The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Resource:Eecaba81-4e94-4999-86f7-1eafa884f85f

2022-07-30T13:53:35Z

0000-0002-0037-4905: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Scenarios |Title=Unwritten expectations in doctoral training: research integrity scenario |Is About=This scenario focuses on training, supervision an..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Scenarios
|Title=Unwritten expectations in doctoral training: research integrity scenario
|Is About=This scenario focuses on training, supervision and mentoring issues that might occur in doctoral education.
|Important For=PhD Students; Mentors; Supervisors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6943996
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Mentoring
}}

Theme:04c9f1cb-5da4-4434-82c7-3ff6f6d0dd0e

2021-05-26T09:20:36Z

0000-0002-0037-4905:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Other
|Title=Preprint servers
|Is About=Preprint servers are open access online archives or repositories that contain research papers before their peer review and publication.<ref>LetPub. What are preprint servers and what is their role in scholarly publishing? [cited 2020 Oct 12]. Available from: https://www.letpub.com/author_education_What_are_preprint_servers_and_what_is_their_role_in_scholarly_publishing. </ref><ref>Mudrak B. What are Preprints, and How Do They Benefit Authors?. AJE Scholar. 2020 Feb. [cited 2020 Oct 12]. Available from: https://www.aje.com/arc/benefits-of-preprints-for-researchers/. </ref> Their main aim is to accelerate dissemination process of research findings and enhance their visibility.
<references />
|Important Because=Because of the lengthy duration of peer review process and subsequent delay in publication, preprint servers are useful tools for researchers to post full draft of their research papers and immediately get the feedback from their colleagues.<ref name=":0">LetPub. What are preprint servers and what is their role in scholarly publishing? [cited 2020 Oct 12]. Available from: https://www.letpub.com/author_education_What_are_preprint_servers_and_what_is_their_role_in_scholarly_publishing. </ref> The articles can be posted at no charge<ref name=":1">CARE-writer. So what exactly are preprints and preprint services? [cited 2020 Oct 12]. Available from: https://care-writer.com/preprints-and-preprint-servers. </ref> and authors have the possibility to submit revised versions to the server at any time.<ref name=":0" /> Most of the articles are given a digital object identifier (DOI) so they can be cited.<ref>Mudrak B. What are Preprints, and How Do They Benefit Authors?. AJE Scholar. 2020 Feb. [cited 2020 Oct 12]. Available from: https://www.aje.com/arc/benefits-of-preprints-for-researchers/. </ref><ref name=":1" /> Readers can also upload their comments, which can result in productive discussions.<ref name=":0" />

This way of sharing research results and communication among researchers has its pros and cons.<ref name=":2">Rodríguez E G. Preprints and preprint servers as academic communication tools. Rev Cub Salud. 2019;30(1):1-27.</ref> The most obvious benefit would be higher speed of publication, from 7 days to 2-4 mouths<ref name=":2" /> and evidence of authors’ productivity and accomplishment.<ref name=":3">Foster. Sharing Preprints. [cited 2020 Oct 12]. Available from: https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/learning/sharing-preprints/#/id/5ac23bbcdd1827131b90e79d. </ref> This would justify financial funds, especially in those disciplines with strong competition for development and limited funding.<ref name=":2" /> The use of preprint servers would also foster open science, increase visibility and lead to fast feedback and recommendations for improvement in quality.<ref name=":3" /> Furthermore, it could result in some new collaborations.<ref name=":3" /> On the other hand, researchers need to consider that not all journals will accept manuscripts that have been submitted to a preprint server.<ref name=":3" /> Researchers also might “rush out data prematurely” in order to get credit for their work, which could result in posting low quality and irreproducible data.<ref name=":3" />
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Students; Peer-reviewers; Journal editors
|Has Best Practice=In areas such as physics, mathematics and economy, preprint servers have been in use for almost 30 years.<ref name=":0">CARE-writer. So what exactly are preprints and preprint services? [cited 2020 Oct 12]. Available from: https://care-writer.com/preprints-and-preprint-servers. </ref> In 1991 a centralized automated repository, the arXiv preprint server, was the pioneer in this method of dissemination of research results. It played an important role in physics, astronomy and mathematics, and later was implemented into other research areas.<ref name=":1">Rodríguez E G. Preprints and preprint servers as academic communication tools. Rev Cub Salud. 2019;30(1):1-27.</ref> Significant number of journals has adopted this practice of posting their manuscripts on preprint servers. About 46% of the 2,566 publishers indexed in SHERPA RoMEO support preprint servers.<ref name=":1" /> The Lancet, for example, posts articles to preprint severs from Social Science Research Network (SSRN).<ref name=":0" />

Preprint servers can be journal (Netprints), non-journal (arXiv), mixed (ResearchGate), subject repositories (Social Sciences Research Network) as well as national and regional servers (Chinese Preprint Server Online).<ref name=":1" /> They can be supported by con-commercial and non-editorial organizations as well. For example, the Welcome Trust in UK has its own preprint server.<ref name=":1" /> Research institutions and funding organizations also can have preprint servers. One of the examples is UK’s Medical Research Council (MRC) that includes the manuscripts posted on preprint servers in biomedical research grant applications.<ref name=":1" />

Some of the most popular preprint servers are:

-[https://www.biorxiv.org/ BioRxiv] (a preprint repository for the biological sciences);

-[https://arxiv.org/ arXiv] (an open access archive operated by Cornell University, containing 1,774,607 articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science and economics);

-[https://thewinnower.com/ the Winnower] (an open access online publishing platform that offers an open post-publication peer review);

-[https://psyarxiv.com/ PsyArXiv] (a preprint server for the field of psychology, launched in 2016 by Cornell University);

-[http://www.prepubmed.org/ PrePubMed] (a platform that indexes preprints from PeerJ Preprints, Figshare, bioRxiv, and F1000Research)<ref>LetPub. What are preprint servers and what is their role in scholarly publishing? [cited 2020 Oct 12]. Available from: https://www.letpub.com/author_education_What_are_preprint_servers_and_what_is_their_role_in_scholarly_publishing. </ref>;

-[https://www.medrxiv.org/ medRxiv] (the first preprint server for medicine, launched in 2019 by Yale and BMJ).<ref>medRxiv. The preprint servers for health sciences. [cited 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/. </ref>

Longer list of preprint repositories can be found [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zYOy6bcydDZ9G56FKmDzg_pexTarVsJR5hH0KiQGt_I/edit#gid=1494155948 here] and [https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers here].

Although there are some preprint servers for medicine, shortcomings of this practice have to be considered. Medical research findings are often discussed by the media and public, so the media release of an unreviewed work can be harmful.<ref>Sheldon T. Preprints could promote confusion and distortion. Nature. 2018 July 24. [correction 2018 July 25; cited 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05789-4. </ref><ref>Chung K J. preprints: What is their role in medical journals? Arch Plast Surg.2020;47(2):115-117.</ref> Preprints in medicine also raise ethical questions regarding research with humans, therefore the confidentiality of participants should be protected.<ref>Peiperl L. Preprints in medical research: Progress and principles. PLoS Med.2018;15(4):e1002563. </ref>

Nevertheless, in this time of COVID-19 pandemic preprint servers showed to be a useful tool because of the accelerated dissemination of research results. This is important especially regarding treatments and vaccines.<ref>Syed I. The Role of preprints in aiding the speedy dissemination of COVID-19 research. Editage insights. 2020 May 14. [cited 2020 Oct 20]. Available from:

https://www.editage.com/insights/the-role-of-preprints-in-aiding-the-speedy-dissemination-of-covid-19-research. </ref> From the early stages of the pandemic to the mid October, more than 19,000 preprints were produced.<ref>Lachapelle F. COVID-19 Preprints and Their Publishing Rate: An Improved Method. medRxiv. 2020 Oct 13. [cited 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.04.20188771v4. </ref> We also have to consider that peer reviewed articles published in journals can present low-quality work. One of the examples is article about a Russian vaccine, published in the Lancet,<ref>Logunov D J, Dolzhikova I V, Zubkova O V, Tukhvatullin A I, Scheblyakov D V, Dzharullaeva A S, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of and rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine in two formulations: two open, non-randomised phase ½ studies from Russia. The Lancet.2020;396(10255):887-897.</ref> which instigated objections and an open letter to the authors and the Lancet editor. The objections addressed data presented in the article and called for full availability of the original data in order to evaluate the study and enable reproduction of the research findings.<ref>Bucci E. Note of Concern. Cattivi Scienziati fighting bad and pseudo-science. 2020 Sept 7. [cited 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: https://cattiviscienziati.com/2020/09/07/note-of-concern/. </ref><ref>Bucci E, Andreev K, Björkman A, Calogero R A, Carafoli E, Carnici P, et al. Safety and efficacy of the Russian COVID-19 vaccine: more information needed. The Lancet. 2020;396(10256):e53.</ref>
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:6791e675-754d-4c37-8107-3420e6e673a1;Resource:7f7940ad-55ff-44ac-9207-5f904a3f4767
|Related To Theme=Theme:9025f215-cc6a-4b00-894b-68b9a089f173;Theme:06925397-5843-495d-a22d-3e983bdcb99e;Theme:0bd48e3b-3590-44ae-a21b-7cf2b425d6cb
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Ernesto Galbán Rodríguez
|Has Virtue And Value=Transparency; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Open access; Communication; Open science
}}

Theme:1f1c45e8-e91d-4eb4-b252-23e319d34f78

2020-10-22T10:29:53Z

0000-0002-0037-4905:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Title=Inaccurate representation of results in the media
|Is About=The media plays a significant role in presenting research findings to the public. However, since the results and conclusions of scientific studies are not always easy to understand, errors in their reporting can easily arise. The inaccurate representation of scientific results has been referred to as “scienceploitation” <ref>The Conversation. How social media can distort and misinform when communicating science. 2016 June 30. [cited 2020 July 9]. Available from: https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-can-distort-and-misinform-when-communicating-science-59044.</ref>.
<references />
|Important Because=The media is the most powerful tool for spreading new information about scientific studies. Therefore, researchers and academic institutions place a strong emphasis on communicating research findings to the media <ref name=":0">Brown P. Nothing but the truth. Are the media as bad at communicating science as scientists fear? EMBO reports. 2012;13(11):964-967.</ref>. However, sometimes the media distort research findings, which results in the spreading of misinformation <ref name=":1">The Conversation. How social media can distort and misinform when communicating science. 2016 June 30. [cited 2020 July 9]. Available from: https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-can-distort-and-misinform-when-communicating-science-59044.</ref>. Frequent use of oversimplified language, exaggeration, sensationalist reporting and the avoidance of complex issues are some of the main reasons for the misrepresentation of researching findings by the media <ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>Kotwani N. The media miss key points in scientific reporting. Virtual Mentor. 2007;9(3);188-192.</ref>. Furthermore, when follow-up studies undermine the results and conclusions of the initial study, the media usually does not correct or supplement its previous reports or provide a new report altogether <ref>Resnick B. Study: half of the studies you read about in the news are wrong. Vox. 2017 Mar 3. [cited 2020 July 9]. Available from: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/3/14792174/half-scientific-studies-news-are-wrong.</ref>.

Sensationalist reporting of medical research is not rare and can have serious consequences. It can raise false hopes or generate needless fear <ref name=":2">Ransohoff D F, Ransohoff R M. Sensationalism in the media: when scientists and journalists may be complicit collaborators. Eff Clin Pract. 2001;4(4):185-188.</ref>. However, the media isn’t solely responsible for misleading the public about research findings. In 2014, research showed that the majority of university press-releases, usually approved by the lead researcher, tend to exaggerate research findings. Because reporters rely on these press-releases, inaccurate information is more widely disseminated <ref>Sumner P, Vivian-Griffiths S, Boivin J, Williams A, Venetis C A, Davies A, et al. The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. BMJ. 2014;349:7015.</ref>. Therefore, in order to improve reports of research findings and their presentation to the public, close collaboration between researchers and journalists is essential <ref name=":2" />.
<references />
|Important For=Media; Researchers; Universities; Policy makers
|Has Best Practice=A prominent example of the distortion of research findings by the media relates to an article published in ''PLoS One'' in 2009 <ref>Jen M H, Bottle A, Majeed A, Bell D, Aylin P. Early in-hospital mortality following trainee doctors’ first day at work. PLoS One. 2009;4(9):e7103.</ref>. It presented a study that examined whether NHS hospitals in England have a higher mortality rate in the first week of August than in the last week of July, due to the fact that newly qualified doctors begin working in hospitals on the first Wednesday of August. The study used hospital admissions data from 2000 to 2008 for all emergency patients in the last week of July and the first week of August. Taking into account the year, patient gender, socio-economic deprivations and co-morbidity, the study showed that for patients admitted on the first Wednesday of August the odds of death were 6% higher in comparison to those admitted on the last Wednesday in July. Also, clinical patients on the first Wednesday of August had 8% higher odds of death than surgical patients. Even though the confidence intervals for these odds ratios included a value of 1, and researchers suggested that further studies were needed, the media distorted the study findings. Under a sensationalist headline, “Killing Season”, ''The Daily Mail'' reported that death rates are 8% higher in the said period because newly qualified doctors had started their jobs <ref name=":0">Hope J. ‘Killing season’ on NHS wards: Patients at risk when junior doctors start new jobs, says health boss. Mail Online. 2012 June 22. [cited 2020 July 10]. Available from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163382/NHS-wards-Patients-risk-junior-doctors-start-new-jobs-says-health-boss-Sir-Bruce-Keogh.html.</ref>. It reported that the “number of mistakes are so notoriously high that day of the week” that this day should be called “Black Wednesday” <ref name=":0" />. Other media outlets reprised the phrases “Killing season” <ref>Smith R. Thousands of juniors start jobs in NHS ‘killing season’. The Telegraph. 2012 Aug 1. [cited July 10 2020]. Available from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9441885/Thousands-of-juniors-start-jobs-in-NHS-killing-season.html.</ref>. Some even said that it was “the worst day of the year to go to hospital” <ref name=":1">Kingsley Napley. Black Wednesday: the worst day of the year to go to hospital. 2012 Aug 1. [cited July 10 2020]. Available from: https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/medical-negligence-and-personal-injury-blog/black-wednesday-the-worst-day-of-the-year-to-go-to-hospital.</ref>.

Sometimes researchers and reporters can, together, contribute to sensationalism and the exaggeration of research findings. One of the studies that caused a lot of uproar in 2015 was written by Tomasetti and Vogelstein, and published in ''Science'' <ref>Tomasetti C, Vogelstein B. Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions. Science. 2015;347(6217):78-81.</ref>. The media, along with some experts, including the authors, oversimplified the interpretation of the results, claiming that the vast majority of cancers are caused by random mutations or “bad luck” <ref>Grady D. Cancer’s Random Assault. The New York Times. 2015 Jan 5. [cited July 11]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/health/cancers-random-assault.html.</ref>. However, experts and the media paid insufficient attention to the study design. It was an observational study, so no definitive or reliable inferences could be made regarding the cause and effect relationship; conclusions could only be based on the associations between different cancer-occurrence factors, which do not reliably support conclusions regarding direct causation.
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F825e89a-2cab-4ee1-ac16-ef37dd6fdb01;Resource:Db8f42bd-cf96-4b4a-9544-b20d8644e8b7;Resource:7bcb6dc7-7e42-453e-a4fb-80b430def20e
|Related To Theme=Theme:7df709ce-fb89-4703-966f-b33e68b83ad5
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Paige Brown; Namrata Kotwani; Brian Resnick; David Ransohoff; Richard Ransohof
|Has Virtue And Value=Accuracy; Honesty; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Social responsibilities; Work environment
}}

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

2020-10-21T07:52:19Z

0000-0002-0037-4905:

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

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

There is a guide for supervision of doctoral students in healthcare that defines the roles and requirements for a supervisor<ref>van Schalkwyk SC, Murdoch-Eaton D, Tekian A, van der Vleuten C, Cilliers F. The supervisor's toolkit: A framework for doctoral supervision in health professions education: AMEE Guide No. 104. Med Teach. 2016 May;38(5):429-42.</ref>. Some of those include clarifying the students’ purpose, understanding the student and their context, guiding them methodologically, intellectually and administratively, facilitating their communication and later on, introducing them to the scholarly community.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:D40f736b-e2b6-4fe9-9ddf-26a3bf947cc2;Resource:8bc7c681-66af-4ab9-b2f2-c21fe2744817;Resource:0d7e30ee-699a-43ac-a653-7352844bb9b1
|Related To Theme=Theme:177ca35b-14f3-4f62-8bb2-f9cf9db28a70
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Susan Camille van Schalkwyk; Tanya Heyns
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Collegiality
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Supervision; Mentor/trainee relationship
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering; LS - Life Sciences
}}

Theme:2268825c-a874-4dd7-b302-4af6b0e55b36

2020-10-21T07:49:34Z

0000-0002-0037-4905:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Serious gaming in research integrity education
|Is About=Serious games are designed to be more than just entertainment, and are often used for educational purposes. In the education of responsible conduct of research (RCR) and research integrity (RI), interactivity is one of the key factors for success. Through serious games, RCR and RI can be taught and help develop responsible researchers.
|Important Because=To be a good researcher, it is not enough just to know rules and codes of conduct of RCR. It is important to learn how to adapt and respond to real life situations. In order to respond ethically, you need to develop skills to recognize the right course of action and the values that will lead you to choose them. This is why many people stress the importance of virtues and virtue ethics in RCR education.<ref>Briggle A, Holbrook JB, et al. Research Ethics Education in the STEM Disciplines: The Promises and Challenges of a Gaming Approach. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2016. 22(1): 237-250.</ref><ref>Briggle A. The ethics of computer games: A character approach. In J. R. Sageng, T. M. Larsen, H. Fossheim (Eds.), The philosophy of computer games (pp. 159–174). London: Springer; 2012.</ref> Serious games simulate real life situations and require that players respond to them. They are similar to case based and role play education, but also significantly different. In gaming, there is no room to escape or hide behind the more extroverted members of the group. Here, the player is put into the center and has to reach a decision on his or her own.
<references />
|Important For=Bachelor students; PhD students; Research integrity trainers; Trainers in training; Junior researchers; Early career researchers
|Has Best Practice=The field of gaming in RCR education is growing. A few examples include ‘‘Grants and Researchers’’, a card game designed to simulate the experience of ethical decision making within the context of academic research. Rules of the game are available [http://youtu.be/L4Jk84HlLN8 here] . Gaming Against Plagiarism (GAP) project developed three games that put the player in the central role of various issues in authorship, misconduct and intellectual property. More information on the games can be found [https://digitalworlds.ufl.edu/research-production/projects/gaming-against-plagiarism-gap/ here].
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:3e08d026-9180-4d45-9a78-b45bded373b4;Resource:313feb13-82bc-4489-be7a-387d3415c427
|Related To Theme=Theme:3a32df5c-e6e8-45f9-8132-434db3985a65
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Curiosity; Honesty; Reliability; Accountability; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research integrity; Misconduct; Questionable research practice
}}

Theme:3a32df5c-e6e8-45f9-8132-434db3985a65

2020-10-21T07:47:44Z

0000-0002-0037-4905:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:2268825c-a874-4dd7-b302-4af6b0e55b36
|Title=Peer review card game
|Is About=The peer review card exchange game was developed by researchers from the University of Split School of Medicine as a hands-on training session for a summer school on peer review. <ref>Peer review card exchange game, available at: http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/a-peer-review-card-exchange-game/</ref> It is an educational tool designed to inform young researchers about integrity in peer review. The game is free to use, and available [http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/a-peer-review-card-exchange-game/ here].
<references />
|Important Because=Peer review is an important part of scientific process, because it identifies both quality and possible flaws in submitted research, and offers room for improvement. However, the peer review process is not perfect, and is susceptible to a number of conflicts, dilemmas and insecurities. <ref>Hames I. Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century. Science Editing. 2014;1(1):4-8</ref><ref>Csiszar A. Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature. 2016;532(7599):306-8. Epub 2016/04/26.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Students; phd students; Supervisors; Postdocs; Reviewers
|Has Best Practice=The use of card exchange games is an approach used in teaching the philosophy of science. It was developed by Bergquist and Phillips in 1975 and later popularized by Cobern. <ref>Cobern WW. Introducing teachers to the philosophy of science: The card exchange. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 1991;2(2):45-6.</ref> The idea of card games is to foster dialogue between participants about statements written on cards, and such games have been effective in improving students’ knowledge.

In the peer review card exchange game, six different domains of peer review are explored by different statements written on cards. Participants can agree or disagree with the statements, but they are asked to discuss them and reach a consensus as a group. The explored domains are: responsiveness, competence, impartiality, confidentiality, constructive criticism and responsibility to science. Participants have to find which cards they all agree on. After that, they participate in a moderated discussion.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:0222fd27-0a12-4cac-a6ac-6cc37879f72c;Resource:6c0d6e13-17cb-4e94-b66b-510da74c700e;Resource:E3a1be4e-2ff9-4b7f-b44c-abd409fe225a;Resource:A2fda758-06fa-47d9-9fdd-7f12fe36e8ee
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ba949c86-a4cc-4231-996d-7bf601d9cfa9;Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8;Theme:B96ef996-e262-4c0c-a62c-1ea1ef034f36;Theme:F723d94e-5010-4c4a-ad26-cf56fce97a1f;Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2018
|Has Location=Croatia
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty; Reliability; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer review; Publication Ethics
}}

Theme:Af676916-8a83-443a-aece-66abb3e9054f

2020-10-21T07:45:54Z

0000-0002-0037-4905:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Epistemic virtues
|Is About=Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge and its relations to concepts and definitions of truth, belief and justification of belief.<ref>Steup M, Zalta EN. Epistemology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2018 Edition. Accessed May 24 2019. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/epistemology/</ref> Virtue is often defined as moral excellence, and epistemic virtues are described as intellectual virtues. A critical, conscientious thinker, could also be described as epistemically virtuous.
<references />
|Important Because=The ultimate goal of science is to seek truth at the realm of material things. Because of that, science itself cannot be practiced without somehow tapping into the field of epistemology. Ideally, researchers should be attentive, careful, thorough, impartial, open, willing to exchange ideas and aware of their own fallibility. <ref>Turri J, Alfano M, Greco J. Virtue Epistemology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition. Accessed May 24 2019. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/epistemology-virtue/</ref> These traits could serve as a preventative measure for research misconduct and other, various practices that are detrimental to science.
<references />
|Important For=Postdocs; PhD students
|Has Best Practice=All European Academies (ALLEA) published a revised and updated European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC), in which it emphasized the importance of addressing ethics and research integrity. The ECoC defines principles and practices of good research, and includes the virtues of reliability, honesty, respect and accountability. Usually philosophers consider honesty and the following characteristics to be epistemic virtues: attentiveness, benevolence (principle of charity), creativity, curiosity, discernment, humility, objectivity, parsimony, studiousness, understanding, warranty, and wisdom. <ref>Pigliucci M. The Virtuous Skeptic. Skeptical Inquirer. 2017;41 (2): 54–57.</ref>
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
|Related To Theme=Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Moral reasoning; Responsible research
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}

Resource:4fde78c8-c647-48d3-bf73-ff95fc00cdc1

2020-10-21T07:41:02Z

0000-0002-0037-4905:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials
|Is About=This is a guidance in the design, conduct, analysis, and evaluation of clinical trials through the overall clinical development.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; Principal investigators
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/ich-e-9-statistical-principles-clinical-trials-step-5_en.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:349f9eb9-b796-46cb-9a98-214c06db9046
}}
{{Tags
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:4fde78c8-c647-48d3-bf73-ff95fc00cdc1

2020-10-21T07:40:46Z

0000-0002-0037-4905: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials |Is About=This is a guidance in the design, conduct, analysis, and evaluation of clinica..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials
|Is About=This is a guidance in the design, conduct, analysis, and evaluation of clinical trials through the overall clinical development.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; Principal investigators
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/ich-e-9-statistical-principles-clinical-trials-step-5_en.pdf
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Theme:349f9eb9-b796-46cb-9a98-214c06db9046

2020-10-21T07:37:12Z

0000-0002-0037-4905: Created page with "{{Theme |Theme Type=Good Practices |Title=Statistical pre-registration |Is About=In a statistical pre-registration, the purpose and type of statistical analysis to be conducte..."

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Statistical pre-registration
|Is About=In a statistical pre-registration, the purpose and type of statistical analysis to be conducted in a study should be disclosed before the study begins. Statistical pre-registration helps to clearly distinguish between hypothesis generating (exploratory) studies, for which statistical significance is not meaningful, and hypothesis testing (confirmatory) studies for which statistical significance is meaningful<ref>Joe Leif Uri. Data Colada. How to Properly Preregister a Study. 2017 Nov 6. [cited 2020 Aug 12]. Available from: http://datacolada.org/64</ref>.
|Important Because=Exploratory and confirmatory parts of research are two different stages and it is important to clearly distinguish them. However, researchers very often don’t make that distinction; they generate or change their hypotheses after observing the data and yet they report their study as exploratory or hypothesis-generating (see HARKing thematic page)<ref name=":0">Lindsay DS, Simons DJ, Lilienfeld SO. Research Preregistration 101. APS. 2016 Nov 30. [cited 2020 Aug 12]. Available from: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/research-preregistration-101</ref>. Observing the data before choosing which statistical tests to conduct can show statistical significance where there actually isn’t any<ref name=":0" />. Subsequently, this leads to false positive results. Stopping these practices is important in every research area, but especially in medicine. Hypotheses regarding drug effects generated in exploratory research are tested in confirmatory research<ref>Kimmelman J, Mogil JS, Dirnagl U. Distinguishing between Exploratory and Confirmatory Preclinical Research Will Improve Translation. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(5):e1001863</ref>. Without careful hypotheses testing, patients are put at risk<ref>Carlisle B, Federico CA, Kimmelman J. Trials that say ‘maybe’: the disconnect between exploratory and confirmatory testing after drug approval. BMJ 2018;360:k959</ref>.

To avoid this kind of inappropriate research, and all the consequences that can arise from it, pre-registration of a study is essential. Pre-registration consists of specifying and recording your study plans before you even start observing the data<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1">Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. The preregistration revolution. PNAS 2018;115(11):2600-2606.</ref>. It refers to recording hypotheses, subjects, statistical analysis and predictions<ref>APS. Easier Done Than Said: Lessons from 6 Years of Preregistration. 2020 March 11. [cited 2020 Aug 12]. Available from: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/easier-done-than-said-lessons-from-6-years-of-preregistration.html</ref>. This will help clearly distinguish the exploratory and confirmatory data<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2">Wagenmakers EJ, Dutilh G. Seven Selfish Reasons for Preregistration. APS. 2016 Oct 31. [cited 2020 Aug 12]. Available from: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/seven-selfish-reasons-for-preregistration</ref>, prevent bias<ref name=":2" />, avoid p-hacking<ref name=":3">APS. Preregistration of Research Plans. [cited 2020 Aug 12]. Available from: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/psychological_science/preregistration</ref>, ensure transparency and openness of the analysis plans<ref name=":3" />, and increase trustworthiness and reproducibility of study findings<ref name=":1" />.
|Important For=Researchers; Policy makers; Journal editors
|Has Best Practice=The most relevant examples are studies needed for drug approval. The approval procedure usually requires a series of clinical trials divided into three phases. Phase I and II can involve model building according to European Medicines Agency (EMA), however phase III trial is always designed as a confirmatory trial<ref name=":0">Carlisle B, Federico CA, Kimmelman J. Trials that say ‘maybe’: the disconnect between exploratory and confirmatory testing after drug approval. BMJ 2018;360:k959</ref>. Both the EMA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require statistical pre-registration before the beginning of a trial. Exploratory trials aim to produce evidence of effectiveness of new drugs. These results then lead to confirmatory trials<ref name=":0" />. The need for pre-registrations of trials is demonstrated by the following case. In 2004, the New York attorney general’s office filed a lawsuit against pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline. Four unpublished clinical trials showed evidence that use of the antidepressant Paxil increases the risk of suicidal tendencies amongst young people. This lawsuit helped raise awareness that studies need to be pre-registered<ref name=":1">Should You Pre-Register Your Research Study? A Quick Guide. Enago Academy. 2020 April 3. [cited 2020 Aug 12]. Available from: https://www.enago.com/academy/pre-registration-of-your-research/</ref>. That year the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required pre-registration of clinical trials<ref name=":1" />.

US laws also require clinical trials to be pre-registered<ref name=":2">Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. The preregistration revolution. PNAS 2018;115(11):2600-2606.</ref>. Journals and research funders support pre-registration and some organizations promote it as an important step towards openness and transparency in research<ref name=":3">Mellor D. Preregistration: improved rigor, improved workflow. BMC. 2016 Feb 17. [cited 2020 Aug 12]. Available from: https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2016/02/17/preregistration-improved-rigor-improved-workflow/</ref>. There have been some other interesting efforts that promote pre-registration, such as the Preregistration Challenge, sponsored by the Center for Open Science. This campaign offered $1,000 awards to researchers who pre-register their studies and publish their results within a deadline<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref>Mellor DT, Esposito J, Hardwicke TE, Nosek BA, Cohoon J, Soderberg CK, et al. Preregistration Challenge: Plan, Test, Discover. OSF HOME. 2019 Sep 20. [cited 2020 Aug 12]. Available from: https://osf.io/x5w7h/</ref>. These initiatives have led to a certain “cultural shift” - there are now more than 8,000 pre-registrations on Open Science Framework for research in different disciplines<ref name=":2" />. APS journals also began to practice pre-registration in 2014. From 2014 to 2019, 43 of 154 articles published in Psychological Science earned “Preregistered badge” due to pre-registration of design and analysis plan of their studies<ref>APS. Open Practice Badges. [cited 2020 Aug 12]. Available from: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/badges</ref>.

Although pre-registration has demonstrated benefits for the trustworthiness of research, the practice still needs to be widely adopted across the scientific community.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33;Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=David T Mellor; Brian Nosek
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Pre-registrations; Reproducibility; Research with Humans
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Theme:Fc328c98-9158-4a78-8ac5-2fd366b4896f

2020-10-21T07:26:07Z

0000-0002-0037-4905: Created page with "{{Theme |Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations |Title=Responsible Research and Innovation - RRI |Is About=Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) refers to engaging the public..."

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Responsible Research and Innovation - RRI
|Is About=Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) refers to engaging the public in the research process to better align the goals and outcomes of research with the needs of society and to address societal challenges.
|Important Because=Research and innovation are often funded by society and even if they are not, it is reasonable to expect that they have implications for society. This is why there is a movement aimed towards aligning research with societal needs and values and tackling societal challenges. There are several definitions of RRI. Von Schomberg defined it as “a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society)”<ref>Von Schomberg R. Prospects for Technology Assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In: Dusseldorp M, Beecroft R, ed. Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften; 2011. 50 p.</ref>. A broader definition is offered by Stilgoe et al., who refer to “taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present”<ref>Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy. 2013 Nov; 42(9):1570.</ref>. The UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council defined RRI as “a process that seeks to promote creativity and opportunities for science and innovation that are socially desirableand undertaken in the public interest”<ref>Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Framework for Responsible Innovation. Accessed June 3 2020. Available at: https://epsrc.ukri.org/research/framework/. </ref>. According to the European Commission, RRI “means that societal actors work together during the whole research and innovation process in order to better align both the process and its outcomes, with the values, needs and expectations of European society”<ref>European Commission. Responsible research & innovation. Accessed June 3 2020. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation</ref>.
|Important For=Researchers; Research funding organisations; Policy makers; Civil society organisations; Industry
|Has Best Practice=The ‘Research; Increasing value, reducing waste’ project, led by The Lancet medical journal, provides an excellent example of an RRI approach. This project aims to address deficiencies in the medical research system that reduce the value of research and often result in significant financial loss caused by inadequate research agendas, flawed research designs, not publishing negative results, and poorly reporting findings.

In order to increase the value of research and reduce waste, the project adopted four RRI process requirements: diversity and inclusiveness, transparency and openness, anticipation and reflection, as well as responsiveness and adaptation to change. Inclusion of patients and medical caregivers in setting the right research agenda is recommended to increase diversity in the research process. The project proposes that research should be more transparent and open, and supports a full and public documentation of the research process. The project also highlights a need to discuss current practices that lead to wasted effort. Finally, a series of five papers published in The Lancet offers 17 recommendations that outline the changes that should be made to current structures and systems<ref>Kupper JFH, Klaassen P, Rijnen MCJA, Vermeulen S, Broerse JEW. A catalogue of good RRI practices, RRI Tools deliverable 1.4. Athena Institute VU; 2015. Accessed June 9 2020. Available at: https://www.rri-tools.eu/about-rri</ref>.

RRI is not just about better science from a scientist’s point of view; it is a continuous effort to talk to diverse societal actors and involve them in the research process, through meaningful conversations and contributions beyond “just” being a participant<ref>We Thinq. 41 Inspiring Examples of Social Innovation; 2017. Accessed June 9 2020. Available at: https://www.wethinq.com/en/blog/2014/02/18/32-Inspiring-Examples-of-Social-Innovation.html</ref>. Various activities for bringing more awareness to research processes, such as science cafés or open lab days, are just a part of the framework<ref>Artheau M, Catalão C, Famà P, Praça G, Khodzhaeva A, Laursen S, Martinelli L, Stijnen G, Troncoso A, Vaaher L, van der Meij M. Responsible Research and Innovation. A quick start guide for science engagement organisations. Accessed June 9 2020. Available at: https://www.ecsite.eu/sites/default/files/quick_start_guide_in_rri.pdf</ref>. Collaboration with small enterprises and social innovators, as well as citizen scientists, is also a crucial part of RRI. It involves the improvement of science and society through mutual sharing of expertise and experiences.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Ec239bd6-d4db-48ab-bd6c-2f0d8cccf8ab;Resource:Afa63f10-4ff1-4bc6-98cf-95808f86376b
|Related To Theme=Theme:8f6d4690-d1b2-4b9a-ac68-84e41fdb6c74;Theme:34a864d0-43b3-48bc-aaa3-438dcc124c02;Theme:0bb5e4f7-9336-4ca8-92e3-c506413d1450
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=René Von Schomberg; Jack Stilgoe; Richard Owen; Phil Macnaghten; Frank Kupper; Ana Marušić
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Responsible research; Science Policy; Grant applications
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering
}}

Resource:3a79910d-2091-4ec4-9c6a-1f4cdad59b6f

2020-10-21T07:14:50Z

0000-0002-0037-4905: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=The Replication Crisis in Psychology |Is About=A brief overview of replicability definitions and examples of non-replicability cases in..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Replication Crisis in Psychology
|Is About=A brief overview of replicability definitions and examples of non-replicability cases in psychology, namely on priming and spatial distance cues research.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://nobaproject.com/modules/the-replication-crisis-in-psychology
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:7e07b7fa-793a-4282-a036-6fefe8480b3a
}}
{{Tags
|Related To Research Area=SH 04.05 - Social and clinical psychology
}}

Resource:E4786c73-290b-47f9-acac-2f73827f9c64

2020-10-21T07:11:35Z

0000-0002-0037-4905:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Other
|Title=Practical tools and strategies for researchers to increase replicability
|Is About=This paper briefly describes the replicability crisis in the field of psychology and suggests some 'practical tools and strategies that researchers can implement to increase replicability and the overall quality of their scientific research'.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dmcn.14054
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:7e07b7fa-793a-4282-a036-6fefe8480b3a
}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:E4786c73-290b-47f9-acac-2f73827f9c64

2020-10-21T07:11:19Z

0000-0002-0037-4905: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=Practical tools and strategies for researchers to increase replicability |Is About=This paper briefly describes the replicability c..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Practical tools and strategies for researchers to increase replicability
|Is About=This paper briefly describes the replicability crisis in the field of psychology and suggests some 'practical tools and strategies that researchers can implement to increase replicability and the overall quality of their scientific research'.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dmcn.14054
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:7e07b7fa-793a-4282-a036-6fefe8480b3a
}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:Fe538f2f-6b88-427d-8103-c8d671d63316

2020-10-21T07:07:14Z

0000-0002-0037-4905: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=Companion Guidelines on Replication & Reproducibility in Education Research: |Is About=This is a supplement to the Common Guideline..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Companion Guidelines on Replication & Reproducibility in Education Research:
|Is About=This is a supplement to the Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development, by the US National Science Foundation. It begins with 'a brief overview of the central role of replication in the advancement of science, including definitions of key terminology for the purpose of establishing a common understanding of the concepts'. It also addresses 'the challenges and implications of planning and conducting reproducibility and replication studies within education'.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2019/nsf19022/nsf19022.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:7e07b7fa-793a-4282-a036-6fefe8480b3a
}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:7e07b7fa-793a-4282-a036-6fefe8480b3a

2020-10-21T07:01:59Z

0000-0002-0037-4905: Created page with "{{Theme |Theme Type=Good Practices |Title=Replicability |Is About=Replicability or replication in science refers to being able to repeat findings of another experiment. Succes..."

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Replicability
|Is About=Replicability or replication in science refers to being able to repeat findings of another experiment. Successful replication supports the validity of a certain discovery, increases public trust in science and impacts public health.
|Important Because=Replication is of great importance to science, because science aims to discover laws of nature. Since such laws are permanent, experiments on which they are based should be infinitely replicable<ref>Broad CD. On the Relation between Induction and Probability (Part I.). Mind. 1918;27(108):389-404.</ref>. This concept is highly important to medicine. Being able to replicate, for example, an epidemiologic study to determine health effects of certain risk factors could build up existing scientific evidence and impact decision making that might affect the public health<ref>Peng, RD, Dominici F, Zeger SL. Reporoducible Epidemiologic Research. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(9):783-89.</ref>. Replicability also represents a direct public interest since science is significantly funded by public resources. If a study cannot be replicated, the money invested in it is wasted. It is estimated that annual costs of non-replicable preclinical research are approximately US$28 billion<ref>Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS. The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(6):e1002165.</ref>.

Replication can be divided into direct and conceptual<ref name=":0">Nosek BA, Errington TM. Making sense of replications. Elife. 2017;6:e23383.</ref>. Direct replication is an exact replication of an experiment and it ensures that the phenomenon is reproducible; however, it does not guarantee that the theory behind the phenomenon is true. Therefore, confirming the same results with a different methodology or a different experimental system adds more credibility to the proposed theory or model<ref name=":0" />. Nevertheless, we cannot expect that every experiment can be replicated down to the last detail, especially in psychology and medicine. We can always expect to see random deviation in the results and conclusions when conducting an independent experiment<ref>Bretz F, Maurer W, Xi D. Replicability, Reproducibility, and Multiplicity in Drug Development. Chance. 32(4):4-11. </ref>.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; PhD Students; Funders; Journal editors
|Has Best Practice=Some of the most common examples of replication failures come from drug discovery and development. Usually drugs are developed in several stages, beginning with cells and animal studies and ultimately advancing to human trials. Failures in both conceptual and direct replication are frequent in this branch of science. Conceptual failure, for example, can occur when testing a drug that has promising action in animals for the first time in humans<ref>Bracken MB. Why animal studies are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure. JRSM. 2009;102(3):120-22.</ref><ref>The Conversation. Of mice and men: why animal trial results don't always translate to humans. 2017 Aug 29. [cited 2020 June 12]. Available from: <nowiki>https://theconversation.com/of-mice-and-men-why-animal-trial-results-dont-always-translate-to-humans-73354</nowiki></ref>, whereas a direct replication failure might occur when testing the same drug on a similar group of people<ref>Ioannidis JPA. Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research. JAMA. 2005;294(2):218-228.</ref>. Since successful replications enhance public trust in science and medicine, the increasing number of non-replicable studies in various disciplines, mainly psychology, have resulted in what has been described as a “replication crisis” and raised serious concerns<ref>Diener E, Biswas-Diener R. NOBA: The replication crisis in psychology. 2020. [cited 2020 June 12]. Available from: <nowiki>https://nobaproject.com/modules/the-replication-crisis-in-psychology</nowiki></ref>. A study conducted by a team of 270 scientists at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville showed that only 35 of 100 studies published in one of the prominent psychology journals in 2008 could be replicated<ref>Raloff J. ScienceNewsforStudents: When a study can't be replicated. 2015 Sep 11. [cited 2020 June 12]. Available from: <nowiki>https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/when-study-cant-be-replicated</nowiki></ref>. Some argue however that there is no such thing as a “replication crisis”; moreover, sometimes the “non-replicability” could be helpful to science<ref name=":0">Miceli S. Reproducibility and Replicability in Research. The National Academies In Focus. 2019;18(1):12-14. </ref>.

If replication fails, it does not necessarily mean that the original result of the experiment which is being replicated is false. It indicates some unknown factors are different in the replication experiment vs. the original experiment and an attempt should be made to investigate these <ref name=":0" /><ref>Nosek BA, Errington TM. Making sense of replications. Elife. 2017;6:e23383.</ref>. If such factors are found (either of a technical or knowledge domain specific nature) they can substantially improve the understanding of the phenomena being studied.

In the last few years, leading scientific institutions in the United States have taken some steps to improve replicability. In 2014, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided training modules for postdoctoral fellows and a list of publications regarding replicability on their website, and emphasized addressing transparency in grant applications<ref>Lofgren K. Replicability in Clinical Research. NBER-IFS International Network on the Value of Medical Research White Paper. 2018 Nov 13. [cited 2020 June 16]. Available from: <nowiki>http://www.nber.org/aging/valmed/WhitePaper-Lofgren11.2018.pdf</nowiki></ref>. The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) have published Companion Guidelines on Replication and Reproducibility in Education Research in 2018. The guidelines suggest several actions to enhance replicability. For example, proposals for replication studies should guarantee objectivity, pre-registration of the research design and methods should ensure transparency, research should be described in detail, and all research data should be publically available<ref>Companion Guidelines on Replication & Reproducibility in Education Research. A Supplement to the ''Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development''. A Report from the National Science Foundation and The Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 2018 Nov 28. [cited 2020 June 16]. Available from:

<nowiki>https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2019/nsf19022/nsf19022.pdf</nowiki></ref>. Taking these important steps calls for a significant culture shift so that accuracy in research would be valued more than swiftness<ref>ATTC. Reproducibility is broken and scientists are paying the price. [cited 2020 June 15]. Available from: <nowiki>https://www.lgcstandards-atcc.org/~/media/PDFs/Marketing%20Material/Reproducibility/Reproducibility%20Infographic.ashx</nowiki></ref>.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Brian Nosek; Michèle B Nuijten; Edward Diener; John Ioannidis
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Accountability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer Review; Pre-registrations; Collaborative research; Data Management
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities; LS - Life Sciences
}}

Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34

2020-08-11T08:47:36Z

0000-0002-0037-4905:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Moral conflict and moral dilemma
|Is About=A moral conflict is a situation in which a person has two moral obligations, which cannot be met both at once. Behind these obligations lie conflicting values. Sometimes, the conflict can be resolved to the full satisfaction of the different parties involved, i.e. without leaving behind any regrettable remainder or residue. A moral dilemma is an irresolvable moral conflict, i.e. no fully satisfactory resolution is possible since all possible options for action leave behind a remainder that does not cease to be morally binding.
|Important Because=Research integrity can involve a situation of moral conflict. This means that two courses of action are possible, which exclude one another. If one goes for one action, the alternative cannot be realized. Moreover, one has to choose between both actions; a third option, such as not making a choice, is not possible. An example is the choice between adding a person as an author to an article or not. There is no third option: either the person is made author, or not.

A moral conflict implies two conflicting values. In the case of authorship, these values might be gratitude (for a – albeit small - contribution) versus righteousness (acting in line with the authorship guidelines). Sometimes, moral conflicts can be resolved because one of the values clearly overrides the other. Thus, from a research integrity perspective, authorship requirements are more important than gratitude. In order to do justice to the value of gratitude, the person can be mentioned in an acknowledgement.

However, there are examples of situations in research where conflicts can be irresolvable, because the person who has to choose feels the obligation to do justice to two incompatible values. In such cases, one is confronted with a moral dilemma .<ref>Tessman, L. (2017). When doing the right thing is impossible. Oxford, New York: OUP</ref> <ref>Nussbaum M (1986). The fragility of goodness. OIxford: Oxford University Press</ref> A moral dilemma is a conflict situation in which the choice one makes causes a moral harm, which cannot be restlessly repaired. Take the example of how to respond when a fellow researcher needs help, but refuses your assistance. In light of the value of care, you should at least try to convince them that support is needed. On the other hand, the value of autonomy might indicate that you should not impose yourself upon them. Whatever you decide to do, you do harm to one of the two values involved. If you choose to try and get them to accept support, they might feel being treated as an incompetent researcher. If you choose to let go, they might get in serious difficulty with their research.
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Researchers; Supervisors; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=Reflection on moral conflicts, and especially on moral dilemmas, is an important element of responsible research practice. Take for example Phase I trials that involve novel therapies for patients (so-called First-In-Human (FIH) Trials). <ref>Solbakk JH, Zoloth L. The Tragedy of Translation: The Case of ‘‘First Use’’in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Cell Stem Cell, 2011, 8: 479-481.</ref> These trials involve a high degree of uncertainty in intervention development and possible outcomes. Although this step, hopefully, in turn, will make a Phase-III clinical trial in compliance with the basic epistemological and ethical requirement of therapeutic trials possible, it is a fact that so far no widely accepted standards for judgments of uncertainty, safety, and value of FIH trials have yet been formulated. Consequently, no selection of patients to be included in such trials can be said to be fully satisfactory, i.e. without the possibility of moral failure. Through acknowledging the possible existence of irresolvable moral conflicts in research, researchers will learn modesty, and thereby also protect themselves from being infected by the vice of ''hybris''.

Reflection on moral dilemmas can be fostered by organizing Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). <ref>Stolper M., Molewijk B., Widdershoven G. (2016). Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. BMC Medical Ethics, https://doi.org/10.1186 (0)6 -016 25 -0125 -1</ref> In MCD, a morally troublesome situation is investigated by a group, guided by a facilitator. During the investigation, the conflicting values in the situation are examined in dialogue. This enables participants to become aware of, and reflect on the moral conflict involved. MCD specifically focuses on moral conflicts that cannot be restlessly solved, that is on moral dilemmas. The aim is to investigate different values of stakeholders in practice, and become aware that in making a choice, certain values will be harmed. This may result in the awareness that, although a choice is unavoidable, one should be open to the negative consequences of and take responsibility for them.
<references />
|Has Detail=Contributors: Jan-Helge Solbakk and Guy Widdershoven
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Fa27f5f7-b2cd-43b3-83df-892fc20d948b;Resource:313feb13-82bc-4489-be7a-387d3415c427
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Conscientiousness; Collegiality; Fairness; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Balancing Harm and Benefits
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}

Resource:B30e564a-f990-459a-9d0c-b73cb18cc0d8

2020-08-11T08:28:36Z

0000-0002-0037-4905:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=LIRIcs - Leuven Institutional Research Integrity culture and self-reflection on-line course
|Is About=This online course aims to "provide researchers with a better understanding of their obligations and responsibilities, along with practical advice on how to deal with the complex situations in which they may find themselves". It consists of five modules, and has five discipline oriented versions. This course is only accessible for researchers at the KU Leuven.
|Important For=Junior researchers; Senior researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.kuleuven.be/english/research/integrity/training/lirics
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=KU Leuven
|Has Location=Belgium
|Has Virtue And Value=Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=planning; Research with Humans; Research with Animals; Conflict of interest; data collection, storage and interpretation; record-keeping; Collaborative research; Authorship; Peer Review; p; Plagiarism; Research Impact; advocacy and dealing with media; sharing
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering
}}

Resource:D6170c22-aacb-43e4-9c65-54c204505c42

2020-05-13T08:19:12Z

0000-0002-0037-4905:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=ORI introduction to RCR
|Is About=This book provides introduction to responsible conduct of research, by discussing both different topics from RCR as well as providing different cases. Some of the topics covered include research misconduct, research planing, work with laboratory animals, conflict of interest, data management, mentor and trainee roles, as well as authorship and peer review. The book ends with possible reasons and obstacles to responsible conduct of research.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; PhD Students; Early career researchers; Junior researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ori.hhs.gov/ori-introduction-responsible-conduct-research
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ORI
|Has Timepoint=2007
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; accuracy; Objectivity
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research misconduct; Questionable research practice; Fabrication; Falsification; Plagiarism; Mentor/trainee relationship; Research with Animals; Research with Humans; Data management; Work environment; Authorship; Peer review; Social responsibilities; Conflict of interest
|Related To Research Area=Biomedical Sciences; SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}