The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Theme:B96ef996-e262-4c0c-a62c-1ea1ef034f36

2023-03-09T08:33:12Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:8c6bf00a-d760-47d8-9aa1-5f48c14ce3f5
|Title=The Dilemma Game
|Is About=The Rotterdam dilemma game is an engaging tool for raising awareness of research integrity and professionalism among researchers in different stages of their careers. It was developed as an initiative of the Erasmus University Rotterdam Taskforce on Scientific Integrity. The game presents various cases involving moral conflicts encountered in research practice and players have to vote on the course of action they would take. The game can help to initiate discussions about research integrity and research culture. The Dilemma game can be played as a card game or be downloaded as a mobile app (see below). The game has been widely used for training purposes in research integrity in a variety of organizations.

 
|Important Because=Being a researcher, sooner or later in your career you may be faced with situations that may cause moral distress. The best way to meet these challenges is to be educated on research integrity and research ethics. As an interactive tool and addition to education, the Rotterdam dilemma game can be used as an exercise for considering and dealing with different research integrity issues. The game includes various themes, e.g. authorship, publications, mentoring Ph.D. students, data processing and data analysis. Whether you are a senior researcher or a Ph.D. student, the dilemma game can help you to reflect on moral issues in research.<ref>Erasmus Research Institute of Management. Dilemma Game. Accessed May 24 2019. Available at: https://www.erim.eur.nl/research-integrity/scientific-integrity/training-and-education/dilemma-game/</ref> By presenting various dilemma scenarios (+75 of them), the “players” engage in discussions which enable them to choose and defend their position in different situations. Through its design, it aims to trigger the reconsideration of opinions and possible actions.

 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Teachers; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=The Taskforce Scientific Integrity from the Erasmus University Rotterdam has made a number of recommendations for use of the game in their institution. One of the recommendations is that the game is used as a part of PhD training, as well as a faculty training session on research integrity.<ref>Erasmus University Rotterdam Taskforce Scientific Integrity. Fostering professionalism and integrity in research. 2013. Accessed May 24 2019. Available at: https://www.eur.nl/sites/corporate/files/Taskforce_Scientific_Integrity_EUR.pdf</ref> The dilemma game has also proved useful beyond its home institution, for example it is used as an exercise in [https://www.ucl.ac.uk/research/integrity/training-accordion/integrity-seminars research integrity seminars] provided by University College London and the PRINTEGER project has listed the dilemma game as one of the [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ learning modules] on their platform. As an interactive and educational exercise, the dilemma game is used in training sessions for research integrity trainers by the Horizon 2020 VIRT2UE project.

'''Dilemma game app'''

The developers have been adapting the card game into an app, in order to make the dilemmas not only more accessible, but also more relevant to a rapidly changing research environment and available for different purposes. With this app, researchers and teachers can use it individually, in a classroom game-mode and in a lecture mode, by connecting in a group. Moreover, users are now more regularly confronted with integrity dilemmas through notifications, with new dilemma’s added each month and the invitation to share own research integrity dilemma’s. This app is a great example of an inspiring initiative, since it serves different objectives: it is a usable tool for training purposes, creates ongoing awareness and supports research culture by facilitating discussion.

The dilemma game can be downloaded as an application on [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=nl.eur.dilemmagame&gl=NL Android devices] and [https://apps.apple.com/nl/app/dilemma-game/id1494087665 iOS]. The app has three modes: individual, group and lecture mode, allowing users to interact with the dilemma's in a variety of ways. You can also open the lecture mode in your [https://dilemmagame.eur.nl/ui/ browser], so you can show students the dilemma and their answers.
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:313feb13-82bc-4489-be7a-387d3415c427
|Related To Theme=Theme:3c6a13ad-6861-4a5f-bf5b-491693ee6b6d
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
|Has Timepoint=2020
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Accuracy; Dignity; Honesty; Objectivity; Reliability; Respect; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethical Dilemma; Integrity; Good Practice; Mentoring; Misconduct; Moral reasoning; Power abuse; Professional standards; Research Integrity
}}

Resource:6a4cfa90-8592-4e6f-96e6-ad4d6fb9e0fb

2021-09-21T07:45:25Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Criticism Swirls Around High-Profile History Book about North Korea
|Is About=This case concerns the 2013 book publication of ‘’the Tyranny of the Weak’, published by a professor on the history of North Korea. In the book the author presents his historical research on how North Korea ‘survived’ the Cold War.

In 2014 another historian noticed several irregularities in the sources of the work of the professor and started investigating these irregularities. Many of these sources referred to archives, and were written in Russian, German, Chinese or Korean. The other historian decided to visit one of the archives in person to check the original sources. He states “[I checked] the collection there to reconstruct the original archival locations (…). This way it could be fully verified that the vast majority of the Russian archival citations from 1957-60 were invalid, because the cited files could not be found either in the Seoul collection or in the (essentially identical) Wilson Center collection.”

Upon this discovery, he also reached out to an archive in Berlin, where most sources could also not be located, or contained different information as suggested in the book. In addition, as the historian points out on Retractionwatch, several uncanny similarities appear to exist between "Tyranny of the Weak" and his own book on a similar topic.

The pofessor and book author, replied stating that “[t]he book was reviewed by two expert external reviewers before publication. In addition, before the book was published three years ago I shared the entire manuscript with one of the scholars who is currently critical of the book and is a renowned expert on the Russian sources on North Korea. At that time, this scholar did not find any problem with my use of sources, although he made a number of other comments which I incorporated in the final version of the book.” In 2015 the book earned 52 corrections in the new publication.
|Important Because=Accuracy in referencing is important for several reasons<ref>Santini A. (2018). The Importance of Referencing. ''Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures)'', ''4''(1), 3–4. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1515/jccm-2018-0002</nowiki></ref> such as avoiding improper appropriation of others ideas, allowing readers to further research certain topics which might be only briefly touched upon in the text, embedding the text in the relevant literature on the same topic and supporting ones claims on scientific evidence which has been peer reviewed by other researchers. Reflecting on this case, for instance in a classroom setting, can support the understanding good referencing practices and help in avoiding mistakes<ref>Penders B. (2018) Ten simple rules for responsible referencing. PLOS Computational Biology 14(4): e1006036. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006036</ref>.
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Bachelor students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/10/13/criticism-swirls-around-high-profile-history-book-of-north-korea/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:6405cda0-87cb-42a5-8f74-eae7b933a48f
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Retraction Watch
|Has Timepoint=13-10-2016
|Has Location=United States; Korea
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Korea Retractions; Reference Problem
|Related To Research Area=History and archaeology
}}

Resource:D379e46d-87d3-4e28-891b-c47d5c905f79

2021-01-28T12:18:26Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=3 things societies can do to promote research integrity
|Is About=In this podcast, produced by Wiley, Brian Nosek gives three insights into what researchers and the research community can do to "close the gaps between research values and practice".
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.wiley.com/network/societyleaders/publishing-strategy/3-things-societies-can-do-to-promote-research-integrity
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=The Wiley network
|Has Timepoint=2016
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Reproducability; Conflict of interest; Publication ethics; Data management; Open access
}}

Resource:3f8d6a6e-db25-438c-a266-dd0175fe09c0

2020-12-10T10:54:10Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Grey areas of plagiarism: 10 scenarios to discuss with students
|Is About=This resource describes 10 scenarios which can be discussed with students. The cases are all about plagiarism, and consider different aspects related to plagiarism, copying ideas, working together and citations. The resource presents the scenarios accompanied with questions students can discuss, and relevant teacher notes.

 
|Important Because=This resource can be used to let students reflect on what plagiarism is, how it affects their writing, and what good and bad writing practices are. The 10 scenarios can lead to discussion among the students, and let students reflect on themselves and past and future writing assignments.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; Bachelor students; High school students; Master students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ENAI_Case_studies_on_Grey_areas.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Acc068ac-a0c0-48fa-b6a2-ff7448bf2573;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:6405cda0-87cb-42a5-8f74-eae7b933a48f
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Nottingham Trent University; University of Derby
|Has Timepoint=2019
|Has Location=United Kingdom
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Research Misconduct
}}

Resource:3f8d6a6e-db25-438c-a266-dd0175fe09c0

2020-12-10T10:52:18Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Grey areas of plagiarism: 10 scenarios to discuss with students
|Is About=This resource describes 10 scenarios which can be discussed with students. The cases are all about plagiarism, and discuss different aspects related to plagiarism, copying, working together and citations. The resource presents the 10 scenarios, accompanied with questions which the students can discuss, and relevant teacher notes.
|Important Because=This resource can be used to let students reflect on what plagiarism is, how it affects their writing, and what good and bad writing practices are. The 10 scenarios can lead to discussion among the students, and let students reflect on themselves and past and future writing assignments.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; Bachelor students; High school students; Master students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ENAI_Case_studies_on_Grey_areas.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Acc068ac-a0c0-48fa-b6a2-ff7448bf2573;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:6405cda0-87cb-42a5-8f74-eae7b933a48f
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Nottingham Trent University; University of Derby
|Has Timepoint=2019
|Has Location=United Kingdom
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Research Misconduct
}}

Resource:3f8d6a6e-db25-438c-a266-dd0175fe09c0

2020-12-10T10:51:23Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Grey areas of plagiarism: 10 scenarios to discuss with students
|Is About=This resources describes 10 scenarios which can be discussed with students. The cases are all about plagiarism, and discuss different aspects related to plagiarism, copying, working together and citations. The resource presents the 10 scenarios, accompanied with questions which the students can discuss, and relevant teacher notes.
|Important Because=This resource can be used to let students reflect on what plagiarism is, how it affects their writing, and what good and bad writing practices are. The 10 scenarios can lead to discussion among the students, and let students reflect on themselves and past and future writing assignments.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; Bachelor students; High school students; Master students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ENAI_Case_studies_on_Grey_areas.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Acc068ac-a0c0-48fa-b6a2-ff7448bf2573;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:6405cda0-87cb-42a5-8f74-eae7b933a48f
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Nottingham Trent University; University of Derby
|Has Timepoint=2019
|Has Location=United Kingdom
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Research Misconduct
}}

Resource:3f8d6a6e-db25-438c-a266-dd0175fe09c0

2020-12-10T10:49:34Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Case studies on Grey areas of Plagiarism: 10 scenarios to discuss with students
|Is About=This resources describes 10 scenarios which can be discussed with students. The cases are all about plagiarism, and discuss different aspects related to plagiarism, copying, working together and citations. The resource presents the 10 scenarios, accompanied with questions which the students can discuss, and relevant teacher notes.
|Important Because=This resource can be used to let students reflect on what plagiarism is, how it affects their writing, and what good and bad writing practices are. The 10 scenarios can lead to discussion among the students, and let students reflect on themselves and past and future writing assignments.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; Bachelor students; High school students; Master students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ENAI_Case_studies_on_Grey_areas.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Acc068ac-a0c0-48fa-b6a2-ff7448bf2573;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:6405cda0-87cb-42a5-8f74-eae7b933a48f
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Nottingham Trent University; University of Derby
|Has Timepoint=2019
|Has Location=United Kingdom
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Research Misconduct
}}

Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9

2020-10-27T14:36:19Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Protecting research subjects
|Is About=Research subjects should be protected to minimize the harms and maximize the benefits, acknowledge autonomy of the research subject and promote justice.
|Important Because=The Belmont report lays down three basic ethical principles for human research which are aimed at protecting research subjects. <ref>The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978). The Belmont Report: ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington DC.</ref>The three ethical principles are:

#'''Respect for persons''' includes acknowledging the autonomy of individuals and protecting those with diminished autonomy. The principle respect for persons is protected in the form of informed consent.
#'''Beneficence''' is understood as minimizing harm and maximizing possible benefits. Systematically assessing the risks and benefits of a research project is needed to ensure the harms are minimized and the benefits of the study are maximized.
#'''Justice''' concerns who receives the benefits of a research study and who carries the cost. Fair procedures to select subjects is one important way to ensure justice in a study.
|Important For=PhD students; Bachelor students; Graduate students; Undergraduate students; Ethics committee members
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:05f04469-5834-4411-9217-c2551a0c745a;Resource:E9cd7ee1-bd54-4d5c-bdd9-786ef1c9f603
|Related To Theme=Theme:E5629f68-81f6-490d-84d6-fd1e63b8dbc7;Theme:D0ad4326-4faa-47bf-85ab-a3eb78cb6540
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Balancing harms and benefits; Vulnerable and non-competent subjects; Research with Humans
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities; LS - Life Sciences
}}

Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd

2020-10-27T14:35:14Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9
|Title=Research with humans
|Is About=In research with humans, human beings are not only researchers, but also the main subjects of research. Such research can be observational or interventional, and can be medical (including biology, physiology, and clinical trials) or non-medical (social science, political science). Because of ethical issues arising from human research, this area is heavily regulated, to protect the rights and dignity of research participants. <ref>World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki Special Communication. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-4.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=New drugs. procedures and treatments require detailed testing to ensure they are safe, effective and do not harm those undergoing the treatment or taking the drug. While a lot can be answered using in vitro experiments and animal testing, testing on humans is necessary in order to verify the safety and efficacy of novel treatments.<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Bachelor students; Master students
|Has Best Practice=Throughout history, multiple violations of ethical principles in human research have occurred. The most widely known are perhaps the inhumane experiments conducted by the Nazis and Japanese during the WW2. In the aftermath of the WW2, the Nuremberg Code was published to provide basic guidelines in human research. To further improve the ethics of human research, the World Medical Association developed the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964. While providing some guidance, instances of unethical research persisted. In the United States, a large study was conducted to assess the impact of syphilis, and hundreds of participants were barred from seeking treatment in what was known as the Tuskegee experiment. Following the public outcry, the Belmont report was published in 1978. These documents set important standards in human research and provide the foundations of medical ethics. Some of the important points are respect for the person, personal autonomy (and informed consent), justice, and beneficence. Nowadays, different countries have national laws, informed by the aforementioned international guidance, regarding clinical research and oversight by research ethics committees.

'''Related guidelines'''

 

*[https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf Nuremberg code]
*[https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ Declaration of Helsinki]
*[https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html Belmont report]

'''Related cases'''

 

*[https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm Tuskegee syphilis experiment]
*[https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-medical-experiments Nazi human experiments]
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F7ed25ad-cfab-4040-b52f-596accc3c317;Resource:E1f32efa-98f0-4036-857b-441c15bb39da;Resource:05f04469-5834-4411-9217-c2551a0c745a;Resource:E9cd7ee1-bd54-4d5c-bdd9-786ef1c9f603
|Related To Theme=Theme:E5629f68-81f6-490d-84d6-fd1e63b8dbc7;Theme:D0ad4326-4faa-47bf-85ab-a3eb78cb6540
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research with Humans
}}

Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9

2020-10-27T10:03:21Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Protecting research subjects
|Is About=Protecting research subjects is important.
|Important For=PhD students; Bachelor students; Graduate students; Undergraduate students; Ethics committee members
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:05f04469-5834-4411-9217-c2551a0c745a;Resource:E9cd7ee1-bd54-4d5c-bdd9-786ef1c9f603
|Related To Theme=Theme:E5629f68-81f6-490d-84d6-fd1e63b8dbc7;Theme:D0ad4326-4faa-47bf-85ab-a3eb78cb6540
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Balancing harms and benefits; Vulnerable and non-competent subjects; Research with Humans
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities; LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:77483561-dded-4881-92ee-4226bce4fc9f

2020-10-26T14:11:40Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Research Integrity and Conflicts of Interest: The Case of Unethical Research-Misconduct Charges
|Is About=The case discusses the relevance of better conflict of interests regulations in accepting a research misconduct allegation. An argument is provided that the U.S. research misconduct regulations are flawed in requiring research misconduct assessors/experts/accused, but not accusers, to reveal possible conflicts of interest (COI) that could affect research misconduct allegations.

Rather than using peer-reviewed, scientific-journal literature to try to defend his account of hormesis against Shrader-Frechette’s scientific criticisms, on August 23, 2011 Calabrese instead filed RM charges against ShraderFrechette with her employer, the University of Notre Dame (UND). The UND Research Integrity Policy, like that of virtually all U.S. universities, is mandated by ORI. It requires that “upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct,” the university must “immediately assess the allegation.” Thus UND appointed a faculty committee to assess Calabrese’s allegations.
|Important For=Researchers; Policy makers; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08989621.2012.700882?journalCode=gacr20
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2000; 2011
|Has Location=USA
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Impartiality; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest; Research Misconduct Investigation
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences; LS 08.09 - Environmental toxicology at the population and ecosystems level
}}

Resource:9c053ef4-ced1-4f64-901d-ff1df57f0e55

2020-10-26T14:10:48Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=What is Recklessness in Scientific Research?
|Is About=This is a factual case.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08989621.2017.1397517?journalCode=gacr20
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2011
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification; Fabrication; Image Manipulation
}}

Resource:720a2df3-c584-4b5a-a6ba-1b5636c0ae49

2020-10-26T14:09:15Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Artificial tracheas and severe research misconduct
|Is About=This is a factual case. 
<references />
|Important For=researchers; research leaders; All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://news.ki.se/the-macchiarini-case-timeline
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Royal Swedisch Academy of Sciences; Karolinska Institute
|Has Timepoint=2010-2017
|Has Location=Sweden
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Balancing harms and benefits; Fabrication; Falsification; Research with Humans; Research with Animals; Lack of Ethical Review; Safety; Fraud; Negligence; Death; Ethics; Research Misconduct
|Related To Research Area=Medical and Health Sciences
}}

Resource:606c4f6b-253b-475e-8ee3-d2762e65bdbe

2020-10-26T14:07:32Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Epistemic Integrity of Scientific Research
|Is About=This case describes a concept of epistemic integrity.
<references />
|Important Because= 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-012-9394-3
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Merck & Co
|Has Timepoint=2001
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data reporting; Dishonesty
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:19344715-932f-4599-b6db-cef280258d52

2020-10-26T14:06:48Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Ethics of Pharmaceutical Research Funding: A Social Organization Approach
|Is About=This is a fictional case.
<references responsive="0" />
|Important Because= 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/jlme.12072
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:92439f75-5c0c-49d4-a21f-e9b41bd3a7db
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:270a135c-cf51-4a57-81b7-cdd162ea8fdf

2020-10-26T14:06:07Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Speculations and Ethical Concerns in the Conduct of Outsourced Clinical Trials in India
|Is About=This is a factual case.
<references />
|Important Because= 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613006837
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2017
|Has Location=India
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fairness
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:8367e13a-b836-4237-bfdd-e2d9dd491329

2020-10-26T14:03:54Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Bothered and Bewildered But not Bewitched
|Is About=This is a factual case.
|Important Because=When an article is being published, one assumes that the co-authors are aware of its publication. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.jci.org/articles/view/37695
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:72c8ab8d-bbf8-4503-8b48-9de7eac37673
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2008
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:3ed20282-71b3-4ef0-bf37-d07d18d6674f

2020-10-26T14:03:01Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Extent and Causes of Academic Text Recycling or ‘Self-Plagiarism’
|Is About=This is a factual case.
<references />
|Important Because= 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733317301543?via%3Dihub
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ed7ce22e-667a-44a8-a3d0-2abdd0d37b1a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Self-plagiarism
|Related To Research Area=Economics and business
}}

Resource:F243f440-69e9-44f8-b95a-5e0c2009f700

2020-10-26T14:01:45Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Mea Culpa: Scientific Misconduct - perspective of a research ethics board chair
|Is About=This is a factual case.<references />
|Important Because= 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.jcvaonline.com/article/S1053-0770(11)00858-5/fulltext
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=REC approval
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

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

2020-10-26T13:59:56Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Author Misconduct: Not Just the Editors' Responsibility
|Is About=This case described how the limited space in journals is not aligned with the increase in submissions. Due to publication pressure authors sometimes cut corners, which can lead to cases of misconduct.<ref>Brice, Julie, and John Bligh. "Author misconduct: not just the editors' responsibility." ''Medical education'' 39.1 (2005): 83-89.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=This paper aims to explore common types of publication misconduct in the editorial office in a specific journal, and considers several implications
|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;"<ref>Das, S. K. (2003). Plagiarism in higher education: is there a remedy? Lots of instruction and some careful vigilance could work wonders. ''The Scientist'', ''17''(20), 8-9.</ref>
*"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." <ref>Brice, J., & Bligh, J. (2005). Author misconduct: not just the editors' responsibility. ''Medical education'', ''39''(1), 83-89.</ref>
<references />
}}
{{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; Factual case
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:C8e3f6c0-0cb7-485a-89ce-bafda9a10691

2020-10-26T13:55:52Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Research fraud on MMR vaccines
|Is About=This is a factual case.
<references />
|Important Because=This kind of research fraud can cause a disease outbreak and cost the lives of children.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijpp.12044
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1998
|Has Location=United Kingdom; UK
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest; Falsification; Fabrication; Peer review
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:4be659bc-2261-4e62-b4ed-d746e9f2c5be

2020-10-26T13:52:34Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Scientist Ousted From Cancer Study Declines to Testify to House Panel
|Is About=This is a factual case.
|Important Because=To give insight in different ways of cheating in clinical trials.
|Important For=researchers; research leaders; All stakeholders in research; phd students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/12/science/doctor-s-world-scientist-ousted-cancer-study-declines-testify-house-panel.html
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1985-1990
|Has Location=Canada
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:Af266b39-20a3-4b97-a876-08eebb428fe6

2020-10-26T13:52:08Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Misconduct Ruling is Silent on Intent
|Is About=This is a factual case.
<references />
|Important Because=The definition of misconduct can be interpreted in different ways.
|Important For=researchers; phd students; research leaders
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/news/misconduct-ruling-is-silent-on-intent-1.11390
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2002; 2010
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Misconduct; Falsification
|Related To Research Area=Psychology
}}

Resource:75d1fe41-31cd-4ac5-b70d-5fdde322989c

2020-10-26T13:51:37Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Retracted WHO Reports on Opioid Guidelines
|Is About=This is a factual case.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/01/08/who-formally-retracts-opioid-guidelines-that-came-under-fire/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Retraction Watch
|Has Timepoint=10-1-2020
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest; Clinical Study Retractions
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:75d1fe41-31cd-4ac5-b70d-5fdde322989c

2020-10-26T13:51:01Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=WHO Formally Retracts Opioid Guidelines that Came under Fire
|Is About=This is a factual case.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/01/08/who-formally-retracts-opioid-guidelines-that-came-under-fire/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Retraction Watch
|Has Timepoint=10-1-2020
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest; Clinical Study Retractions
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Theme:D0ad4326-4faa-47bf-85ab-a3eb78cb6540

2020-10-23T12:58:28Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9
|Title=Vulnerable and non-competent subjects in clinical trials
|Is About=This page is about participation of vulnerable groups and non-competent subjects in clinical trials. Vulnerable groups include those who could easily be influenced to participate in research, out of fear or pressure. Examples of such groups include soldiers, immigrants and prisoners.<ref>Hughes J, Hunter D, Sheehan M, Wilkinson S, Wrigley A. European textbook on ethics in research. : Publications Office of the European Union; 2010.</ref> Non-competent subjects are those who do not have the legal autonomy to make decisions for themselves, such as children and people suffering from severe mental illness or dementia.
<references />
|Important Because=Throughout history, scientific experiments have been conducted on human beings without their consent, especially during the World War II. As a result, specific ethical guidelines for human experimentation were developed. One of the ethical milestones in clinical research is informed consent, a process in which researchers ask for a permission before enrolling participants in a trial.<ref>Nuremberg Code (1949). The Nuremberg Code. ''Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg military tribunals under control council law''</ref> The decision to participate has to be freely given, without pressure or conflicting interests, and based on appropriate information. Prisoners, soldiers, migrants, and other vulnerable groups are often unable to give consent in a way that satisfies the appropriate voluntary conditions. Children and patients with severe psychiatric conditions or dementia do not have the required legal capacity for granting consent.
<references />
|Important For=phd students; Ethics committee members; health care professionals; Researchers
|Has Best Practice=Since World War II, a lot has been said about human experimentation, and vulnerable groups in particular. Many different reports and guidelines have been developed and should be consulted when thinking about involving vulnerable and non-competent individuals. Start with the Declaration of Helsinki and don’t forget to check the appropriate regulations of your own country and institution.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F7ed25ad-cfab-4040-b52f-596accc3c317;Resource:05f04469-5834-4411-9217-c2551a0c745a;Resource:E9cd7ee1-bd54-4d5c-bdd9-786ef1c9f603
|Related To Theme=Theme:5e34933a-293e-447a-9ab4-9299a152e8a5;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Vulnerable and non-competent subjects; Balancing harms and benefits
}}

Theme:D0ad4326-4faa-47bf-85ab-a3eb78cb6540

2020-10-23T12:58:12Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9
|Title=Vulnerable and non-competent subjects in clinical trials
|Is About=This page is about participation of vulnerable groups and non-competent subjects in clinical trials. Vulnerable groups include those who could easily be influenced to participate in research, out of fear or pressure. Examples of such groups include soldiers, immigrants and prisoners.<ref>Hughes J, Hunter D, Sheehan M, Wilkinson S, Wrigley A. European textbook on ethics in research. : Publications Office of the European Union; 2010.</ref> Non-competent subjects are those who do not have the legal autonomy to make decisions for themselves, such as children and people suffering from severe mental illness or dementia.
|Important Because=Throughout history, scientific experiments have been conducted on human beings without their consent, especially during the World War II. As a result, specific ethical guidelines for human experimentation were developed. One of the ethical milestones in clinical research is informed consent, a process in which researchers ask for a permission before enrolling participants in a trial.<ref>Nuremberg Code (1949). The Nuremberg Code. ''Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg military tribunals under control council law''</ref> The decision to participate has to be freely given, without pressure or conflicting interests, and based on appropriate information. Prisoners, soldiers, migrants, and other vulnerable groups are often unable to give consent in a way that satisfies the appropriate voluntary conditions. Children and patients with severe psychiatric conditions or dementia do not have the required legal capacity for granting consent.
|Important For=phd students; Ethics committee members; health care professionals; Researchers
|Has Best Practice=Since World War II, a lot has been said about human experimentation, and vulnerable groups in particular. Many different reports and guidelines have been developed and should be consulted when thinking about involving vulnerable and non-competent individuals. Start with the Declaration of Helsinki and don’t forget to check the appropriate regulations of your own country and institution.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F7ed25ad-cfab-4040-b52f-596accc3c317;Resource:05f04469-5834-4411-9217-c2551a0c745a
|Related To Theme=Theme:5e34933a-293e-447a-9ab4-9299a152e8a5;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Vulnerable and non-competent subjects; Balancing harms and benefits
}}

Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a

2020-10-23T12:52:26Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Supervision
|Is About=Supervision involves organizing, monitoring and directing activities or, in other words, oversight and leadership. In academia, supervision refers to guidance of an undergraduate, graduate or postgraduate student in their research, while providing knowledge and support.<ref>Firoz A, Quamrul A, Rasul M. A Pilot Study on Postgraduate Supervision. Procedia Engineering. 2013. 56. 875-881. 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.03.210.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=The quality and success of postgraduate research is supported by effective supervision.<ref>Heyns T, Bresser P, Buys T, Coetzee I, Korkie E, White Z et al. Twelve tips for supervisors to move towards person-centered research supervision in health care sciences. Med Teach. 2019 Jan 14:1-6.</ref> A good supervisor plays a crucial role in the overall experience, satisfaction, retention, and completion of postgraduate students.<ref>Mental health problems among PhD students. Marie Curie Alumni Association. [cited 24 May 2019]. Available from: https://www.mariecuriealumni.eu/magazine/news/study-mental-health-problems-among-phd-students</ref> Prevalence of depression, feelings of inadequacy and impostor syndrome are high in postgraduate students and academics in general,<ref>Mental health problems among PhD students. Marie Curie Alumni Association. [cited 24 May 2019]. Available from: https://www.mariecuriealumni.eu/magazine/news/study-mental-health-problems-among-phd-students</ref> and supervisors are such an important piece of the PhD journey that they often play a crucial role in development of those for doctoral students.<ref>McCallin A, Nayar S. Postgraduate research supervision: a critical review of current practice. Teaching in Higher Education. 2012. 17:1, 63-74.</ref><ref>van Schalkwyk SC, Murdoch-Eaton D, Tekian A, van der Vleuten C, Cilliers F. The supervisor's toolkit: A framework for doctoral supervision in health professions education: AMEE Guide No. 104. Med Teach. 2016 May;38(5):429-42</ref>
<references />
|Important For=phd students; Students; Scientists; Researchers; health care professionals; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Supervisors
|Has Best Practice=A review from 2010 defines three models of supervision<ref>van Schalkwyk SC, Murdoch-Eaton D, Tekian A, van der Vleuten C, Cilliers F. The supervisor's toolkit: A framework for doctoral supervision in health professions education: AMEE Guide No. 104. Med Teach. 2016 May;38(5):429-42</ref>:

*a traditional model, a dyadic relationship between a supervisor and a student;
*a group supervision, in which there is a relationship between a student and a supervisor, as well as a student and other students, and
*a mixed model, which incorporates the two models and adds new technologies, such as online courses and teleconferences.

There is a guide for supervision of doctoral students in healthcare that defines the roles and requirements for a supervisor.<ref>van Schalkwyk SC, Murdoch-Eaton D, Tekian A, van der Vleuten C, Cilliers F. The supervisor's toolkit: A framework for doctoral supervision in health professions education: AMEE Guide No. 104. Med Teach. 2016 May;38(5):429-42.</ref> Some of those include clarifying the students’ purpose, understanding the student and their context, guiding them methodologically, intellectually and administratively, facilitating their communication and later on, introducing them to the scholarly community.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:D40f736b-e2b6-4fe9-9ddf-26a3bf947cc2;Resource:0d7e30ee-699a-43ac-a653-7352844bb9b1
|Related To Theme=Theme:177ca35b-14f3-4f62-8bb2-f9cf9db28a70
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Susan Camille van Schalkwyk; Tanya Heyns
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Collegiality
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Supervision; Mentor/trainee relationship
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering; LS - Life Sciences
}}

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

2020-10-23T12:49:16Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
|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:Ed7ce22e-667a-44a8-a3d0-2abdd0d37b1a

2020-10-23T12:48:02Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
|Title=Self-plagiarism
|Is About=Self-plagiarism is the practice of reusing significant parts of one’s own publication in another publication. Self-plagiarism is also known as duplicate (or multiple) publishing. Keep in mind that self-plagiarism is different from duplicate submission. <ref>Thurman RH, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Halwani S, Farine D. Self-plagiarism: a misnomer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(1):91-3.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Self-plagiarism is an issue because it means already published data is presented as new, which can distort meta-analyses and impact review articles. Not only that, duplicate publishing can have serious effects on algorithms and guidelines in healthcare. Self-plagiarism gives false results in citation index tools. It’s unfair and at its core, it’s basically double dipping - for one piece of work you get multiple publications. Another problem is the copyright issue. When you publish your work, you usually sign a contract with the journal, by which you transfer copyright rights to the publisher. That way, when you copy your own work, you are stealing not only from yourself, but from the publisher as well, and actually breaking the law.
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Scientists; Researchers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Journal editors; Reviewers
|Has Best Practice=Different fields take different stances in regard to self-plagiarism. For example, legal research has a lot more tolerance for reuse of one's work than biomedical science. In 1969, the scientific journal the “New England Journal of Medicine” announced they would no longer publish already published work. This is called Ingelfinger rule and became a norm for high quality scientific journals. <ref>Altman LK. The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review--Part 1. Lancet. 1996;347(9012):1382-6.</ref> Because of the rise of preprint servers (such as arXiv), journals now tend to loosen that policy. Secondary publications are a different issue, as they clearly state that work has been previously published. They are produced with a goal of reaching a bigger (and sometimes different) audience, often through translations to different languages.

Keep in mind that a lot of scientific journals use computer software to check if your text is similar to anything already published. The majority of software works through screening available online databases for similarities. <ref>Errami M, Sun Z, Long TC, George AC, Garner HR. Deja vu: a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37(Database issue</ref>
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:95c69cce-596a-42b5-9d86-e0aabaf00a85;Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Research misconduct
}}

Theme:6f515a18-ce5f-42b0-8741-27248f6435a0

2020-10-23T12:46:59Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Science policy
|Is About=Through the determination of funding and goals of the scientific community, science policy influences core aspects of all sciences. Science policy defines direction for research activiries through investments both in people and equipment. Science policies are usually developed by governmental bodies and/or other stakeholders with any kind of interests in science (e.g., theoretical, practical, financial). <ref>Douglas HE. Science, policy and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburg Press, 2009. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wrc78.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Science policies address areas such as basic research, development of new technologies, and facilitation in bringing technologies to the market. They steer science into areas of importance and interest to society. Policies are determined by sets of values or priorities that policy makers have. In an ideal world policy makers should address the greatest needs of the community through the application of science policies, however the world of politics is far from an ideal one.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=Different types of scientific policy may be adopted. Sometimes investment in basic research is preferred. In these cases the expectation is that some kind of breakthrough will result in a vast array of new technologies which will then be commercialized and pay back the investments. Other times the focus may be on technology development, and more support for engineering than basic science. The most extreme examples of such science policies are the Manhattan project<ref>Goldwhite H. The Manhattan Project. J Fluorine Chem. 1986;33(1):139-132.</ref> and the Space projects pursued by the US and the Soviet Union in the second half of the 20th century.
|Has Reference=-
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:95c69cce-596a-42b5-9d86-e0aabaf00a85

2020-10-23T12:44:31Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
|Title=Salami publication
|Is About=Salami publication (also known as "salami slicing") is characterized by the spreading of study results over more papers than necessary. This article will briefly try to present what the criteria for and effects of salami publication are.
|Important Because=Salami publication is a concept that is difficult to define, therefore making detection and prevention difficult, but it is generally considered to be a form of redundant publication and self-plagiarism characterized by the spreading of study results over more papers than necessary despite the same, or very similar, hypothesis, methodology, dataset or results. <ref>Supak Smolcic V. Salami publication: definitions and examples. Biochem Medica. 2013;23(3):237-41.</ref><ref>Committee on Publication Ethics. Cases. Salami Publication. Accessed 10 August 2020. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/case/salami-publication</ref> The negative consequences of salami publication are multiple, and can be divided into two groups. The first is of a scientometric nature – scientists with more papers are likely to get more citations and probably more funding. The second, more serious, consequence is that results will be over-represented in meta-analyses, which are considered to be the highest level of evidence for any question <ref>Abraham P. Duplicate and salami publications. J Postgrad Med. 2000;46(2):67-9.</ref> – salami publication skews the results of meta-analyses because the same data is unknowingly analyzed twice.

'''Examples'''

The most blunt example of salami publication is publishing the same paper twice, with slightly different conclusions <ref>International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations. Overlapping Publications. Accessed 29 May 2019. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/overlapping-publications.html</ref>. This type of salami publication was much more likely to occur in the age before online databases – nowadays, salami publication is much more subtle. For example, studies which investigate levels of biomarkers in different phases of a disease end up being followed up by a different paper investigating diagnostic characteristics of those very same markers on the same datasets.
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Researchers; Journal publishers; Journal editors; Junior researchers; Senior researchers
|Has Best Practice= 
<references />
|Has Detail= 
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:A22bd155-7f88-4750-aa9c-cba9ad72cbec;Theme:49d71148-0df2-4a78-93d4-c802b48bbdb7
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication Ethics
}}

Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e

2020-10-23T12:42:22Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a
|Title=Responsible supervision
|Is About=Research ethics and integrity do not just comprise of what researchers do research-wise. An additional duty of many researchers beyond the PhD level is the supervision of junior researchers and PhD candidates. Besides responsible conduct of research, it is thought that one should also supervise others responsibly. This page sums up the existing resources, practices and ideas about responsible supervision.
|Important Because=Academic research has a long tradition of master-apprentice relationships, where the apprentice (here: junior researcher) learns the fine skills of the trade (here: research) through the extensive supervision of a master (here: senior researcher). The more one grows in an academic career, the more likely a researcher is to supervise junior researchers (often PhD candidates).

Responsible supervision involves two main things. On the one hand, the supervisor should model responsible research, so that junior researchers are naturally socialized into responsible research practices. This could involve a variety of things: from assuring that the junior researcher is involved in good data management from the start of the project, to an open and timely conversation about (co-) authorship.

On the other hand, responsible supervision involves creating a safe learning climate for junior researchers to learn. The idea here is that if the learning climate is not safe, junior researchers may lack the space and confidence to share their concerns about the interpretation of the data, the planning of a particular research project, or the limitations of their capacity. Hence, if no safe professional relationship exists, certain doubts, concerns or limitations may remain under the radar, ultimately slowing down academic research.
|Important For=PhD Students; Policy makers; Supervisors; Research performing organisations; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Professors
|Has Best Practice=There is increased recognition that lecturing supervisors about responsible supervision may not be the most useful approach. Below are some innovative examples that integrate responsible research with responsible supervision. This list is far from comprehensive, but should serve as a starting point for exploration of the topic.

First, Whitbeck described a group mentoring approach that was intended to support the discussion of research integrity in supervision. <ref>Whitebeck C. Group mentoring to foster the responsible conduct of research. Sci Eng Ethics. 2001;7(4):541–58.</ref>Besides, the research group was assisted in grasping the complexity of situations they may encounter that challenge the integrity of their research.

Second, Kalichman & Plemmons have developed a workshop curriculum for supervisors.<ref>Plemmons DK, Kalichman MW. Mentoring for responsible research: The creation of a curriculum for faculty to teach RCR in the research environment. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(1):207–26.</ref> This workshop curriculum is explicitly designed to convey responsible research in the actual research environment, as opposed to a classroom environment that is separated from the lab.

Thirdly, Anne Walsh and Mark Hooper from Queensland University of Technology office of Research Ethics and Integrity are developing a fully online training module that challenges supervisors to reflect on their own supervision and formulate concrete goals to improve their supervision skills, explicitly connected to responsible research.<ref>Kalichman MW, Plemmons DK. Intervention to promote responsible conduct of research mentoring. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(2):699–725</ref> Their full training will be released late 2019.

Finally, as part of the Academic Research Climate in Amsterdam project, an interactive training called ''Superb Supervision'' was developed. The training continuously alternates responsible research and soft skill development and participants meet in between to discuss their own dilemmas, see [http://www.amsterdamresearchclimate.nl/superb-supervision/ here].

The [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/strategy-and-policy/integrity/scientific-integrity/dilemma-game Erasmus Dilemma game] lists a variety of example dilemmas from the perspective of the junior researcher as well as from the senior researcher. These example dilemmas may serve as useful conversation starters when discussing responsible supervision.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:392b9794-681a-4860-881b-54569a35b9f3;Resource:7fcb92c2-8d04-4106-875f-166af054c161;Resource:0d7e30ee-699a-43ac-a653-7352844bb9b1;Resource:8bc7c681-66af-4ab9-b2f2-c21fe2744817
|Related To Theme=Theme:34a864d0-43b3-48bc-aaa3-438dcc124c02;Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Institutional responsibilities; Mentor/trainee relationship
}}

Theme:D61666e2-58df-470f-bfb6-9f8ac2eea64f

2020-10-23T10:32:31Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9
|Title=Research with animals
|Is About=The basic tenet of animal research is that studying the disease in animals, due to their likeness to humans, can help patients and health research in general. Therefore, animal research in such a context is considered beneficial to human beings and that is the reason why it’s considered to be ethically justified. This does not mean that anything is allowed, and avoiding unnecessary suffering should be a priority of any researcher who works with animals.
|Important Because=Use of animals in research has a long tradition and has been the subject of various debates. From ancient Greece, to physiological research of the 17th century and drug testing today, animals were used in place of human models to gain insight and improve knowledge. It is considered that animal research has contributed to about 70% of Nobel prizes in Medicine or Physiology. Various vaccines, antibiotics, insulin and organ transplants have been developed with help of animal research. In development and testing of new drugs, animal testing is still obligatory. New methods, such as computer simulations, models and cell and tissue cultures, have been used to replace animal research, but in some areas there is still no replacement of equal value.
|Important For=Ethics committee members; Researchers; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; PhD students
|Has Best Practice=Starting in the 18th century, more and more arguments against research with animals have been voiced. Today, guidance for ethical use of animals in research is represented by so called 3R principles. 3R stands for replacement, reduction and refinement.<ref>Russell, W. M. S., Burch, R. L., & Hume, C. W. (1959).The principles of humane experimental technique (Vol. 238). London: Methuen.</ref><ref>Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(6):e1000412.</ref> Replacement implies that animals as an experimental system should be replaced with a system from which the identical conclusion could be made if it is available. Reduction means that minimal numbers of animals should be used to prove something in experiments. Refinement means that if suffering of animals is present in the experiment it should be refined with pain killing medications and other support measures. In 2013, European Union formally applied EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.<ref>Directive 2010/63/EU of The European Parliament and of The Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (2013).</ref> This directive refers to 3R principles, and its ultimate goal is to replace animals in research altogether.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:E114322b-2418-40c8-8714-e4db195662d9
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Animal ethics; Research involving animals
}}

Theme:8453f98b-244e-4147-9268-504afbe9d878

2020-10-23T10:31:08Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Research metrics
|Is About=Research metrics, or Bibliometrics, is a statistical analysis of published articles and journals and their citations. Analysis of research metrics can be at a journal level, article level or author level.<ref>Garfield E. Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science. 1955;122(3159):108-11.</ref><ref>Yeung AWK, Heinrich M, Atanasov AG. Ethnopharmacology-A Bibliometric Analysis of a Field of Research Meandering Between Medicine and Food Science? Front Pharmacol. 2018;9(215).</ref> Altmetrics is an alternative approach to research metrics. It adopts an online approach, utilising social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.
<references />
|Important Because=Research metrics is used to evaluate the popularity, impact and importance of individual scientists, articles and journals, as well as the performance of employees and projects. The logic behind such an approach is that cited items are perceived to have a larger impact on science and are, therefore, of greater value. Consequently, research metrics can be employed as a basis of staff promotion and funding distribution. Bibliometrics is also used in research, when analyzing relationships between researchers, and when assessing the impact of research projects and grants.
|Important For=phd students; Scientists; Researchers; Journal editors
|Has Best Practice=On an individual level, the most important research metrics are the H-index and the i-10 index. The H-index, also known as Hirsch index, is an author level metric that shows how many articles have been cited a certain number of times. For example, a h-index of 10 shows that the author has 10 articles, each cited at least 10 times.<ref>Diaz I, Cortey M, Olvera A, Segales J. Use of H-Index and Other Bibliometric Indicators to Evaluate Research Productivity Outcome on Swine Diseases. PLoS One. 2016;11(3).</ref> The i-10 index shows the number of articles an author has published with at least 10 citations.

On a journal level, the impact factor shows an average number of citations per article in two consecutive years.<ref>McVeigh ME, Mann SJ. The journal impact factor denominator: defining citable (counted) items. Jama. 2009;302(10):1107-9.</ref> Other famous journal metric systems are Eigenfactor and the SCImago Journal Rankings.

It is important to note that every metric system has its flaws. As a result, they should not be the only criterion when determining the quality and performance of a particular researcher, article, journal or research project.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331
|Related To Theme=Theme:7d205500-e939-49cf-9a5c-06489919c52a;Theme:74cc5c52-3073-4fef-8307-34a76326d665;Theme:B84659ea-3fc8-4c93-86cf-6aa4db253ad4
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Fairness; Reliability; Honesty; Precision; Trustworthiness
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Altmetrics
}}

Theme:Cc85bbe7-b8ac-40ef-81a7-8e34b153233c

2020-10-23T10:29:41Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
|Title=Research integrity officers in Europe
|Is About=A research integrity officer (RIO) serves a complex, exacting, and unique role within their institution. In one week, they may serve as judge, mediator, counselor, teacher, and regulations manager. They could have the Centers for Disease Control on the phone while a graduate student cries in their office. The RIO is one of the most intricate and unique positions in academia.
|Important Because=An institution’s RIO promotes responsible research, conducts research training, discourages research misconduct, and deals with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct.<ref>Geller, L.N. 2002. Exploring the Role of the Research Integrity Officer: Commentary on Seven Ways to Plagiarize: Handling Real Allegations of Research Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(4): 540-542</ref> Throughout a week, they may present training seminars about responsible research, update definitions of research standards, and investigate allegations of misconduct. Each particular task fulfils the RIOs mission to prevent and mitigate research misconduct. They work for the good of their institution and the whole scientific community.

The consequences of scientific misconduct are far-reaching. Perpetrators, whistle-blowers, other researchers in the field, the scientific community, and even the general public feel its effects. Perpetrators can have papers retracted, their faculty positions revoked, and their labs closed down. Whistle-blowers can end up with damaged careers. The general public can lose faith in the scientific community. Plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification are major threats to the practice of science. Without research integrity officers, this threat would loom much larger.

When a case of possible research misconduct appears, RIOs spring into action. They take an active role in the investigation by conducting interviews and inspecting data. They protect whistle-blowers from retaliation. They educate those involved about their rights. If needed, they link the institution to oversight agencies who continue to pursue investigations.
<references />
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Scientists; Principal investigators; Researchers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Universities; Research integrity trainers; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=The details of an RIO's job vary from country to country, but the position is mandatory in many.

In the United States, any institution that receives Public Health Service funding reports to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the Department of Health and Human Services. A RIO serves as the liaison between the ORI and their institution. By law, they ensure that the institution has policies and procedures for investigations and reports these to the ORI.<ref>Office of Research Integrity. Handbook for Institutional Research Integrity Officers. Office for Research Integrity Report. Accessed May 2019. Available at [https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/rio_handbook.pdf https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/defa…]</ref> They also contribute to investigations that lead to retractions, expulsions, and (sometimes) arrests.

In the European Union, each country has slightly different requirements and roles for their RIOs, but their task is essentially the same. The European Network of Research Integrity Officers serves as the expert agency in the EU, assisting RIOs with advice and guidance.

With the increasing pace of scientific publications, an RIO's job is more important than ever. They serve an essential role in the scientific community. They protect individual researchers from accidental missteps. They protect the public from poor, fraudulent, and fabricated science. They protect the whole scientific community by building public trust. An RIO serves on the front lines of scientific integrity. They're present to guide researchers and foster trust in institutions. RIOs exist to protect science and are a resource for researchers who need guidance or help with misconduct questions.
<references />
|Is Flagged=No
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:60bf1373-f7e1-4831-b3e9-cf6e60cc290f;Resource:F099b32a-f559-4988-b5c6-26275b35197a
|Related To Theme=Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:8f6d4690-d1b2-4b9a-ac68-84e41fdb6c74
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Funders’ responsibilities; Institutional responsibilities
}}

Theme:Cc85bbe7-b8ac-40ef-81a7-8e34b153233c

2020-10-23T10:29:18Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
|Title=Research integrity officers in the Europe
|Is About=A research integrity officer (RIO) serves a complex, exacting, and unique role within their institution. In one week, they may serve as judge, mediator, counselor, teacher, and regulations manager. They could have the Centers for Disease Control on the phone while a graduate student cries in their office. The RIO is one of the most intricate and unique positions in academia.
|Important Because=An institution’s RIO promotes responsible research, conducts research training, discourages research misconduct, and deals with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct.<ref>Geller, L.N. 2002. Exploring the Role of the Research Integrity Officer: Commentary on Seven Ways to Plagiarize: Handling Real Allegations of Research Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(4): 540-542</ref> Throughout a week, they may present training seminars about responsible research, update definitions of research standards, and investigate allegations of misconduct. Each particular task fulfils the RIOs mission to prevent and mitigate research misconduct. They work for the good of their institution and the whole scientific community.

The consequences of scientific misconduct are far-reaching. Perpetrators, whistle-blowers, other researchers in the field, the scientific community, and even the general public feel its effects. Perpetrators can have papers retracted, their faculty positions revoked, and their labs closed down. Whistle-blowers can end up with damaged careers. The general public can lose faith in the scientific community. Plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification are major threats to the practice of science. Without research integrity officers, this threat would loom much larger.

When a case of possible research misconduct appears, RIOs spring into action. They take an active role in the investigation by conducting interviews and inspecting data. They protect whistle-blowers from retaliation. They educate those involved about their rights. If needed, they link the institution to oversight agencies who continue to pursue investigations.
<references />
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Scientists; Principal investigators; Researchers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Universities; Research integrity trainers; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=The details of an RIO's job vary from country to country, but the position is mandatory in many.

In the United States, any institution that receives Public Health Service funding reports to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the Department of Health and Human Services. A RIO serves as the liaison between the ORI and their institution. By law, they ensure that the institution has policies and procedures for investigations and reports these to the ORI.<ref>Office of Research Integrity. Handbook for Institutional Research Integrity Officers. Office for Research Integrity Report. Accessed May 2019. Available at [https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/rio_handbook.pdf https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/defa…]</ref> They also contribute to investigations that lead to retractions, expulsions, and (sometimes) arrests.

In the European Union, each country has slightly different requirements and roles for their RIOs, but their task is essentially the same. The European Network of Research Integrity Officers serves as the expert agency in the EU, assisting RIOs with advice and guidance.

With the increasing pace of scientific publications, an RIO's job is more important than ever. They serve an essential role in the scientific community. They protect individual researchers from accidental missteps. They protect the public from poor, fraudulent, and fabricated science. They protect the whole scientific community by building public trust. An RIO serves on the front lines of scientific integrity. They're present to guide researchers and foster trust in institutions. RIOs exist to protect science and are a resource for researchers who need guidance or help with misconduct questions.
<references />
|Is Flagged=No
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:60bf1373-f7e1-4831-b3e9-cf6e60cc290f;Resource:F099b32a-f559-4988-b5c6-26275b35197a
|Related To Theme=Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:8f6d4690-d1b2-4b9a-ac68-84e41fdb6c74
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Funders’ responsibilities; Institutional responsibilities
}}

Theme:9cc6d88e-a142-4741-834f-5d6aa7d06e3f

2020-10-23T10:26:05Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
|Title=Research ethics committee members' skills
|Is About=In order to assess the ethical dimensions of research projects, members of research ethics committees (RECs) need expertise. But what skills constitute expertise? The European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity (ENERI) <ref>European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity. Available at: http://eneri.eu/. Accessed June 2019</ref> has identified crucial skills research ethics and research integrity experts should have. Four sets of skills can be distinguished: 1) hard skills, 2) soft skills, 3) process skills, and 4) emotional skills. While only some hard skills are necessary for conferring expert status to an individual, RECs benefit from memberships with diverse skill sets.
<references />
|Important Because=Nowadays not only research projects on the biomedical sciences, but increasingly also research projects in various other disciplines, like psychology or education, require ethical review. For that reason, RECs will continue to play an important role in ethical research governance. Hence, an important question is which skills REC members should ideally have.

Conducting thorough ethical reviews of research projects not only presupposes sufficient disciplinary expertise to understand proposed research designs and methodologies, but also skills crucial for delivering practical recommendations that accord with prevalent social norms. Moreover, skills conducive to maintaining dialogical attitudes among all REC members certainly are beneficial as RECs modus operandi is deliberation. Consequently, systematizing these skills is helpful for setting up effective RECs and selecting members according to transparent criteria.
|Important For=Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees
|Has Best Practice=ENERI has recently published an insightful policy brief on what makes a research ethics and research integrity expert. Based on a participatory research design culminating in a series of consensus conferences with 50 stakeholders from various positions within or close to academia, ENERI has found the following skills to be particularly useful for REC members:

'''Hard skills'''

*comprehensive knowledge of relevant guidelines, regulations, and laws
*experience with ethical assessments or academic qualifications in relevant disciplines, like philosophy or law
*research experience
*legal expertise
*analytical skills
*the ability to think critically

'''Soft skills'''

*Communicative skills

*interpersonal skills
*attention to detail
*the ability to manage and resolve conflicts
*the ability to work collaboratively

'''Process skills'''

*administrative and management skills

*decision-making skills
*the ability to transform abstract theoretical ideas into practical recommendations

'''Emotional skills'''

*open mindedness

*independence
*awareness of social norms and the likely consequences of breaching them
*personal commitment

According to ENERI, RE experts individually inevitably need hard skills, but do not necessarily have to possess all soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills. However, all soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills should be present on the institutional level in RECs which, therefore, should have a diverse membership with complementary skills.

The role of the chair role is particularly crucial. The chair needs to have broad soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills to guarantee that all represented perspectives are included in assessment, review, and advice procedures. Hence, chairpersons need more skills than ordinary board members due to the pivotal position they occupy in organizing inclusive deliberations.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:B4f3369c-e0ac-4cf5-acd9-cb2a6c11181d
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethics
}}

Theme:9cc6d88e-a142-4741-834f-5d6aa7d06e3f

2020-10-23T10:25:26Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
|Title=Research ethics committee members' skills
|Is About=In order to assess the ethical dimensions of research projects, members of research ethics committees (RECs) need expertise. But what skills constitute expertise? The European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity (ENERI) <ref>European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity. Available at: http://eneri.eu/. Accessed June 2019</ref> has identified crucial skills research ethics and research integrity experts should have. Four sets of skills can be distinguished: 1) hard skills, 2) soft skills, 3) process skills, and 4) emotional skills. While only some hard skills are necessary for conferring expert status to an individual, RECs benefit from memberships with diverse skill sets.
<references />
|Important Because=Nowadays not only research projects on the biomedical sciences, but increasingly also research projects in various other disciplines, like psychology or education, require ethical review. For that reason, RECs will continue to play an important role in ethical research governance. Hence, an important question is which skills REC members should ideally have.

Conducting thorough ethical reviews of research projects not only presupposes sufficient disciplinary expertise to understand proposed research designs and methodologies, but also skills crucial for delivering practical recommendations that accord with prevalent social norms. Moreover, skills conducive to maintaining dialogical attitudes among all REC members certainly are beneficial as RECs modus operandi is deliberation. Consequently, systematizing these skills is helpful for setting up effective RECs and selecting members according to transparent criteria.
|Important For=Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees
|Has Best Practice=ENERI has recently published an insightful policy brief on what makes a research ethics and research integrity expert. Based on a participatory research design culminating in a series of consensus conferences with 50 stakeholders from various positions within or close to academia, ENERI has found the following skills to be particularly useful for REC members:

'''Hard skills'''

 

* comprehensive knowledge of relevant guidelines, regulations, and laws

*experience with ethical assessments or academic qualifications in relevant disciplines, like philosophy or law
*research experience
*legal expertise
*analytical skills
*the ability to think critically

'''Soft skills'''

 

* Communicative skills

* interpersonal skills
* attention to detail
* the ability to manage and resolve conflicts
* the ability to work collaboratively

'''Process skills'''

 

* administrative and management skills

* decision-making skills
* the ability to transform abstract theoretical ideas into practical recommendations

'''Emotional skills'''

 

* open mindedness

* independence
* awareness of social norms and the likely consequences of breaching them
* personal commitment

According to ENERI, RE experts individually inevitably need hard skills, but do not necessarily have to possess all soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills. However, all soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills should be present on the institutional level in RECs which, therefore, should have a diverse membership with complementary skills.

The role of the chair role is particularly crucial. The chair needs to have broad soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills to guarantee that all represented perspectives are included in assessment, review, and advice procedures. Hence, chairpersons need more skills than ordinary board members due to the pivotal position they occupy in organizing inclusive deliberations.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:B4f3369c-e0ac-4cf5-acd9-cb2a6c11181d
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethics
}}

Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd

2020-10-23T10:19:19Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
|Title=Questionable research practices & research misbehaviors
|Is About=Research misbehaviors, or questionable research practices (QRPs), are a threat to research integrity and to the validity of science. While research misconduct, in particular fabrication, falsification and plagiarism have a high impact on science, they rarely occur. Research misbehaviours, however, are estimated to occur frequently. While conceivibly having a lower impact on individual cases, the aggregreated impact is estimated to be much higher. <ref>Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005 Jun 9;435:737-8.</ref><ref>Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one 2009;4(5):e5738.</ref><ref>Swazey JP, Anderson MS, Lewis KS, Louis KS. Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist 1993;81:542-53.</ref><ref>Steneck NH. ORI: Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Government Printing Office; 2007.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=QRPs are actions that concern trespassing "methodological principles that threathen the relevance, valdity, trustworthiness, or efficiency of the study at issue".<ref>L.M. Bouter, J. Tijdink, N. Axelsen, B.C. Martinson, G. ter Riet. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Res Integrity Peer Rev, 1 (1) (2016), p. 17</ref> QRPs can be divided over four main areas of the research process: the study design, data collection, reporting and collaboration. QRPs are estimated to occur far more frequently then serious misconduct, and therefore pose a threat to trust and truth in science. Under the current system QRPs are rewarded in the form of a higher number and more prestigious publications. Indeed, sloppy science as described above appears to have a strong 'fitness to survive'. <ref>Smaldino, P. E. & McElreath, R. The natural selection of bad science. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160384 (2016)</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Research subjects; Scientists; Principal investigators; Researchers; Research institutions; Supervisors; Postdocs; Universities; Funders; Junior researchers; Senior researchers
|Has Best Practice===QRPs==
According to research integrity experts who participated in a survey, <ref>L.M. Bouter, J. Tijdink, N. Axelsen, B.C. Martinson, G. ter Riet. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Res Integrity Peer Rev, 1 (1) (2016), p. 17</ref> there are a number of QRPs that occur frequently and have a high impact on science. In relation to study design, for instance, QRPs include presenting misleading information in a grant application or ignoring risks of unexpected findings or safety risks to study participants, workers or environment. Under data collection falls behaviour such as collecting more data when noticing that statistical significance is almost reached or keeping inadequate notes of the research process. in relation to reporting, examples of QRPs are hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing), concealing results that contradict earlier findings, or not publishing a study with negative results. Moreover, selective citing to enhance your own findings or pleasing editors and colleagues is reported to often occur. QRPs that fall under collaboration are demanding or accepting authorship for which you do not qualify and reviewing your own papers. In addition, the misbehaviour that is estimated to occur the most and have a high impact on truth is insufficiently supervising junior coworkers. The misbehaviour that occurs the most and has the highest impact on trust is using published ideas of others without referencing.

=='''Prevention'''==
A way to counter QRPs could be to create awareness about research integrity issues and alter the current reward system. Instead of rewarding the number of publications, alternative aspects that could be rewarded include a researcher's commitment to pre-registration, data sharing and open science.
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331;Resource:695b5c9b-f3ac-4fc8-8e20-1dfd5f7347ff;Resource:9c917ab2-c01d-446b-89c1-a9cd415afb00;Resource:B47afc7d-44d6-4713-a209-953d58e81778;Resource:Ca0b7f16-c130-40d9-bae4-c92c7a0d025a;Resource:Fa937813-9987-4ceb-a69e-373cc876e476;Resource:3f8d6a6e-db25-438c-a266-dd0175fe09c0
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Questionable research practice
}}

Theme:9025f215-cc6a-4b00-894b-68b9a089f173

2020-10-23T10:11:59Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:F3ddbf9b-e3c4-47b7-97cd-6239ce7a32c3
|Title=Post-publication of peer review
|Is About=Post publication peer review (PPPR) is a type of peer review where, unlike in the traditional peer review system, the review is done after the manuscript has been published. In post publication peer review, anyone can participate in the assessment of an article and suggest changes for improvement.
|Important Because=Pre-publication peer review is based on the editor’s choice of experts to whom the task of assessing a manuscript will be assigned. In post-publication peer review, the assessment is open to anyone. The exception to this is F1000, where post publication peer review is still by invitation, but still, anyone can comment and add their insights. Some argue that PPPR will help in the correction of literature and renew trust in science. <ref>Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A, Dobránszki J. Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017;23(4):1213-26. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9854-2.</ref> Others compare it to online comments, and argue that there is no guarantee that the persons commenting will have any expertise. <ref>Knoepfler P. Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends Genet. 2015;31(5):221–23. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2015.03.006</ref> <ref>Macbeth FR. Post-publication review. A tale of woe. BMJ. 2010;341:c5147.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Editors; Reviewers; Journal publishers; Journal editors
|Has Best Practice=The most famous practice example of post publication peer review system is [https://f1000.com/ F1000], which is not a traditional journal, but more of an open science platform where published articles can be modified. New versions are uploaded online, with references to previous versions and changes. Moreover, the entire peer review process is transparent from the beginning to the end of the procedure. In that way, the manuscripts can be changed and adapted to include new insights. However, there are some critics who point out that it is a problem that previous versions of the article are still available online to anyone, even if they contain flawed reporting. Recent research has been discouraging for PPPR. It showed that online comments in PLOS and BMC journals decline in frequency and that existing comments rarely contain anything related to the content of the article.

In addition, PubPeer is considered as one of the major platforms designed for post-publication peer review and also conversations about publications. Users can leave comments with their ORCID username or anonymously.<ref>PubPeer. 2020. Available at: https://pubpeer.com/</ref>
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:0222fd27-0a12-4cac-a6ac-6cc37879f72c;Resource:6c0d6e13-17cb-4e94-b66b-510da74c700e;Resource:3e08d026-9180-4d45-9a78-b45bded373b4
|Related To Theme=Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8;Theme:3a32df5c-e6e8-45f9-8132-434db3985a65
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer review
}}

Theme:Eea6186a-342a-479f-9a87-b416aabe592b

2020-10-23T10:04:32Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
|Title=Perverse incentives
|Is About=Sometimes scientists can be faced with incentives that run counter to good science. For instance, in order to obtain a journal publication that will get them a grant or a promotion, scientists may be incentivised to exaggerate their findings, or even to drop out data points that do not fit a hypothesis. Some believe that the evaluation of scientists based on metrics alone (IF of journal publications, h-index, etc.) can encourage sloppy science or outright misconduct.

Journals, peer reviewers, universities, and funding agencies may also be confronted with incentives that do not promote good science.
|Important Because=It is important that scientists are incentivized to do good science and be good scientists. This means that, as much as possible, good science should be rewarded. If not, then it may not be realistic to expect a culture that fosters research integrity, nor to expect a lasting solution to problems of reproducibility. Moreover, should institutions and journals keep perverse incentives in place, it may not be fair to individual scientists to hold them only responsible for undesirable scientific outcomes.
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Scientists; Researchers; academic staff; Research institutions; Supervisors; Postdocs; Universities; Funders; Journal editors; Journal publishers; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Reviewers
|Has Best Practice=How to reform the incentive structure of science is a subject of ongoing research and debate. See, e.g.,

*Bornmann, L., & Williams, R. (2017). Can the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers? A large-scale empirical study based on ResearcherID data. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 788–799. doi:[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.001 10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.001]
*Krimsky, S. (2004). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? Rowman & Littlefield.
*Sandström, U., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2018). Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 365–384. doi:[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.007 10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.007]
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:47bfd883-c518-4a97-98fb-86b5cf442d3e;Resource:5aefe751-0a20-4597-98a5-a59bf06a987a
|Related To Theme=Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Responsibility of University; Funders’ responsibilities; Institutional Responsibilities
}}

Theme:Eea6186a-342a-479f-9a87-b416aabe592b

2020-10-23T10:04:10Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
|Title=Perverse incentives
|Is About=Sometimes scientists can be faced with incentives that run counter to good science. For instance, in order to obtain a journal publication that will get them a grant or a promotion, scientists may be incentivised to exaggerate their findings, or even to drop out data points that do not fit a hypothesis. Some believe that the evaluation of scientists based on metrics alone (IF of journal publications, h-index, etc.) can encourage sloppy science or outright misconduct.

Journals, peer reviewers, universities, and funding agencies may also be confronted with incentives that do not promote good science.
|Important Because=It is important that scientists are incentivized to do good science and be good scientists. This means that, as much as possible, good science should be rewarded. If not, then it may not be realistic to expect a culture that fosters research integrity, nor to expect a lasting solution to problems of reproducibility. Moreover, should institutions and journals keep perverse incentives in place, it may not be fair to individual scientists to hold them only responsible for undesirable scientific outcomes.
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Scientists; Researchers; academic staff; Research institutions; Supervisors; Postdocs; Universities; Funders; Journal editors; Journal publishers; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Reviewers
|Has Best Practice=How to reform the incentive structure of science is a subject of ongoing research and debate. See, e.g.,

* Bornmann, L., & Williams, R. (2017). Can the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers? A large-scale empirical study based on ResearcherID data. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 788–799. doi:[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.001 10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.001]
* Krimsky, S. (2004). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? Rowman & Littlefield.
* Sandström, U., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2018). Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 365–384. doi:[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.007 10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.007]
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:47bfd883-c518-4a97-98fb-86b5cf442d3e;Resource:5aefe751-0a20-4597-98a5-a59bf06a987a
|Related To Theme=Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Responsibility of University; Funders’ responsibilities; Institutional Responsibilities
}}

Theme:7df709ce-fb89-4703-966f-b33e68b83ad5

2020-10-23T09:58:08Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
|Title=Outcome reporting bias
|Is About=Outcome reporting bias refers to selective/distorted reporting of results, and/or biased interpretation of available information. This may involve overlooking some results or using specific statistical methods to achieve a desirable and often pre-determined outcome.
|Important Because=Failing to report all aspects of research leads to publishing incomplete or inaccurate results. It wastes valuable resources such as peer-reviewers’ and editors’ time, research funds, and collaborators’ efforts. Being biased in reporting results distorts the integrity of science and if not discovered, might influence future studies.

Outcome reporting bias affects the entire research ecosystem. From research subjects and collaborators to research administrators, funders, and also other researchers that might rely on the results of the study. It also affects society’s trust in science.
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Postdocs; Funders; Journal publishers; Journal editors; Junior researchers; Senior researchers
|Has Best Practice=The use of appropriate statistical analyses and the full publication of results (whether approving or rejecting the study’s hypothesis) are among the best practices. Preregistering research is another way of communicating research plans and improve the credibility of results.<ref>What is Preregistration? https://cos.io/prereg/</ref>

In the case of clinical trials, ICMJE advises groups to register clinical trials and link the analysis of clinical trials to the same registration. They are also advised to make sure that there is no discrepancy between the registered methodology in the registries and what is published in the journals, and publish the registration number at the end of the abstract. Since July 2018, groups are also asked to include their data sharing plan and data sharing statement.<ref>International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2018). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Available online at: <nowiki>http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf</nowiki>. Accessed: 27 January 2019.</ref>

Furthermore, in order to encourage impartial and clear use of statistical methods, ICMJE asks groups to:

“Describe statistical methods with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to judge its appropriateness for the study and to verify the reported results. When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as P values, which fail to convey important information about effect size and precision of estimates. References for the design of the study and statistical methods should be to standard works when possible (with pages stated). Define statistical terms, abbreviations, and most symbols. Specify the statistical software package(s) and versions used. Distinguish pre-specified from exploratory analyses, including subgroup analyses” (p.16-17). <ref>International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2018). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Available online at: <nowiki>http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf</nowiki>. Accessed: 27 January 2019.</ref>
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331;Resource:47bfd883-c518-4a97-98fb-86b5cf442d3e;Resource:5aefe751-0a20-4597-98a5-a59bf06a987a;Resource:E81f3898-899d-4104-aa7f-bc23d4f9065a;Resource:6de4eccb-1e56-46a9-b276-a45661b62e26;Resource:0bae8e4a-a4be-4f3f-89f2-65a3b8cc3395;Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:6ee4f37d-aa55-45c9-93ae-86831a37ca17;Resource:C473b44b-f01c-4873-bbf0-f9562aab275b;Resource:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0;Resource:1b777e40-9d7f-4ef4-a601-6be70c9e386a;Resource:369d2eb6-90ef-4198-8268-a95e51a307d0;Resource:45af2d0e-4238-4d3b-8431-9b7682eb9691;Resource:6bcb5216-4e02-470f-85e7-abd492d47134;Resource:7fcb92c2-8d04-4106-875f-166af054c161
|Related To Theme=Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a;Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Questionable research practice; Bias
}}

Theme:Bbf561cd-7369-4314-ac74-2c870373af9d

2020-10-23T09:29:19Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Open Science
|Is About=Open Science is the movement to make scientific research outputs accessible to all. Open science is sometimes described as a decentralised and collaborative process, <ref>Peters, M. A., & Roberts, P. (2015). ''Virtues of Openness: Education, Science, and Scholarship in the Digital Age''. Routledge, New York.</ref> and other times as a philosophical perspective that challenges secrecy and promotes the idea that sharing data and collaboration are inherently good, and in order to promote these, barriers to access research should be removed.<ref>Peters, M. A., & Roberts, P. (2015). ''Virtues of Openness: Education, Science, and Scholarship in the Digital Age''. Routledge, New York.</ref> The key pillars of Open Science include open access to publications, open and FAIR data, and open source code.<ref>Masuzzo, P., & Martens, L. (2017). ''Do you speak open science? Resources and tips to learn the language'' [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2689v1</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=The promise of openness brings to mind a commitment to transparency and opportunities for greater engagement. By removing barriers to access research, the identification of errors and malpractice is facilitated, and the democratisation of knowledge production fostered.<ref>Nerlich, B., Raman, S., Hartley, S., Smith, A. (2018) Introduction. In: B. Nerlich, S. Hartley, S. Raman, and A. Smith (eds), ''Introduction, in Science and the Politics of Openness: Here be monsters''. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 1-11.</ref> In the context of research integrity, open science is seen as an enabler of reproducibility because it allows wider evaluation and scrutiny of research results. Thus, also aligning itself closely with Mertonian ethos, especially, communism and organized skepticism.<ref>Bowman, N. D., & Keene, J. R. (2018). A Layered Framework for Considering Open Science Practices. ''Communication Research Reports'', ''35''(4), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273</ref>

Open access has also been subject to political review and discussion. For instance, beneficiaries of the European funding scheme called Horizon 2020, “must ensure open access (free of charge, online access for any user) to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to its results”. <ref name=":0">European Research Council (ERC). (2017). ''Guidelines on Implementation of Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data''. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/oa-pilot/h2020-hi-erc-oa-guide_en.pdf</ref>

It is clear that the first beneficiary of Open Science practices is, well, Science. If it’s true that the role of Science in society is to create knowledge, drive progress, and guarantee better human lives than it does not surprise that all of this can be achieved faster and more efficiently by following transparent, inclusive and participatory practices. Moreover, it has been shown that Open Science can help Early Career Researchers (ECRs) succeed,<ref name=":0" /> especially through the practice of preprints and open access publications (which promote visibility in the scientific community and therefore improve the chance to collect feedback and be cited<ref>McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., … Yarkoni, T. (2016). How open science helps researchers succeed. ''ELife'', ''5'', e16800. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800</ref>). Lastly, it has been shown that with access to scholarly articles, entrepreneurs and small businesses can accelerate innovation and discovery, which is advantageous for advancing the entrepreneurial state of society.<ref>Lonni Besançon. (2019). How can Open Science benefit your career? Retrieved October 20, 2019, from Open Science MOOC website: https://opensciencemooc.eu/community/2019/10/07/open-science-benefits/</ref>
<references />
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=When submitting the final, written output of their research, researchers can publish it in an Open Access Journal. The [https://doaj.org/ DOAJ] indexes more than 13k of open access, high quality and peer-reviewed journals. Given that only a small portion of these open access journals require payment of an Article Processing Charge (APC),<ref>Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, Chris. H. J. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review. ''F1000Research'', ''5'', 632. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3</ref> researchers can choose from a variety of journals. At the same time, researchers can post a preprint of their article to a preprint server (a list of preprint servers, organised by discipline is available [https://osf.io/preprints/ here]).

Research data can also be stored online in a research data repository. For an extensive list of repositories researchers can check [https://www.re3data.org/ Registry of Research Data Repositories] and [http://databib.org/ Databib]. [https://zenodo.org Zenodo] is among the well-known repositories that allows researchers to archive various digital artefacts such as data sets, research software, reports, posters.
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:06925397-5843-495d-a22d-3e983bdcb99e;Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c
}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:Bbf561cd-7369-4314-ac74-2c870373af9d

2020-10-23T09:28:32Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Open Science
|Is About=Open Science is the movement to make scientific research outputs accessible to all. Open science is sometimes described as a decentralised and collaborative process <ref>Peters, M. A., & Roberts, P. (2015). ''Virtues of Openness: Education, Science, and Scholarship in the Digital Age''. Routledge, New York.</ref>, and other times as a philosophical perspective that challenges secrecy and promotes the idea that sharing data and collaboration are inherently good, and in order to promote these, barriers to access research should be removed.<ref>Peters, M. A., & Roberts, P. (2015). ''Virtues of Openness: Education, Science, and Scholarship in the Digital Age''. Routledge, New York.</ref> The key pillars of Open Science include open access to publications, open and FAIR data, and open source code.<ref>Masuzzo, P., & Martens, L. (2017). ''Do you speak open science? Resources and tips to learn the language'' [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2689v1</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=The promise of openness brings to mind a commitment to transparency and opportunities for greater engagement. By removing barriers to access research, the identification of errors and malpractice is facilitated, and the democratisation of knowledge production fostered<ref>Nerlich, B., Raman, S., Hartley, S., Smith, A. (2018) Introduction. In: B. Nerlich, S. Hartley, S. Raman, and A. Smith (eds), ''Introduction, in Science and the Politics of Openness: Here be monsters''. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 1-11.</ref>. In the context of research integrity, open science is seen as an enabler of reproducibility because it allows wider evaluation and scrutiny of research results. Thus, also aligning itself closely with Mertonian ethos, especially, communism and organized skepticism<ref>Bowman, N. D., & Keene, J. R. (2018). A Layered Framework for Considering Open Science Practices. ''Communication Research Reports'', ''35''(4), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273</ref>.

Open access has also been subject to political review and discussion. For instance, beneficiaries of the European funding scheme called Horizon 2020, “must ensure open access (free of charge, online access for any user) to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to its results”. <ref name=":0">European Research Council (ERC). (2017). ''Guidelines on Implementation of Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data''. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/oa-pilot/h2020-hi-erc-oa-guide_en.pdf</ref>

It is clear that the first beneficiary of Open Science practices is, well, Science. If it’s true that the role of Science in society is to create knowledge, drive progress, and guarantee better human lives than it does not surprise that all of this can be achieved faster and more efficiently by following transparent, inclusive and participatory practices. Moreover, it has been shown that Open Science can help Early Career Researchers (ECRs) succeed,<ref name=":0" /> especially through the practice of preprints and open access publications (which promote visibility in the scientific community and therefore improve the chance to collect feedback and be cited<ref>McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., … Yarkoni, T. (2016). How open science helps researchers succeed. ''ELife'', ''5'', e16800. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800</ref>). Lastly, it has been shown that with access to scholarly articles, entrepreneurs and small businesses can accelerate innovation and discovery, which is advantageous for advancing the entrepreneurial state of society.<ref>Lonni Besançon. (2019). How can Open Science benefit your career? Retrieved October 20, 2019, from Open Science MOOC website: https://opensciencemooc.eu/community/2019/10/07/open-science-benefits/</ref>
<references />
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=When submitting the final, written output of their research, researchers can publish it in an Open Access Journal. The [https://doaj.org/ DOAJ] indexes more than 13k of open access, high quality and peer-reviewed journals. Given that only a small portion of these open access journals require payment of an Article Processing Charge (APC)<ref>Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, Chris. H. J. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review. ''F1000Research'', ''5'', 632. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3</ref>, researchers can choose from a variety of journals. At the same time, researchers can post a preprint of their article to a preprint server (a list of preprint servers, organised by discipline is available [https://osf.io/preprints/ here]).

Research data can also be stored online in a research data repository. For an extensive list of repositories researchers can check [https://www.re3data.org/ Registry of Research Data Repositories] and [http://databib.org/ Databib]. [https://zenodo.org Zenodo] is among the well-known repositories that allows researchers to archive various digital artefacts such as data sets, research software, reports, posters.
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:06925397-5843-495d-a22d-3e983bdcb99e;Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c
}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c

2020-10-23T09:26:28Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:F3ddbf9b-e3c4-47b7-97cd-6239ce7a32c3
|Title=Open peer review - transparent way of gatekeeping science
|Is About=Open peer review can mean a few different things. It can be a process in which names of the peer reviewers of papers submitted to academic journals are disclosed to the authors of the papers in question. Sometimes the review texts are published with the accepted papers, and in some forms of open peer review, the reviewers’ names are published along with their comments.<ref>Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. Version 2. F1000Res. 2017 Apr 27 [revised 2017 Aug 31];6:588. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Open peer review is slowly becoming the norm. Nowadays, journals often disclose the names of the reviewers to the authors, and even publish all of the reviewers’ comments if the article is accepted for publication. This kind of practice makes misconduct in peer review much more difficult, since the reviewers’ names are known to more people than just the editor. Also, it is considered that reviewers will be more mindful if their names are known, and leave thoughtful comments and constructive criticism (as they should). Not all research areas are equally open to open peer review, especially to disclosing the reviewer identities to authors.<ref>Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0189311. doi: 0.1371/journal.pone.0189311.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=PhD students; Postdocs
|Has Best Practice=One example of adaption of open peer review policies in seen in BMC series journals. BMC begun with open peer review in 1999, and since then has promoted the benefits of peer review and developed different variations and options in peer review system. On top of that, they have decided to move beyond “prescription” of peer review patterns and instructions, and have started publishing a journal called Research Integrity and Peer Review, whose main focus is on research on peer review. Recently, the very same journal has published an article on guidelines for the implementation of open peer review, with a checklist aimed at making the implementation of peer review easier. This was developed mostly for editors, but for those who are still unfamiliar with open peer review, there are plenty of long (e.g. FOSTER course on open peer review) and short<ref>Ross-Hellauer, T, Görögh, E. Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Res Int Peer Rev. 2019;4:4.</ref> educational materials.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:6c0d6e13-17cb-4e94-b66b-510da74c700e;Resource:0222fd27-0a12-4cac-a6ac-6cc37879f72c;Resource:3e08d026-9180-4d45-9a78-b45bded373b4
|Related To Theme=Theme:06925397-5843-495d-a22d-3e983bdcb99e
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer review
}}

Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c

2020-10-23T09:26:04Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:F3ddbf9b-e3c4-47b7-97cd-6239ce7a32c3
|Title=Open peer review - transparent way of gatekeeping science
|Is About=Open peer review can mean a few different things. It can be a process in which names of the peer reviewers of papers submitted to academic journals are disclosed to the authors of the papers in question. Sometimes the review texts are published with the accepted papers, and in some forms of open peer review, the reviewers’ names are published along with their comments.<ref>Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. Version 2. F1000Res. 2017 Apr 27 [revised 2017 Aug 31];6:588. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2.</ref>
|Important Because=Open peer review is slowly becoming the norm. Nowadays, journals often disclose the names of the reviewers to the authors, and even publish all of the reviewers’ comments if the article is accepted for publication. This kind of practice makes misconduct in peer review much more difficult, since the reviewers’ names are known to more people than just the editor. Also, it is considered that reviewers will be more mindful if their names are known, and leave thoughtful comments and constructive criticism (as they should). Not all research areas are equally open to open peer review, especially to disclosing the reviewer identities to authors.<ref>Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0189311. doi: 0.1371/journal.pone.0189311.</ref>
|Important For=phd students
|Has Best Practice=One example of adaption of open peer review policies in seen in BMC series journals. BMC begun with open peer review in 1999, and since then has promoted the benefits of peer review and developed different variations and options in peer review system. On top of that, they have decided to move beyond “prescription” of peer review patterns and instructions, and have started publishing a journal called Research Integrity and Peer Review, whose main focus is on research on peer review. Recently, the very same journal has published an article on guidelines for the implementation of open peer review, with a checklist aimed at making the implementation of peer review easier. This was developed mostly for editors, but for those who are still unfamiliar with open peer review, there are plenty of long (e.g. FOSTER course on open peer review) and short<ref>Ross-Hellauer, T, Görögh, E. Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Res Int Peer Rev. 2019;4:4.</ref> educational materials.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:6c0d6e13-17cb-4e94-b66b-510da74c700e;Resource:0222fd27-0a12-4cac-a6ac-6cc37879f72c;Resource:3e08d026-9180-4d45-9a78-b45bded373b4
|Related To Theme=Theme:06925397-5843-495d-a22d-3e983bdcb99e
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer review
}}

Theme:Ae22e8ee-47a5-4f9d-bc00-a10de0011c76

2020-10-23T08:59:39Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Mertonian norms
|Is About=Mertonian norms are the four norms of good scientific research first introduced by the American sociologist, Robert K. Merton. These norms are communism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. <ref>Merton RK. 1942. The Ethos of Science, J. Legal and Political Sociology. 1: 115‐126. Reprinted In: Merton RK, Sztomka P., editor., editors. Social structure and science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Robert Merton developed his norms as a way to describe what constitutes the ethos of modern science. Since then, research has shown that various practice-based problems still occur, such as research misconduct, falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and questionable research practices. Scientists are still aiming for improvement, and Mertonian norms are still very much relevant.
|Important For=everyone
|Has Best Practice=According to Merton:

*''Communism'' (sometimes referred to as communalism) addresses common ownership of scientific discoveries and the need for scientists to publicly share their discoveries. This could be seen as a precursor to modern initiatives such as open science;
*''Universalism'' is the idea that everyone can do science, regardless of race, nationality, gender or any other differences, and that everyone’s scientific claims should be scrutinized equally. In science, it’s all about your arguments, line of evidence and methodology, regardless of who you are;
*''Disinterestedness'' expresses the idea that scientists should work only for the benefit of science;
*''Organized scepticism'' expresses the idea that the acceptance of all scientific work should be conditional on assessments of its scientific contribution, objectivity and rigor. <ref>Merton RK. 1942. The Ethos of Science, J. Legal and Political Sociology. 1: 115‐126. Reprinted In: Merton RK, Sztomka P., editor., editors. Social structure and science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.</ref>

These norms describe the ideal scientific community. In reality, however, the research climate falls short of this ideal. Scientific discoveries can often be found behind paywalls or remain unpublished. Research can sometimes be appraised and published on the basis of the authority and status of its authors. The culture of ‘publish or perish’ and the increased dependence on grants for success can sometimes obfuscate the value of scientific research.

These phenomena are described as counter-norms: secrecy, particularism, interestedness, dogmatism. <ref>Mitroff, Ian I. “Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 1974. 39;4:579-595.</ref> Some have suggested employing originality and replication as additional norms. <ref>Turner S, Mccreery G. Scientific Norms/Counternorms. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, G. Ritzer (Ed.), 2015.</ref>
<references />
|Is Flagged=No
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:B3684f7e-d66f-4c61-ba16-799bc2192b15

2020-10-23T08:58:31Z

0000-0001-7100-9684:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
|Title=Legal rights of accused scientists
|Is About=When scientists are accused of misconduct their legal rights may be encroached upon.
|Important Because=It is important that the principles of proportionality and due process are respected in investigations of misconduct. Otherwise this may lead to erroneous judgments of integrity commissions, or unfair punishments. Moreover, scientists, as citizens, have legal rights, and if these are not respected in self-regulatory investigations, then cases of alleged misconduct will increasingly be handled by the courts.
|Important For=Scientists; Principal investigators; Researchers; Supervisors; Universities; PhD students; Research funding organisations; Research performing organisations
|Has Best Practice=The [https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity European Code of Conduct] states that fairness and integrity are most important for procedures for investigating misconduct, principles to be followed are also stated.<ref>European Science Foundation, All European Academies. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. 2017.</ref>
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:E37e02ca-bbf3-4c6f-86a2-0cb939d3cc91;Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb
|Related To Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegations of misconduct; Research Misconduct Investigation
}}