The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Resource:D40f736b-e2b6-4fe9-9ddf-26a3bf947cc2

2020-09-14T08:33:59Z

0000-0001-8004-6196:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Training modules and guidelines on mentorship
|Is About=This resource provides a guidebook for teaching RCR to culturally diverse trainee groups and three online training modules on mentorship.
|Important Because=High quality mentorship is an enabler of RI. This is because mentorship provides to postgraduate students the guidance needed to conduct reliable research.
|Important For=Supervisors; Principal investigators; Early career researchers; PhD Students; Postdocs
|Has Best Practice=* A set of guidelines to develop mentorship training designed to take into account ethical ambiguities from a cultural perspective and identifying beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviors that could impact interpretation or acceptance of institutional standards and guidelines (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia guidebook).
* A set of online modules designed to offer the user an open-ended learning environment. This is to say that there is no set path that all users must follow, while there will be a strongly suggested path, the module will not force each user into an area. Users are free to decide how to use the materials presented to suit their individual needs and interests. Of course, our wish is that the user will review all sections of the module in depth along our suggested path (Columbia University training module)
* A set of online modules on RCR topics developed with the support of RCR Education Grants awarded by the Office of Research Integrity to the Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center at Northern Illinois University (Northern Illinois University training module).
* A series of video vignettes and discussion guide to provoke discussion, facilitate problem-solving and identify alternate courses of action (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia training module).
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ori.hhs.gov/index.php/mentorship
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:8ed365dd-6e08-424b-b955-e7c592b83e0a;Resource:D40f736b-e2b6-4fe9-9ddf-26a3bf947cc2;Resource:729d6b14-e5f5-4dfd-94bc-b3bda16c245a
|Related To Theme=Theme:34a864d0-43b3-48bc-aaa3-438dcc124c02
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:46bc703d-8d43-42a3-8fc8-1d246f97f152
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ORI
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Mentor/trainee relationship
}}

Resource:Acc068ac-a0c0-48fa-b6a2-ff7448bf2573

2020-09-02T10:58:10Z

0000-0001-8004-6196:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Nine pitfalls of research misconduct
|Is About=This publication is about recornising 9 factors that lead to bad decisions by researchers and can be represented by the acronym TRAGEDIES. Each letter presents one factor, which poses for a specific behavioral aspect, that leads to pitfalls when conducting and analysing research data.
|Important Because=By recognizing these pitfalls and responding appropriately can save a career and strengthen science.
|Important For=Early career researchers; Junior researchers; PhD Students; Graduate students; Undergraduate students; Academic staff
|Has Best Practice=Avoid the following pitfalls (behavioral aspect with an example): (a) Temptation - “Getting my name on this article would look really good on my CV”, (b) Rationalization - “It’s only a few data points, and those runs were flawed anyway”, (c) Ambition - “The better the story we can tell, the better a journal we can go for”, (d) Group and authority pressure - “The PI’s instructions don’t exactly match the protocol approved by the ethics review board, but she is the senior researcher”, (e) Entitlement - “I’ve worked so hard on this, and I know this works, and I need to get this publication”, (f) Deception - “I’m sure it would have turned out this way (if I had done it)”, (g) Incrementalism - “It’s only a single data point I’m excluding, and just this once”, (h) Embarrassment - “I don’t want to look foolish for not knowing how to do this”, (i) Stupid systems, “It counts more if we divide this manuscript into three submissions instead of just one”.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05145-6
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:67faeb3a-593c-473e-899d-4fb29abaa1b9;Resource:5aefe751-0a20-4597-98a5-a59bf06a987a
|Related To Theme=Theme:46e89570-c93b-41ca-9ac7-d78826bdfad8
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:Cc0d306a-0f3f-42a6-8b5b-ed9e21489a7f;Instruction:7503811e-e685-4311-8961-f44133b12280
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Nature
|Has Timepoint=2018
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Accuracy; Honesty; Objectivity
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research misconduct; Mentor/trainee relationship; Adherence to Regulations; Cherry picking
}}

Resource:5aefe751-0a20-4597-98a5-a59bf06a987a

2020-09-02T10:36:06Z

0000-0001-8004-6196:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Is there a reproducibility crisis in science?
|Is About=This TED talk video presents some of the main causes of the so-called "reproducibility crisis", i.e. the innability to reproduce or replicate results that have been reported in peer-reviewed scientific publications, by other than the original writters researchers.
|Important Because=It gives the correct perspective for looking at research that is not reproducible. If we set aside the deliberate maniplation of research data, irreproducibility can stem from sloppy planning or conducting of research or from an honest mistake that has been prodiced by the mere complexity of an experiment. In other words, reliable research needs extremely cautious and honest researchers.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ed.ted.com/lessons/is-there-a-reproducibility-crisis-in-science-matt-anticole#watch
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:47bfd883-c518-4a97-98fb-86b5cf442d3e;Resource:67faeb3a-593c-473e-899d-4fb29abaa1b9;Resource:7ecf5fb2-8f1d-4e45-b72c-ba2682c8a64f
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:1dcc08f4-54f6-4841-bf90-c43311924292
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Matt Anticole
|Has Timepoint=2016
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Reproducability
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering
}}

Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db

2020-07-28T09:10:07Z

0000-0001-8004-6196:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:F3ddbf9b-e3c4-47b7-97cd-6239ce7a32c3
|Title=Standards of authorship
|Is About=Standards of authorship regulate the allocation of credit when researchers collaborate on publications.
|Important Because=Collaborations are becoming more frequent and gather anever increasing number of researcher. At the same time publications remain a key source of academic credit and career advancement. It is important to allocate credit for research contributions in a fair and transparent way.

The UK Research Integrity Office outlines why authorship standards matter:

“Correct authorship of research publications matters because authorship confers credit, carries responsibility, and readers should know who has done the research. Denying authorship to somebody who deserves it denies recognition and academic credit since publications are used to assess academic productivity. Including an undeserving author is unfair since this person gets credit for work they have not done. Omitting a deserving author from an author also list misleads readers (including journal editors) and may mask conflicts of interest.”<ref>UKRIO (2017). Good practice in research: Authorship. Accessed via: http://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Guidance-Note-Authorship-v1.0.pdf</ref>
<references />
|Important For=phd students; Early career researchers; PI; Peer reviewers; Journal editors; Journal publishers
|Has Best Practice====Difficulties===
Common practises on standards of authorship vary between scientific disciplines, and between countries, making standardizing difficult. They also change over time. As the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences note:

''“Customs have changed over the past few decades; for example, the practice of granting “honorary” authorship to an eminent researcher – formerly not unusual – is no longer considered acceptable.”''<ref>Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (2013). Authorship in scientific publications: Analysis and recommendations. Accessed via: <nowiki>http://www.akademien-schweiz.ch/en/dms/E/Publications/Guidelines-and-Recommendations/integrity/Academies_Authorship.pdf</nowiki></ref>

==='''European Code of Conduct '''===
''The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017)'' states the following:<ref>ALLEA (2017). European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Accessed via: https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/</ref>

*All authors are fully responsible for the content of a publication, unless otherwise specified
*All authors agree on the sequence of authorship, acknowledging that authorship itself is based on a significant contribution to the design of the research, relevant data collection, or the analysis or interpretation of the results
*Authors acknowledge important work and intellectual contributions of others, including collaborators, assistants, and funders, who have influenced the reported research in appropriate form, and cite related work correctly
*All authors disclose any conflicts of interest and financial or other types of support for the research or for the publication of its results

==='''COPE'''===

*Guideline: [https://publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf12_0.pdf How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers]
*Guideline: [https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standard_editors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf Responsible research publication: international standards for editors]
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:38cabc43-2b53-4c98-80ea-89b97ef5107d;Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:E996d601-bd6e-4f62-831c-c09f82652eb1
|Related To Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ALLEA; ICMJE
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication ethics; Mentor/trainee relationship; Authorship
}}

Theme:B26ff7d4-fe82-4815-aaf9-42e200ab6195

2020-07-28T09:02:23Z

0000-0001-8004-6196:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:92439f75-5c0c-49d4-a21f-e9b41bd3a7db
|Title=Intellectual property rights in research collaborations
|Is About=When research produces new inventions and ideas, these can be protected in the form of intellectual property (IP) rights. “Intellectual property includes all exclusive rights to intellectual creations. It encompasses two types of rights: industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs and models and designations of origin, and copyright, which includes artistic and literary property”. <ref>http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/36/intellectual-industrial-and-commercial-property</ref> Countries have their own legislation concering IP rights. Examples of IP rights are patents, copyright and trademarks.
<references />
|Important Because=IP rights allow individuals or organizations to earn recognition or to benefit financially from their inventions.<ref>https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/</ref> In addition, IP rights stimulate creativity and let innovations flourish.<ref>http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/IP%20Management%20in%20Horizon%202020_the%20proposal%20stage_0.pdf</ref> Before the start of a research project, all stakeholders should make an agreement concerning ownership of IP rights. Research funding organizations and private companies are important stakeholders, when it comes to research that may result in development of intellectual property.
<references />
|Important For=Funders; Research funding organisations; Research performing organisations; All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=According to their policy on IP rights, the Dutch funder ZonMw states that when a contract is written, the IP rights derived from a project belong to the research performing institution. However, when the IP rights are not exploited adequately, ZonMw can interfere, in order to increase the impact of the research. Moreover, when considering public-private partnerships in funding, the research performing organization needs to have a strong judicial position. Therefore, research institutes are encouraged to seek legal expertise or request advice from ZonMw. This is to ensure that the IP is not exploited by other private, commericial and industrial institutions, as has happened in the past.

The European IPR Helpdesk has developed a fact sheet on IP management for Horizon 2020 projects (3). The factsheet includes guidance on IP rights in a research proposal. It suggests the following:

*Proposals should describe how results will be protected from commercial and industrial exploitations
*Within multi-center research, the involved institutes need to organise ownership and access of rights and include the economic conditions of dividing the rights
*Proposals should state how joint ownership for expected jointly-owned results will be organized. For example, third-party licensing needs to be considered
*Proposals should consider the exploitation of research results (see Figure 1)
*Proposals should indicate the confidentiality measures that need to be put in place
*“When defining the management structure, applicants should consider the management of intellectual property rights. A committee for exploitation and intellectual property or a manager could be considered and even a consulting body of external experts from industry.”

(need to insert image: http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/IP%20Management%20in%20Horizon%202020_the%20proposal%20stage_0.pdf)
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:92439f75-5c0c-49d4-a21f-e9b41bd3a7db;Theme:66ccb878-3c99-4e54-931d-d718bc0cb246
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Intellectual property; Funders’ responsibilities
}}

Theme:B26ff7d4-fe82-4815-aaf9-42e200ab6195

2020-07-28T09:01:13Z

0000-0001-8004-6196:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:92439f75-5c0c-49d4-a21f-e9b41bd3a7db
|Title=Intellectual property rights in research collaborations
|Is About=When research produces new inventions and ideas, these can be protected in the form of intellectual property (IP) rights. “Intellectual property includes all exclusive rights to intellectual creations. It encompasses two types of rights: industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs and models and designations of origin, and copyright, which includes artistic and literary property”. <ref>http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/36/intellectual-industrial-and-commercial-property</ref> Countries have their own legislation concering IP rights. Examples of IP rights are patents, copyright and trademarks.
<references />
|Important Because=IP rights allow individuals or organizations to earn recognition or to benefit financially from their inventions.<ref>https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/</ref> In addition, IP rights stimulate creativity and let innovations flourish.<ref>http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/IP%20Management%20in%20Horizon%202020_the%20proposal%20stage_0.pdf</ref> Before the start of a research project, all stakeholders should make an agreement concerning ownership of IP rights. Research funding organizations and private companies are important stakeholders, when it comes to research that may result in development of intellectual property.
<references />
|Important For=Funders; Research funding organisations; Research performing organisations; All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=According to their policy on IP rights, the Dutch funder ZonMw states that when a contract is written, the IP rights derived from a project belong to the research performing institution. However, when the IP rights are not exploited adequately, ZonMw can interfere, in order to increase the impact of the research. Moreover, when considering public-private partnerships in funding, the research performing organization needs to have a strong judicial position. Therefore, research institutes are encouraged to seek legal expertise or request advice from ZonMw. This is to ensure that the IP is not exploited by other private, commericial and industrial institutions, as has happened in the past.

The European IPR Helpdesk has developed a fact sheet on IP management for Horizon 2020 projects (3). The factsheet includes guidance on IP rights in a research proposal. It suggests the following:

*Proposals should describe how results will be protected from commercial and industrial exploitations
*Within multi-center research, the involved institutes need to organise ownership and access of rights and include the economic conditions of dividing the rights
*Proposals should state how joint ownership for expected jointly-owned results will be organized. For example, third-party licensing needs to be considered
*Proposals should consider the exploitation of research results (see Figure 1);
*Proposals should indicate the confidentiality measures that need to be put in place
*“When defining the management structure, applicants should consider the management of intellectual property rights. A committee for exploitation and intellectual property or a manager could be considered and even a consulting body of external experts from industry.”

(need to insert image: http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/IP%20Management%20in%20Horizon%202020_the%20proposal%20stage_0.pdf)
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:92439f75-5c0c-49d4-a21f-e9b41bd3a7db;Theme:66ccb878-3c99-4e54-931d-d718bc0cb246
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Intellectual property; Funders’ responsibilities
}}

Resource:Edb02e27-f2e5-4b75-a78c-ec42e76011f6

2020-07-28T08:50:08Z

0000-0001-8004-6196:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Good Epidemiological Practice
|Is About=A preliminary guideline for good epidemiological practice in (global health) research. They were first developed internally by Royal Tropical Institute epidemiologists and were then presented to global health experts from all over the world for validation through a Delphi consultation process<ref>https://www.kit.nl/good-epidemiological-practice/</ref>. It was published in 2019.
<references />
|Important Because=<br />
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
|Has Best Practice="Epidemiology is the cornerstone of global health. It shapes policy decisions and evidence-based practice by identifying risk factors for disease, and targets for preventive healthcare. As the foundation of quantitative monitoring and evaluation activities and counterfactual impact evaluations, it also provides the evidence base for the scale-up of health interventions."<ref>https://www.kit.nl/good-epidemiological-practice/</ref>
<references />
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.kit.nl/good-epidemiological-practice/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:307c6cc0-20d5-432f-bc4a-51aff0c985fe;Theme:8704dd29-f972-45ca-993c-3e93f834dbfb
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Royal Tropical Institute
|Has Timepoint=2019
|Has Location=Europe
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.09 - Public health and epidemiology
}}

Resource:69dad1bb-9632-43ed-b3c1-c49a1fcd8910

2020-07-28T08:22:27Z

0000-0001-8004-6196:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=In the grip of the python: Conflicts at the university-industry interface
|Is About=This case is about scientific fraud in research concerning psychopharmacology. Specifically, it is about the use of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) group of antidepressants that has the potential to trigger suicidality in a subgroup of patients. This is a factual case, linked to company abilities to keep clinical trial data out of the public domain.
|Important Because=The outcome of such research affects the lives of many patiens who use the SSRI's.
|Important For=Researchers; research integrity researchers; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-003-0020-2
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:4d39f067-fb71-4d6b-b33b-3c27f0bd6414;Resource:Bbcc248c-0ac3-4405-a35b-67e2c34ea571;Resource:Bdaacb81-740f-4483-b0b5-870701ef887a
|Related To Theme=Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Eli Lilly; Pfizer; University of Toronto
|Has Timepoint=1990
|Has Location=Canada
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification; Conflict of interest; Ghost authorship
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

User:0000-0001-8004-6196

2020-07-28T08:10:18Z

0000-0001-8004-6196: create user page