The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Theme:30baec63-25c9-4a7f-943a-a8f8de159f9c

2021-11-14T20:25:02Z

0000-0001-6709-4265: Created page with "{{Theme |Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors |Has Parent Theme=Theme:783ea7a3-ab76-4622-a968-eb8c3efa7893 |Title=Not asking permission from contributors for the wording of th..."

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:783ea7a3-ab76-4622-a968-eb8c3efa7893
|Title=Not asking permission from contributors for the wording of the acknowledgement
|Is About=Acknowledging persons without consent
|Important Because=This can create wrong impressions with respect to contributions, intentions, and influences with respect to a contribution. Hence, it can mislead the reader.
|Important For=Academic staff; Authors; Editors; Peer reviewers
|Has Best Practice=Asking permission and consent for acknowledging persons and for the wording of the acknowledgement.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:C023cf0c-9b78-4da0-ba95-57b217b8d7c2;Resource:57f792c6-09d7-4d4f-ad43-2ce9678e381c
|Related To Theme=Theme:766bce52-ad90-441b-819a-d78976b854da;Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:D85c805e-7c71-4871-8667-ced410be5d02
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Autonomy; Collegiality; transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Anonymity
}}

Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a

2021-02-01T19:44:18Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:48185295-9e1e-41fb-ab70-948596e588d5
|Title=Improper data use (a bias distorting research results)
|Is About=Researchers may handle data in a number of ways that can influence the results to become misleading.
|Important Because=Improper data use undermines the ethos of science and the corresponding misleading results can misguide and distort the production of knowledge.

Examples of improper data use include:

*'''Massaging''': … extensive transformations or other maneuvers to make inconclusive data appear … conclusive
*'''Extrapolating''': … predicting future trends based on unsupported assumptions …
*'''Smoothing''': discarding data points too far removed from expected … values
*'''Slanting''': … selecting certain trends in the data, … discarding others which do not fit …
*'''Fudging''': creating data points to augment incomplete data sets …
*'''Manufacturing''': creating entire data sets de novo, … <ref>Sindermann C. J. “Winning the games scientists play” (Plenum Press, NY, 1982)</ref>

Data dredging is looking for too many possible associations in a dataset to see of any of them are statistically significant. Data dredging results in false positive results.

“When a large number of associations can be looked at in a dataset where only a few real associations exist, a P value of 0.05 is compatible with the large majority of findings still being false positives.” <ref>Smith, George Davey, and Shah Ebrahim. "Data dredging, bias, or confounding: They can all get you into the BMJ and the Friday papers."</ref>

'''Origin of words'''

There are several terms describing the act of data dredging. These include:

<br />

*"Data Dredging"<ref>Selvin, H. C., & Stuart, A. (1966). Data-dredging procedures in survey analysis. ''The American Statistician'', ''20''(3), 20-23.</ref>
*"Data Fishing"<ref>Grover, L. K., & Mehra, R. (2008). The lure of statistics in data mining. ''Journal of Statistics Education'', ''16''(1).</ref>
*“Data Snooping,”
*“P-hacking”
<references />
|Important For=Principal investigators; Researchers; Policy makers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Journal publishers; Journal editors
|Has Best Practice====Related tools===
By Jensen (2000) <ref>Jensen, David. "Data Snooping, Dredging and Fishing: The Dark Side of Data Mining, A SIGKDD99 Panel Report." SIGKDD Explorations 1.2 (2000): 52-54.</ref>

*New data and cross-validation
*Sidak, Bonferroni, and other adjustments
*Resampling and randomization techniques

By Glenn & Cormier (2015) <ref>Suter, Glenn W., and Susan M. Cormier. "The problem of biased data and potential solutions for health and environmental assessments." Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 21.7 (2015): 1736-1752.</ref>

*Performing own reviews of the sources of data,
*Checking for retractions and corrections,
*Requiring full disclosure of methods,
*Acquiring original data and reanalyzing it,
*Avoiding secondary sources,
*Avoiding unreplicated studies or studies that are not concordant with related studies, and
*Checking for funding or investigator biases.

===Related cases===
Convenience, dichotomization, stratification, regression to the mean, impact of sample size, competing risks, immortal time and survivor bias, management of missing values . <ref>armona-Bayonas A, Jimenez-Fonseca P, Fernandez-Somoano A, et al. Top ten errors of statistical analysis in observational studies for cancer research. Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico. 2018;20(8):954-965.</ref> <ref>Reanalysis: Ebrahim S, Sohani Z, Montoya L, et al. Reanalyses of randomized clinical trial data. JAMA 2014;312:1024-32</ref>
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:47bfd883-c518-4a97-98fb-86b5cf442d3e;Resource:5aefe751-0a20-4597-98a5-a59bf06a987a;Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:6ee4f37d-aa55-45c9-93ae-86831a37ca17;Resource:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0;Resource:1b777e40-9d7f-4ef4-a601-6be70c9e386a;Resource:369d2eb6-90ef-4198-8268-a95e51a307d0;Resource:6bcb5216-4e02-470f-85e7-abd492d47134
|Related To Theme=Theme:6b584d4e-2c9d-4e27-b370-5fbdb983ab46;Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accuracy
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Questionable research practice
}}

Theme:81c131bb-58e4-42ef-97e6-97e0476f3731

2021-02-01T19:41:40Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:48185295-9e1e-41fb-ab70-948596e588d5
|Title=Spin of research results
|Is About=Spin is the manipulation of language to potentially mislead readers from the likely truth of the results. Within quantitative empirical research, such as randomized controlled trials, spin is defined as the “use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite a statistically nonsignificant difference for the primary outcome [ie, inappropriate use of causal language], or to distract the reader from statistically nonsignificant results [ie, to focus on a statistically significant secondary result]”. <ref>Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058-2064. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.651</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Spin can distort the production of knowledge and mislead readers and misguide decision and policy makers. Being aware of spin is tremendously important for readers of scientific papers, for researchers, for editors, for information specialists (synthesizing knowledge), and for users of scientific evidence, such as policy makers. <ref>Yank V, Rennie D, Bero LA. Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2007;335(7631):1202-1205. doi:10.1136/bmj.39376.447211.BE</ref><ref>Hewitt CE, Mitchell N, Torgerson DJ. Listen to the data when results are not significant. BMJ. 2008;336 (7634):23-25. doi:10.1136/bmj.39379.359560.AD</ref> Distorted presentation and interpretation of results have been revealed in the cardiovascular literature.<ref>Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb, et al. "Level and Prevalence of Spin in Published Cardiovascular Randomized Clinical Trial Reports With Statistically Nonsignificant Primary Outcomes: A Systematic Review." JAMA Network Open 2.5 (2019): e192622-e192622.</ref> While professional disagreement drives scientific progress, spin hampers it, as it frequently becomes static and entrenched. Attention and awareness can be ways to reduce the problem. It is an interesting issue whether spin borders to misconduct, as it can involve misleading and manipulation although spin is not directly related to money or profit.
<references />
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Researchers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Journal editors; industry stakeholders; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; General public
|Has Best Practice=Open data practices can help increase transparency, allowing other researchers and interested parties to undertake their own analyses.

A technique to identify and classify spin in RCT reports has been developed by Boutron et al,<ref>Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058-2064. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.651</ref><ref>Hewitt CE, Mitchell N, Torgerson DJ. Listen to the data when results are not significant. BMJ. 2008;336(7634):23-25. doi:10.1136/bmj.39379.359560.AD</ref> focusing on RCTs reporting statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes because the interpretation of these results is more likely to be subject to prior beliefs of effectiveness, leading to potential bias in reporting. Similar approaches are available to systematically assess the explicit presentation of nonsignificant results in trial reports in various subspecialties, such as described by Lockyer et al, and Turrentine. <ref>Lockyer S, Hodgson R, Dumville JC, Cullum N. “Spin” in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes. Trials. 2013;14:371. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-371</ref><ref>Turrentine M. It’s all how you “spin” it: interpretive bias in research findings in the obstetrics and gynecology literature. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(2):239-242. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001818</ref>
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:7df709ce-fb89-4703-966f-b33e68b83ad5;Theme:E0384a98-fbfd-4df9-9caa-3fe4afa95951;Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Questionable research practice; Methodology
}}

Theme:49d71148-0df2-4a78-93d4-c802b48bbdb7

2021-02-01T19:36:26Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
|Title=Predatory publishing
|Is About=Predatory publishing, also called deceptive publishing, is a kind of academic publishing more geared toward making money than generating high quality publications.

Predatory journals have proliferated since the early 2000s. They typically apply a pay to publish model, work with an open access platform, and economize on editorial and peer review services .<ref>The publisher is not a member of any recognized professional organization committed to best publishing practices (like COPE or EASE)</ref> As a result, they tend to promise a very swift review process and fast publication. One way to check for predatory publishing is checking whether the publisher is a member of a recognized professional organization committed to best publishing practices (like COPE or EASE).
<references />
|Important Because=The pay to publish model has introduced a perverse conflict of interest into academic publishing. Rejecting papers does not yield any income and conflicts with the publisher’s financial interest. Because predatory journals do not usually apply rigorous peer review, the average quality of the published research is lower than that of adequately peer reviewed papers.

Avoiding, bypassing, or diminishing the quality assurance step of peer review can result in poor knowledge production. This results in bad research being freely accessible to the public, which is harmful to those who read it, corrupts the record of published scientific results, undermines evidence-based practice, misguides decision and policy makers, and risks erosion of public trust in academic science.

A number of studies have exposed predatory journal practices. For example, a writer for the journal Science submitted a very flawed manuscript to a number of open-access journals and experienced that 57% of the journals accepted the paper. He then published his results in a paper called, "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?". <ref>Bohannon J. Who's Afraid of Peer Review? Science 2013;342 (6154): 60–5. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60</ref> A fictitious scientist named Anna O. Szust applied for an editor position to 360 scholarly journals without relevant qualifications and with a made-up CV. 40 of 120 predatory journals accepted Szust as editor without any background check and often very quickly. <ref>Sorokowski P. "Predatory journals recruit fake editor". Nature 2017; 543 (7646): 481–483.</ref>

Researchers, particularly those with less experience, are sometimes unaware of the predatory nature of a journal and can be tricked into submitting a manuscript. Publishing in a predatory journal means that the article is no longer original and cannot be published in a high quality, peer-reviewed journal. Another problem is, when a researcher learns of the predatory nature of the journal and requests a retraction, the journal will often either refuse to retract the article, or request another fee to take it down. To avoid reputational damage and wasting a good article in a worthless publication, it is important to be able to recognize and avoid predatory journals.
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Scientists; Junior researchers; Postdocs; Publishers; Editors; Senior researchers; Bachelor students; Master students
|Has Best Practice=Lists of predatory publishers (blacklists) as well as lists of high quality open access publishers (whitelists) are of great value to researchers and decision makers.

===Blacklists===
The University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall developed a list of potential predatory journals in 2008, which has been since taken offline because of certain flaws in the methodology.

*[https://beallslist.weebly.com/ Beall's list]
*[https://www2.cabells.com/blacklist Cabells' lists]
*[https://predatoryjournals.com/ Stop Predatory Journals]

===Whitelists===

*[https://doaj.org/ Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)]

===Choosing a journal===
Stefan Eriksson and Gert Helgesson have identified 25 signs of predatory publishing, <ref>Eriksson, Stefan; Helgesson, Gert (7 October 2016). "The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics". Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 20 (2): 163–170. doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3

Bert Gordijn, Bjørn Hofmann, Marin Viđak contribut</ref> and argue that more points on the list that apply to the journal at hand, the more skeptical you should be."

#The publisher is not a member of any recognized professional organization committed to best publishing practices (like COPE or EASE)
#The journal is not indexed in well-established electronic databases (like MEDLINE or Web of Science)
#The publisher claims to be a "leading publisher" even though it just got started
#The journal and the publisher are unfamiliar to you and all your colleagues
#The papers of the journal are of poor research quality, and may not be academic at all (for instance allowing for obvious pseudo-science)
#There are fundamental errors in the titles and abstracts, or frequent and repeated typographical or factual errors throughout the published papers
#The journal website is not professional
#The journal website does not present an editorial board or gives insufficient detail on names and affiliations
#The journal website does not reveal the journal's editorial office location or uses an incorrect address
#The publishing schedule is not clearly stated
#The journal title claims a national affiliation that does not match its location (such as "American Journal of ..." while being located on another continent) or includes "International" in its title while having a single-country editorial board
#The journal mimics another journal title or the website of said journal
#The journal provides an impact factor in spite of the fact that the journal is new (which means that the impact cannot yet be calculated)
#The journal claims an unrealistically high impact based on spurious alternative impact factors (such as 7 for a bioethics journal, which is far beyond the top notation)
#The journal website posts non-related or non-academic advertisements
#The publisher of the journal has released an overwhelmingly large suite of new journals at one occasion or during a very short period of time
#The editor in chief of the journal is editor in chief also for other journals with widely different focus
#The journal includes articles (very far) outside its stated scope
#The journal sends you an unsolicited invitation to submit an article for publication, while making it blatantly clear that the editor has absolutely no idea about your field of expertise
#Emails from the journal editor are written in poor language, include exaggerated flattering (everyone is a leading profile in the field), and make contradictory claims (such as "You have to respond within 48 h" while later on saying "You may submit your manuscript whenever you find convenient")
#The journal charges a submission or handling fee, instead of a publication fee (which means that you have to pay even if the paper is not accepted for publication)
#The types of submission/publication fees and what they amount to are not clearly stated on the journal's website
#The journal gives unrealistic promises regarding the speed of the peer review process (hinting that the journal's peer review process is minimal or non-existent)—or boasts an equally unrealistic track-record
#The journal does not describe copyright agreements clearly or demands the copyright of the paper while claiming to be an open access journal
#The journal displays no strategies for how to handle misconduct, conflicts of interest, or secure the archiving of articles when no longer in operation

A number of other initiatives have also put together criteria for journal selection:

*[https://thinkchecksubmit.org/ Guideline to choose the right journal for research] -
*[https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/beinformed Be iNFORMEd: Checklist] - A checklist to assess the quality of a journal or publisher

==Other information==
[http://www.wame.org/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) statement on predatory publishing]

[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2019.1646535 The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), European Medical Writers Association (EMWA), and International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) Joint Position Statement on Predatory Publishing]

[http://www.icmje.org/news-and-editorials/fake_predatory_pseudo_journals_dec17.html ICMJE document on predatory publishing]<br />
<references />
|Has Detail=#Kearney, Margaret H. Predatory Publishing: What Authors Need to Know. Research in Nursing & Health 2015; 38 (1): 1–3. doi:10.1002/nur.21640. <nowiki>PMID 25545343</nowiki>.
#Bohannon J. Who's Afraid of Peer Review? Science 2013;342 (6154): 60–5. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60
#Sorokowski P. "Predatory journals recruit fake editor". Nature 2017; 543 (7646): 481–483.
#Eriksson, Stefan; Helgesson, Gert (7 October 2016). "The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics". Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 20 (2): 163–170. doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:38cabc43-2b53-4c98-80ea-89b97ef5107d
|Related To Theme=Theme:9fc17763-af35-4688-a87f-165f3b120897;Theme:06925397-5843-495d-a22d-3e983bdcb99e
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication ethics; Conflict of interest; Perverse incentives
}}

Theme:3e394ec0-7ed7-4056-b18a-9f4e3e891c32

2021-02-01T19:29:21Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
|Title=Polarized research
|Is About=Research results are presented in specific manners based on certain interests or perspectives. Polarisation occurs when researchers hold radically opposed views leading to the segregation of the scientific community into groups in part constituted by their opposition to other groups in the field. Polarisation goes beyond mere disagreement. It occurs when researchers begin (a) to self-identify as proponents of a particular position that needs to be strongly defended beyond what is supported by the data and (b) to discount arguments and data that would normally be taken as important in a scientific debate.” <ref>Ploug, T., & Holm, S. (2015). Conflict of interest disclosure and the polarisation of scientific communities.Journal of medical ethics, 41(4), 356-358.</ref>

The same data may be analysed and presented as very different results. “In polarised research scientists come to engage in facting interests instead of revealing interesting facts.” <ref>Hofmann, B. (2018). Fake facts and alternative truths in medical research.BMC medical ethics, 19(1), 4.</ref><references />
|Important Because=Polarized research is a type of bias that with basis in (covert) conflict of interest. Therefore it may misguide or distort the production of knowledge. Being aware of polarized research is tremendously important for readers of scientific papers, for researchers, for editors, for information specialists (synthesizing knowledge), and for users of scientific evidence, such as policy makers.

Results on climate change have, for example, been polarized. Moreover, there are many examples from health care, where studies of effects of various procedures vary greatly – even when based on the same data. One of the most familiar cases from health care involves studies on [https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-018-0243-z mammography screening] of women for breast cancer, where results on breast cancer mortality reduction and overdiagnosis vary greatly.

While professional disagreement is what drives scientific progress, polarized research hampers it, as it frequently becomes static and entrenched. Or it can be related to "choice-supportive bias." It is an interesting issue whether polarized research borders on misconduct, as it involves strong and often covert conflict of interest. However, the interest is not directly related to money or profit. Alternatively, scientific conferences and consensus conferences can be one constructive manner to address the problem.
|Important For=PhD Students; Scientists; Researchers; Policy makers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Journal publishers; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; General public
|Has Best Practice=Holm and Ploug suggest that researchers should address the following two questions:

#If the results of your current (well planned and well conducted) project point in the opposite direction of the results of your previous research on this topic, would your first reaction be to reanalyse the data and reconsider your methods, or to reconsider your previous conclusions?
#If your findings were the exact same as the opposing researchers in this field of research, would your policy recommendations be any different from the recommendations of the opposing group? <ref>Ploug, T., & Holm, S. (2015). Conflict of interest disclosure and the polarisation of scientific communities.Journal of medical ethics, 41(4), 356-358.</ref>

Four questions about polarized research:

*'''Why does polarized research exist?''' Because researchers have different perspectives and interests.
*'''Is polarized research fraud?''' No, because it is based on valid scientific methods.
*'''How does polarized research occur?''' Researchers may use different definitions, indexes, end-points, models, statistical methods, interpretations etc making their results come out very differently.
*'''How can we avoid polarized research?''' One suggestion is to force authors to declare “polarized conflict of interest” when submitting papers. Another is to make editors and publishers check for polarized conflicts of interest.
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:81c131bb-58e4-42ef-97e6-97e0476f3731;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Institutional responsibilities
|Related To Research Area=PE 10.03 - Climatology and climate change; SH 03.03 - Environmental regulations and climate negotiations
}}

Resource:53b0fc1a-fe70-48ab-9502-4d1258ac4218

2020-09-12T07:59:48Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A University of Liverpool investigation determined that a former researcher there fabricated his data
|Is About=It describes the case of Daniel J. Antoine, who was a promising young liver specialist, was found to have fabricated spectroscopic findings. Several retractions followed the investigation.<ref>https://retractionwatch.com/2020/02/07/journal-flags-papers-two-years-after-university-investigation-finds-researcher-faked-data/</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Revealing, investigating, reporting, and following up fraud can be resource consuming.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/07/06/research-misconduct-update/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Diligence; Honesty; Objectivity; Reliability; Trustworthiness
}}

Resource:53b0fc1a-fe70-48ab-9502-4d1258ac4218

2020-09-12T07:49:47Z

0000-0001-6709-4265: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=A University of Liverpool investigation determined that a former researcher there fabricated his data |Is About=It describes the case of..."

Resource:F52ff816-1035-46a4-bf92-a5f6a349f787

2020-09-12T07:26:51Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Ethical Issues in Developing Pharmacogenetic Research Partnerships With American Indigenous Communities
|Is About=This article describes two factual cases about the use of samples collected from two American indigenous communities (NuuChah-Nulth First Nation in British Columbia, Canada and Havasupai Tribe in the US) for genetic research. In both cases consent was acquired for an initial study, but later, research samples were used for other purposes that the communities had not consented to.
|Important Because=It shows two specific cases of having informed consent about further use of research samples are taken for granted. It also provides a brief overview of the legal procedure that affected communities can follow in The United States, and possible rulling of the courte in these cases.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Integrity Officers; Research Ethics Committees
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1038/clpt.2010.303
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:58f8a252-1eb7-42aa-8a66-31f042b632dd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2004
|Has Location=Canada; USA; Arizona State University
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Negligence
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:F52ff816-1035-46a4-bf92-a5f6a349f787

2020-09-12T07:25:03Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Ethical Issues in Developing Pharmacogenetic Research Partnerships With American Indigenous Communities
|Is About=This article describes two factual cases about the use of samples collected from two American indigenous communities (NuuChah-Nulth First Nation in British Columbia, Canada and Havasupai Tribe in the US) for genetic research. In both cases consent was acquired for an initial study, but later, research samples were used for other purposes that the communities had not consented to.
|Important Because=It shows two specific cases of having informed consent about further use of research samples are taken for granted. It also provides a brief overview of the legal procedure that affected communities can follow in The United States, and possible rulling of the courte in these cases.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Integrity Officers; Research Ethics Committees
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.03818.x
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:58f8a252-1eb7-42aa-8a66-31f042b632dd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2004
|Has Location=Canada; USA; Arizona State University
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Negligence
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:8a2719e6-7498-40c5-96a8-be0e10a81e27

2020-09-12T07:20:33Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Canaries in the Mines: Children, Risk, Non-Therapeutic Research, and Justice
|Is About=This is a factual case discussing the Kennedy Krieger lead paint study where a United States Court of Appeals condemned what it called a “non-therapeutic research programme” using children. The court ruled that a parent cannot consent to the participation of a child in “non-therapeutic” research in the state of Maryland . The case involves issues that had been given little attention by the courts, such as children’s participation in research, proxy consent, and the duties of medical researchers towards their subjects. The analysis includes a discussion of the relevance of “therapeutic” versus “non-therapeutic,” importance and value of a study, as well as cost-benefit analysis, the design of the research, and study aims.
|Important Because=The analysis provides a strategy helping identify when something is amiss with a research proposal and prompts to examine such issues more closely.
|Important For=Researchers; PI
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/2/176
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1990
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fairness; Safety
|Related To Research Area=Health Sciences
}}

Resource:8a2719e6-7498-40c5-96a8-be0e10a81e27

2020-09-12T07:18:21Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Canaries in the Mines: Children, Risk, Non-Therapeutic Research, and Justice
|Is About=This is a factual case discussing the Kennedy Krieger lead paint study where a United States Court of Appeals condemned what it called a “non-therapeutic research programme” using children. The court ruled that a parent cannot consent to the participation of a child in “non-therapeutic” research in the state of Maryland . The case involves issues that had been given little attention by the courts, such as children’s participation in research, proxy consent, and the duties of medical researchers towards their subjects. The analysis includes a discussion of the relevance of “therapeutic” versus “non-therapeutic,” importance and value of a study, as well as cost-benefit analysis, the design of the research, and study aims.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/2/176
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1990
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fairness; Safety
|Related To Research Area=Health Sciences
}}

Resource:20c8233b-7f3b-46f4-969a-882bb832581c

2020-09-12T07:09:28Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Biologist Spared Jail For Grant Fraud
|Is About=This is a factual case describing how an immunologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Luk Van Parijs, was found to be solely responsible for more than 11 incidents of data fabrication in grant applications and papers submitted between 1997 and 2004. <ref>https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(09)00154-X</ref>

Van Parijs avoided jail after several prominent scientists wrote letters begging for clemency on his behalf and was sentenced to home detention, community service and financial restitution.<ref>https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/03/former-mit-researcher-convicted-fraud</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=The case illustrates that coming clean promptly can be a good strategy for those who have committed scientific misconduct.

The case can spur awareness of early signs.<ref><nowiki>https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110728/full/news.2011.437.html</nowiki></ref>
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; PI; Supervisors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/474552a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Luk Van Parijs
|Has Timepoint=1997
|Has Location=USA
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Fraud in grant application
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:20c8233b-7f3b-46f4-969a-882bb832581c

2020-09-12T07:08:34Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Biologist Spared Jail For Grant Fraud
|Is About=This is a factual case describing how an immunologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Luk Van Parijs, was found to be solely responsible for more than 11 incidents of data fabrication in grant applications and papers submitted between 1997 and 2004. <ref>https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(09)00154-X</ref>

Van Parijs avoided jail after several prominent scientists wrote letters begging for clemency on his behalf and was sentenced to home detention, community service and financial restitution.<ref>https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/03/former-mit-researcher-convicted-fraud</ref>
|Important Because=The case illustrates that coming clean promptly can be a good strategy for those who have committed scientific misconduct.

The case can spur awareness of early signs.<ref><nowiki>https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110728/full/news.2011.437.html</nowiki></ref>
|Important For=Researchers; PI; Supervisors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/474552a
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Luk Van Parijs
|Has Timepoint=1997
|Has Location=USA
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Fraud in grant application
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:20c8233b-7f3b-46f4-969a-882bb832581c

2020-09-12T07:06:33Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

Resource:B57a73bf-efec-469a-9651-8338825ecaf6

2020-09-11T12:51:46Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title='Climate Skeptic' Journal Shuttered Following 'Malpractice' in 'Nepotistic' Reviewer Selections
|Is About=This is a factual case. The journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) was started by ''Copernicus Publications'' in March 2013. After publishing a special issue on ''“Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”'' was published a series of concerns about the selection of referees (nepotism) were raised. this resulted in Copernicus Publications shutting down the journal.
|Important Because=Open, transparent, and fair reviewer selection is challenging.

There is a problem of polarized research. <ref>Ploug, Thomas, and Søren Holm. "Conflict of interest disclosure and the polarisation of scientific communities." ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' 41.4 (2015): 356-358.</ref><ref>Earp, Brian D. "Addressing polarisation in science." ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' 41.9 (2015): 782-784.</ref>
|Important For=Researchers; Doctoral students; Editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/17/climate-skeptic-journal-shuttered-following-malpractice-in-nepotistic-reviewer-selections/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=17-1-2014
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication Ethics; Nepotism; Climate Change
|Related To Research Area=Physical Sciences
}}

Resource:7afd29a3-0098-43db-b80f-bdc79282a1c9

2020-09-11T12:36:16Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarize: Handling Real Allegations of Research Misconduct; Case #6: The Magazine Surprise
|Is About=This presents seven anonymized case of allegations of plagiary and from these draws specific conclusions and advice to authors and administrators.
|Important Because=Examples are useful for recognizing, highlight, and avoiding plagiary.
|Important For=Researchers; Administrators; Doctoral students; Early career researchers; Editors
|Has Best Practice=Specific advice for authors: "Do not put your name on a manuscript written by someone else. • Do not insert someone else’s text as a place-holder in a draft manuscript. The original might not be replaced later. • Do not copy verbatim the background section of someone else’s paper. Copying an amount beyond fair use might violate copyright law. The background section could be incomplete or erroneous. A subsequent inquiry or investigation would consume a lot of time from faculty and administrators, and it could embarrass the institution. • Include references to all sources, with appropriate citations, in all manuscripts and grant proposals. • Take allegations of plagiarism to a research integrity officer. If there is no research integrity officer, then consult a knowledgeable administrator"<ref>Loui, Michael C. "Seven ways to plagiarize: Handling real allegations of research misconduct." ''Science and Engineering Ethics'' 8.4 (2002): 529-539.</ref>
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-002-0005-6
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:Ca0b7f16-c130-40d9-bae4-c92c7a0d025a;Resource:557a3563-4704-413c-80de-ccb5f8c0b748
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2000
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism
}}

Theme:540c9ba0-bc9c-4311-b3e1-7a650d2b9f0f

2020-09-11T12:09:48Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9
|Title=Privacy in research
|Is About=Privacy is considered an important human right, and according to the European Convention on Human Rights “everybody has the right to respect for his private and family life and his correspondence”. <ref>Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 1950). http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm</ref> Within research settings privacy has become increasingly important. Privacy concerns protection of identity, in the form of data protection, bodily materials, sealed health records and protection of other sensitive (research) data.
<references />
|Important Because=Privacy is important because it is considered a human right. All persons have the right to a private life, which is based on the idea that individual welfare is promoted. <ref>Hughes, J., Hunter, D., Sheehan, M., Wilkinson, S., & Wrigley, A. (2010).European textbook on ethics in research. Publications Office of the European Union</ref> Individuals can do as they please, as long as others are not harmed in any way. If the harm outweighs the right to privacy, society can intervence. Privacy mainly concerns the protection of personal data. In a research setting, any information, such as names, addresses and other personal data, will usually be encrypted so that other research data cannot be traced back to an indvidual. However, with the rise of biobanks, privacy of (research) participants may be jeapordized. <ref>Malin, B., Loukides, G., Benitez, K., & Clayton, E. W. (2011). Identifiability in biobanks: models, measures, and mitigation strategies. Human genetics, 130(3), 383</ref> As the main purpose of biobanks is to collect tissue and DNA, this cannot be encrypted. DNA is unique to every person, and can thus be traced back to an indivual. Dealing with this is an important challenge in biobanking research.

Correspondingly, there are challenges in health data research<ref>OˈKeefe, Christine M., and Chris J. Connolly. "Privacy and the use of health data for research." ''Medical Journal of Australia'' 193.9 (2010): 537-541.</ref> as well as artificial intelligence<ref>Tucker, Catherine, et al. "Privacy, algorithms, and artificial intelligence." ''The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda'' (2018): 423-437.</ref> and big data research.<ref>Strang, Kenneth David, and Zhaohao Sun. "Meta-analysis of big data security and privacy: Scholarly literature gaps." ''2016 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data)''. IEEE, 2016.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=PhD students; Early career researchers; Junior researchers; Research subjects; Senior researchers
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F7ed25ad-cfab-4040-b52f-596accc3c317;Resource:9c917ab2-c01d-446b-89c1-a9cd415afb00;Resource:695b5c9b-f3ac-4fc8-8e20-1dfd5f7347ff
|Related To Theme=Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research with Humans; Privacy
}}

Theme:540c9ba0-bc9c-4311-b3e1-7a650d2b9f0f

2020-09-11T12:08:23Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9
|Title=Privacy in research
|Is About=Privacy is considered an important human right, and according to the European Convention on Human Rights “everybody has the right to respect for his private and family life and his correspondence”. <ref>Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 1950). http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm</ref> Within research settings privacy has become increasingly important. Privacy concerns protection of identity, in the form of data protection, bodily materials, sealed health records and protection of other sensitive (research) data.
<references />
|Important Because=Privacy is important because it is considered a human right. All persons have the right to a private life, which is based on the idea that individual welfare is promoted. <ref>Hughes, J., Hunter, D., Sheehan, M., Wilkinson, S., & Wrigley, A. (2010).European textbook on ethics in research. Publications Office of the European Union</ref> Individuals can do as they please, as long as others are not harmed in any way. If the harm outweighs the right to privacy, society can intervence. Privacy mainly concerns the protection of personal data. In a research setting, any information, such as names, addresses and other personal data, will usually be encrypted so that other research data cannot be traced back to an indvidual. However, with the rise of biobanks, privacy of (research) participants may be jeapordized. <ref>Malin, B., Loukides, G., Benitez, K., & Clayton, E. W. (2011). Identifiability in biobanks: models, measures, and mitigation strategies. Human genetics, 130(3), 383</ref> As the main purpose of biobanks is to collect tissue and DNA, this cannot be encrypted. DNA is unique to every person, and can thus be traced back to an indivual. Dealing with this is an important challenge in biobanking research.

Correspondingly, there are challenges in health data research<ref>OˈKeefe, Christine M., and Chris J. Connolly. "Privacy and the use of health data for research." ''Medical Journal of Australia'' 193.9 (2010): 537-541.</ref> as well as big data research.<ref>Strang, Kenneth David, and Zhaohao Sun. "Meta-analysis of big data security and privacy: Scholarly literature gaps." ''2016 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data)''. IEEE, 2016.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=PhD students; Early career researchers; Junior researchers; Research subjects; Senior researchers
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F7ed25ad-cfab-4040-b52f-596accc3c317;Resource:9c917ab2-c01d-446b-89c1-a9cd415afb00;Resource:695b5c9b-f3ac-4fc8-8e20-1dfd5f7347ff
|Related To Theme=Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research with Humans; Privacy
}}

Resource:E11c2017-febf-4986-a02a-4d6d9599d21a

2020-09-11T11:57:15Z

0000-0001-6709-4265:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Author Misconduct: Not Just the Editors' Responsibility
|Is About=Researchers everywhere are under increasing pressure to publish in high quality journals. The amount of space available in a journal such as ''Medical Education'' has not kept pace with the rise in submissions. Against a background of fierce competition, authors sometimes cut corners. This may lead to misconduct<ref>Brice, Julie, and John Bligh. "Author misconduct: not just the editors' responsibility." ''Medical education'' 39.1 (2005): 83-89.</ref>. This is a factual case.
<references />
|Important Because=This paper aims to explore the most common types of publication misconduct seen in the ''Medical Education'' editorial office, and to consider the reasons for this and the implications for researchers in the field<ref>Brice, Julie, and John Bligh. "Author misconduct: not just the editors' responsibility." ''Medical education'' 39.1 (2005): 83-89.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; phd students
|Has Best Practice=The cases reveal practices to avoid:

* Plagiarism
* Undeserved authorship
* Duplicate submission
* Unprofessional conduct
* Lack of ethical approval
* Redundant or duplicate publication

Other experienced misconduct to avoid were:

* "‘salami‐slicing’– dividing up a piece of research as thinly as possible to get the maximum number of papers out of it; this naturally involves a great deal of repeated information, especially in the ‘methods’ section;"
* "cutting and pasting whole sections from 1 manuscript to another – another unfortunate temptation of the electronic age;"[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02027.x#b10 10]
* "publishing a paper in a small national journal, then having it translated into English and submitting it to a larger journal without revealing its previous publication;"
* "publishing a paper in a minor journal or in some other format such as an e‐journal and then submitting it to a larger journal without revealing its previous publication, and"
* "attempting to have a paper published in 2 journals simultaneously; some authors even go so far as to give identical papers different titles and list the authors in a different order in an attempt to disguise this type of misconduct." <sup>[1]</sup>
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02027.x
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2003-2004
|Has Location=United Kingdom; UK
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Duplication
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

User:0000-0001-6709-4265

2020-09-11T11:54:14Z

0000-0001-6709-4265: create user page