ORI does not make plagiarists walk the plank
Page 757 notes a conflict of interest situation at Stanford University, related to Alan Schatzberg (who owns millions of dollars in stock of Corcept Therapeutics.]
Also of note, page 764 has an article "Industrial-Style Screening Meets Academic Biology." An indented article on 766 begins: "Once shunned as too costly and industrial, high-throughput screening is becoming a hot activity at universities." IPBiz asks, does anyone remember high throughput screening in Merck v. Integra?
Page 775 has an article: Scientific Misconduct: Do the punishments fit the crime, an interesting question after UVa's actions related to "Semester at Sea." Studying an 8 year period of ORI, the authors noted 106 cases of misconduct, including 10 of plagiarism. The authors noted "retraction was never required after plagiarism." The authors also noted: "acts of falsification and fabrication were punished more harshly than were acts of plagiarism."