The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Resource:2ef326a9-727f-469f-91e4-4e9f5932f183

2021-03-08T16:07:47Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Online Posts Damage a Researcher's Reputation
|Is About=A complaint was made to a university against a lecturer in technology, who, it was claimed, had hindered the complainant's work by publishing disparaging and derogatory remarks about them on the internet. This is a factual anonymized case.
|Important Because=The university that considered the complaint did not consider the matter to fall within the scope of a violation of research integrity nor did it consider the guidelines for responsible conduct of research to cover internet comments made by an employee during their spare time.

According to the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity ('TENK'), the internet comments put the limits of its guidelines for responsible conduct of research to the test. It deemed that the lecturer in technology had showed irresponsible behaviour by inappropriately hampering the work of another researcher. However, this was not enough to consider the act as a violation of research integrity.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Integrity Officers; Research Ethics Committees; Research institutions
|Has Best Practice=TENK believes that it is important to keep the threshold low for initiating a preliminary inquiry into such cases.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/TENK_annual_report_2017.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Aefedfd7-bd36-4b3e-8dad-cdd1d6d92eb3;Resource:E37e02ca-bbf3-4c6f-86a2-0cb939d3cc91
|Related To Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Finnish National Board on Research Integrity; TENK
|Has Timepoint=2017
|Has Location=Finland
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Disparaging and Derogatory Remarks; Inappropriate Behaviour; Allegation of Misconduct; Academic Reputation
|Related To Research Area=Engineering and Technology; LS 07.01 - Medical engineering and technology; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering
}}

Resource:Db0a0a90-0f06-4c7b-be90-b744fe20c386

2021-03-08T16:03:46Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Former Columbia University Graduate Student Engaged in 21 Instances of Research Misconduct |Is About=A former graduate student at Columb..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Former Columbia University Graduate Student Engaged in 21 Instances of Research Misconduct
|Is About=A former graduate student at Columbia University was found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) during its oversight review to have engaged in misconduct in research funded by National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The ORI made 21 findings of scientific misconduct based on evidence that the student had knowingly and intentionally falsified and fabricated, and, in one instance, plagiarised, data reported in three papers and their doctoral thesis.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4259719/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Bengu Sezen; Columbia University
|Has Timepoint=2006
|Has Location=Columbia University; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Reliability; Respect; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Plagiarism; Voluntary Exclusion Agreement
|Related To Research Area=PE 04 - Physical and Analytical Chemical Sciences
}}

Resource:886666f2-7cd8-4c90-a0a6-a25df7d2f814

2021-03-08T15:51:44Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Growing Plagiarism Scandal in Iran |Is About=This article in ''Nature'' covers a series of apparent plagiarism cases in papers co-author..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Growing Plagiarism Scandal in Iran
|Is About=This article in ''Nature'' covers a series of apparent plagiarism cases in papers co-authored by government ministers and senior officials in Iran. According to the journal, these cases raise questions about whether such incidents are symptomatic of professional conditions also common in other developing countries or whether they are specifically linked to the Iranian regime and its politically-motivated and nepotistic appointments.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/news/2009/091209/full/462704a.html
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Ali Kaynejad; Esmaeil Fatehifar; Hamid Behbahani; Kamran Daneshjou; Majid Shahravi; Hassan Ziari; Mohammed Khabiri; Shams Noubakhat; Mohammad Ali Kaynejad; Ali Reza Ali-Ahmadi; Babak Amiri
|Has Timepoint=2008
|Has Location=Iran
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism
|Related To Research Area=PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering; PE 08.12 - Sustainable design (for recycling, for environment, eco-design); SH 03.08 - Mobility, tourism, transportation and logistics; PE 10.01 - Atmospheric chemistry, atmospheric composition, air pollution
}}

Resource:Be7ceef3-bb34-4717-b508-45c96426e2e4

2021-03-08T15:39:29Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Research misconduct and the INTERGROWTH-21st study |Is About=This is a factual case concerning the recent INTERGROWTH-21st study at the..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Research misconduct and the INTERGROWTH-21st study
|Is About=This is a factual case concerning the recent INTERGROWTH-21st study at the University of Oxford.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(17)30336-4/fulltext
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INTERGROWTH-21st Study; José Villar; Stephen Kennedy; University of Oxford
|Has Timepoint=2017
|Has Location=United Kingdom; University of Oxford
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Plagiarism Allegation; Duplication
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:6b7a1c9d-a5f1-4262-9139-3e9df6712337

2021-03-08T15:35:03Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Redundant Publication |Is About=A researcher had previously published an article in his native lan..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Redundant Publication
|Is About=A researcher had previously published an article in his native language. They prepared another article in English and submitted it to another journal. The manuscript was accepted for publication. However, the editor in-chief of the English journal managed to find out about the first article and asked the author to clarify the issue. The researcher asked for permission from the first journal to publish the article in English in another journal. Permission was granted. The article was published in English.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Editors; Journal editors
|Has Best Practice=This is a case of redundant publication. Authors are usually asked to provide a signed statement that the manuscript they are submitting has not been published elsewhere. Any violation of this statement is considered to be a case of misconduct and can result in retraction. If a translation of a previously published article is going to be submitted to another journal, prior permission should be sought from the publisher of the first article and the second manuscript should contain an appropriate reference to the first publication
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586923/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Researcher
|Has Location=Iran
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Redundant Publication; Duplicate Submission; Duplication; Good Practice; good research practices
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:151194f6-b0df-4240-bedf-e105d7371581

2021-03-08T15:29:52Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Multiple Submissions (2) |Is About=A researcher submitted a manuscript to a journal. After a couple..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Multiple Submissions (2)
|Is About=A researcher submitted a manuscript to a journal. After a couple of months of not hearing from the editorial board, they re-submitted the manuscript to another journal. A day after re-submission, they received an email from the first journal that their article was going to be accepted after minor revisions. They withdrew the re-submission from the second journal.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Editors; Journal editors
|Has Best Practice=On submission of an article, authors are usually asked to mention whether their submission is under review elsewhere. Duplicate submission is a form of research misconduct. However, if a journal does not review a manuscript in an appropriate amount of time, authors can withdraw their manuscript. However, the editor-in-chief should be informed beforehand and a record of all correspondence maintained by the corresponding author. Authors should never submit a manuscript to another journal before appropriate withdrawal of the manuscript or notice of a rejection.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586923/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Researcher
|Has Location=Iran
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Duplicate Submission; Duplication; multiple submissions; Good Practice; good research practices
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:240467b7-bdf7-404f-a6dd-1cc1e751045d

2021-03-08T15:26:37Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Copyright Violation
|Is About=A researcher sought to include a figure from a textbook in his manuscript for a forthcoming submission. Their colleague recommended asking permission to reproduce the figure from the publisher of the book. The researcher emailed the publisher and permission was granted without any charge.
|Important Because=Copyright violation is a common form of misconduct in countries that do not observe copyright law.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Publishers
|Has Best Practice=Reproducing any part of an article or book (figure, table, etc) definitely requires permission from the copyright holder. The copyright holder is usually the publisher since authors tend to transfer the copyright to the publisher upon submission of their manuscripts.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586923/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Researcher
|Has Location=Iran
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Copyright; Good Practice; good research practices
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:8c7c2b5a-7af8-4a39-abc1-6bd0b47f283a

2021-03-08T15:25:22Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Multiple Submissions (1) |Is About=A researcher submitted a manuscript to two journals simultaneous..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Multiple Submissions (1)
|Is About=A researcher submitted a manuscript to two journals simultaneously. The decision of the editorial boards of both journals was to accept the article with minor revisions. The researcher emailed the editor in-chief of one of the journals and withdrew her submission. The article was published in the other journal.
|Important For=Researchers; Editors; Journal editors; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=On submission of an article, authors are usually asked to mention whether their submission is under review elsewhere. Duplicate submission is a form of research misconduct. However, if a journal does not review a manuscript in an appropriate amount of time, authors can withdraw their manuscript. However, the editor-in-chief should be informed beforehand and a record of all correspondence maintained by the corresponding author. Authors should never submit a manuscript to another journal before appropriate withdrawal of the manuscript or notice of a rejection.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586923/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Researcher
|Has Location=Iran
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Duplication; Duplicate Submission; multiple submissions; Good Practice; good research practices
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:05d8b91f-c721-4b58-b359-5a30cfb32aa8

2021-03-08T15:18:20Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Editorial Misconduct |Is About=Upon acceptance of a manuscript prepared by a researcher, the editor..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Editorial Misconduct
|Is About=Upon acceptance of a manuscript prepared by a researcher, the editor-in-chief of the journal asked the researcher to add an article published in their journal to the reference list. The researcher agreed to the request.
|Important Because=This is a case of editorial misconduct with the main aim of increasing impact factor.
|Important For=Researchers; Editors; Journal editors; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=This practice is discouraged by COPE. Authors should resist such requests as much as possible.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586923/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Researcher; Editor
|Has Location=Iran
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Editorial review; Editorial Misconduct; Research Impact
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:Bca36937-e5a7-4c80-84e0-79e6710820bd

2021-03-08T15:14:16Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Data Fabrication |Is About=A junior researcher published an article. A senior researcher of the org..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Data Fabrication
|Is About=A junior researcher published an article. A senior researcher of the organisation read the article and noticed the striking resemblance of the article topic with one of his accepted research projects, which was still in ongoing. They asked the junior researcher for their raw data. The junior researcher was unable to provide the data. Finally, they admitted to fabricating the data.
|Important Because=Data fabrication is a serious act of misconduct, which usually goes unnoticed.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=COPE recommends the retraction of articles that contain fabricated data and a reporting made to the appropriate institutional misconduct body. Universities and research centres should be very sensitive to this important issue by reprimanding or dismissing researchers involved in fabrication.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586923/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Junior Researcher; Senior Researcher
|Has Location=Iran
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:240467b7-bdf7-404f-a6dd-1cc1e751045d

2021-03-08T15:09:27Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Copyright Violation |Is About=A researcher sought to include a figure from a textbook in his manusc..."

Resource:61f44cd9-2af8-4d7f-847f-fab921b82c84

2021-03-08T15:04:41Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Disputes in Authorship (2) |Is About=A researcher at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (Mashha..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Disputes in Authorship (2)
|Is About=A researcher at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (Mashhad, Iran) included a senior researcher of another department in the authors list of their article. Although the senior researcher was not aware of their inclusion, he thanked the researcher upon receiving a copy of the published article.
|Important For=Researchers; Editors; Journal editors; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=According to COPE, this is a clear case of guest or gift authorship. It is not recommended to add a researcher to the authors list of an article if he/she do not fulfil the requirements for authorship. If an editor finds out about an instance of gift authorship, COPE recommends the removal of the suspected gift author from the authorship list. For article submissions, it is strongly recommended that they include a statement of contributions agreed by all contributors.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586923/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Senior Researcher
|Has Location=Iran
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Ghost authorship; Gift Authorship
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:C00f07c4-5133-4401-98f9-19342244dac6

2021-03-08T14:59:14Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Disputes in Authorship (1) |Is About=A postgraduate medical student at Mashhad University of Medic..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Disputes in Authorship (1)
|Is About=A postgraduate medical student at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (Mashhad, Iran) complained to the vice chancellor of research that they had not been included in the authors list of an article, which used results from her thesis. The senior researcher involved in her thesis claimed that she has forgotten to include the student as an author.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Editors; Journal editors
|Has Best Practice=For COPE in matters relating to the addition or omission of an author, a request should be sent to the publishing journal. The journal will ask for the permission of all authors with corrections made following their consent.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586923/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Junior Researcher
|Has Location=Iran
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Authorship dispute
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:113c9901-a4cc-43ef-a480-a982d866175a

2021-03-08T14:52:11Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=A Reflection on Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research |Is About=This is a factual anonymised case focused on the practice of Gift..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A Reflection on Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research
|Is About=This is a factual anonymised case focused on the practice of Gift Authorship.
|Important For=Researchers; Editors; Journal editors; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03256779
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Senior Researcher
|Has Timepoint=1998
|Has Location=United Kingdom
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Gift Authorship
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:5d269710-04aa-4369-a966-e2eb897ad38e

2021-03-08T14:49:01Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Plagiarism, Voluntary Settlement Agreements and Public Health Service Grants |Is About=Based on an investigation conducted by Rush-Presb..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Plagiarism, Voluntary Settlement Agreements and Public Health Service Grants
|Is About=Based on an investigation conducted by Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, the Office for Research Integrity found that an Associate Professor in Immunology/Microbiology engaged in scientific misconduct involving two instances of plagiarism in publications related to two Public Health Service (PHS) grants.
|Important For=Researchers; Funders; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=The researcher entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement with the ORI. They voluntarily agreed to exclude themselves from serving in any advisory capacity to the PHS and to certify in every PHS research application or report that all contributions to the application or report are properly cited or otherwise acknowledged.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262525/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Alan L. Landay
|Has Timepoint=1987
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:9778c101-7fb7-4a88-8190-bb3f472e5938

2021-03-05T12:34:00Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarise: The Review Article |Is About=This is a factual anonymised case presented in a collection of 8 scenarios encoun..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarise: The Review Article
|Is About=This is a factual anonymised case presented in a collection of 8 scenarios encountered by the author of the paper in his role as research integrity officer.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Editors; Journal editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-002-0005-6
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Senior Researcher
|Has Timepoint=2000
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Citation; Improper citation; Incorrect citation
}}

Resource:A142c748-7dd3-413c-93b8-89c4bc93a89c

2021-03-05T12:31:02Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarise: Another Magazine Surprise |Is About=This is a factual anonymised case presented in a collection of 8 scenarios..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarise: Another Magazine Surprise
|Is About=This is a factual anonymised case presented in a collection of 8 scenarios encountered by the author of the paper in his role as research integrity officer.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Editors; Media
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-002-0005-6
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Senior Researcher
|Has Timepoint=2000
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Allegation of Misconduct; Plagiarism Allegation
}}

Resource:1f4a4720-d70e-4b50-a676-9c290e8a7828

2021-03-05T12:28:29Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarise: The Professional Manual |Is About=This is a factual anonymised case presented in a collection of 8 scenarios e..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarise: The Professional Manual
|Is About=This is a factual anonymised case presented in a collection of 8 scenarios encountered by the author of the paper in his role as research integrity officer.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-002-0005-6
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Senior Researcher
|Has Timepoint=2000
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism
}}

Resource:45c88d4b-9956-4b4f-9bfc-7095b6340195

2021-03-05T12:25:16Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarise: The Background Section
|Is About=This is the factual scenario of a grant applicant who copied the background section of another professor’s published work without the appropriate referencing and credits.
|Important Because=Another factual anonymised case added to this illuminating collection of plagiarism types which was inspired by cases that an academic member of University encountered in his role as a research integrity officer.

This particular case highlights the fact that writing of a background section also constitutes intellectual effort (reviewing of available literature and synthesis towards an argument) and should therefore acknowledged and referenced appropriately.

It also provides another example of the possible outcomes of investigation of plagiarism allegations.
|Important For=Academic staff; Authors; Doctoral students; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-002-0005-6
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0
}}
{{Tags
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism
}}

Resource:3264c547-bf25-48c5-bc4f-367adde2752b

2021-03-05T12:24:26Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarise: The Duplicate Publication
|Is About=This is the factual case of an author whose long excerpts of research output appear in two different articles in two separate journals.
|Important Because=This case is another reminder of the many different formats plagiarism can take. It also demonstrates that not every single case that appears to be plagiarism is actually a research misconduct practice.

The case explores the fine lines among practices such as ‘quoting oneself’, ‘duplicate submission/publication’, ‘plagiarism’, ‘deviation from accepted practices’, ‘reprints’, and when such practices are acceptable or not.
|Important For=Authors; Journal editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-002-0005-6
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ed7ce22e-667a-44a8-a3d0-2abdd0d37b1a;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0
}}
{{Tags
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Self-plagiarism
}}

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

2021-03-05T12:23:12Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarise: The Magazine Surprise
|Is About=This presents seven anonymized case of allegations of plagiary and from these draws specific conclusions and advice to authors and administrators. Specifically, case #6 presents the surprise of a doctoral student to see paragraphs of his Master’s thesis appearing verbatim in a magazine without any citations or references to him.
|Important Because=This factual anonymised case shows that plagiarism can come in more than one formats. The case adds to the real-world examples of plagiarism scenarios that research integrity officers may encounter.

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

Resource:82739a39-218f-4381-8890-bc2149358e55

2021-03-05T12:22:05Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarise: The Instant Paper
|Is About=This is a factual anonymised case presented in a collection of 8 scenarios encountered by the author of the paper in his role as research integrity officer.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-002-0005-6
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Student
|Has Timepoint=2000
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism
}}

Resource:8ed06620-440e-4589-9520-1e0d8c4fa5e3

2021-03-05T12:21:38Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarise: The Unauthorised Translation
|Is About=This is a factual anonymised case presented in a collection of 8 scenarios encountered by the author of the paper in his role as research integrity officer. It is a case of plagiarism through translation to another language. A professor has translated in his own language the work of another professor, without taking all the necessary steps to ensure that intellectual property was acknowledged and all appropriate credits were given.
|Important Because=The case demonstrates one of the many different ways that plagiarism can occur. Furthermore, it shows that it is not always straight forward to investigate and resolve an enquiry of alleged plagiarism; this may be particularly challenging when dealing with institutions (whether research, academic or publishing) in different countries, as they may have different understandings of plagiarism, possibly different norms of intellectual property and/or different ethics guidelines & practices.
|Important For=Researchers; Editors; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-002-0005-6
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2000
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism
}}

Resource:82739a39-218f-4381-8890-bc2149358e55

2021-03-05T12:19:02Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarise: The Instant Paper |Is About=This is a factual anonymised case. |Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Com..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Seven Ways to Plagiarise: The Instant Paper
|Is About=This is a factual anonymised case.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-002-0005-6
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Student
|Has Timepoint=2000
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism
}}

Resource:B4063ab8-fe9f-4eb6-8d4a-eb6de77a335a

2021-03-05T12:15:32Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Resident physician plagiarises publications supported by 10 National Institutes of Health grants |Is About=A resident physician at the U..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Resident physician plagiarises publications supported by 10 National Institutes of Health grants
|Is About=A resident physician at the University of Virginia Medical Center was found by the Office of Research Integrity to have engaged in research misconduct by plagiarising research supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) research and training awards and by NIH intramural research funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Surgical Neurosurgery Branch (NSB), and from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR).
|Important Because=The ORI found that the physician had engaged in research misconduct in five publications by including large amounts of text and an illustration that they had plagiarised from publications supported by 10 NIH grant awards.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-011.html
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Jayant Jagannathan
|Has Timepoint=2005; 2011
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Retraction
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:62e5184e-ad90-45e3-af90-c1cbc5fe2f00

2021-03-05T12:08:29Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Fraudulent algorithm: A pain too deep for adequate analgesia
|Is About=A leading and pioneering anaesthesiologist in Massachusetts, United States was suspected of fraud, having falsified results in at least 21 manuscripts published over 15 years. This has become one of the largest cases of fraud in US medical research history.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0034935609704104
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Scott S. Reuben
|Has Timepoint=1995
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=respect; Accountability; Reliability; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Authorship; Retraction
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:62e5184e-ad90-45e3-af90-c1cbc5fe2f00

2021-03-05T12:06:50Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Fraudulent algorithm: A pain too deep for adequate analgesia |Is About=An leading and pioneering anaesthesiologist in Massachusetts, Uni..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Fraudulent algorithm: A pain too deep for adequate analgesia
|Is About=An leading and pioneering anaesthesiologist in Massachusetts, United States has been suspected of committing fraud, having falsified results in at least 21 manuscripts published over 15 years. This has become one of the largest cases of fraud in the medical research history. In addition to the invention of the data, the author is accused of falsification in their publications.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0034935609704104
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Scott S. Reuben
|Has Timepoint=1995
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=respect; Accountability; Reliability; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Authorship; Retraction
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:6a52708f-4760-4cc3-af7a-02b00a7598c8

2021-03-05T11:59:14Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Plagiarism and Fabrication in Public Health Research at Harvard |Is About=The US Public Health Service found that a researcher at the Ha..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Plagiarism and Fabrication in Public Health Research at Harvard
|Is About=The US Public Health Service found that a researcher at the Harvard School for Public Health engaged in scientific misconduct in research funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH).
|Important Because=The researcher plagiarised text, plagiarised three figures showing results of an immunofluorescence assay, a phosphorimage, and northern blot analysis and falsified the data as results of experiments on Plasmodium bergheii, instead of P. falciparum as reported in a subproject of the PHS grant application. In addition, the researcher fabricated portions of an e-mail from his postdoctoral student that he presented to the HSPH inquiry committee purportedly to falsely implicate the student in the submission of the plagiarised materials for the grant application.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4259660/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Ali Sultan
|Has Timepoint=2004
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Plagiarism
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.09 - Public health and epidemiology
}}

Resource:86315731-0c4b-4355-a9d9-64668e1485df

2021-03-05T11:52:05Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Research misconduct in a grant application for the National Institutes of Health |Is About=The US Public Health Service found that a res..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Research misconduct in a grant application for the National Institutes of Health
|Is About=The US Public Health Service found that a researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago had carried out research misconduct in relation to the legend and related text for a figure contained in their National Institutes of Health grant application.
|Important Because=In their NIH grant application, the researcher falsely claimed that a figure represented preliminary results of their independent experiments, which differed from the source of the figure and the prior research in the field.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4259676/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=James C. Lin
|Has Timepoint=2006
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Plagiarism; Voluntary Exclusion Agreement
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:02751f4e-60cb-4426-b669-291325745a1f

2021-03-05T11:42:42Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=The Ghost Collaborator |Is About=This is a fictional case. |Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Of..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Ghost Collaborator
|Is About=This is a fictional case.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08989621.2016.1207535?journalCode=gacr20
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ghost authorship; Collaborative research
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:93bc3f14-447f-49b5-b626-f97586bfb40c

2021-03-05T11:39:42Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Protecting peer review: Correspondence chronology and ethical analysis |Is About=This is a factual case. |Important For=Researchers; Res..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Protecting peer review: Correspondence chronology and ethical analysis
|Is About=This is a factual case.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hbm.20682
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Nikos K. Logothetis; Amir Shmuel; David Leopold
|Has Timepoint=2008
|Has Location=Canada; Germany; USA
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer Review; Data Issues; Data Ownership
|Related To Research Area=SH 04.05 - Social and clinical psychology
}}

Resource:D8e351d7-52bc-4052-bfac-1a249b017035

2021-03-05T11:34:55Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Neurogenetics study was unethical says NNI report |Is About=This is a factual case. |Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committe..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Neurogenetics study was unethical says NNI report
|Is About=This is a factual case.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(03)00423-X/fulltext
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Simon Shorvon
|Has Location=Singapore
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=REC approval; Patient safety; Confidentiality; Dismissal
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:D6923dd1-bd62-4610-8ed4-a761e2114595

2021-03-05T11:27:18Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Former Hwang colleague faked monkey data |Is About=This is a factual case. |Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Resea..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Former Hwang colleague faked monkey data
|Is About=This is a factual case.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://science.sciencemag.org/content/315/5810/317.1
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Jong Hyuk Park
|Has Timepoint=2004
|Has Location=USA
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification; Image Manipulation
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.01 - Medical engineering and technology
}}

Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3

2021-01-27T14:45:08Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Instruction
|Title=REalistiC Decisions: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Administrators
|Has Method=Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=[http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/ REalistiC Decisions] is a case analysis method proposed by [https://uk.linkedin.com/in/hugh-davies-61029750 Hugh Davies] MB BS, Research Ethics Advisor for the Health Research Authority (‘HRA’) and former Consultant Paediatrician at Oxford University Hospitals.

Although intended to be a procedure for reviewing research ethics proposals, it is flexible enough to be used to analyse research integrity cases.<ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=The method is founded on the idea that each member of a research ethics committee (‘REC’), research integrity office (‘RIO’) or institutional review board (‘IRB’) will deliberate based on their initial views and beliefs about a particular case.

The purpose is to move from individual opinions to the underlying reasons for those opinions in order turn ‘I think’ claims regarding a particular case into ‘We agree’ judgments.
[[File:REalistiC Decisions Case Analysis Diagram.png|thumb]]
This procedure is only part of the process of coming to decisions about individual cases. Although the procedure helps members of RECs, RIOs and IRBs to shape and share their deliberations, it cannot make the decision for them.<ref>Davies H. How we can make better decisions in review and design of research using a simple ethics model. ''Journal of Medical Ethics: Blog''. [Online]. <nowiki>https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2018/10/11/how-we-can-make-better-decisions-in-review-and-design-of-research-using-a-simple-ethics-model/</nowiki>. Published 18 October 2019. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. Moral engineering - how we can improve research review with a simple ethics decision making model. [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/A-model-to-help-resolve-differences180828forRR.pdf</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Has Practical Tips=By following the instructions, a user will be able to:

 

*Analyse specific research ethics and research integrity cases;
*Understand and explain the process by which they came to their judgment regarding a particular case;
*Identity and explain their reasons for their judgment.

In addition, by following the instructions, a research ethics committee ('REC'), research integrity office ('RIO') or institutional review board ('IRB') will be able to:

 

*Facilitate the analysis of research ethics and research integrity cases in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Involve its members in structured deliberation and debate regarding a particular case in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Generate a consensus regarding a specific case.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identify and Clarify the Issue
|Instruction Step Text=Produce a synopsis of the case

 

*Only include the facts of the case
*If the issue is ambiguous, then attempt to clarify what issue or set of issues are at stake
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Early View (‘What do I think?’)
|Instruction Step Text=Once an issue has been identified and clarified, the next step is to ask:

 

*"What do I think?"

When formulating an Early View, I need to:

 

*Know when I can and can’t rely on this Early View;
*Ensure my view does not prejudice against diverging opinions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What are My Reasons for Thinking This?
|Instruction Step Text=Once I have formed my Early View, the next step is to ask:

 

*"What are my reasons for thinking this?"

When formulating these reasons, I need to:

 

*Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons for my view.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Communicate My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Communicate my Early View and associated reasons to the rest of the committee
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Listen to and Recognise the Early Views and Associated Reasons of All Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=Is there disagreement between members of the committee?

 

*On which issues and views do we disagree?
*What reasons are given that either support or undermine my Early View?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Review My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Review my Early View and associated reasons by addressing each of the following themes and questions:

'''Normative Standards'''

''"How do normative frameworks help us?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*A basic knowledge of the appropriate regulations that apply to the issue;
*To be able to use these regulations to analyse our Early View;
*To revise our Early View and to provide reasons for any revisions.

'''Experience'''

''"How have we approached this issue before?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*To access past decisions;
*To compare past cases and the current case and determine whether previous decisions are relevant;
*To use disagreement to develop new standards for guiding future considerations;
*To be able to explain why, if relevant, we haven’t followed such precedent.

'''Expertise'''

''"What expertise has been applied to this before?"''

To answer this question, we need to:

 

*Access independent expert review;
*Access an up-to-date library of authoritative guidance;
*Balance guidance documents and judge the relative authority of guidance documents;
*Provide reasons if our decisions run contrary to guidance.

'''Empathy'''

''"What views and opinions do other parties have?"''

We turn to the views of those with a legitimate interest in the case (for example, the accused, the complainant, individuals involved with the case, and the public).

To answer this question, we need to:

 

*Identify all those with an interest in the case and see it ‘through their eyes’;
*Recognize limitations to our empathy;
*Confirm or refute any ‘empathy-based decisions’ using answers to the other questions listed above;

'''Evidence'''

''"What evidence is there on this issue?"''

We turn to any published research concerning similar cases. However, we need to be careful when forming prescriptive conclusions based on factual premises. After all, the quality of the evidence may be questionable and there may be significant normative and factual differences between the case in question and situations discussed in published research.

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*To locate, assess, and apply published evidence;
*To recognize the proper place of facts when making judgments;
*To encourage published research on research integrity and research ethics.

'''Expediency'''

''"What is possible or realistic in the circumstances?"''

We need to ensure that we have not interpreted the case against sets of unrealistic standards. Expediency is built on a realistic evaluation of research constraints and consequences and imposes proportionate and realistic conditions.

In order to answer this question, we need to:

 

*Understand and accommodate realistic standards when assessing the case;
*Judge when expediency is adequate justification;
*Balance expediency and fair standards when forming a judgment about a case.

'''Escape'''

''"How can we manage this problem of our disagreement?"''

In order to answer this question, we might be required to:

 

*Agree to disagree (if it will not affect the final judgment);
*Seek elaboration on any of the answers to the questions listed above;
*Vote on a set of judgments;
*Consider alternatives.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Develop an Informed Judgment
|Instruction Step Text=Having addressed all the themes and associated questions in the previous step, I now need to come up with an Informed Judgment.

To come up with my Informed Judgment, I should be aware that:

 

*Answering each question in the previous step leads to reasons to justify (or refute) a position;
*No single answer can provide a firm base for judgment;
*My Informed Judgment will involve balancing the answers to the different questions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Reach a Consensus with Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=In order for our committee to reach a consensus regarding a specific case:

 

*I must share my Informed Judgment and associated reasons with the rest of the committee;
*Listen to and recognise the Informed Judgments and associated reasons of all other members of the committee.

The final step is to deliberate and debate with our fellow committee members.

 

*If we all agree, then the decision is made and little needs to be done, although, from time to time, we should critique our views;

*If we fail to obtain a consensus, we can ask for further involvement from interested parties ("Empathy"), outside advice and deliberation ("Expertise") and/or new research ("Evidence").
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:D1477512-52a3-48a3-8ab6-72404cef4ab4;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Responsibility; Accountability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Responsibility of University; Allegations of misconduct; Communication; Complaints procedure; Ethical Dilemma; Good Practice; Institutional Responsibilities; Investigation; Misconduct Investigations; Research Misconduct Investigation
}}

File:REalistiC Decisions Case Analysis Diagram.png

2021-01-27T14:44:18Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

This is a pictorial representation of the steps involved in analysing a case in research ethics or research integrity according to the method of REalistiC Decisions

Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3

2021-01-27T14:38:20Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Instruction |Title=REalistiC Decisions: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity |Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have..."

{{Instruction
|Title=REalistiC Decisions: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Administrators
|Has Method=Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=[http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/ REalistiC Decisions] is a case analysis method proposed by [https://uk.linkedin.com/in/hugh-davies-61029750 Hugh Davies] MB BS, Research Ethics Advisor for the Health Research Authority (‘HRA’) and former Consultant Paediatrician at Oxford University Hospitals.

Although intended to be a procedure for reviewing research ethics proposals, it is flexible enough to be used to analyse research integrity cases.<ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
|Important Because=The method is founded on the idea that each member of a research ethics committee (‘REC’), research integrity office (‘RIO’) or institutional review board (‘IRB’) will deliberate based on their initial views and beliefs about a particular case.

The purpose is to move from individual opinions to the underlying reasons for those opinions in order turn ‘I think’ claims regarding a particular case into ‘We agree’ judgments.

This procedure is only part of the process of coming to decisions about individual cases. Although the procedure helps members of RECs, RIOs and IRBs to shape and share their deliberations, it cannot make the decision for them.<ref>Davies H. How we can make better decisions in review and design of research using a simple ethics model. ''Journal of Medical Ethics: Blog''. [Online]. <nowiki>https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2018/10/11/how-we-can-make-better-decisions-in-review-and-design-of-research-using-a-simple-ethics-model/</nowiki>. Published 18 October 2019. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. Moral engineering - how we can improve research review with a simple ethics decision making model. [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/A-model-to-help-resolve-differences180828forRR.pdf</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
|Has Practical Tips=By following the instructions, a user will be able to:

 

* Analyse specific research ethics and research integrity cases;
* Understand and explain the process by which they came to their judgment regarding a particular case;
* Identity and explain their reasons for their judgment.

In addition, by following the instructions, a research ethics committee ('REC'), research integrity office ('RIO') or institutional review board ('IRB') will be able to:

 

* Facilitate the analysis of research ethics and research integrity cases in accordance with an explicit procedure;
* Involve its members in structured deliberation and debate regarding a particular case in accordance with an explicit procedure;
* Generate a consensus regarding a specific case.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identify and Clarify the Issue
|Instruction Step Text=Produce a synopsis of the case

 

* Only include the facts of the case
* If the issue is ambiguous, then attempt to clarify what issue or set of issues are at stake
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Early View (‘What do I think?’)
|Instruction Step Text=Once an issue has been identified and clarified, the next step is to ask:

 

* "What do I think?"

When formulating an Early View, I need to:

 

* Know when I can and can’t rely on this Early View;
* Ensure my view does not prejudice against diverging opinions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What are My Reasons for Thinking This?
|Instruction Step Text=Once I have formed my Early View, the next step is to ask:

 

* "What are my reasons for thinking this?"

When formulating these reasons, I need to:

 

* Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons for my view.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Communicate My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Communicate my Early View and associated reasons to the rest of the committee
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Listen to and Recognise the Early Views and Associated Reasons of All Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=Is there disagreement between members of the committee?

 

* On which issues and views do we disagree?
* What reasons are given that either support or undermine my Early View?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Review My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Review my Early View and associated reasons by addressing each of the following themes and questions:

'''Normative Standards'''

''"How do normative frameworks help us?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

* A basic knowledge of the appropriate regulations that apply to the issue;
* To be able to use these regulations to analyse our Early View;
* To revise our Early View and to provide reasons for any revisions.

'''Experience'''

''"How have we approached this issue before?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

* To access past decisions;
* To compare past cases and the current case and determine whether previous decisions are relevant;
* To use disagreement to develop new standards for guiding future considerations;
* To be able to explain why, if relevant, we haven’t followed such precedent.

'''Expertise'''

''"What expertise has been applied to this before?"''

To answer this question, we need to:

 

* Access independent expert review;
* Access an up-to-date library of authoritative guidance;
* Balance guidance documents and judge the relative authority of guidance documents;
* Provide reasons if our decisions run contrary to guidance.

'''Empathy'''

''"What views and opinions do other parties have?"''

We turn to the views of those with a legitimate interest in the case (for example, the accused, the complainant, individuals involved with the case, and the public).

To answer this question, we need to:

 

* Identify all those with an interest in the case and see it ‘through their eyes’;
* Recognize limitations to our empathy;
* Confirm or refute any ‘empathy-based decisions’ using answers to the other questions listed above;

'''Evidence'''

''"What evidence is there on this issue?"''

We turn to any published research concerning similar cases. However, we need to be careful when forming prescriptive conclusions based on factual premises. After all, the quality of the evidence may be questionable and there may be significant normative and factual differences between the case in question and situations discussed in published research.

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

* To locate, assess, and apply published evidence;
* To recognize the proper place of facts when making judgments;
* To encourage published research on research integrity and research ethics.

'''Expediency'''

''"What is possible or realistic in the circumstances?"''

We need to ensure that we have not interpreted the case against sets of unrealistic standards. Expediency is built on a realistic evaluation of research constraints and consequences and imposes proportionate and realistic conditions.

In order to answer this question, we need to:

 

* Understand and accommodate realistic standards when assessing the case;
* Judge when expediency is adequate justification;
* Balance expediency and fair standards when forming a judgment about a case.

'''Escape'''

''"How can we manage this problem of our disagreement?"''

In order to answer this question, we might be required to:

 

* Agree to disagree (if it will not affect the final judgment);
* Seek elaboration on any of the answers to the questions listed above;
* Vote on a set of judgments;
* Consider alternatives.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Develop an Informed Judgment
|Instruction Step Text=Having addressed all the themes and associated questions in the previous step, I now need to come up with an Informed Judgment.

To come up with my Informed Judgment, I should be aware that:

 

* Answering each question in the previous step leads to reasons to justify (or refute) a position;
* No single answer can provide a firm base for judgment;
* My Informed Judgment will involve balancing the answers to the different questions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Reach a Consensus with Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=In order for our committee to reach a consensus regarding a specific case:

 

* I must share my Informed Judgment and associated reasons with the rest of the committee;
* Listen to and recognise the Informed Judgments and associated reasons of all other members of the committee.

The final step is to deliberate and debate with our fellow committee members.

 

* If we all agree, then the decision is made and little needs to be done, although, from time to time, we should critique our views;

* If we fail to obtain a consensus, we can ask for further involvement from interested parties ("Empathy"), outside advice and deliberation ("Expertise") and/or new research ("Evidence").
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:D1477512-52a3-48a3-8ab6-72404cef4ab4;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Responsibility; Accountability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Responsibility of University; Allegations of misconduct; Communication; Complaints procedure; Ethical Dilemma; Good Practice; Institutional Responsibilities; Investigation; Misconduct Investigations; Research Misconduct Investigation
}}

Theme:D1477512-52a3-48a3-8ab6-72404cef4ab4

2020-10-05T10:44:43Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Theme |Theme Type=Good Practices |Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b |Title=Research Integrity and Research Ethics Scenarios |Is About=Members of Th..."

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=Research Integrity and Research Ethics Scenarios
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

Each scenario is targeted at three broad groups:

# Researchers;
# Research ethics committees ('RECs') and research integrity offices ('RIOs');
# Research administrators.

Each scenario takes the form of a hypothetical narrative interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide deliberations concerning the issues raised by the narrative.

The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with The [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf '''European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity'''] ('ECCRI') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice. They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

According to the ECCRI, there are eight categories of research ‘contexts’ that are covered by the standards of good research practice. In order to ensure that the set is comprehensive, members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed one scenario for each of the ECCRI's research contexts:

'''1) [https://staging.embassy.science/wiki/Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead Research Environment]'''

'''2) [https://staging.embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6 Training, Supervision and Mentoring]'''

'''3) [https://staging.embassy.science/wiki/Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a Research Procedures]'''

'''4) [https://staging.embassy.science/wiki/Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4 Safeguards]'''

'''5) [https://staging.embassy.science/wiki/Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674 Data Practices and Management]'''

'''6) [https://staging.embassy.science/wiki/Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70 Collaborative Working]'''

'''7) [https://staging.embassy.science/wiki/Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3 Publication and Dissemination]'''

'''8) [https://staging.embassy.science/wiki/Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183 Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing]'''
|Important Because=The scenarios are ''educational'' in three ways:

# In terms of their content, the scenarios develop upon and extend educational resources in research ethics and research integrity in order to allow users to gain knowledge of, and reflectively apply, [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice;
# In terms of their structure, they take the form of a hypothetical narrative interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide user deliberations concerning the issues raised by the narrative;
# Users have the opportunity to employ the scenarios as learning instruments in a classroom setting.

The scenarios ''stimulate thinking'' by providing questions concerning the good and bad aspects of the research practices invoked by the hypothetical narratives. It is envisaged that the type of reflection employed will be ''strategic'' because, in order to answer the questions and thereby gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices, the user is required to understand and apply the content of the ECCRI to different research activities and contexts in combination with their local regulatory documents pertaining to research integrity and research ethics.
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Early career researchers; Editors; Ethics committee members; Industry; Journal editors; Journals; Junior researchers; Master students; Mentors; Peer reviewers; PhD Students; Postdocs; Principal investigators; Professors; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Research institutions; Research integrity trainers; Researchers; Senior researchers; Students; Supervisors; Universities
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Anonymization; Authorship; Bias; Beneficence; Citing; Collaborative research; Communication; Complaints procedure; Confidentiality; Conflict of Interest; Consent; Copyright; Data Management; Data Protection; Data sharing; Experimental design; Fabrication; Falsification; Good Practice; HARKing; Harm; Institutional Responsibilities; International collaboration; Journal Retractions; Mentoring; Methodology; Misconduct Investigations; Monitoring research; P-Hacking; P-value Hacking; Peer Review; Plagiarism; Pre-registrations; Privacy; Publication Ethics; Questionable research practice; REC approval; Research Environments; Research Integrity; Research Misconduct; Research culture; Research ethics; Respect; Responsibility; Retraction; Responsible research; Reusing Published Data; Reusing Published Material; Safeguards; Safety; Scientific Misdonduct; Scope of University's Complaints Procedure; Selection bias; Supervision; Training; Vulnerable and non-competent subjects; Vulnerable population; Whistleblowers; Whistleblowing
}}

Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183

2020-10-02T15:32:25Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning [https://zenodo.org/record/4063746#.X3cXC5NKjxQ '''the ethical and integrity standards governing peer review processes'''].

It focuses on issues regarding:

*The integrity of peer review processes;
*Institutional obligations to uphold the standards of good peer review practices;
*Plagiarism.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063746#.X3cXC5NKjxQ '''Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing''']
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; PhD Students; Early career researchers; Junior researchers; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Peer reviewers; Researchers; Universities; Research institutions; Supervisors; Editors; Journal editors; Journals
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063746#.X3cXC5NKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6;Resource:55cea558-b370-4eec-b4f5-0de97f815e67;Resource:38cabc43-2b53-4c98-80ea-89b97ef5107d;Resource:Aea9471a-e48b-4fe0-8df4-8013763c4b08
|Related To Theme=Theme:A6b06cb6-13ec-4d48-9f1e-efc84449f501;Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c;Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:Be1e45a1-50a7-43e6-ba8f-440fbdcca636;Theme:9fc17763-af35-4688-a87f-165f3b120897
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Responsibility; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Citing; Complaints procedure; Conflict of Interest; Editorial review; Good Practice; Peer Review; Peer review ethics violation; Peer reviewing; Publication Ethics; Reusing Published Data; Reusing Published Material
}}

Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674

2020-10-02T15:31:18Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063648#.X3cHCpNKjxQ data practices and data management and their links with research ethics and research integrity]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*Data protection and consent;
*FAIR principles for data management and stewardship;
*Data copyright and data citation;
*Data for personal research use.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063648#.X3cHCpNKjxQ '''Data Practices and Management''']

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; PhD Students; Early career researchers; Junior researchers; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Universities; Research institutions
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063648#.X3cHCpNKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6
|Related To Theme=Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:0bd48e3b-3590-44ae-a21b-7cf2b425d6cb;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:540c9ba0-bc9c-4311-b3e1-7a650d2b9f0f;Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd;Theme:61d9a3f5-8f8b-4f6f-8363-fa53f959f131
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Anonymization; Confidentiality; Consent; Copyright; Data Management; Data Protection; Data sharing; Good Practice; Ownership; Personal Information; Privacy; Reusing Published Data
}}

Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4

2020-10-02T15:30:47Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Safeguards, Data-sharing and the Disclosure of Sensitive Results: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063633#.X3cGu5NKjxQ safeguards required for data-sharing and data disclosure practices]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*The ethical and regulatory standards governing data-sharing practices;
*The ethical dimensions of research involving children;
*Amendments to research ethics protocols;
*Research participant complaints against researchers;
*Disclosure of sensitive research results.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063633#.X3cGu5NKjxQ '''Safeguards''']

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; Junior researchers; PhD Students; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Universities; Research institutions; Research subjects
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063633#.X3cGu5NKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6
|Related To Theme=Theme:E5629f68-81f6-490d-84d6-fd1e63b8dbc7;Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:540c9ba0-bc9c-4311-b3e1-7a650d2b9f0f;Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9;Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd;Theme:61d9a3f5-8f8b-4f6f-8363-fa53f959f131
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Balancing harms and benefits; Complaints procedure; Confidentiality; Consent; Data Protection; Data sharing; Good Practice; Harm; Misconduct Investigations; Ownership; Personal Information; Safety; Safeguards; Privacy; REC approval; Research ethics; Research with Humans; Responsibility; Social responsibilities; Vulnerable and non-competent subjects
}}

Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70

2020-10-02T15:30:12Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ collaborative working between academia and industry and the links with research integrity]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*Conflicts of Interest between academia and industry;
*Data usage and data privacy;
*HARKing (Hypothesizing after the results are known);
*Preregistration of studies;
*Authorship criteria for academic publications;
*The duties of corresponding authors;
*Non-publication of results;
*Divergences in research integrity standards and processes between international collaborators.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ '''Collaborative Working''']

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; Junior researchers; PhD students; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Universities; Industry; industry stakeholders; Principal investigators; Funders
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:72c8ab8d-bbf8-4503-8b48-9de7eac37673;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:307c6cc0-20d5-432f-bc4a-51aff0c985fe;Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33;Theme:8704dd29-f972-45ca-993c-3e93f834dbfb;Theme:E14104ce-3608-4069-b297-f93b2d77b095;Theme:Dc1ed216-1d37-49a9-9725-2b34e90b3ede;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637;Theme:E0384a98-fbfd-4df9-9caa-3fe4afa95951;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Bias; Collaborative research; Communication; Confidentiality; Conflict of Interest; Consent; Data Protection; Good Practice; HARKing; International collaboration; Non-publication; Pre-registrations; Privacy; Supervision
}}

Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a

2020-10-02T15:29:45Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Research Procedures and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the links between '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063611#.X3cGAJNKjxQ research procedures and research integrity]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*Hypothesizing after the results ('HARKing');
*P-hacking;
*Selection bias;
*University procedures, processes and guidelines to address HARKing, P-hacking and selection bias.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063611#.X3cGAJNKjxQ '''Research Procedures''']

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; Junior researchers; PhD Students; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Research institutions; Universities
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063611#.X3cGAJNKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6
|Related To Theme=Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33;Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a;Theme:E14104ce-3608-4069-b297-f93b2d77b095;Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637;Theme:7df709ce-fb89-4703-966f-b33e68b83ad5;Theme:6b584d4e-2c9d-4e27-b370-5fbdb983ab46
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Bias; Experimental design; Faked Data; Methodology; Misrepresentation of results; Research methods; Selection bias; P-value Hacking; P-Hacking; HARKing
}}

Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead

2020-10-02T15:29:23Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Research Environments and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the links between '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063597#.X3cFmpNKjxQ research environments and research integrity]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*Communication of the standards governing research integrity by universities and research organizations;
*Environmental pressures to commit research misconduct;
*Whistleblowing and the monitoring of research misconduct;
*Barriers to reporting cases of research misconduct;
*Power imbalances between students/early-career researchers and senior academics.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063597#.X3cFmpNKjxQ '''Research Environment''']

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Graduate students; Junior researchers; PhD Students; Postdocs; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Research institutions; Universities
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063597#.X3cFmpNKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6
|Related To Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1;Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:1386bef0-81e2-4c3b-bb65-673d2baead1c;Theme:34a864d0-43b3-48bc-aaa3-438dcc124c02;Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e;Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a;Theme:Fe62e07c-2e75-4a55-82e6-1908fa543b7a
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Career; Complaints procedure; Research culture; Whistleblowers; Whistleblowing; Whistleblower retaliation; Fairness; Good Practice; Institutional Responsibilities; Mentoring; Power abuse; Research Environments; Responsibility; Scope of University's Complaints Procedure; Supervision
}}

Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3

2020-10-02T15:28:53Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative on the theme of [https://zenodo.org/record/4062216#.X3YCVZNKhjU '''Publication and Dissemination'''.]

It focuses on issues regarding:

*Dual submissions
*Authorship lists
*Plagiarism
*Complaints procedures
*Editorial decisions
*Retraction

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with ''[https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]'' ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) [https://zenodo.org/record/4062216#.X3YCVZNKhjU '''Publication and Dissemination''']

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Early career researchers; Editors; Ethics committee members; Graduate students; Journal editors; Junior researchers; PhD Students; Postdocs; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Research institutions; Researchers; Supervisors
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4062216#.X3YCVZNKhjU
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:38cabc43-2b53-4c98-80ea-89b97ef5107d;Resource:55cea558-b370-4eec-b4f5-0de97f815e67;Resource:31097e7a-2080-4aee-b60d-e1e1a5b15888;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db;Theme:A22bd155-7f88-4750-aa9c-cba9ad72cbec;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:F3ddbf9b-e3c4-47b7-97cd-6239ce7a32c3;Theme:9fc17763-af35-4688-a87f-165f3b120897;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Publication Ethics; Plagiarism; Editorial review; Complaints procedure; Respect; Peer Review; Peer review; Peer reviewing
}}

Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6

2020-10-02T15:27:19Z

0000-0001-8342-1051: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Education |Title=Training, Supervision and Mentoring with Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project |Is About=Members of The Embassy o..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Training, Supervision and Mentoring with Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative that addresses specific ways in which [https://zenodo.org/record/4063900#.X3dC2pNKhjU '''training, supervision and mentoring practices can undermine the standards of research integrity'''].

It focuses on issues regarding:

* The obligations of research ethics committee members when it comes to their knowledge of different disciplinary designs, methodologies and analytical tools;
* The obligations to promote and provide training in different research integrity guidelines and standards;
* The relationships between discipline-specific, institutional and national codes of conduct;
* The navigation of the differences between discipline-specific, institutional and national codes of conduct;
* Allegations of conflicts of interest;
* The duties and obligations of project coordinators and principal investigators.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063900#.X3dC2pNKhjU '''Training, Supervision and Mentoring''']

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; PhD Students; Junior researchers; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Universities; Research institutions; Supervisors; Principal investigators; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063900#.X3dC2pNKhjU
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183
|Related To Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39;Theme:2446855b-0acc-4e28-817e-a65d7e00162e;Theme:8540d0c5-84a0-4c77-9f30-d1be51da0aa4;Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b;Theme:721dc5c7-8e47-41ca-a7b8-73d6a225c3c3;Theme:34a864d0-43b3-48bc-aaa3-438dcc124c02;Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a;Theme:177ca35b-14f3-4f62-8bb2-f9cf9db28a70;Theme:73bfb9ec-b7f5-4a0a-a0b0-e460990b59cb;Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Bias; Conflict of Interest; Good Practice; Institutional Responsibilities; Mentoring; REC approval; Research Environments; Research culture; Research methods; Methodology; Responsibility; Supervision; Training
}}

Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674

2020-10-02T12:26:58Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063648#.X3cHCpNKjxQ data practices and data management and their links with research ethics and research integrity]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*Data protection and consent;
*FAIR principles for data management and stewardship;
*Data copyright and data citation;
*Data for personal research use.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063648#.X3cHCpNKjxQ '''Data Practices and Management''']

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; PhD Students; Early career researchers; Junior researchers; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Universities; Research institutions
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063648#.X3cHCpNKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183
|Related To Theme=Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:0bd48e3b-3590-44ae-a21b-7cf2b425d6cb;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:540c9ba0-bc9c-4311-b3e1-7a650d2b9f0f;Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd;Theme:61d9a3f5-8f8b-4f6f-8363-fa53f959f131
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Anonymization; Confidentiality; Consent; Copyright; Data Management; Data Protection; Data sharing; Good Practice; Ownership; Personal Information; Privacy; Reusing Published Data
}}

Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4

2020-10-02T12:26:06Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Safeguards, Data-sharing and the Disclosure of Sensitive Results: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063633#.X3cGu5NKjxQ safeguards required for data-sharing and data disclosure practices]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*The ethical and regulatory standards governing data-sharing practices;
*The ethical dimensions of research involving children;
*Amendments to research ethics protocols;
*Research participant complaints against researchers;
*Disclosure of sensitive research results.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063633#.X3cGu5NKjxQ '''Safeguards''']

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; Junior researchers; PhD Students; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Universities; Research institutions; Research subjects
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063633#.X3cGu5NKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183
|Related To Theme=Theme:E5629f68-81f6-490d-84d6-fd1e63b8dbc7;Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:540c9ba0-bc9c-4311-b3e1-7a650d2b9f0f;Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9;Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd;Theme:61d9a3f5-8f8b-4f6f-8363-fa53f959f131
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Balancing harms and benefits; Complaints procedure; Confidentiality; Consent; Data Protection; Data sharing; Good Practice; Harm; Misconduct Investigations; Ownership; Personal Information; Safety; Safeguards; Privacy; REC approval; Research ethics; Research with Humans; Responsibility; Social responsibilities; Vulnerable and non-competent subjects
}}

Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70

2020-10-02T12:25:27Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ collaborative working between academia and industry and the links with research integrity]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*Conflicts of Interest between academia and industry;
*Data usage and data privacy;
*HARKing (Hypothesizing after the results are known);
*Preregistration of studies;
*Authorship criteria for academic publications;
*The duties of corresponding authors;
*Non-publication of results;
*Divergences in research integrity standards and processes between international collaborators.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ '''Collaborative Working''']

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; Junior researchers; PhD students; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Universities; Industry; industry stakeholders; Principal investigators; Funders
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:72c8ab8d-bbf8-4503-8b48-9de7eac37673;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:307c6cc0-20d5-432f-bc4a-51aff0c985fe;Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33;Theme:8704dd29-f972-45ca-993c-3e93f834dbfb;Theme:E14104ce-3608-4069-b297-f93b2d77b095;Theme:Dc1ed216-1d37-49a9-9725-2b34e90b3ede;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637;Theme:E0384a98-fbfd-4df9-9caa-3fe4afa95951;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Bias; Collaborative research; Communication; Confidentiality; Conflict of Interest; Consent; Data Protection; Good Practice; HARKing; International collaboration; Non-publication; Pre-registrations; Privacy; Supervision
}}

Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a

2020-10-02T12:24:45Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Research Procedures and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the links between '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063611#.X3cGAJNKjxQ research procedures and research integrity]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*Hypothesizing after the results ('HARKing');
*P-hacking;
*Selection bias;
*University procedures, processes and guidelines to address HARKing, P-hacking and selection bias.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063611#.X3cGAJNKjxQ '''Research Procedures''']

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; Junior researchers; PhD Students; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Research institutions; Universities
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063611#.X3cGAJNKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183
|Related To Theme=Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33;Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a;Theme:E14104ce-3608-4069-b297-f93b2d77b095;Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637;Theme:7df709ce-fb89-4703-966f-b33e68b83ad5;Theme:6b584d4e-2c9d-4e27-b370-5fbdb983ab46
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Bias; Experimental design; Faked Data; Methodology; Misrepresentation of results; Research methods; Selection bias; P-value Hacking; P-Hacking; HARKing
}}

Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead

2020-10-02T12:24:08Z

0000-0001-8342-1051:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Research Environments and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the links between '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063597#.X3cFmpNKjxQ research environments and research integrity]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*Communication of the standards governing research integrity by universities and research organizations;
*Environmental pressures to commit research misconduct;
*Whistleblowing and the monitoring of research misconduct;
*Barriers to reporting cases of research misconduct;
*Power imbalances between students/early-career researchers and senior academics.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063597#.X3cFmpNKjxQ '''Research Environment''']

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Graduate students; Junior researchers; PhD Students; Postdocs; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Research institutions; Universities
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063597#.X3cFmpNKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183
|Related To Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1;Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:1386bef0-81e2-4c3b-bb65-673d2baead1c;Theme:34a864d0-43b3-48bc-aaa3-438dcc124c02;Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e;Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a;Theme:Fe62e07c-2e75-4a55-82e6-1908fa543b7a
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Career; Complaints procedure; Research culture; Whistleblowers; Whistleblowing; Whistleblower retaliation; Fairness; Good Practice; Institutional Responsibilities; Mentoring; Power abuse; Research Environments; Responsibility; Scope of University's Complaints Procedure; Supervision
}}