The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Theme:30b4cf4f-e284-4837-ac3d-0a75fab9060a

2021-10-07T11:40:56Z

0000-0002-0118-3115: Created page with "{{Theme |Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors |Has Parent Theme=Theme:85c71a25-b26a-4631-9620-05a9a84e3fd3 |Title=Honorary or gift authorship |Is About=Honorary authorship and..."

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:85c71a25-b26a-4631-9620-05a9a84e3fd3
|Title=Honorary or gift authorship
|Is About=Honorary authorship and gift authorship are two types of authorship frauds in research. Both honorary and gift authorship refers to assigning authorship to those who have not contributed significantly to study but are named authors for other reasons, such as enhanced funding and publication opportunities.
|Important Because=Authorship has important academic implications and authors are accountable for published research <ref>International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html</ref>. Research showed that naming as authors those who have not contributed significantly to the study is considered one of the most prevalent types of authorship frauds <ref>Reisig, M. D., Holtfreter, K., & Berzofsky, M. E. (2020). Assessing the perceived prevalence of research fraud among faculty at research-intensive universities in the USA. ''Accountability in research'', ''27''(7), 457–475. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1772060</nowiki></ref>. Honorary authorship is often related to established or famous senior researchers who are named authors just because they hold senior positions and can help junior or less established researchers obtain funding or enhance chances for publications, awards, and recognition in the research community. It is considered that honorary authorship is often given with the recipient’s knowledge or even asked or demanded by recipients <ref name=":0">Dalmeet Singh Chawla (2020) The gift of paper authorship, Nature index. Available from: https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/gift-ghost-authorship-what-researchers-need-to-know</ref>. This is especially an issue for junior researchers who may feel pressured to assign authorship to senior researchers or feel they own authorship in return for their advice or help <ref name=":0" /><ref>Harvey L. A. (2018) Gift, honorary or guest authorship, ''Spinal cord'', ''56''(2): 91. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-017-0057-8</nowiki></ref>. Similarly, the gift authorship usually includes researchers adding one another as co-authors regardless of contributions to the study to enhance their publication profile and spread collaborative networks. In many cases, this type of authorship fraud leads to a false representation of research skills and expertise, which gives these researchers an unfair advantage in competing for career opportunities and awards <ref>Zaki S. A. (2011). Gift authorship - A cause for concern. ''Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society'', ''28''(3), 232–233. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-2113.83994</nowiki></ref>.
|Important For=Early career researchers; Collaborating researchers; Editors; Researchers
|Has Best Practice=The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides recommendations for defining the roles of authors and contributors. The ICMJE recommends the four main criteria that should be taken into account for authorship. These criteria include a) substantial contribution related to the study design, data collection, data analysis, and data interpretation, and b) drafting and critically revising the work, and c) approval for the final version for publication, and d) accountability for all aspects of the work, including its integrity <ref>International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html</ref>. The ICMJE emphasizes that those who meet all four criteria should be assigned as authors and provides guidance for acknowledging those who do not meet all of the above-mentioned criteria but still contributed to the study and whose contribution should be acknowledged. The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) is another example of guidance for avoiding authorship malpractices and disputes <ref>Allen, L., O’Connell, A. and Kiermer, V. (2019), How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship. Learned Publishing, 32: 71-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1210</ref>. CRediT statement contains 14 items related to the authors’ contributions. For example, some of the items included in the statement are the authors’ contributions in conceptualization, methodology, analysis, writing and editing the manuscript, visualization, supervision, etc. Many publishers have already adopted the CRediT taxonomy and encourage authors to use it when providing authors contributions during the manuscript submission process <ref>CASRAI. CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy. Available from: https://casrai.org/credit/</ref>.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:C00f07c4-5133-4401-98f9-19342244dac6;Resource:61f44cd9-2af8-4d7f-847f-fab921b82c84;Resource:Bd14691f-14aa-4435-aa0b-5655c996cbcc;Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:Ca2a0f39-51f6-4ab4-8dbd-7b446369228b
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:540f8241-c354-4249-8b63-6bdc2e74bdf8;Theme:783ea7a3-ab76-4622-a968-eb8c3efa7893;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Collaborative spirit; Collegiality; Credibility; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Authorship and Contribution; Authorship assignement; Authorship criteria
}}

Theme:34a864d0-43b3-48bc-aaa3-438dcc124c02

2021-02-05T13:52:32Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Research integrity training for PhD students
|Is About=Research integrity training is an essential step at the beginning of every researcher’s career. <ref>Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR, Ronning EA, De Vries R, Martinson BC. What Do Mentoring and Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research Have To Do with Scientists’ Misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-Funded Scientists. Academic Medicine. 2007;82(9):853-60.</ref> As more and more emphasis is put on research integrity and research ethics, the logical step is to start cultivating knowledge about good research practices at the earliest stage of a researcher’s career. Training on how to adhere to practices for fostering research integrity, is vital for creating a better science and research culture.
<references />
|Important Because=Today, research integrity training is implemented in the curriculum of many doctoral schools as an obligatory part of postgraduate education. Alternatively, it is provided by independent research integrity bodies. Either way, the courses have the same important goal, and that is to teach young researchers how to adhere to research integrity practices and avoid involvement in research misconduct. Training on research integrity provides PhD students with knowledge of the principles of good research practice and how to foster them in their research work. Much emphasis is put on research misconduct, both on serious violations (fabrication, falsification and plagiarism), and detrimental research practices.<ref>Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR, Ronning EA, De Vries R, Martinson BC. What Do Mentoring and Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research Have To Do with Scientists’ Misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-Funded Scientists. Academic Medicine. 2007;82(9):853-60.</ref> Besides the theoretical part, trainings also educate on practices of a more administrative nature, e.g., how to apply to obtain ethics committee approval or how to report a case of research misconduct.
<references />
|Important For=PhD students; Early career researchers; Research integrity trainers; Trainers in training
|Has Best Practice=The regulation of research integrity training for PhD students varies among countries. Some countries oblige RI training at postgraduate level in their national codes, like Denmark in the Danish code of conduct for research integrity. <ref>Ministry of Higer Education and Science. Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. 2014. Accessed May 24 2019. Available at: <nowiki>https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2014/files-2014-1/the-danish-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity.pdf</nowiki></ref> This code states that research integrity training must be provided by higher education institutions. Similarly, in France the Ministry of Education declared that all PhD students must be trained in research integrity and research ethics before defending their thesis. In some countries, training is provided by both universities and independent research integrity institutions. An example of the latter is Luxembourg where training for PhD students on research ethics and principles of good research practice, is conducted by the University of Luxembourg while the LARI (Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity), an independent body, offers training for researchers from all career stages. How the training is conducted also differs. LARI offers highly interactive, face to face training, combining traditional and creative methods while the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK), for example, provides online courses.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:7f3a037e-4720-4564-ae17-e6a2a92adac5;Resource:4dd7fa3a-08fd-4a97-a5e4-1ca38a584d8b;Resource:8d1cf090-4db3-4305-a869-4604d8f56b45;Resource:47bfd883-c518-4a97-98fb-86b5cf442d3e
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Reliability; Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Funders’ responsibilities; Institutional responsibilities
}}

Theme:9ce65544-f86a-4ee4-a4e7-f9bd7fec4f1c

2021-02-05T13:49:59Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=Connecting researchers through ORCID
|Is About=The ORCID acronym stands for Open Researcher and Contributor Identification. An ORCID identifier helps to connect individual researchers with their work. ORCID is a non-profit organization established and introduced in 2009 in the US. As well as individual researchers, the ORCID community includes universities, laboratories, research companies, funders, publishers, repositories and professional societies.<ref>Distinguish yourself in three easy steps. ORCID website. Available at: https://orcid.org/. </ref>.
<references />
|Important Because=As a researcher, it is essential to distinguish your work from that of others, not just because publications are valuable for your career, but also because each contribution should be recognized appropriately, fairly and transparently. This is important as sometimes it can be quite challenging to identify authors’ contributions due to long authorship lists, inconsistencies in authorship credit practices, name ambiguities or because a surname has changed.<ref>Granshaw IS. Research Identifiers: ORCID, DOI, and the issue with Wang and Smith. The Photogrammetric Record. 2019; 34(167):236-243.</ref> An ORCID identifier is a great way to make sure your contribution as an author is recognized and linked to your research profile. In addition, an ORCID identifier can be used to connect researchers with their data sets.<ref>Credit where credit is due. Nature. 2009; 462(7275):825. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/462825a#citeas</ref>
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Researchers; Research institutions; Funders; Publishers
|Has Best Practice=In 2012, ORCID launched their Registry as a result of which researchers could be assigned unique identifiers, a 16-character code compiled of numbers 0-9, and thus distinguish themselves from other researchers. In 2019, there are more than 7 million ORCID accounts<ref>ORCID Statistics. ORCID website. Available at: https://orcid.org/statistics</ref> registered to individual researchers, universities, scientific publishers and commercial companies. <ref>ORCID sponsors. ORCID website. Available at: https://orcid.org/about/community/sponsors.</ref> Increasingly, funding organisations are requiring that their applicants provide their ORCID identifier.
<references />
|Is Flagged=No
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd

2021-02-05T13:47:50Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
|Title=Research Integrity Committees
|Is About=Research integrity (RI) committees contribute to the responsible research conduct as the basis of research behavior, and play a role in dealing with cases of research misconduct and fostering research integrity among different research institutions. <ref>National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Research integrity committees usually serve as a base of knowledge for questions regarding research integrity and research misconduct. The importance of the RI committee lies in its responsibility in promoting research integrity, i.e. providing advice for researchers on how to adhere to the responsible conduct of research. This is usually done by guidelines, checklists and other documents in which good research practices are presented. Moreover, RI committees are responsible for dealing with cases of research misconduct and they should be notified if an alleged case of research misconduct has occurred. By performing these actions, RI committees contribute to better science and the prevention of research misconduct.
|Important For=phd students; Researchers; Research institutions; Supervisors; Postdocs; Universities; funders; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=The organizational structures of RI committees and their responsibilities regarding cases of research misconduct may vary. In some countries, RI committees (or commissions) are established at the national level, hence their responsibility is to handle cases of research misconduct, or serve as an advisory body, for all research institutions within state borders (e.g. National Commission for Research Integrity-Luxembourg, Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, Danish Committee on Research Misconduct (DCRM), Commission for Research Integrity-Austria, French Office for Scientific Integrity, Netherlands Board on Research Integrity). For example, the Danish law on research misconduct stipulates the responsibility of the DCRM to handle the cases of research misconduct, while each institution has a responsibility to process cases of questionable research practices.

Some RI committees are established as a part of research integrity organisations, providing training and other educational activities for researchers (e.g. the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity, the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity).

In some countries, dealing with cases of research misconduct is the responsibility of research institutions and institution-based committees as there is no national body to handle investigations and process cases of misconduct. An example of the latter is Sweden, where each research institution is responsible for conducting an investigation of research misconduct and to impose a sanction.

All these RI bodies, both at the national and institutional level, are doing important work in the field of research integrity promotion and guiding researchers with the principles of good scientific practices. There are numerous documents, issued by RI bodies and committees in the form of guidelines and checklist, as well as documents describing committees’ procedures when dealing with misconduct allegations. Some European examples are: Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity, FNR Research Integrity Guidelines, Guidelines for the Investigation of Misconduct (by the Irish National Forum), Roadmap for Scientific Integrity 2020 (OFIS), Integrity and responsibility in research practices (CNRS-CPU), Scientific integrity guideline(CNRS), TENK Guidelines.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:0bae8e4a-a4be-4f3f-89f2-65a3b8cc3395;Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434
|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Good stewardship
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research Integrity
}}

Theme:8f6d4690-d1b2-4b9a-ac68-84e41fdb6c74

2021-02-05T13:46:13Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
|Title=Research Integrity Advisors
|Is About=Research integrity advisors have a significant role in promoting research integrity within their institutions. If you have any concerns regarding research integrity issues, or you simply need a piece of advice on research integrity, RI advisors will promptly answer all your question and clear up possible doubts.
|Important Because=Research integrity advisors (RIAs) are responsible for providing advice on matters related to research integrity. Whether you are in the early stage of your research career, or you are senior researcher, it is good to know there is someone who can answer you the questions related to research integrity and research misconduct. They usually do not have investigative roles, but they can definitely be a good stop for advice on how to proceed in a specific case.
|Important For=PhD students; Early career researchers; Junior researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=Research integrity advisors are experienced researchers with in-depth knowledge of research integrity and research ethics. They are appointed by the university to serve the complex role of dealing with all sort of questions related to research integrity practices, procedures, and issues.

For example, in Australia, universities have established research integrity advisors’ teams to assist researchers and research students in conducting research with integrity and advise them on questions that may arise during the research process. If you are not sure who to talk with, the universities web pages contain lists of RIAs and guidance on when to approach to an advisor. <ref>Macquarie University. Research Integrity Advisors. Accessed May 24 2019. Available at: https://www.mq.edu.au/research/ethics-integrity-and-policies/research-integrity/research-integrity-advisors</ref> At Melbourne University, RIAs also have a responsibility to report alleged cases of research misconduct to authorized bodies. <ref>The University of Melbourne. Research Integrity Advisors (RIAs). Accessed May 24 2019. Available at: https://staff.unimelb.edu.au/research/ethics-integrity/research-integrity/contacts/research-integrity-advisors</ref>

In Europe, for example, in Denmark, some Danish research institutions (e.g., Aarhus University) have special advisors for supporting the good scientific practice. <ref>Melbourne University page on Advisers https://medarbejdere.au.dk/en/administration/researchandtalent/responsible-conduct-of-research/advisers/</ref> Moreover, LARI (Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity) provides research ethics consultations to researchers of all levels. While LARI advisors are not officially called RI advisors, they still have a similar role. <ref>LARi research ethics consultation. Accessed via https://lari.lu/lari-services/resethics-consultation/</ref>
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
|Related To Theme=Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab;Theme:Fe62e07c-2e75-4a55-82e6-1908fa543b7a;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Institutional responsibilities
}}

Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b

2021-02-05T13:44:00Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Initiatives promoting research integrity
|Is About=An increasing focus on Research integrity (RI) has provided the impetus for numerous initiatives aimed at fostering good research practice and building public trust in science. These initiatives take various forms, such as codes, guidelines, recommendations, training sessions and workshops. <ref>Marusic A, Wager E, Utrobicic A, Rothstein HR, Sambunjak D. Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016(4);MR000038.</ref> Developed by various institutions and groups, including research performing and research funding institutions, as well as journals and governmental bodies, initiatives to promote RI help researchers to become aware of, and to adhere to, good scientific practices.
<references />
|Important Because=Initiatives for the promotion of research integrity have a number of aims. First, to help train and educate young researchers and students in how to adhere to ethical research practices so that they can contribute to an honest and open research culture. But initiatives are not only focused on young researchers, they are also valuable for senior researchers when it comes to supervising or teaching research integrity. Initiatives help researchers recognize bad research practices, but they also help institutions in guidance when dealing with cases of misconduct. Their impact and development are not limited to research performing organizations only. Some journals and funders have recognized the importance of building a research integrity culture and starting initiatives for research integrity promotion. <ref>Steneck NH. Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Sci Eng Ethics. 2006;12(1):53-74.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=In the United States, the Office for Research Integrity (ORI) is developing policies, procedures, and regulations related to the responsible conduct of research and research misconduct. Moreover, ORI develops activities and programs aimed to promote research integrity and foster good research practices.

In Europe, the [https://lari.lu/ Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity] and [https://oeawi.at/en/ Austrian Agency for Research Integrity] are good examples of institutions providing all kind of resources for the promotion of research integrity. These organizations have developed guidelines and recommendations that are implemented by research institutions in their countries. Moreover, they offer training and workshops for researchers in different stages of their career and deal with cases of research misconduct.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:11ec8d68-7372-4dc9-936c-43f263aacdc2;Resource:91c45880-ddbe-4c96-a95d-6f140b463b96;Resource:60bf1373-f7e1-4831-b3e9-cf6e60cc290f
|Related To Theme=Theme:3c6a13ad-6861-4a5f-bf5b-491693ee6b6d;Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1;Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:721dc5c7-8e47-41ca-a7b8-73d6a225c3c3
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering; LS - Life Sciences
}}

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

2021-02-05T13:41:08Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:2268825c-a874-4dd7-b302-4af6b0e55b36
|Title=The Dilemma Game
|Is About=The Rotterdam dilemma game is an engaging tool for raising awareness of research integrity and professionalism among researchers in different stages of their careers. It was developed as an initiative of the Erasmus University Rotterdam Taskforce on Scientific Integrity. The game presents various cases involving moral conflicts encountered in research practice and players have to vote on the course of action they would take. The game can help to initiate discussions about research integrity and research culture. The Dilemma game can be played as a card game or be downloaded as a mobile app (see below). The game has been widely used for training purposes in research integrity in a variety of organizations.

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

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

'''Dilemma game app'''

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

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

Theme:177ca35b-14f3-4f62-8bb2-f9cf9db28a70

2020-08-15T19:40:57Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a
|Title=Supervision Guidelines
|Is About=Supervision guidelines concern good practises of how undergraduate and doctoral students should be supervised by a senior researchers.
|Important Because=Supervision by a senior researcher is typically important for the development of any junior researcher. Having a healthy relationship with a supervisor is therefore important. Good guidelines help avoid potential conflicts between supervisor and supervisee.
|Important For=PhD Students; Students; Supervisors; Postdocs; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=The European Code of Conduct (2017) specifies that training is necessary for researchers to improve supervision and mentoring.<ref>1. European Science Foundation, All European Academies. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. 2017.</ref> Please click [https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity#entry:29:url here] for the European Code of Conduct.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:0d7e30ee-699a-43ac-a653-7352844bb9b1;Resource:7fcb92c2-8d04-4106-875f-166af054c161;Resource:8bc7c681-66af-4ab9-b2f2-c21fe2744817
|Related To Theme=Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a;Theme:177ca35b-14f3-4f62-8bb2-f9cf9db28a70
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Reliability; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Institutional responsibilities; Work environment; Mentor/trainee relationship
}}

Theme:7d205500-e939-49cf-9a5c-06489919c52a

2020-08-15T19:37:01Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:8453f98b-244e-4147-9268-504afbe9d878
|Title=Journal Impact Factor
|Is About=A journal’s ‘Impact Factor’ (IF) gives an indication of journal influence. The IF is a measure of the number of citations divided by the number of published articles in a journal. <ref>Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Jama. 2006;295(1):90-3.</ref>It is calculated for an entire year, taking into account number of citations of the articles published in the last two years, and divided with a number of publications in last two years. For example, the 2018 IF of a journal reflects the number of times the articles published in the journal in 2016 and 2017 were cited, divided by the number of articles actually published in the journal in 2016 and 2017.
<references />
|Important Because=Impact factors are important because they provide a measure of quality of a scientific journal. <ref>Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Jama. 2006;295(1):90-3.</ref> The idea is that journals with higher IFs are read more frequently, have more of an impact within a field, and are of higher quality. They are also important because some academic institutions ask for publications in journals with high IFs for acquiring a PhD or advancement. <ref>Casadevall A, Fang FC. Impacted science: impact is not importance: MBio. 2015 Oct 13;6(5):e01593-15. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01593-15. eCollection 2015 Sep-Oct.</ref>Journal IFs are calculated each year by Thomson Scientific and published by Journal Citation Reports.

Impact factors, however, can be manipulated. Examples of practices that influence IF are self and cartel citations, limitations of citable items, acceptance of more review articles. <ref>Sharma M, Sarin A, Gupta P, Sachdeva S, Desai AV. Journal impact factor: its use, significance and limitations. World J Nucl Med. 2014;13(2):1450-147.</ref> Self-citation is a practice of citing one’s own work, to artificially increase a number of citations. Citation cartel is a practice of mutual citing between journals to increase their IF. <ref>Fister I, Perc M. Toward the Discovery of Citation Cartels in Citation Networks. Frontiers in Physics. 2016;4(49).</ref> Editors can also insist that newly submitted manuscripts cite some of the works already published in that journals. Journals can limit a number of citable items, and not include them in the IF analysis. For example, letter to editor is a type of publication that is often referenced, and journals get the citation. But if it’s not included in the citable items, it could increase the IF. Journals can also choose to accept more review articles, which are often cited more, and can increase their IF that way.

It’s also important to note that it takes at least three years to calculate IF of the journal, and IF cannot be calculated for new journals. Because of all this, IF should be used cautiously when determining the quality of a journal, and other bibliometric data should be considered before making the final decision. <ref>Ioannidis JP, Boyack KW, Small H, Sorensen AA, Klavans R. Bibliometrics: Is your most cited work your best? Nature. 2014;514(7524):561-2.</ref><ref>Time to remodel the journal impact factor: Nature. 2016 Jul 28;535(7613):466. doi: 10.1038/535466a.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Scientists; Researchers; PhD students
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331;Resource:8be5a9b1-1c66-4659-b175-ca1e8df61047
|Related To Theme=Theme:B84659ea-3fc8-4c93-86cf-6aa4db253ad4;Theme:74cc5c52-3073-4fef-8307-34a76326d665;Theme:590b79a4-ab28-44a4-b090-7be5e20a72ad
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication ethics; Citing
}}

Resource:B3b97816-3fb6-4ab6-96c4-5ca21973be99

2020-08-15T19:31:30Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
|Is About=The Code aims to ensure credibility, integrity and thereby quality in Danish research through common principles and standards for responsible conduct of research. The Code is aimed at both public and private research institutions, including universities, the research council system, foundations and enterprises. It is a common framework meant to be implemented and developed across all research fields.
|Important Because=Research and research-based education is of central and increasing importance in developing society’s knowledge base, increasing welfare and providing informed answers to local and global challenges.
|Important For=researchers; Research institutions
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2014/the-danish-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science
|Has Timepoint=2014
|Has Location=Denmark; Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability; Transparency
}}

Resource:B3b97816-3fb6-4ab6-96c4-5ca21973be99

2020-08-15T19:30:59Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
|Is About=The Code aims to ensure credibility, integrity and thereby quality in Danish research through common principles and standards for responsible conduct of research. The Code is aimed at both public and private research institutions, including universities, the research council system, foundations and enterprises. It is a common framework meant to be implemented and developed across all research fields.
|Important Because=Research and research-based education is of central and increasing importance in developing society’s knowledge base, increasing welfare and providing informed answers to local and global challenges.
|Important For=researchers; All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2014/the-danish-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science
|Has Timepoint=2014
|Has Location=Denmark; Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability; Transparency
}}

Resource:C37b2d3c-bd0c-443f-a646-cd814c8ee4af

2020-08-15T19:20:13Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Administrators and Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)
|Is About=This is an online tutorial for administrative staff which contains modules in five instructional areas: conflict of interest, financial management, mentor-trainee responsibilities, collaborative research and data management.
|Important Because=Research administrators have an important role in promoting research integrity and bringing solutions to problems and conflicts. For accomplishing this work, administrators need to have a set of skills and knowledge which are presented in this module.
|Important For=Administrators
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/rcradmin/index.html
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Boston college
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Good stewardship; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest; Financial responsibilities; Mentor/trainee relationship; Collaborative research; Data management
}}

Resource:Adad1721-62c8-46fd-83f9-617770437d90

2020-08-15T19:06:19Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Philosopher Earns 14th Retraction for Plagiarism
|Is About=This case is about a philosophy professor at the University of Leuven, who had 14 retractions. One of the plagiarised articles was spotted by another researcher from the same research area who then notified the journal on this issue. In 2010 an investigation conducted at the University of Leuven found that philosophy professor has indeed committed plagiarism. Upon the inquiry K.U. Leuven notified the journal editors about the results of the investigation and stated that plagiarised work is no longer considered as the scientific output of the university as well as that professor has resigned<ref>Shannon Palus. Philosopher earns 14th retraction for plagiarism. Retraction Watch. 2016.</ref>.
<references />
|Important Because=This case shows an example of how the research organisations could address research misconduct cases and how journals address these cases.
|Important For=Researchers; Editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/08/philosopher-earns-13th-retraction-for-plagiarism/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Retraction Watch
|Has Timepoint=2010
|Has Location=Belgium; University of Leuven
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Springer Retractions; Wiley Retractions
|Related To Research Area=Philosophy, ethics and religion
}}

Resource:Adad1721-62c8-46fd-83f9-617770437d90

2020-08-15T19:03:34Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Philosopher Earns 14th Retraction for Plagiarism
|Is About=This case is about a philosophy professor at the University of Leuven, who had 14 retractions. One of the plagiarised articles was spotted by another researcher from the same research area who then notified the journal on this issue. In 2010 an investigation conducted at the University of Leuven found that philosophy professor has indeed committed plagiarism. Upon the inquiry K.U. Leuven notified the journal editors about the results of the investigation and stated that plagiarised work is no longer considered as the scientific output of the university as well as that professor has resigned<ref>Shannon Palus. Philosopher earns 14th retraction for plagiarism. Retraction Watch. 2016.</ref>.
|Important Because=This case shows an example of how the research organisations could address research misconduct cases and how journals address these cases.
|Important For=Researchers; Editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/08/philosopher-earns-13th-retraction-for-plagiarism/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Retraction Watch
|Has Timepoint=2010
|Has Location=Belgium; University of Leuven
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Springer Retractions; Wiley Retractions
|Related To Research Area=Philosophy, ethics and religion
}}

Resource:Adad1721-62c8-46fd-83f9-617770437d90

2020-08-15T18:59:15Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Philosopher Earns 14th Retraction for Plagiarism
|Is About=This case is about a philosophy professor at the University of Leuven, who had 14 retractions. One of the plagiarised articles was spotted by another researcher from the same research area who then notified the journal on this issue. In 2010 an investigation conducted at the University of Leuven found that philosophy professor has indeed committed plagiarism. Upon the inquiry K.U. Leuven notified the journal editors about the results of the investigation and stated that plagiarised work is no longer considered as the scientific output of the university as well as that professor has resigned.
|Important Because=This case shows an example of how the research organisations could address research misconduct cases and how journals address these cases.
|Important For=Researchers; Editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/08/philosopher-earns-13th-retraction-for-plagiarism/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Retraction Watch
|Has Timepoint=2010
|Has Location=Belgium; University of Leuven
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Springer Retractions; Wiley Retractions
|Related To Research Area=Philosophy, ethics and religion
}}

Resource:Adad1721-62c8-46fd-83f9-617770437d90

2020-08-15T18:55:26Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Philosopher Earns 14th Retraction for Plagiarism
|Is About=This case is about a philosophy professor at the University of Leuven, who had 14 retractions[[Resource:Adad1721-62c8-46fd-83f9-617770437d90#cite%20note-1|[1]]]. One of the plagiarised articles was spotted by another researcher from the same research area who then notified the journal on this issue. In 2010 an investigation conducted at the University of Leuven found that philosophy professor has indeed committed plagiarism. Upon the inquiry K.U. Leuven notified the journal editors about the results of the investigation and stated that plagiarised work is no longer considered as the scientific output of the university as well as that professor has resigned.
|Important Because=This case shows an example of how the research organisations could address research misconduct cases and how journals address these cases.
|Important For=Researchers; Editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/08/philosopher-earns-13th-retraction-for-plagiarism/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Retraction Watch
|Has Timepoint=2010
|Has Location=Belgium; University of Leuven
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Springer Retractions; Wiley Retractions
|Related To Research Area=Philosophy, ethics and religion
}}

Resource:Adad1721-62c8-46fd-83f9-617770437d90

2020-08-15T18:52:00Z

0000-0002-0118-3115:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Philosopher Earns 14th Retraction for Plagiarism
|Is About=This case is about a philosophy professor at the University of Leuven, who had 14 retractions[[Resource:Adad1721-62c8-46fd-83f9-617770437d90#cite%20note-1|[1]]]. One of the plagiarised articles was spotted by another researcher from the same research area who then notified the journal on this issue. In 2010 an investigation conducted at the University of Leuven found that philosophy professor has indeed committed plagiarism. Upon the inquiry K.U. Leuven notified the journal editors about the results of the investigation and stated that plagiarised work is no longer considered as the scientific output of the university as well as that professor has resigned.

<references />
|Important Because=This case shows an example of how the research organisations could address research misconduct cases and how journals address these cases.
|Important For=Researchers; Editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/08/philosopher-earns-13th-retraction-for-plagiarism/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Retraction Watch
|Has Timepoint=2010
|Has Location=Belgium; University of Leuven
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Springer Retractions; Wiley Retractions
|Related To Research Area=Philosophy, ethics and religion
}}

User:0000-0002-0118-3115

2020-08-15T17:57:13Z

0000-0002-0118-3115: create user page