National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2017.
- : Identifies best practices in research and recommends practical options for discouraging and addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices.
- : Promotes integrity in biomedical and behavioral research, monitors institutional investigations of research misconduct and facilitates the responsible conduct of research through educational, preventive, and regulatory activities. Misconduct Tab provides resources on Handling Misconduct (definitions, sample policies, technical assistance and case summaries) and New Misconduct Regulations (PHS policies, requirements for institutional policies, and frequently asked questions).
- : Since 1993, ORI has produced annual reports on its activities. Sections include: ORI Highlights; DIO Mission - Responding to Research Misconduct; Institutional Compliance; DEO Mission – To Promote a Responsible Conduct of Research Prevention Program Through Education and Research; Information and Privacy; and Findings of Research Misconduct Case Summaries or Administrative Actions.
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. On Being A Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, Third Edition. Chapter on Research Misconduct. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2009.
- : Describes the ethical foundations for scientific practices, potential challenges faced by researchers and includes case studies for discussion.
Institute of Medicine. Integrity in Scientific Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002.
- : Defines and describes those elements at the individual and institutional level that promote and facilitate research integrity.
Codes of Ethics Online, by Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology.
- : An extensive, online collection of codes of ethics of professional societies, corporations, government and academic institutions.
- : A nonprofit organization that is focused on increasing the openness, integrity and reproducibility of scientific research.
DuBois J, et al. The Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program: Description and Preliminary Outcomes. Academic Medicine. 2018;93(4): 586-592.
- : Discusses the preliminary outcomes of this unique program and recommends future directions.
Casadevall A, Ellis LM, Davies EW, McFall-Ngai M, Fang FC. A framework for improving the quality of research in the biological sciences. mBio. 2016 July/August;7(4):e01256-16.
- : Discusses an actionable framework that could improve the quality of biological research.
Kornfeld DS and Titus SL. Stop ignoring misconduct. Nature. 2016 September;537: 29-30.
- : Outlines five key approaches that can be used to prevent scientific misconduct.
DuBois et al. Lessons from researcher rehab. Nature. 2016 June;534: 173-175.
- : Discusses common compliance situations that can get good researchers into trouble.
Nosek et al. Promoting an open research culture. Science. 2015 June;348(6242): 1422-1425.
- : Discusses the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines designed to improve research reproducibility and publishing practices.
Stern AM, Casadevall A, Steen RG, Fang FC. Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. eLife. 2014.
- : Provides an analysis of the effects of research misconduct.
Stern AM, Casadevall A, Steen RG, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE. 2013 8(7): e68397.
- : Analyzes several hypotheses that might account for this increase, with an emphasis on the time interval between publication and retraction.
Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012 109(42): 17028-17033.
- : Discusses the rise in retractions and the role of misconduct.
Sox HC, Rennie D. Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2006 Apr;144(8): 609-613.
- : Uses the Poehlman case to discuss the impact of research misconduct on the integrity of the medical literature.
Gewin V. Research: Uncovering misconduct. Nature. 2012 May;485: 137-139.
- : Addresses considerations of when and how to report suspected research misconduct.
Neaves W. The roots of research misconduct. Nature. 2012 Aug;488: 121-122.
- : Discusses the role of mentors in preventing misconduct among trainees.