Éthique et Intégrité de la Recherche

Bibliographie projet Repérer et analyser les articles scientifiques problématiques (RASP) - juin 2025 - mai 2026 

Abalkina, A., 2024. Commercialization of scientific misconduct: the challenge of paper mills. Eur J Public Health 34, ckae144.679. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckae144.679

Abalkina, A., 2023. Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: Evidence from a Russia-based paper mill. Learned Publishing 36, 689–702. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1574

Abalkina, A., Aquarius, R., Bik, E., Bimler, D., Bishop, D., Byrne, J., Cabanac, G., Day, A., Labbé, C., Wise, N., 2025. ‘Stamp out paper mills’ — science sleuths on how to fight fake research. Nature 637, 1047–1050. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00212-1

Abalkina, A., Bishop, D., 2023. Paper mills: a novel form of publishing malpractice affecting psychology. Meta-Psychology 7. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2022.3422

Acquier, A., Cossey, J., 2025. Generative AI, Academic Deepfakes, and Epistemic Pollution. Business & Society 00076503251406457. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503251406457

Allen W. Wilhite A. W, E.A.F.E.A., 2017. Authorship and Citation Manipulation in Academic Research’. ; PLOS ONE 12, 0187394,. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187394;

Aquarius, R., Bik, E.M., Bimler, D., Oksvold, M.P., Patrick, K., 2025. Tackling paper mills requires us to prevent future contamination and clean up the past -- the case of the journal Bioengineered. Bioengineered 16, 2542668. https://doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2025.2542668

Armond, A.C.V., Gordijn, B., Lewis, J., Hosseini, M., Bodnár, J.K., Holm, S., Kakuk, P., 2021. A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases. BMC Med Ethics 22, 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00620-8

Assen, M.A.L.M., Aert, R.C.M.V., Nuijten, M.B., Wicherts, J.M., 2014. Why publishing everything is more effective than selective publishing of statistically significant results. PLoS ONE 9, 84896. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084896.

Baron, J., King, M., Sorenson, O., 2016. S/he blinded me with science: the sociology of scientific misconduct. Organizational wrongdoing: key perspectives and new directions 176–202.

Bell, K., Kingori, P., Mills, D., 2024. Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews. Science, Technology, & Human Values 49, 78–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439221112463

Ben-Yehuda, N., 1986. Deviance in Science - Towards the Criminology of Science. The British Journal of Criminology 26, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a047577

Beretta, M., Conforti, M. (Eds.), 2014. Fakes!? hoaxes, counterfeits, and deception in early modern science. Science History Publications/USA, Sagamore Beach.

Bishop, D.V.M., 2023. Red flags for paper mills need to go beyond the level of individual articles: a case study of Hindawi special issues (preprint). PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6mbgv

Brainard, J., n.d. Suspicious phrases in peer reviews point to referees gaming the system [WWW Document]. URL https://www.science.org/content/article/suspicious-phrases-peer-reviews-point-referees-gaming-system (accessed 7.9.25).

Brenkman, J., Lloyd, E., Albert, D. (Eds.), 2000. Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Bridgstock, Martin, 1982. A Sociological Approach to Fraud in Science. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 18, 364–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/144078338201800305

Byrne, J.A., Park, Y., Richardson, R.A.K., Pathmendra, P., Sun, M., Stoeger, T., 2022. Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills. Nucleic Acids Research 50, 12058–12070. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac1139

Cabanac, G., 2024. Dépollution de la littérature scientifique : signalement de publications scientifiques non fiables grâce au Problematic Paper Screener. Innovations & Thérapeutiques en Oncologie 10, 124–127. https://doi.org/10.1684/ito.2024.431

Cabanac, G., 2024a. Chain Retraction: How to Stop Bad Science Propagating through the Literature’. Nature 632, 977-979,. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02747-1.

Cabanac, G., 2024b. Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literature. Nature 632, 977–979. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02747-1

Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., 2021. Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 72, 1461–1476. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495

Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., Magazinov, A., 2022a. Flagging suspect publications and crowdsourcing post-publication reassessments: the ‘Problematic Paper Screener.’

Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., Magazinov, A., 2022b. The “Problematic Paper Screener” automatically selects suspect publications for post-publication (re)assessment. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.04895

Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., Magazinov, A., 2021. Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751

Candal-Pedreira, C., Guerra-Tort, C., Ruano-Ravina, A., Freijedo-Farinas, F., Rey-Brandariz, J., Ross, J.S., Pérez-Ríos, M., 2024. Retracted papers originating from paper mills: a cross-sectional analysis of references and citations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 172, 111397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111397

Cardenuto, J.P., Moreira, D., Rocha, A., 2024. Unveiling scientific articles from paper mills with provenance analysis. PLOS ONE 19, e0312666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312666

Chawla D., S., 2022. How a Site Peddles Author Slots in Reputable Publishers. Journals’, Science 376, 231–32,. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq4276.

Chawla, D.S., 2024. The citation black market: schemes selling fake references alarm scientists. Nature 632, 966–966.

Chubin, D.E., 1985. Misconduct in research: An issue of science policy and practice. Minerva 23, 175–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01099941

Conroy, G., 2023. Scientific sleuths spot dishonest ChatGPT use in papers. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02477-w

Day, A., 2022. Exploratory analysis of text duplication in peer-review reveals peer-review fraud and paper mills. Scientometrics 127, 5965–5987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04504-5

De Peuter, S., Storms, G., 2021. Whistleblowing in Science: in the Lion’s Den.

Demir, S.B., 2018. Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why? Journal of Informetrics 12, 1296–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.008

Desmond, H., 2020. Professionalism in Science: Competence, Autonomy, and Service. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 1287–1313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00143-x

Dubois, M., Guaspare, C., 2025. L’intégrité scientifique : Sociologie des bonnes pratiques. Humensis.

Durand, G., Garnier, L., 2024. Is the MDPI a Predatory Publisher or is the MDPI a Victim of Extortion? Who Are Other Victims of Fake Blogs (Pseudo-blogs)? International Journal of Economics and Management Systems 9.

Else, H., 2021. Scammers impersonate guest editors to get sham papers published. Nature 599, 361–361. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03035-y

Else, H., Van Noorden, R., 2021. The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science. Nature 591, 516–519. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00733-5

Eve, M., Priego, E., 2017. Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers? tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 15, 755–770. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v15i2.867

Fanelli, D., 2009. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4, e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

Fanelli, D., Costas, R., Larivière, V., 2015a. Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity. PLOS ONE 10, e0127556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127556

Fong, E.A., Wilhite, A.W., 2017. Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLOS ONE 12, e0187394. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187394

Franck, G., 1999. Scientific Communication--A Vanity Fair? Science 286, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5437.53

Frandsen, T.F., 2019a. Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature. Learned Publishing 32, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1214

Frandsen, T.F., 2017. Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers. Scientometrics 113, 1513–1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2520-x

Fraser, H., Parker, T., Nakagawa, S., Barnett, A., Fidler, F., 2018. Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution. PLoS ONE 13, 0200303. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200303.

Fritze, R.H., 2009. Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions. Reaktion Books.

Gingras, Y., 2014. Les dérives de l’évaluation de la recherche : du bon usage de la bibliométrie. Raisons d’agir éditions.

Goggin, M.L., Blanpied, W.A., 1986. Governing science and technology in a democracy. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Gopalakrishna, G., Riet, G. ter, Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J.M., Bouter, L.M., 2022. Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLOS ONE 17, e0263023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023

Hackett, E.J., 1994. A Social Control Perspective on Scientific Misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education 65, 242–260. https://doi.org/10.2307/2943966

Hanson, M.A., Barreiro, P.G., Crosetto, P., Brockington, D., 2024. The strain on scientific publishing ». Quantitative Science Studies 1–21.

Haven, T., van Woudenberg, R., 2021. Explanations of Research Misconduct, and How They Hang Together. J Gen Philos Sci 52, 543–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-021-09555-5

Hesselmann, F., 2023. A Tale of Two Academic Communities: Digital Imaginaries of Automatic Screening Tools in Editorial Practice. Minerva 61, 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09484-7

Hesselmann, F., Graf, V., Schmidt, M., Reinhart, M., 2017. The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology 65, 814–845. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116663807

Hesselmann, F., Reinhart, M., 2021. Cycles of invisibility: The limits of transparency in dealing with scientific misconduct. Soc Stud Sci 51, 414–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720975201

Hon, G., Schickore, J., Steinle, F. (Eds.), 2009. Going amiss in experimental research, Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Springer Verlag, Dordrect, Netherlands.

Horbach, S., Aagaard, K., Schneider, J.W., 2021. Meta-Research: How problematic citing practices distort science. MetaArXiv, MetaArXiv.

Hvistendahl, M., 2013. China’s Publication Bazaar’. Science 342, 1035–39,. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6162.1035

Ibrahim, H., Liu, F., Zaki, Y., Rahwan, T., 2025. Citation manipulation through citation mills and pre-print servers. Sci Rep 15, 5480. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-88709-7

Ibrahim, H., Liu, F., Zaki, Y., Rahwan, T., 2024. Google Scholar is manipulatable. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.04607

Joelving, F., 2024a. Paper Trail: In the Latest Twist of the Publishing Arms Race, Firms Churning out Fake Papers Have Taken to. Bribing Journal Editors’, Science 383.

John, L.K., Loewenstein, G., Prelec, D., 2012. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol. Sci 23, 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953.

Kojaku, S., Livan, G., Masuda, N., 2021. Detecting Anomalous Citation Groups in Journal Networks’. Scientific Reports 11, 14524.

Kuroki, M.D., Toshio, Ukawa, Ph.D., Akira, 2018. Repeating probability of authors with retracted scientific publications. Accountability in Research 25, 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1449651

Kwon, D., 2021. Guillaume Cabanac Deception sleut ». Nature 23, 602.

Lacetera, N., Zirulia, L., 2011. The Economics of Scientific Misconduct. J Law Econ Organ 27, 568–603. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewp031

Lamy, J., 2023. Le “programme fort” et la crise de la science des années 1970 aux années 1990. Communications EHESS 113, 161–171.

Langlitz, N., Dan-Cohen, T., 2025. What Ever Happened to the Anthropology of Science? From the Science Wars to the Post-Truth Era. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-071323-113423

Larregue, J., 2024. Sentencing social psychology: Scientific deviance and the diffusion of statistical rules. Current Sociology 72, 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921221117604

List, C.J., 1985. Scientific Fraud: Social Deviance or the Failure of Virtue? Science, Technology, & Human Values 10, 27–36.

Maisonneuve, H., 2025. Revues prédatrices et paper mills mettent en péril la gestion des savoirs. Bulletin du Cancer 112, 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bulcan.2024.12.002

Maisonneuve, H., 2024. Revues prédatrices et paper mills mettent en péril la gestion des savoirs’. Bulletin du Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bulcan.2024.12.002.

Makel, M.C., Hodges, J., Cook, B.G., Plucker, J.A., 2021. Both questionable and open research practices are prevalent in education research. Educ. Res 50, 493–504. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211001356.

Martinino, A., Campagnoli, G., Dallavalle, S., Soto, A., Pouwels, S., Smeenk, F., Martinino, A., Campagnoli, G., Dallavalle, S., Soto, A., Pouwels, S., Smeenk, F., 2024. Investigating Country-Specific Perceptions of Predatory Journals and Their Impact on Scholarly Integrity: A Systematic Review. Cureus 16. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.64674

Martinson, B.C., Anderson, M.S., Vries, Raymond, 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a.

Matusz, P., Abalkina, A., Bishop, D., 2023. The threat of paper mills to social science journals: The case of the Tanu.pro paper mill in Mind, Brain & Education. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/64j8h

Mayta-Tristán, P., Borja-García, R., 2023. Scientific misconducts: paper mills in Peru. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica 39, 388–391. https://doi.org/10.17843/rpmesp.2022.394.12473

Mitroff, I.I., 1974. Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists. American Sociological Review 39, 579. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094423

Montgomery, K., Oliver, A.L., 2017. Conceptualizing Fraudulent Studies as Viruses: New Models for Handling Retractions. Minerva 55, 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9311-z

Nazarovets, S., 2024. Dealing with Research Paper Mills, Tortured Phrases, and Data Fabrication and Falsification in Scientific Papers’, in Scientific Publishing Ecosystem. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4060-4_14.

Necker, S., 2016. Why do scientists cheat? Insights from behavioral economics. Review of Social Economy 74, 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2016.1135604

Necker, S., 2014. Scientific misbehavior in economics. Research Policy 43, 1747–1759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.05.002

Nguyen, L.T., Tuamsuk, K., 2025. Scientific Integrity of Researchers in Scholarly Publishing. J Acad Ethics 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09638-8

Noorden, R., 2023. How Big Is Science’s Fake-Paper Problem?. Nature. 623, 466-467 https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x

Oberhauser, V., Velicu, A., Rauhut, H., 2026a. Why social norms matter in science: Determinants of misconduct in German-speaking Europe. Social Science Research 134, 103292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2025.103292

Oliver-Lumerman, A., Ben-Yehuda, N., 2017. Fraud and Misconduct in Research: Detection, Investigation, and Organizational Response. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Oste, D.J., Pathmendra, P., Richardson, R.A.K., Johnson, G., Ao, Y., Arya, M.D., Enochs, N.R., Hussein, M., Kang, J., Lee, A., Danon, J.J., Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., Davis, A.C., Stoeger, T., Byrne, J.A., 2024. Misspellings or “miscellings”—Non-verifiable and unknown cell lines in cancer research publications. International Journal of Cancer 155, 1278–1289. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.34995

Paper mills research, 2022. Committee on Publication Ethics and STM. https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL

Paper mills research, 2006. COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics. URL https://publicationethics.org/guidance/research-and-reports/paper-mills-research (accessed 7.4.25).

Park, B.S., 2020. Making matters of fraud: Sociomaterial technology in the case of Hwang and Schatten. Hist Sci 58, 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0073275320921687

Parker, L., Boughton, S., Bero, L., Byrne, J.A., 2024. Paper mill challenges: past, present, and future. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 176, 111549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111549

Parker, L., Boughton, S., Lawrence, R., Bero, L., 2022. Experts identified warning signs of fraudulent research: a qualitative study to inform a screening tool. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 151, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.006

Parker, P., 2024. Paper Mill Challenges: Past, Present, and Future’. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 176, 111549,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111549.

Parker, P., 2022. Experts Identified Warning Signs of Fraudulent Research: A Qualitative Study to Inform a Screening Tool’. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 151, 1-17,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.006;

Perera, H.S., 2025. Questioning the Predator of the Predatory Journals: How Fair Are Global Publishing Standards? Learned Publishing 38, e1662. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1662

Perron, B.E., Hiltz-Perron, O.T., Victor, B.G., 2021. Revealed: The inner workings of a paper mill. Retraction Watch. URL https://retractionwatch.com/2021/12/20/revealed-the-inner-workings-of-a-paper-mill/ (accessed 1.7.26).

Popper, K.R., 1963. Science as falsification. Conjectures and refutations 1, 33–39.

Porter, S.J., McIntosh, L.D., 2024. Identifying fabricated networks within authorship-for-sale enterprises. Sci Rep 14, 29569. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-71230-8

Qiu, J., 2010. Publish or perish in China. Nature 463, 142–142. https://doi.org/10.1038/463142a

Richardson, R.A.K., Hong, S.S., Byrne, J.A., Stoeger, T., Amaral, L.A.N., 2025. The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122, e2420092122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2420092122

Rivera, H., Teixeira da Silva, J.A., 2021. Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills. J Korean Med Sci 36, e165. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e165

Ro, C., Leeming, J., 2025. Authorship for sale: Nature investigates how paper mills work. Nature 642, 823–826. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01824-3

Sabel, B., Larhammar, D., 2025. Reformation of science publishing: the Stockholm Declaration. Royal Society Open Science 12, 251805. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.251805

Sabel, B.A., Knaack, E., Gigerenzer, G., Bilc, M.-I., 2025. Fake publications in biomedical science: red-flagging method indicates mass production. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Arch Pharmacol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-025-04275-9

Scancar, B., Byrne, J.A., Causeur, D., Barnett, A.G., 2025. Revealing the Paper Mill Iceberg: AI-Based Screening of Cancer Research Publications. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.29.673016

Schmaus, W., 1983a. Fraud and the Norms of Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values 8, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398300800404

Schmaus, W., 1981. Fraud and sloppiness in science. Perspectives Prof 1, 1–4.

Schmaus, W., Wigodsky, H.S., 1984. Fraud and misrepresentation in research--whose rights? IRB 6, 10–11.

Schneck, A., 2023. Are most published research findings false? Trends in statistical power, publication selection bias, and the false discovery rate in psychology (1975–2017. PLoS ONE 18, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292717.

Shapin, S., 2001. How to be Antiscientific. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226467245.003.0008

Smart, P., 2023. Paper mills, fraudulent authors, and editorial responses. Science Editing 10, 165–169. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.314

Stavisky, L.P., 1973. Term Paper “Mills,” Academic Plagiarism, and State Regulation. Political Science Quarterly 88, 445–461. https://doi.org/10.2307/2148993

Steneck, N.H., 2006. Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Sci. Eng. Ethics 12, 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022268.

Steneck, N.H., 1999. Confronting misconduct in science in the 1980s and 1990s: What has and has not been accomplished? Sci. Eng. Ethics, 5, 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0005-x

Stern, A.M., Casadevall, A., Steen, R.G., Fang, F.C., 2014. Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. eLife 3, e02956. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02956

Tan, Q., Yuan, X., Li, Z., 2024. A WOS-Based Investigation of Authors for English Predatory Journals, in: Wisdom, Well-Being, Win-Win. Presented at the International Conference on Information, Springer, Cham, pp. 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57867-0_30

Trubnikov, D., Trubnikova, E., 2024. From Bogus Journals to Predatory Universities: The Evolution of the Russian Academic Sphere within the Predatory Settings of the State. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy 62, 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-023-09502-2

Van Noorden, R., 2023a. How big is science’s fake-paper problem? Nature 623, 466–467. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x

Van Noorden, R., 2013. Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature 495, 426–429. https://doi.org/10.1038/495426a

Visser, M., van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L., 2021. Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies 2, 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112

Weinstein, D., 1979a. Fraud in Science. Social Science Quarterly 59, 639–652.

Wible, J.R., 2022. The economics of scientific misconduct: fraud, replication failure, and research ethics in empirical inquiry. Routledge.

Wible, J.R., 2016. Scientific misconduct and the responsible conduct of research in science and economics. Review of Social Economy 74, 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2016.1135598

Wible, J.R., 1992. Fraud in Science An Economic Approach. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 22, 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839319202200101

Willie, M.M., 2024. Citation Cartels: Understanding Their Emergence and Impact on the Academic World. Golden Ratio of Data in Summary 4, 862–870. https://doi.org/10.52970/grdis.v4i2.581

Wittau, J., Seifert, R., 2024. How to fight fake papers: a review on important information sources and steps towards solution of the problem. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Arch Pharmacol 397, 9281–9294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-024-03272-8

Yalcintas, A., Wible, J.R., 2016. Scientific misconduct and research ethics in economics: an introduction. Review of Social Economy 74, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2016.1150731

Zuckerman, H., 1984. Norms and Deviant Behavior in Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values 9, 7–13.

Zuckerman, H., 1977. Deviant Behavior and Social Control in Science », in: Sagarin, E. (Ed.), Deviance and Social Change, Sage, Londres. pp. 87–138.

Retrouvez également des ressources en ligne sur l'éthique et l'intégrité de la recherche