References
- Bouter, L. M. 2015. Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples? Accountability in Research 22:148–61. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.950253.
- Bouter, L. M. 2016. Open data is not enough. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 70:256–57. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.032.
- Bouter, L. M., J. Tijdink, N. Axelsen, B. C. Martinson, and G. Ter Riet. 2016. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: Results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review 1:17. doi:10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5.
- Department of Health and Human Services. 2005. Public Health Service policies on research misconduct: Final rule. Federal Register 70:28370‐400 accessed April 17, 2017 https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf.
- Doran, M. 2016. How to survive as whistle‐blower. Nature 532:405. doi:10.1038/nj7599-405a.
- Drenth, P. 2015. Institutional dealing with scientific misconduct. Eruditio 1:136‐46.
- Fanelli, D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of survey data. Plos ONE 4:e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
- Godecharle, S., B. Nemery, and K. Dierickx. 2014. Heterogeneity in European integrity guidance: Relying on values or norms? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 9:1‐12.
- Goldenring, J. A. 2010. Perspective: Innocence and due diligence: Making unfounded allegations of scientific misconduct. Academic Medicine 85:527‐30. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181cd4c7a.
- Gunsalus, C. K. 1998. How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards. Science and Engineering Ethics 4:51–64. doi:10.1007/s11948-998-0007-0.
- Hendrix, S. (2014). What to do when you are falsely accused of scientific fraud. Hasselt, Smart Science Career http://www.smartsciencecareer.com/falsely-accused/ accessed April 17, 2017.
- Hiney, M. 2015. Research Integrity: What it means, why it is important and how we might protect it. Strasbourg, France: Science Europe.
- Interacademy Partnership. 2016. Doing global science: A guide to responsible conduct in the global research enterprise. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Klotz, I. M. 1998. A bill of responsibilities for whistleblowers in science. The FASEB Journal 12:759‐60.
- Lewandowsky, S., and D. Bishop. 2016. Don’t let transparency damage science. Nature 529:459–61. doi:10.1038/529459a.
- Office of Research Integrity. (2017). Handling misconduct. https://ori.hhs.gov/handling-misconduct accessed April 17 2017.
- PubPeer. (2017). The online journal club. https://pubpeer.com. accessed April 17, 2017.
- Redman, B., and A. Caplan. 2015. No one likes a snitch. Science and Engineering Ethics 21:813–19. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9570-8.
- Research Triangle Institute. 1995. Consequences of whistleblowing for the whistleblower in misconduct in science cases. Washington, DC: Research Triangle Institute. accessed April 17, 2017 http://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/final.pdf.
- VU‐VUmc. 2016. Academic integrity complaints procedure. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Vrije Universiteit. accessed April 17, 2017 https://www.vu.nl/en/Images/VU-VUmc_Complaint_regulations_Academic_Integrity__January_2016_tcm270-749021.pdf
- Yong, E., H. Ledford, and R. Van Noorden. 2013. Research ethics: 3 ways to blow the whistle. Nature 503:454–57. doi:10.1038/503454a.