Below is a case of a retracted yet highly cited study.
You will use various tools and library resources to investigate this retracted article, in an attempt to make a conclusion as to the ethical and other issues surrounding this case.
Is peer review a solution?
» Read: Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process (CJ Huag; N Engl J Med 2015; 373:2393-2395 | DOI:10.1056/NEJMp1512330)
Maybe "open peer review"
» Read: Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (van Rooyen, et al., BMJ 1999: 318(7175): 23–27 | doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23)
» Read: Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial (van Rooyen, et al., BMJ 2010: 341:c5729 | doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729)
What about "open science"?
» Read: Transparency: the emerging third dimension of Open Science and Open Data (L Lyon; LIBER Q 2016: 25(4), 153-171 | DOI:10.18352/lq.10113)
» Read: Bring On the Transparency Index (A Marcus, I Oransky; The Scientist 2012 August: 26(8))
What do you think?