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-29404973
3.
Ensuring due process in the IACUC and animal welfare setting: considerations in developing noncompliance policies and procedures for institutional animal care and use committees and institutional officials.
FASEB J;
31(10): 4216-4225, 2017 10.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-28821637
4.
Rethinking the Belmont Report?
Am J Bioeth;
17(7): 15-21, 2017 Jul.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-28661753
5.
Commentary: Legacy of the Commission on Research Integrity.
Sci Eng Ethics;
23(2): 555-563, 2017 04.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-26758253
6.
No One Likes a Snitch.
Sci Eng Ethics;
21(4): 813-9, 2015 Aug.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-24935246
7.
Response by the authors.
EMBO Rep;
18(6): 867, 2017 06.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-28473420
8.
Improving research misconduct policies: Evidence from social psychology could inform better policies to prevent misconduct in research.
EMBO Rep;
18(4): 511-514, 2017 04.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-28283533
9.
Rooting out scientific misconduct.
Science;
383(6679): 131, 2024 01 12.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-38207024
10.
Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.
BMJ Open;
14(3): e084164, 2024 Mar 11.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-38471680
11.
A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: Stage 1 of the INSPECT-SR Project.
medRxiv;
2024 Mar 25.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-38585914
12.
Rebalancing commercial and public interests in prioritizing biomedical, social and environmental aspects of health through defining and managing conflicts of interest.
Front Med (Lausanne);
10: 1247258, 2023.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-37809337
13.
Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.
medRxiv;
2023 Nov 13.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-37873409
14.
Extending Ethical Strides: From Tribal IRBs to the Bronx Community Research Review Board.
Am J Bioeth;
17(11): W5-W8, 2017 11.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-29111932
15.
Assessment of the Operational Characteristics of Research Ethics Committees in Ghana.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics;
17(1-2): 114-128, 2022.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-34665074
16.
Right-to-try laws: hope, hype, and unintended consequences.
Ann Intern Med;
163(10): 796-7, 2015 Nov 17.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-26413841
17.
Should the Regulation of Research Misconduct Be Integrated with the Ethics Framework Promulgated in The Belmont Report?
Ethics Hum Res;
43(1): 37-41, 2021 Jan.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-33463076
18.
Patient adherence or patient self-management in transplantation: an ethical analysis.
Prog Transplant;
19(1): 90-4, 2009 Mar.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-19341069
19.
Federal Right to Try: Where Is It Going?
Hastings Cent Rep;
49(2): 26-36, 2019 03.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-30998281
20.
Of Straws, Camels, Research Regulation, and IRBs.
Ther Innov Regul Sci;
53(4): 526-534, 2019 07.
Artigo
em Inglês
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-30176736