This section contains an extensive list of references. The authors of this module have included an annotated list of what they consider to be the most important references regarding the topic of research misconduct.


Table of Contents
1: Annotated Primary Resources
2: General Background Articles and Web Sites About Misconduct
3: Columbia University Policies
4: Video Clips

1: Annotated Primary Resources

Kalichman MW (2003): Ethics in scientific research and higher education: The situation in the United States [Ética en la investigación cientifíca y la educación superior: situación en los Estados Unidos de Noreamérica] In: (Aluja M, Birke A, eds.) El Papel de la Ética en la Investigación Cientifíca y la Educación Superior. Academica Mexciana de Ciencias [Mexican Academy of Sciences], Tlalpan, México D.F., pp. 77-102. This article provides an excellent overview of the history and the causes of misconduct, and of the procedures and legislation designed to respond to misconduct.

Kalichman M, University of California, San Diego. Chapter 10, Research Misconduct. This education module for the University of California, San Diego, defines misconduct and provides useful information about how to proceed with a suspected case of misconduct.

Steneck NH, 1999. Confronting Misconduct in Science in the 1980s and 1990s: What Has and Has Not Been Accomplished? Science and Engineering Ethics 5, 2: 161-176. Steneck provides the history of misconduct regulations and discusses the need to ensure research integrity.

2: General Background Articles and Web Sites About Misconduct

Altizer L, 2004. Survey Research: A Summary of Best Practices. Ethics Resource Center Web Site.

Bird SJ, 1995. Meeting Report: Convocation on Scientific Conduct (National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering/Institute of Medicine), June 6-7, 1994. Science and Engineering Ethics 1, 1: 91-92.

C.F.R. 45, 1996. Title 45, Public Welfare, Chapter VI, National Science Foundation. Part 689-Misconduct in Science and Engineering. Sec. 689.1-Sec. 689.9.

C.F.R. 42, 2004, Parts 50 and 93-Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct-Proposed Rule.

Ding YM, 2002. Beijing University Issues First-Ever Rules. Science, Vol. 296: 448-449.

Fischer PL, Kroll JT, Fisher MK, 2002. Research Misconduct and Its Relationship to Fraud. The Journal of Public Inquiry, Fall/Winter 2002.

Gilmer PJ, 1995. Conference Report: Scientific (Mis)conduct and Social (Ir)responsibility, Indiana University, May 27, 1994. Science and Engineering Ethics 1, 2: 187-188.

Goodman B, 1996. What Is Misconduct? The Scientist 10[2], January 22, 1996.

Grinnell F, 1992. Scientific Misconduct: Science at Risk. The Scientific Attitude, 101- 130, 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press.

Kennedy D, 2002. More Questions About Research Misconduct. Science, Vol. 297: 13.

Kriesberg N, Rufty B, 2002. Research Ethics Mini Rounds-A Series of Modular Study Units: Module VII, Rightdoing and Misconduct in Research: An Overview. North Carolina State University.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2001. Results of Element 118 Experiment Retracted.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2002. Director's 2002 State of the Laboratory Talk.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory , 2002. LLNL Media Statement on Kotla Case. March 11, 2002.

Loui MC, 2002. Seven Ways to Plagiarize: Handling Real Allegations of Research Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 8, 4: 529-539.

Lucent Press Releases, 2002. Bell Labs Announces Results of Inquiry Into Research Misconduct.

Lucent Press Releases, 2002. Results of Inquiry Into the Validity of Certain Physics Research Papers from Bell Labs.

Macrina FL, 2000. Chapter 1, Methods, Manners, and Mandates. Scientific Integrity: An Introductory Text with Cases, 2nd ed., pp 1-16. Washington, DC: ASM Press.

NSF - New Research Misconduct Policies

NSF Brochure about what to do about Research Misconduct:

NSF Research Misconduct regulation:

ORI 9/29/2000 Analysis of Institutional Policies for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct,

ORI. 2002 Federal Court Decisions.

ORI. 2002 ORI Addresses Issues in Inquiries and Investigations.

ORI. 2002 Potential Research Topics.

ORI. 1994 ORI Provides Working Definition of Plagiarism.

ORI. Subpart A--Responsibility of PHS Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing With and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science.

OSTP. Federal Policy on Research Misconduct. PHS-funded institutions are applying current PHS regulations.

Penslar RL, 1995. Cases in the Natural Science: Biology. Cases in the Behavioral Science: Psychology. Research Ethics: Case and Materials. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Rennie D, Gunsalus CK, 1993. Scientific Misconduct: New Definition, Procedures, and Office - Perhaps a New Leaf. JAMA, Vol. 269, No. 7: 915-917.

Rhoades LJ (US Office of Research Integrity), 2000. The American Experience: Lessons Learned. Science and Engineering Ethics 6, 1: 95-107.

Shore EG, 1995. Effectiveness of Research Guidelines in Prevention of Scientific Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 1, 4: 383-387.

Shrag B, 1998. Research Ethics: Cases and Commentaries, Vol. 2, 3, 5.

Stokstad E, 2002. Fur Flies Over Charges of Misconduct. Science, Vol. 295: 250-251.

Swazey JP, 1999. Commentary on Lubalin and Matheson's "The Fallout: What Happens to Whistleblowers." Science and Engineering Ethics 5, 2: 251-253.

Wade N, 2003. Fraud Happens: What to Do About It. The Scientist, Vol. 17, Issue 2: 56.

Weiss R. Proposed Shift in Misconduct Reviews Unsettle Many Scientists. The Washington Post, June 30, 1996.

3: Columbia Policies

Morningside campus

Health Sciences campus

4: Video Clips

Advancing Their Own Careers
Be Very Good at Documenting
When Research Misconduct is Committed
Holding Up Standards
Steps That Should Be Taken
Crossing the Line
Short Cuts
The Need to Act

Continue to the next section: → Conclusion