The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Instruction:674c887f-a4d1-44f1-bd5d-70592d70dc8a

2021-12-08T14:16:20Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Instruction
|Title=Recognition and Networking
|Instruction Goal=After receiving your certificate, you will receive an invitation to register as a Research Integrity expert on the [https://eneri.eu/e-community/ ENERI] e-Community so you can be easily identified as a VIRT2UE trainer.
|Has Duration=0.5
|Important For=Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=The aim of the ENERI e-Community is to create an Open Database of Research Ethics and Research Integrity (RE&RI) experts and a space for discussion and exchange. The e-community is hosted by SINAPSE, The European Commission’s web communication platform.
|Important Because=Within SINAPSE, you will be able to indicate that you are a trained VIRT2UE trainer, enabling other members of the community to identify you as a potential trainer for research integrity courses. The European Commission also uses SINAPSE to identify experts for policy and research purposes.
|Has Practical Tips=Data are stored and processed in line with GDPR, more details about data protection and SINAPSE can be accessed here.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Register for the ENERI e-Community
|Instruction Step Text=When you have become a certified VIRT2UE trainer, you will receive an invitation to join the ENERI e-Community. Fill in this application and return it to the coordinators of the ENERI e-community [https://eneri.eu/e-community/ here]
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identify yourself as a VIRT2UE trainer in your profile
|Instruction Step Text=Once you will have been registered you will provide further details in your profile about your research integrity and ethics expertise using the categories developed by the ENERI project.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Network
|Instruction Step Text=Get active networking with research ethics and research integrity experts!
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:C386dbba-2f69-4257-89c2-903898cf1f12

2021-10-11T07:31:12Z

0000-0002-2411-8586: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Education |Title=ENERI Classroom |Is About=The ENERI Classroom is an online training and capacity-building platform on research integrity and ethics...."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=ENERI Classroom
|Is About=The ENERI Classroom is an online training and capacity-building platform on research integrity and ethics. The classroom provides open access to training materials for research integrity and research ethics experts, such as members of research integrity offices and research ethics committees. Most training materials are suitable for online self-learning as well as online or onsite group-learning guided by a facilitator.

The ENERI Classroom addresses four main topics:

* Research integrity
* Research ethics
* Overlapping issues
* Developing infrastructures

Each topic is divided into several learning units so that both learners and teachers can focus on issues they consider particularly important.

The topic ''research integrity'' includes learning units on:

* Research integrity boards and codes of conducts
* Research integrity principles
* Violations of research integrity
* Plagiarism
* Authorship
* Peer review
* Dealing with violations and allegations of misconduct
* Whistleblowing and whistleblower protection
* Mentoring for stronger cultures of integrity.

The topic ''research ethics'' includes learning units on:

* Research ethics committees: main tasks and challenges
* Core principles of research ethics
* Research involving vulnerable groups
* Research in emergency situations
* Biobanks
* Specific aspects of clinical drug trials
* Ethics review in non-medical fields.

The topic ''overlapping issues'' includes learning units on:

* Conflict of interest
* Data protection
* Social responsibility
* Open science
* Mentoring for stronger cultures of integrity.

The topic ''developing infrastructures'' describes crucial components of effective research integrity and research ethics infrastructures and provides guidance on what to consider when introducing new elements to existing research integrity and research ethics systems. In this way, the Classroom shows how countries, regions or institutions wishing to improve their research integrity and research ethics infrastructures can address challenges in a systematic manner.

Each learning unit is structured as follows:

* Learning objectives and introduction
* Key issues
* Regulations and guidelines
* Cases & questions
* Resources
|Important Because=High-quality training of members and staff is an important prerequisite for ensuring that RIOs, RECs and related bodies can perform their tasks competently and thereby help strengthen the science-society nexus and promote ethical research conduct. However, training materials addressing the specific needs of RIOs, RECs and related bodies are scarce and often not openly accessible. The ENERI Classroom helps filling this gap and thus adds an educational component to ongoing initiatives to continuously improve the research integrity and research ethics systems across Europe.
|Important For=Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers; research integrity researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Policy makers
|Has Best Practice=Core parts of the learning pathways are based on case studies because experience has shown that they are particularly suitable to promote knowledge and foster skills conducive to acting ethically and with integrity in research. More specifically, the case studies allow learners to reflect on what they have learned and to apply newly acquired skills to concrete examples. Moreover, learners can assess their knowledge by answering a set of questions and obtaining feedback on their responses via email. Thus, the ENERI Classroom is an interactive and responsive learning platform.

The cases in the resources section on the Embassy as well as the educational scenarios developed by the EnTIRE project that are available in the educational resources section can complement the ENERI Classroom by adding further issues of interest and/or elaborating existing ones.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://eneri.mobali.com/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:31c71a72-eaef-4287-8df6-9788d07302fb;Resource:777888d6-6152-44ce-bd15-646bb279e521
|Related To Theme=Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:B4f3369c-e0ac-4cf5-acd9-cb2a6c11181d
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=EUREC; ENERI; ENRIO
|Has Timepoint=2019
|Has Location=Europe
|Has Virtue And Value=Integrity
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research Integrity; Research ethics
}}

Resource:1ac96d0e-6379-41ca-8cb4-cd219aecf298

2021-03-01T08:55:27Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Path2Integrity Campaign
|Is About=Path2Integrity is a project on research integrity education, funded by the EU's Horizon 2020 program. The project has created campaign materials to help raise awareness about the importance of research integrity among secondary school students, undergraduate students, graduate students and young researchers. Materials are based on the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and include posters, postcards, leaflets, booklets and videos, many of which are not only available in English, but also in Bulgarian, Spanish, Catalan, Danish, German and Polish. Many of the materials rely on prominent researchers as role models to inspire pupils, students and young researchers to strive for integrity in their own work.
|Important Because=Opportunities to educate about research integrity are not limited to classrooms. Informal learning paths matter, too, and are are hitherto underutilized resource to foster a culture of research integrity. The Path2Integrity campaign contributes to filling this gap by enabling educational institutions to make research integrity visible in the everyday life of pupils, students and researchers.
|Important For=Academic institutions; All stakeholders in research; Bachelor students; Doctoral students; Early career researchers; Educators; Everyone; Graduate and postgraduate students; Graduate students; High school students; Junior researchers; Master students; PhD students; Postgraduate students; Secondary school students; Teachers; Undergraduate students; Universities; Universities of Applied Sciences
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://path2integrity.eu/campaign-materials
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:721dc5c7-8e47-41ca-a7b8-73d6a225c3c3;Theme:1fc5c5b6-6c30-4400-a79b-8838b5a041cc
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Path2Integrity
|Has Location=Europe
}}

Resource:369d2eb6-90ef-4198-8268-a95e51a307d0

2020-08-19T14:40:22Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences
|Is About=This paper focuses on the infamous case of Hwang Woo Suk, the South-Korean national hero and once celebrated pioneer of stem cell research. After briefly discussing the evolution of his publication and research scandal in Science, the author attempts to outline the main reactions that emerged within scientific and bioethical discourses on the problem of research misconduct in contemporary biosciences. This is a factual case.

Kakuk, P. The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences. ''Sci Eng Ethics'' 15''', '''545 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9121-x
|Important Because=This case presents a group of problems that might endanger scientific integrity and public trust. Regulatory oversight, ethical requirements and institutional safeguards are often viewed by the scientific community as merely decelerating scientific progress and causing delays in the application of treatments. The Hwang’s case represents how unimpeded progress works in contemporary science. Thus, the case might shed light on the often neglected benefits of “the social control of science”.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-009-9121-x
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:D303f2ff-021f-4b2e-a145-f7b441e35830;Resource:740210e9-b695-428b-90a3-f3af7a94a174;Resource:Dd7bd3da-ee07-4642-8b4e-23e18d16fa4b
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Hwang Woo Suk; Péter Kakuk
|Has Timepoint=2004; 2005; 2009
|Has Location=Korea
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification; Fabrication; Informed consent
|Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine; Medical Biotechnology
}}

Resource:E7b73b56-7c6f-4e0c-a1cb-9c74c8e56f79

2020-08-19T14:29:17Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=The Culture of Scientific Research in the UK
|Is About=The project aimed to gather evidence and promote debate about whether the current culture of scientific research in the UK is successful in this respect. A wealth of information has been gathered during the project from the hundreds of scientists and others who took part. It is the people engaged in scientific research who are in the best position to tell what it is like to be a researcher, whether a post-doctoral researcher on a shortterm contract, or a well-established professor.
|Important Because=The project highlights that all those involved in the practice of scientific research play a role in shaping its culture, and therefore all should take responsibility for building a culture conducive to high quality, ethical and valuable research.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/the-culture-of-scientific-research
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Cfc3db56-7a32-4f2d-8485-2f14a12c7109;Resource:Dc1f1e11-fe21-4e8b-aa7d-c4938e74a197;Resource:7cf08223-5220-4155-b5a6-e908b64f1866;Resource:E7b73b56-7c6f-4e0c-a1cb-9c74c8e56f79;Resource:2b78e1bc-2187-4569-95fa-49468d5b5385;Resource:216fd809-8eca-4f5e-8cc7-c118b9bfb0cd;Resource:6de4eccb-1e56-46a9-b276-a45661b62e26
|Related To Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1;Theme:66ccb878-3c99-4e54-931d-d718bc0cb246;Theme:A612e3c5-4f31-470f-b5bf-3751923848e8
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Nuffield Council on Bioethics
|Has Timepoint=2014
|Has Location=UK
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research Integrity
}}

Resource:Dc1f1e11-fe21-4e8b-aa7d-c4938e74a197

2020-08-19T13:25:49Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Scientific Research: Dilemmas and Temptations
|Is About=This booklet is based on actual research practice, in other words the problems and choices that arise during the various phases of a scientific study. This involves designing the experiment, collecting data, analysing and reporting the results, and the way those results are used.
|Important Because=This booklet is intended to encourage discussion of various issues so as to contribute to deliberate, responsible decision-making. The key question is always how one should act correctly from the point of view of science and responsibly from the point of view of ethics when designing, carrying out, and reporting on scientific research.
|Important For=Bachelor students; Doctoral students; Early career researchers; Graduate students; High school students; Master students; PhD Students; Postdocs; Undergraduate students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.knaw.nl/shared/resources/actueel/publicaties/pdf/knawdilemmasandtemptations.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Cfc3db56-7a32-4f2d-8485-2f14a12c7109;Resource:F68f2226-005e-4321-b2a4-fc541fdf6c8d;Resource:81e37946-13e7-46e9-828e-2d6670b68656;Resource:7e48f25a-f1de-4ee8-b04f-aabdae84a933;Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:F3ddbf9b-e3c4-47b7-97cd-6239ce7a32c3;Theme:72c8ab8d-bbf8-4503-8b48-9de7eac37673
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=KNAW Netherlands
|Has Timepoint=2005
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Care; Collegiality
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Scientific Misdonduct; Authorship
}}

Resource:0927a980-ae4c-4186-b85d-a3a9f8aceddc

2020-08-19T12:59:56Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise: A Policy Report
|Is About=This report, sponsored by IAC (Inter-Academy Council) and IAP (the global network of science academies), represents the first joint effort by the scientific academies to provide clarity and advice in forging an international consensus on responsible conduct in the global research enterprise. It acknowledges and draws on information and recommendations from the many national and international organizations that have issued guidelines and statements on the basic responsibilities and obligations of researchers.
|Important Because=The report serves as a guide to basic values that govern the conduct of research and the communication of research results and recommends specific actions that should be used to ensure and maintain the integrity of research.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.interacademies.org/33362/Responsible-Conduct-in-the-Global-Research-Enterprise
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:C37b2d3c-bd0c-443f-a646-cd814c8ee4af;Resource:00b8b870-5d40-4bca-ad70-7f0f8e598de4
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=IAP; IAC
|Has Timepoint=2012
|Has Location=Italy; The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Respect; Reliability; Fairness; Objectivity; Skepticism; Openness
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Responsible research
}}

Resource:232ffbe0-b7fb-4d04-b605-493e10bc04c6

2020-08-19T12:40:59Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Research Data Management
|Is About=The University of Edinburghs Research Data Service provides a suite of tools and support that helps staff and students be effective with their research data before, during and after their project.
|Important Because=Sharing and responsibly managing data produced or re-used in a research project is required by funders and publishers, and supports open scholarship.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/research-support/research-data-service
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:9c917ab2-c01d-446b-89c1-a9cd415afb00;Resource:695b5c9b-f3ac-4fc8-8e20-1dfd5f7347ff;Resource:Aaf0b2a8-ff3a-478f-9d1c-94466cfb1bda;Resource:B47afc7d-44d6-4713-a209-953d58e81778
|Related To Theme=Theme:0bd48e3b-3590-44ae-a21b-7cf2b425d6cb;Theme:61d9a3f5-8f8b-4f6f-8363-fa53f959f131
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=University of Edinburgh
|Has Location=United Kingdom
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data Management; Data Issues; Data sharing
}}

Resource:Aaf0b2a8-ff3a-478f-9d1c-94466cfb1bda

2020-08-19T12:27:58Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=NTU Research Data Policy
|Is About=The Nanyang Technological University Singapore (NTU) Research Data Policy gives detailed advice on how to manage data (e.g. ownership DMP, sharing etc.) and what important roles and responsibilities are.
|Important Because=There is an increasing emphasis on managing and sharing research data. This guide will help researchers learn more about the various aspects of research data management and sharing. It will also guide NTU researchers in meeting the university as well as funders’ requirements.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://research.ntu.edu.sg/rieo/RI/Pages/Research-Data-Policies.aspx
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:9c917ab2-c01d-446b-89c1-a9cd415afb00;Resource:695b5c9b-f3ac-4fc8-8e20-1dfd5f7347ff;Resource:232ffbe0-b7fb-4d04-b605-493e10bc04c6
|Related To Theme=Theme:0bd48e3b-3590-44ae-a21b-7cf2b425d6cb;Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a;Theme:61d9a3f5-8f8b-4f6f-8363-fa53f959f131
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=NTU Singapore
|Has Location=Singapore
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ownership; Data Management; Data sharing; Data Issues
}}

Resource:Eb0781de-eb55-4063-9b00-cac85ca9259c

2020-08-17T12:16:51Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Other
|Title=Research Integrity - Detecting and determining greyscales
|Is About=Research integrity is the core focus area for the HEADT Centre. This includes three aspects:

* Plagiarism: copying of materials from other author’s works without an indication (such as quotation marks) and without a complete reference.
* Data falsification: creating data without actual research or manipulating data in order to achieve a particular conclusion.
* [https://headt.eu/page-18145 Image manipulation]: creating or altering an image in order to achieve a particular conclusion.One research goal is to develop metrics to help distinguish between the various greyscale zones that detection tools reveal which can be seen in this resource.
|Important Because=This research strives to understand more clearly what constitutes appropriate scholarly behavior. That is important, since research integrity decisions today depend on human effort. Part of the research is to find out on what decision makers base their findings (e.g., guidelines or standards) and whether they consider grey zone issues. If so, which grey zones, and are they appropriate? The answer to these questions varies across different disciplines, but automating misconduct detection requires clear definitions.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://headt.eu/Research-Integrity
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Db4c2416-1ce5-44ca-8306-20de0d1d890e;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:3f8d6a6e-db25-438c-a266-dd0175fe09c0;Resource:6405cda0-87cb-42a5-8f74-eae7b933a48f;Resource:Ae1b3645-f7f2-4c55-a09d-c24935fd73db
|Related To Theme=Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39;Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:A612e3c5-4f31-470f-b5bf-3751923848e8;Theme:20f32f16-72a1-46f0-b9a6-24fac05b0937
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=HEADT centre Berlin
|Has Location=Germany
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Falsification; Image manipulation
}}

Resource:91c45880-ddbe-4c96-a95d-6f140b463b96

2020-08-17T10:34:30Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=ORI Infographics
|Is About=The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has developed a series of infographics addressing the Responsible Conduct of Research and the handling of research misconduct.
|Important Because=These infographics can be used by RCR instructors and Research Integrity Officers (RIOs) to help educate the community on research integrity topics. ORI encourages the sharing and distribution of these resources with colleagues.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ori.hhs.gov/infographics
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:9c917ab2-c01d-446b-89c1-a9cd415afb00;Resource:Db4c2416-1ce5-44ca-8306-20de0d1d890e;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:9a3c7e5f-08d6-4de7-9acd-8304127300a3;Resource:Fa937813-9987-4ceb-a69e-373cc876e476;Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182
|Related To Theme=Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:Fe62e07c-2e75-4a55-82e6-1908fa543b7a;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ORI
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data management; Fabrication; Falsification; Research misconduct; Whistleblowing; Questionable research practice; Allegations of misconduct; Plagiarism; Authorship; Mentor/trainee relationship; Social responsibilities; Grant applications
}}

Resource:6ee4f37d-aa55-45c9-93ae-86831a37ca17

2020-08-17T10:00:24Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct
|Is About=In "The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct," you become the lead characters in an interactive movie and make decisions about integrity in research that can have long-term consequences. The simulation addresses Responsible Conduct of Research topics such as avoiding research misconduct, mentorship responsibilities, handling of data, responsible authorship, and questionable research practices.
|Important Because=You learn to see and understand different topics of responsible research through the eyes of different stakeholders in research.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ori.hhs.gov/content/thelab
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886;Resource:F68f2226-005e-4321-b2a4-fc541fdf6c8d;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:D40f736b-e2b6-4fe9-9ddf-26a3bf947cc2;Resource:695b5c9b-f3ac-4fc8-8e20-1dfd5f7347ff
|Related To Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:540f8241-c354-4249-8b63-6bdc2e74bdf8;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db;Theme:0bd48e3b-3590-44ae-a21b-7cf2b425d6cb
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ORI
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegations of misconduct; Research misconduct; Whistleblowing; Mentor/trainee relationship; Allegations of misconduct; Data management; Authorship; Questionable research practice
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:3f71447b-3d00-47a0-94af-720040d717ae

2020-08-17T09:48:24Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researhers
|Is About=This document helps new researchers prevent and resolve authorship problems. In particular it provides:

* suggestions for good authorship practice that should reduce the incidence of such dilemmas,
* advice on what to do when authorship problems do arise, and
* a glossary of key concepts in authorship, with some reading lists and websites for those who wish to take this further.

 
|Important Because=Many people (both editors and investigators) feel that the misrepresentation of authorship is a form of research misconduct, and that honesty in reporting science should extend to authorship. They argue that, if scientists are dishonest about their relationship to their work, this undermines confidence in the reporting of the work itself.
|Important For=Early career researchers; Junior researchers; PhD Students; Postdocs
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf12.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:E11c2017-febf-4986-a02a-4d6d9599d21a;Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:3f71447b-3d00-47a0-94af-720040d717ae;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:540f8241-c354-4249-8b63-6bdc2e74bdf8;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=COPE; Tim Albert; Elizabeth Wager
|Has Timepoint=2003
|Has Location=United Kingdom
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Research Misconduct
}}

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

2020-08-17T08:09:15Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Educating Yourself About Plagiarism - Case studies on Grey areas
|Is About=In this peer assisted, academic led workshop, students will discuss some common but difficult scenarios that might or might not be considered as academic misconduct or plagiarism.
|Important Because=The aim of this exercise is to make students aware that avoiding plagiarism needs focussed development of their writing skills reflecting on experiences.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; Bachelor students; High school students; Master students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ENAI_Case_studies_on_Grey_areas.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:D303f2ff-021f-4b2e-a145-f7b441e35830;Resource:Acc068ac-a0c0-48fa-b6a2-ff7448bf2573;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:6405cda0-87cb-42a5-8f74-eae7b933a48f;Resource:Fa937813-9987-4ceb-a69e-373cc876e476
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Nottingham Trent University; University of Derby
|Has Timepoint=2019
|Has Location=United Kingdom
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Research Misconduct
}}

Resource:45af2d0e-4238-4d3b-8431-9b7682eb9691

2020-08-17T07:57:14Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science
|Is About=The authors analyze a convenience sample of fraud cases to see whether (social) psychology is more susceptible to fraud than other disciplines. They also evaluate whether the peer review process and replications work well in practice to detect fraud. This is a factual case.
|Important Because=There is no evidence that psychology is more vulnerable to fraud than the biomedical sciences, and most frauds are detected through information from whistleblowers with inside information. On the basis of this analysis, the authors suggest a number of strategies that might reduce the risk of scientific fraud.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691612460687
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:Af266b39-20a3-4b97-a876-08eebb428fe6;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Wolfgang Stroebe; Tom Postmes; Russell Spears
|Has Timepoint=2012
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Fraud; Misconduct; Peer Review
|Related To Research Area=Psychology
}}

Resource:6cd2231c-fec8-447f-b623-62b663a2c507

2020-08-17T07:40:24Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Academic Integrity Tutorial with Quiz
|Is About=This tutorial provides an overview of the importance of academic integrity. You will have the opportunity to learn strategies of how to identify plagiarism, conduct academic research, and properly cite citations.
|Important Because=Research integrity issues have to be dealt with at an early stage of a researchers career. This tutorial is a useful and fun way to address this topic.
|Important For=Early career researchers; PhD Students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.umuc.edu/current-students/learning-resources/academic-integrity/tutorial/interactive.html
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434;Resource:Db4c2416-1ce5-44ca-8306-20de0d1d890e
|Related To Theme=Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=University of Maryland
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Citing
}}

Resource:04626b0f-c807-4d08-95fd-2a984dfbf1ae

2020-08-17T07:28:22Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Working with Research Integrity - Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement
|Is About=This document presents the Bonn PRINTEGER Consensus Statement: Working with Research Integrity—Guidance for research performing organisations. The aim of the statement is to complement existing instruments by focusing specifically on institutional responsibilities for strengthening integrity.
|Important Because=This document emphasises that responsibility for ethical research lies with everyone who is active in research, but especially with leaders in research performing organisations. Researchers’ morals alone cannot ensure research integrity; good conditions for exercising integrity must also be created at the level of the organisation and the research system.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434;Resource:Db4c2416-1ce5-44ca-8306-20de0d1d890e;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
|Related To Theme=Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=PRINTEGER
|Has Timepoint=2018
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect; Transparency; Fairness; Collegiality
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Whistleblowing; Research Misconduct; Research Integrity
}}

Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886

2020-08-17T07:05:11Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Recommendations for the investigation of research misconduct
|Is About=The European Network of Research Integrity Offices (ENRIO) Handbook is a set of recommendations or things to consider regarding how to deal with research misconduct and how to protect those involved in the investigation based on experiences and lessons learned by member organizations within ENRIO, allowing for local or national differences in its implementation.
|Important Because=While the European Code of Conduct is focused on research integrity (RI) in a broader sense, this ENRIO Handbook aims to offer further specifics on section 3.2 of the Code “Dealing with Violations and Allegations of Misconduct”. The Handbook consists of detailed practical recommendations on how to deal with research misconduct and other unacceptable practices.
|Important For=Researchers; ENRIO member organisations
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://www.enrio.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/INV-Handbook_ENRIO_web_final.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:F68f2226-005e-4321-b2a4-fc541fdf6c8d;Resource:Acc068ac-a0c0-48fa-b6a2-ff7448bf2573;Resource:60bf1373-f7e1-4831-b3e9-cf6e60cc290f
|Related To Theme=Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ENRIO
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research Misconduct; Research Integrity
}}

Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb

2020-08-14T08:52:09Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Research integrity and research misconduct policy
|Is About=The policy outlines requirements for institutions, and individuals engaged in Australian Research Council (ARC) business, to report to the ARC research integrity matters, and the action the ARC may take in response to reported breaches of the Code. It also describes how the ARC can refer concerns or complaints to research institutions, who, in accordance with the Code, are responsible for managing and investigating potential breaches of the Code.
|Important Because=The purpose of this policy is to promote and support research integrity and safeguard confidence in the value of publicly funded research by:

* making transparent the ARC’s role in ensuring research integrity and addressing breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018);
* establishing a framework to support the integrity of the ARC’s grant application, peer review, grant selection and research evaluation processes, funding decisions and research; and
* raising awareness of the importance of research integrity and the possible consequences for research institutions and individuals if appropriate standards are not maintained.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.arc.gov.au/policies-strategies/strategy/arc-research-integrity-and-research-misconduct-policy
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Db4c2416-1ce5-44ca-8306-20de0d1d890e
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Australian research council
|Has Timepoint=2019
|Has Location=Australia
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research Integrity
}}

Resource:C2463c3c-c2d8-4884-8f7a-84b4d7d4cb3b

2020-08-14T08:05:15Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Other
|Title=Research Integrity Practices in Science Europe Member Organizations
|Is About=This report presents the results of a survey of Scientific Europe member organisations, undertaken in 2014 by the Working Group on Research Integrity. The aim of the survey was to map existing policies, procedures and practices for promoting research integrity and preventing and sanctioning misconduct, in the context of member organisations activities
|Important Because=Research integrity is at the core of the research endeavour. It is the basis for researchers’ trust in each other and in the research record and, equally importantly, society’s trust in research. There are many reasons to take research integrity seriously including research excellence and an unsullied research record; continuing societal support for public investment in research; avoiding harmful impacts and research waste etc. (cf. Science Europe Working Group on Research Integrity 2015)

Science Europe Working Group on Research Integrity (2015), Seven Reasons to Care about Research Integrity: <nowiki>http://scieur.org/integrity</nowiki>

 
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Science-_Europe_Integrity_Survey_Report_July_2016_FINAL.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:60bf1373-f7e1-4831-b3e9-cf6e60cc290f
|Related To Theme=Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Science Europe
|Has Timepoint=2016
|Has Location=Europe
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Whistleblowers; Sanctions; Collaborative science; Self-assessment; Research Misconduct; Authorship; Conflict of Interest; Bias; Supervision; Environment
}}

Resource:88513307-bcc4-4797-8960-4d63bb5aea7f

2020-08-14T07:49:36Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Research Integrity: Podcast Series
|Is About=A series of lectures looking at different aspects of research integrity and their application in biomedical research.
|Important Because=Research Integrity (RI) is an integral part of researchers everyday work. Besides papers and books this Podcasts provide a new and motivating way to talk and learn about the topic.
|Important For=Bachelor students; Graduate students; PhD Students; Early career researchers; Junior researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/research-integrity
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:D379e46d-87d3-4e28-891b-c47d5c905f79;Resource:Db4c2416-1ce5-44ca-8306-20de0d1d890e;Resource:Fd9bacbe-8ea2-47eb-bdf0-8833988c0907;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
|Related To Theme=Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=University of Oxford
|Has Timepoint=2011
|Has Location=United Kingdom
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability; Respect; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication ethics; Data management; Research misconduct; Questionable research practice
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:Af2f0202-71bd-4cf4-9213-8fb255e1674c

2020-08-14T07:36:46Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Research Ethics: Zero Tolerance
|Is About=The paper presents the case of Zhejiang University in China where plagiarism, fabrication and falsification was discovered by the new president who is now educating about scientific integrity in China. This is a factual case.
|Important Because=There are no comprehensive statistics on the extent of research misconduct in China — and few ministries, agencies or universities make cases public. Surveys and anecdotal evidence, however, reveal a deep-rooted problem, and suggest that students are learning unethical behaviour alongside their science.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/news/research-ethics-zero-tolerance-1.9756
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:1e1d90cf-ca7e-45d6-b9ba-c5e4791f6e8a
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=He Haibo; Li Lianda; Yang Wei
|Has Timepoint=2008
|Has Location=China
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Plagiarism
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:7f74bb57-6b93-4430-a3c7-923e5428aa4e

2020-08-14T07:22:20Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Ethics defined: a glossary
|Is About=More than 50 animated two-minute videos define key ethics terms and behavioral ethics concepts.
|Important Because=The complex and important topic of ethics that is crucial for researchers' everyday work is broken down to short videos. Those can be used to educate yourself or for training. Because everybody has different opinions, perspectives and experiences, talking about ethics and defining key terms is important.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; Bachelor students; Doctoral students; Early career researchers; High school students; Master students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:6f86286f-e078-48ae-915d-33fa0702d502;Resource:Ad7f9f5c-a519-4744-a7c6-5fba091e9264
|Related To Theme=Theme:B4f3369c-e0ac-4cf5-acd9-cb2a6c11181d;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:2120c9fc-8309-47b4-baea-25446f32817f
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Mc Combs school of Business, Texas
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Moral reasoning
}}

Resource:80d5a629-c748-4cf8-b9c8-7be4c01c8b82

2020-08-14T07:02:25Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=The RESPECT Code of Practice for Socioeconomic Research
|Is About=The RESPECT guidelines are intended to form the basis of a voluntary code of practice covering the conduct of socio-economic research in Europe.
|Important Because=Carrying out socio-economic research in a professional and ethical manner involves balancing a number of different principles which often lie in tension with each other. This code is based on a recognition that it is the responsibility of individual researchers to make the often difficult professional decisions that establish this balance, and that it is the responsibility of their employers, professional associations and research funders to support them in making these decisions.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://www.respectproject.org/code/index.php
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:C8d6bc5c-d6f0-46b8-84c9-ced3a95de3ff
|Related To Theme=Theme:61d9a3f5-8f8b-4f6f-8363-fa53f959f131
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=The Institute for Employment Studies (IES)
|Has Timepoint=2004
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Professional standards; Balancing Harm and Benefits
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}

Resource:7cf08223-5220-4155-b5a6-e908b64f1866

2020-08-14T06:55:20Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Research culture
|Is About=The Royal Society has started a programme of work to explore how to promote the cultural conditions that will best enable excellent research and researchers. he focus of this programme is on the assessment of research and researchers, researcher career development, and open science. The page consists of videos, blog posts and further material regarding research culture.
|Important Because=Research culture encompasses the behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes and norms of our research communities. It influences researchers’ career paths and determines the way that research is conducted and communicated.
|Important For=Researchers; Early career researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/research-culture/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:E7b73b56-7c6f-4e0c-a1cb-9c74c8e56f79;Resource:216fd809-8eca-4f5e-8cc7-c118b9bfb0cd
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=UK Royal Society
|Has Location=United Kingdom
}}

Resource:6de4eccb-1e56-46a9-b276-a45661b62e26

2020-08-14T06:35:56Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=RCUK Policy and Guidelines on Governance of Good Research Conduct
|Is About=The Research Councils UK (RCUK) Policy and Guidelines builds on growing national and international experience in identifying and promoting good research conduct, and in addressing unsatisfactory conduct. In particular this document:

* sets standards of good research practice, with associated guidelines
* specifies and describes unacceptable research conduct
* provides guidelines for reporting and investigating allegations of research misconduct
* clarifies the respective responsibilities of the Research Councils and Research Organisations in fostering and safeguarding the highest possible standards of research conduct

 
|Important Because=A commitment to good research conduct lies at the heart of an effective research system. High standards of research integrity underpin the quality and reliability of the research outcomes generated and of decisions made in the light of those outcomes.
|Important For=Researchers; Academic staff; Administrators
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ukri.org/files/legacy/reviews/grc/rcuk-grp-policy-and-guidelines-updated-apr-17-2-pdf/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Db4c2416-1ce5-44ca-8306-20de0d1d890e;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:3b5cfd90-972a-4d17-accd-395b6cec560d
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Research Council UK
|Has Timepoint=2017
|Has Location=United Kingdom
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Responsible research
}}

Resource:F68f2226-005e-4321-b2a4-fc541fdf6c8d

2020-08-14T06:21:44Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Other
|Title=Institutional dealing with scientific misconduct
|Is About=In this article three categories of causal factors are distinguished: Deceit as an individual vice, an existing culture of sloppiness and irresponsibility within certain disciplines or institutes, and the pernicious influence of today’s research climate with its pressure for production and the ‘metrification’ of performance and output. Suggestions for dealing with cases of misconduct, resulting from these three distinct views, are presented and discussed.
|Important Because=The promotion of a culture of scientific integrity and the furthering of responsible research by their employees deserve a high priority within universities and research institutes. Proper disciplinary actions and preventive measures should be based on an analysis of the possible motives and causes underlying such misbehaviour
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://eruditio.worldacademy.org/files/issue-6/reprints/ej-v1-i6-institutional-dealing-pdrenth-reprint.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F68f2226-005e-4321-b2a4-fc541fdf6c8d;Resource:45af2d0e-4238-4d3b-8431-9b7682eb9691;Resource:A9e1f468-b56b-4ae5-91fe-20024d43e154
|Related To Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ALLEA; Pieter J. D. Drenth
|Has Timepoint=2015
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Misconduct; Scientific Misdonduct
}}

Resource:0bae8e4a-a4be-4f3f-89f2-65a3b8cc3395

2020-08-11T07:47:45Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Fostering Integrity in Research
|Is About=The 1992 report ''Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process'' evaluated issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. It provided a valuable service in describing and analyzing a very complicated set of issues, and has served as a crucial basis for thinking about research integrity for more than two decades.
|Important Because=The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support – or distort – practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nap.edu/catalog/21896/fostering-integrity-in-research
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434;Resource:0bae8e4a-a4be-4f3f-89f2-65a3b8cc3395;Resource:Cfc3db56-7a32-4f2d-8485-2f14a12c7109;Resource:Db4c2416-1ce5-44ca-8306-20de0d1d890e;Resource:1e1d90cf-ca7e-45d6-b9ba-c5e4791f6e8a
|Related To Theme=Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=The National acadamies of sciences, engineering and medicine
|Has Timepoint=2017
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research misconduct; Questionable research practice; Data management; Mentor/trainee relationship; Authorship; Peer review; Research with Humans; Research with Animals; Safety; Conflict of interest
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering
}}

Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434

2020-08-11T07:42:05Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=ENERI manual-research integrity and ethics
|Is About=The manual is a resource for both researchers designing or attempting to design research, as well as professionals evaluating that research. This manual is a living resource, inviting engagement rather than consumption. It contains no technical or technocratic instruction, but rather seeks to instill deliberation around issues of research ethics and research integrity.
|Important Because=ENERI is a project that aims to improve the exchange between experts in the fields of research ethics and research integrity. For practical guidance recommendations and tools for researchers, research ethics committees and research integrity offices are developed. The manual is one of these.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://eneri.eu/e-manual/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:7f74bb57-6b93-4430-a3c7-923e5428aa4e;Resource:6f86286f-e078-48ae-915d-33fa0702d502;Resource:0b13a753-8e50-4b1a-975b-8ef65cd7e962;Resource:Cfc3db56-7a32-4f2d-8485-2f14a12c7109;Resource:Db4c2416-1ce5-44ca-8306-20de0d1d890e;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
|Related To Theme=Theme:B4f3369c-e0ac-4cf5-acd9-cb2a6c11181d;Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ENERI
|Has Location=Europe
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research misconduct; Questionable research practice; Falsification; Fabrication; Plagiarism; Social responsibilities; Peer review; Authorship
}}

Resource:Fd9bacbe-8ea2-47eb-bdf0-8833988c0907

2020-08-11T07:02:35Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Other
|Title=Research integrity - what is means, why it is important and how we might protect it
|Is About=Science Europe published a comprehensive review of developments in research integrity across Europe and the US.
|Important Because=Research integrity is about "the performance of research to the highest standards of professionalism and rigour, in an ethically robust manner", says the report. The report argues that research integrity is vital because it creates trust, and trust is at the heart of the research process. Researchers must be able to trust each other's work, and "they must also be trusted by society since they provide scientific expertise that may impact people's lives". As the report's conclusions highlight, "research integrity has the potential to increase the quality of research in the European research ecosystem, thereby increasing its overall effectiveness and impact into the future". The inclusion by Science Europe members of research integrity amongst their core priorities shows their commitment to addressing the challenge.
|Important For=Researchers; Doctoral students; Early career researchers; Postdocs
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://phys.org/news/2015-12-integritywhat-important.html
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434;Resource:D379e46d-87d3-4e28-891b-c47d5c905f79;Resource:25be9b69-4809-4c8d-881a-4c75fc50e02f;Resource:Cfc3db56-7a32-4f2d-8485-2f14a12c7109
|Related To Theme=Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:C51a36cc-7c58-4740-99cd-cd596c210464;Instruction:3c96e5fc-8134-41ee-ad40-050e5cf684bc
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Science Europe
|Has Location=Europe
|Has Virtue And Value=Trustworthiness
}}

Resource:Fd6e5aee-0aca-4fc2-854a-5fed52f2641a

2020-08-11T06:53:11Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Research Integrity and Research Ethics (ALLEA)
|Is About=ALLEA has been a long-standing voice in the fields of research ethics and research integrity via its Permanent Working Group Science and Ethics, which has covered a wide-range of issues relating to ethics and integrity. The flagship publication of the group is the ''European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity,'' which was revised in 2017 and is regarded as one of the most comprehensive guides outlining how researchers should conduct their work.
|Important Because=Ethics in science requires researchers to pay due attention to the effects on their subject group, including also animals, as well as to wider society and to minimise harmful effects on their research subjects. Therefore, ensuring that research ethics are abided by serves to put science on track to be trustworthy, reproducible and sustainable. In research ethics conflicts of values and interests between stakeholders are identified, analysed – and proposals for solution of such conflicts are described (in empirical research ethics), or are made and argued for (in normative research ethics). The stakeholders involve other researchers, users, research subjects, including animals, funding agencies as well as society at large, including future generations.

Research integrity touches on the ethos of science and is guided by the rules imposed on the research community by itself. As such, research integrity aims at providing a comprehensive framework for scientists as to how to carry out their work within accepted ethical frameworks as well as following good scientific practice.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://allea.org/research-integrity-and-research-ethics/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:0b13a753-8e50-4b1a-975b-8ef65cd7e962;Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434;Resource:6f86286f-e078-48ae-915d-33fa0702d502;Resource:Db4c2416-1ce5-44ca-8306-20de0d1d890e;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
|Related To Theme=Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:8f6d4690-d1b2-4b9a-ac68-84e41fdb6c74;Theme:B4f3369c-e0ac-4cf5-acd9-cb2a6c11181d;Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ALLEA
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Fairness; Honesty; Reliability
}}

Resource:2d6815c1-ff35-47c8-aa1a-4cc1d4a56cb9

2020-08-07T08:37:42Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Local resources on improving science: basic study
|Is About=We have a course that illustrates why and how to do a better science as a PhD student in the Medical Neuroscience Program at Charite Berlin. Here we provide the teaching materials and toolbox that we have been using in the last year's course for early career researchers.
|Important Because=As PhD students, we learn how to do research from our PIs, but the scientific field is moving forward very rapidly, and not all PIs are aware of new perspectives of doing research. We want to provide people with tools for self-learning and navigating themselves in doing a better science.
|Important For=PhD Students; Postdocs; ECR
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://osf.io/sjqp7/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Charite Berlin
|Has Location=Germany; Berlin
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
}}

Resource:A9e1f468-b56b-4ae5-91fe-20024d43e154

2020-08-07T08:35:50Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Scientific Misconduct at an Elite Medical Institute: The Role of Competing Institutional Logics and Fragmented Control
|Is About=This paper builds on the concepts of competing logics and institutional fields to analyze a serious case of medical and scientific misconduct at a leading research institute, Karolinska in Sweden, home to the Nobel Prize in Medicine<ref>Berggren, Christian, and Solmaz Filiz Karabag. "Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing institutional logics and fragmented control." ''Research Policy'' 48.2 (2019): 428-443.</ref>. This is a factual case.
<references />
|Important Because=The incidence of revealed fraud and dishonesty in academia is on the rise, and so is the number of studies seeking to explain scientific misconduct<ref>Berggren, Christian, and Solmaz Filiz Karabag. "Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing institutional logics and fragmented control." ''Research Policy'' 48.2 (2019): 428-443.</ref>.<references />
|Important For=researchers; research leaders; All stakeholders in research; phd students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733318300817?via%3Dihub
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:D303f2ff-021f-4b2e-a145-f7b441e35830;Resource:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Paolo Macchiarini
|Has Timepoint=2010
|Has Location=Sweden
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; REC approval
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

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

2020-08-07T08:33:44Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9
|Title=Research with humans
|Is About=In research with humans, human beings are not only researchers, but also the main subjects of research. Such research can be observational or interventional, and can be medical (including biology, physiology, and clinical trials) or non-medical (social science, political science). Because of ethical issues arising from human research, this area is heavily regulated, to protect the rights and dignity of research participants. <ref>World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki Special Communication. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-4.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=New drugs and procedures require detailed testing before being put into use. While a lot can be answered using in vitro experiments and animal testing, testing on humans is necessary in order to verify the safety and efficacy of novel treatments.
|Important For=phd students; Researchers
|Has Best Practice=Throughout history, multiple violations of ethical principles in human research have happened. Most known and most widely publicized are experiments done by Nazis and Japanese during the WW2. In the aftermath of the WW2, the Nuremberg code was published to provide basic guidelines in human research. <ref>Moreno JD, Schmidt U, Joffe S. The Nuremberg Code 70 Years Later. Jama. 2017;318(9):795-6. Epub 2017/08/18.</ref> To further improve ethics of human research, the World Medical Association developed the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964. <ref>Tyebkhan G. Declaration of Helsinki: the ethical cornerstone of human clinical research. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2003;69(3):245-7.</ref> While providing some guidance, they did not eradicate research misconduct. In the United States, a huge study was conducted to assess the impact of syphilis, and hundreds of participants were barred from seeking treatment in what was known as Tuskegee experiment. Following the public outcry, the Belmont report was published in 1978. <ref>Sims JM. A brief review of the Belmont report. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2010;29(4):173-4.</ref>

These documents set important standards in human research and provide the foundations of medical ethics. Some of the important points are respect for the person, personal autonomy (and informed consent), justice, and beneficence. <ref>Weise MV. Medical Ethics Made Easy. Prof Case Manag. 2016;21(2):88-94.</ref> Nowadays, different countries have different laws regarding clinical research, and these are closely related with ethical committees.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F7ed25ad-cfab-4040-b52f-596accc3c317;Resource:E1f32efa-98f0-4036-857b-441c15bb39da;Resource:A1f49b57-43f5-4ada-9119-5332e39679ae;Resource:05f04469-5834-4411-9217-c2551a0c745a;Resource:E9cd7ee1-bd54-4d5c-bdd9-786ef1c9f603
|Related To Theme=Theme:E5629f68-81f6-490d-84d6-fd1e63b8dbc7;Theme:D0ad4326-4faa-47bf-85ab-a3eb78cb6540
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research with Humans
}}

Resource:392b9794-681a-4860-881b-54569a35b9f3

2020-08-07T08:31:21Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
|Is About=NWO adheres to the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as the guiding principle for its integrity policy. The Code of Conduct will enter into force on 1 October 2018.
|Important Because=Well this is relevant for all researchers in the netherlands
|Important For=researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nwo.nl/binaries/content/documents/nwo-en/common/documentation/application/nwo/policy/netherlands-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity/netherlands+code+of+conduct+for+research+integrity+2018
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:8b7549d2-b1e4-433b-82fb-6af8f8ab8865;Resource:92444cd3-ba59-443e-8678-1270b1d6163f;Resource:Db4c2416-1ce5-44ca-8306-20de0d1d890e;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434
|Related To Theme=Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:Cc85bbe7-b8ac-40ef-81a7-8e34b153233c
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=NWO
|Has Timepoint=2018 onwards
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Scrupulousness
}}

Resource:4c1137a3-8b5e-411e-bc98-18ae6818d7b8

2020-08-07T08:28:45Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A Review of the Impact of the TeGenero Trial on the Design, Conduct, and Ethics of FIM Trials
|Is About=This paper reviews the controversy, analyzes the problems of the TGN1412 trial and FIM trials in general and the reaction of the lay and scientific communities. Difficulties in these high risk trials are highlighted and possible design and execution procedural improvements are recommended. Consideration is given to the ethical debate regarding participation of normal, healthy research volunteers in FIM studies. The role of monetary incentive(s) is discussed as well as the opposition of many participants in this debate on financial compensation of volunteers for the assumption of risk and the need to adopt a no-fault scheme that fairly compensates injured trial participants<ref>Nada, Adel, and John Somberg. "First-in-Man (FIM) clinical trials post-TeGenero: a review of the impact of the TeGenero trial on the design, conduct, and ethics of FIM trials." ''American journal of therapeutics'' 14.6 (2007): 594-604.</ref>. This is a factual case.
<references />
|Important Because=FIM studies are critical for the development of new therapeutic agents. Improving trial design and execution and fairly compensating volunteers will facilitate these studies, enhance equity and thus provide an ethical basis for continuing FIM studies that may pose a serious risk to participants, a risk that society needs taken for the development of needed therapeutic agents<ref>Nada, Adel, and John Somberg. "First-in-Man (FIM) clinical trials post-TeGenero: a review of the impact of the TeGenero trial on the design, conduct, and ethics of FIM trials." ''American journal of therapeutics'' 14.6 (2007): 594-604.</ref>.
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/2007/11000/First_in_Man__FIM__Clinical_Trials_Post_TeGenero_.20.aspx
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Adel Nada; John Somberg
|Has Timepoint=2006
|Has Location=England
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Patient safety; Informed consent; Experimental design
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:86081665-70a2-47b2-869e-d3ee84a92e9f

2020-08-07T08:25:07Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings
|Is About=Research partnerships between high-income and lower-income settings can be highly advantageous for both parties. Or they can lead to ethics dumping, the practice of exporting unethical research practices to lower-income settings.
|Important Because=This Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings counters ethics dumping by:

• Providing guidance across all research disciplines

• Presenting clear, short statements in simple language to achieve the highest possible accessibility

• Focusing on research collaborations that entail considerable imbalances of power, resources and knowledge

• Using a new framework based on the values of fairness, respect, care and honesty

• Offering a wide range of learning materials and affiliated information to support the Code, and

• Complementing the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity through a particular focus on research in resource-poor settings.

Those applying the Code oppose double standards in research and support long-term equitable research relationships between partners in lower-income and high-income settings based on fairness, respect, care and honesty
|Important For=Researchers; All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.globalcodeofconduct.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Global-Code-of-Conduct-Brochure.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Edb02e27-f2e5-4b75-a78c-ec42e76011f6;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
|Related To Theme=Theme:8704dd29-f972-45ca-993c-3e93f834dbfb;Theme:72c8ab8d-bbf8-4503-8b48-9de7eac37673;Theme:307c6cc0-20d5-432f-bc4a-51aff0c985fe
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=TRUST
|Has Timepoint=2018
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect
}}

Theme:6217d06b-c907-4b09-af4e-b4c8a17b9847

2020-08-07T08:22:13Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Dialogue versus debate
|Is About=Dialogue is a vehicle for reaching understanding and learning from each other. Dialogue is to be distinguished from debate. Dialogue focuses on listening to the other and being open to the other’s perspective, whereas debate aims at convincing the other through argumentation
|Important Because=Research integrity issues often require thorough consideration, as it is not always simple to apply rules and to know what is the right action given a code of conduct. A dialogue can help to find ways to deal with such issues. A dialogue can take place within the research team, or in a group aiming at reflection on research integrity issues.

The idea of dialogue is not only being nice and friendly. The aim is to come to a better view of the situation, gaining knowledge and understanding. This requires that one seriously investigates the relevance of the perspective of the other. Being open to the perspective of the other does not mean simply giving up one’s own point of view, but being prepared to learn from the other’s point of view. By exchanging perspectives, dialogue can result in a fusion of horizons .

It is important to distinguish dialogue from debate. In a nutshell, the most relevant differences are the following :

*Dialogue focuses on learning from differences; debate focuses on finding the one right answer
*Dialogue focuses on understanding the other; debate focuses on convincing the other
*Dialogue focuses on listening and questioning; debate focuses on speaking and arguing
*Dialogue focuses on looking for strengths in the position of the other; debate focuses on looking for weaknesses in the position of the other
*Dialogue focuses on exploring and considering; debate focuses on attacking and defending
*Dialogue focuses on thinking slow; debate focuses on thinking fast
*Dialogue focuses on reflection and learning; debate focuses on concluding and deciding
|Important For=PhD Students; Researchers; Supervisors; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=The philosophical importance of dialogue has been elaborated in philosophical hermeneutics . <ref name=":0">Widdershoven, G. A., & Metselaar, S. (2012). Gadamer's Truth and Method and Moral Case Deliberation in Clinical Ethics. In ''Hermeneutics and the Humanities'' (pp. 287-305)</ref><ref>Gadamer, H-G (1989), ''Truth and Method'', 2nd edn, [[wikipedia:Sheed_and_Ward|Sheed and Ward]], London</ref>

Moral Case Deliberation is an example of group reflection on moral issues through dialogue . <ref name=":0" /> 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.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Collegiality
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethical Dilemma
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}

Resource:5e80f964-b042-4f21-80e8-a0f532047269

2020-08-07T08:20:38Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=VIRT2UE train-the-trainer program
|Is About=The VIRT2UE Train the Trainer program provides participants with the knowledge and skills to conduct a research integrity course. Trainers are taught how to foster reflection on scientific virtues in researchers, and how to promote understanding of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. This free training program will be offered at different locations across Europe.

As a train-the-trainer program, VIRT2UE supports trainers and provides them with adaptable exercises and tools that can be used in their own teaching.
|Important Because=The train-the-trainer program has an aspirational approach, and focuses on what it means to be a good and virtuous researcher. Instead of teaching about rules and norms, the training focuses primarily on promoting reflection on personal attitudes and behaviors. Participants learn how to train others to reflect on concrete cases and moral dilemmas in research, and to use tools that foster reflection in others. This will foster skills that enable trainees to integrate the European Code of Conduct in their day-to-day professional life.
|Important For=Researchers; Research integrity trainers; Trainers in training
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://typo3-v2.p426140.webspaceconfig.de/fileadmin/user_upload/embassy_training_leaflet.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:2a0507b8-aeb1-4021-b575-929708fc0c59;Resource:Db4c2416-1ce5-44ca-8306-20de0d1d890e;Resource:03047f11-3539-44d5-8c6c-c096a8f30025
|Related To Theme=Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53;Theme:Af676916-8a83-443a-aece-66abb3e9054f;Theme:6217d06b-c907-4b09-af4e-b4c8a17b9847;Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed;Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:2120c9fc-8309-47b4-baea-25446f32817f;Instruction:459e908a-46b9-471c-a21e-4c3cca1963c9;Instruction:52b40425-989f-42ff-80ea-86220459a8f8;Instruction:2e91b456-c300-4b69-9097-4f900978b04f;Instruction:Cc0d306a-0f3f-42a6-8b5b-ed9e21489a7f;Instruction:7503811e-e685-4311-8961-f44133b12280;Instruction:C51a36cc-7c58-4740-99cd-cd596c210464;Instruction:3c96e5fc-8134-41ee-ad40-050e5cf684bc;Instruction:4e235a59-4819-40a1-b9d2-598565a69a49;Instruction:7c71b885-c536-4649-9afd-8a0efc09e973
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=VIRT2UE
|Has Location=Europe
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
}}

Resource:7bfab1c1-adcd-4e8b-b8e4-44f1f7b992c5

2020-08-07T08:07:54Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=From Case Management to Prevention of Scientific Dishonesty in Denmark
|Is About=Denmark has had its share of serious scientific fraud that occured many years ago. It was, therefore, some widely published cases from the United States around 1990 that motivated the Danish Medical Research Council to establish the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty in November 12, a national committee covering the health sciences<ref>Andersen, Daniel. "From case management to prevention of scientific dishonesty in Denmark." ''Science and engineering ethics'' 6.1 (2000): 25-34.</ref>. This is a factual anonymized case.
<references />
|Important Because=It was considered important that a broad spectrum of the health sciences was represented on the committee. The main reason for this was that decisions on honesty/dishonesty, being by their nature inexact and judgemental, must reflect the general culture in the research environment<ref>Andersen, Daniel. "From case management to prevention of scientific dishonesty in Denmark." ''Science and engineering ethics'' 6.1 (2000): 25-34.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=researchers; research leaders
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-000-0019-x
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:B2456a64-b3e1-4d36-866e-a3ba117633e9
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Daniel Andersen
|Has Timepoint=1992; 1994
|Has Location=Denmark
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism
}}

Resource:740210e9-b695-428b-90a3-f3af7a94a174

2020-08-07T08:03:24Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Final Findings of Scientific Misconduct
|Is About=This case is about fabricating results in clinical examination and misrepresenting academic credentials. This is a factual case.
|Important Because=Results from clinical trials are being used in daily clinical practice. Hence it is important that the results are correct and reliable.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not94-244.html
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:D303f2ff-021f-4b2e-a145-f7b441e35830;Resource:Acc068ac-a0c0-48fa-b6a2-ff7448bf2573;Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Annmarie Surprenant
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Misconduct
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:6f86286f-e078-48ae-915d-33fa0702d502

2020-08-07T07:51:34Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Other
|Title=Research Ethics
|Is About=Ethical research conduct implies the application of fundamental ethical principles and legislation to scientific research in all possible domains of research – for example biomedical research, nature sciences, social sciences and humanities. The ethics review procedure of the EC including ethics screening and ethics assessment is explained
|Important Because=For all activities funded by the European Union, ethics is an integral part of research from beginning to end, and ethical compliance is seen as pivotal to achieve real research excellence. It is only by getting the ethics right that research excellence can be achieved.
|Important For=Researchers; Early career researchers; Doctoral students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/index.cfm?pg=policy&lib=ethics
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:B4667c43-18b8-4c99-86ff-18fa458759ec;Resource:7f74bb57-6b93-4430-a3c7-923e5428aa4e;Resource:Ad7f9f5c-a519-4744-a7c6-5fba091e9264;Resource:Fd6e5aee-0aca-4fc2-854a-5fed52f2641a
|Related To Theme=Theme:B4f3369c-e0ac-4cf5-acd9-cb2a6c11181d;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=European Commission
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Reliability
}}

Resource:6f86286f-e078-48ae-915d-33fa0702d502

2020-08-07T06:49:42Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Research Ethics
|Is About=Ethical research conduct implies the application of fundamental ethical principles and legislation to scientific research in all possible domains of research – for example biomedical research, nature sciences, social sciences and humanities. The ethics review procedure of the EC including ethics screening and ethics assessment is explained
|Important Because=For all activities funded by the European Union, ethics is an integral part of research from beginning to end, and ethical compliance is seen as pivotal to achieve real research excellence. It is only by getting the ethics right that research excellence can be achieved.
|Important For=Researchers; Early career researchers; Doctoral students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/index.cfm?pg=policy&lib=ethics
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:B4667c43-18b8-4c99-86ff-18fa458759ec;Resource:7f74bb57-6b93-4430-a3c7-923e5428aa4e;Resource:Ad7f9f5c-a519-4744-a7c6-5fba091e9264;Resource:Fd6e5aee-0aca-4fc2-854a-5fed52f2641a
|Related To Theme=Theme:B4f3369c-e0ac-4cf5-acd9-cb2a6c11181d;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=European Commission
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Reliability
}}

Theme:Fe62e07c-2e75-4a55-82e6-1908fa543b7a

2020-08-04T11:58:34Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
|Title=Whistleblower protection/rights
|Is About=The strength of an institution’s whistleblower protection influences whether people actively report misconduct or decide to passively witness a potential integrity breach. Whistleblower protections also show a given institution’s commitment to scientific integrity
|Important Because=Whistleblower protection affects not only researchers (including undergraduate, postgraduate and PhD students), but regulatory bodies, university administrators, research technicians, resource suppliers, funding bodies, editors, research ethics committees, research integrity officers and any other individuals and groups that may be indirectly involved in conducting research.
|Important For=PhD Students; Scientists; Ethics committee members; Principal investigators; Researchers; Academic staff; Research institutions; Supervisors; Postdocs; Research performing organisations; Research funding organisations; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; General public; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=Whistleblower protections are an important element in an institution's ethics code, describing procedures to deal with allegations and violations of misconduct. There is general agreement within the scientific community that reporting misconduct is essential in the prevention and management of misconduct and that whistleblowers should be provided adequate safeguards. Whistleblower protections also support a culture of scientific integrity within an institution. However, policies on researchers’ duties to report and the consequent protections differ significantly by institution and country.

[https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] <ref>European Science Foundation, All European Academies. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. 2017.</ref>contains the following guidance in the section “Dealing with Violations and Allegations of Misconduct”:

"National or institutional guidelines differ as to how violations of good research practice or allegations of misconduct are handled in different countries. However, it always is in the interest of society and the research community that violations are handled in a consistent and transparent fashion. The following principles need to be incorporated into any investigation process.[…] Procedures are conducted confidentially in order to protect those involved in the investigation. Institutions protect the rights of ‘whistleblowers’ during investigations and ensure that their career prospects are not endangered."

In the UK it seems that universities develop a specific whistleblowing policy for different misbehaviours (grievance, bullying and harassment, discipline, research misconduct). As an example, we refer to the [https://le.ac.uk/~/media/uol/docs/about-us/policies/whistleblowing-policy-updated-may-2017.pdf document of the University of Leicester],<ref>University of Leicester, Whistleblowing Policy, June 2017. Please see [https://le.ac.uk/~/media/uol/docs/about-us/policies/whistleblowing-policy-updated-may-2017.pdf here]. Last accessed May 2019</ref> which guarantees confidentiality for whistleblowers:

"The University will treat disclosures of information made under this Policy in a confidential and sensitive manner. The identity of individuals making allegations may be kept confidential, if requested by the individual(s) concerned, so long as it does not hinder or frustrate any investigation. In this event, the University will consult the individual before it takes any further action which might break the initial confidentiality. It should be recognised, however, that the investigation process may, of necessity, reveal the source of the information and, as part of the investigation, an individual making a disclosure may need to provide a statement as part of the evidence required."

In the USA, whistleblowers have well established legal protection. The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 strengthened protection for federal employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse in government operations.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:9a3c7e5f-08d6-4de7-9acd-8304127300a3;Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:D303f2ff-021f-4b2e-a145-f7b441e35830
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research misconduct; Whistleblowers
}}

Resource:2d6815c1-ff35-47c8-aa1a-4cc1d4a56cb9

2020-08-04T11:40:27Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Local resources on improving science: basic study
|Is About=We have a course that illustrates why and how to do a better science as a PhD student in the Medical Neuroscience Program at Charite Berlin. Here we provide the teaching materials and toolbox that we have been using in the last year's course for early career researchers.
|Important Because=As PhD students, we learn how to do research from our PIs, but the scientific field is moving forward very rapidly, and not all PIs are aware of new perspectives of doing research. We want to provide people with tools for self-learning and navigating themselves in doing a better science.
|Important For=PhD Students; Postdocs; ECR
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://osf.io/sjqp7/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Location=Germany; Berlin
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
}}

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

2020-08-04T11:32:20Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9
|Title=Research with humans
|Is About=In research with humans, human beings are not only researchers, but also the main subjects of research. Such research can be observational or interventional, and can be medical (including biology, physiology, and clinical trials) or non-medical (social science, political science). Because of ethical issues arising from human research, this area is heavily regulated, to protect the rights and dignity of research participants. <ref>World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki Special Communication. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-4.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=New drugs and procedures require detailed testing before being put into use. While a lot can be answered using in vitro experiments and animal testing, testing on humans is necessary in order to verify the safety and efficacy of novel treatments.
|Important For=phd students
|Has Best Practice=Throughout history, multiple violations of ethical principles in human research have happened. Most known and most widely publicized are experiments done by Nazis and Japanese during the WW2. In the aftermath of the WW2, the Nuremberg code was published to provide basic guidelines in human research. <ref>Moreno JD, Schmidt U, Joffe S. The Nuremberg Code 70 Years Later. Jama. 2017;318(9):795-6. Epub 2017/08/18.</ref> To further improve ethics of human research, the World Medical Association developed the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964. <ref>Tyebkhan G. Declaration of Helsinki: the ethical cornerstone of human clinical research. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2003;69(3):245-7.</ref> While providing some guidance, they did not eradicate research misconduct. In the United States, a huge study was conducted to assess the impact of syphilis, and hundreds of participants were barred from seeking treatment in what was known as Tuskegee experiment. Following the public outcry, the Belmont report was published in 1978. <ref>Sims JM. A brief review of the Belmont report. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2010;29(4):173-4.</ref>

These documents set important standards in human research and provide the foundations of medical ethics. Some of the important points are respect for the person, personal autonomy (and informed consent), justice, and beneficence. <ref>Weise MV. Medical Ethics Made Easy. Prof Case Manag. 2016;21(2):88-94.</ref> Nowadays, different countries have different laws regarding clinical research, and these are closely related with ethical committees.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F7ed25ad-cfab-4040-b52f-596accc3c317;Resource:E1f32efa-98f0-4036-857b-441c15bb39da;Resource:A1f49b57-43f5-4ada-9119-5332e39679ae;Resource:05f04469-5834-4411-9217-c2551a0c745a;Resource:E9cd7ee1-bd54-4d5c-bdd9-786ef1c9f603
|Related To Theme=Theme:E5629f68-81f6-490d-84d6-fd1e63b8dbc7;Theme:D0ad4326-4faa-47bf-85ab-a3eb78cb6540
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research with Humans
}}

Theme:20f32f16-72a1-46f0-b9a6-24fac05b0937

2020-08-04T11:28:24Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=Image Integrity
|Is About=Digital image manipulation is very easy. You might be tempted to make an image more convincing, but simultaneously, no integer researcher wants to misrepresent their data. Image manipulation can be classified as scientific misconduct. It can be hard to find the ethical lines of what is and what is not allowed. Also, some images might look suspicious to you as a reviewer or journal editor. Luckily, comprehensive guidelines and tools exist.
|Important Because=Images often serve as primary data (e.g. cell biology). In other instances, they are key in making an article attractive to read or serve comprehensive purposes. Accordingly, images are often included in article abstracts. The information they carry is thus a vital part of research and should remain identical to what is observed in the experiment (Rossner & Yamada 2004).

Mike Rossner, Kenneth M. Yamada; What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation . J Cell Biol 5 July 2004; 166 (1): 11–15. doi: <nowiki>https://doi-org.vu-nl.idm.oclc.org/10.1083/jcb.200406019</nowiki>
|Important For=Researchers; students; Supervisors; Journal editors; Reviewers
|Has Best Practice=The KU Leuven has a dedicated webpage on image integrity. They identified some of the most important sources and tools regarding the subject (available at: https://www.kuleuven.be/english/research/integrity/practices/image-processing, accessed on 24-04-2020). As their page is very brief, a more elaborate description of what it contains, and additional sources, follow below.

Rossner & Yamada (2004) wrote a prominent article arguing for a standard for image integrity. Both working as editor for The Journals of Cell Biology, they noticed the discrepancy and wide range of guidelines journals gave to their authors (if any). To have a comprehensive overview, they propagate their own guidelines of the Journal of Cell biology. They write that, for every aspect of the guideline the main question is: “Is the image that results from this adjustment still an accurate representation of the original data?” (Rossner & Yamada 2004, p. 5). Whenever the answer is ‘no’, researchers should provide a detailed description of the adjustments, its purpose and the original image on request. If not, their actions might be regarded as misconduct.

A step-by-step translation of the abovementioned guideline is available at the website of American Journal Experts (at: https://www.aje.com/en/arc/avoiding-image-fraud-7-rules-editing-images/, accessed on 24-04-2020) and at the KU Leuven webpage. A similar guideline, and additional editorials on the subject, are given by the journal Nature on their editorial policies page (available at: https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/image-integrity, accessed on 24-04-2020).

The Center for Ethics and Values in the Sciences, of the university of Alabama at Birmingham, created a website for both students and researchers with much material regarding image integrity (available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/RIandImages/default.html, accessed on 24-04-2020). They provide guidelines with more in dept explanations and illustration videos, but also educational material such as case studies, discussion hand outs and a quiz.

The office of research integrity provides a tutorial on how to use ‘action sets’ in photoshop (available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/actions, accessed on 24-04-2020). They actions sets allow you to document the changes you make to the image and ‘slide’ (i.e. going back and forward) between all the steps you made. The process of the image you manipulated will hereby be completely transparent if you provide the ‘action set’ combine with a copy of the original image.

For those reviewing papers, a free open source program, called InspectJ, is available on GitHub to identify cloning, stitching, patching and erased objects within an image. An advanced version also provides histogram equalization and gamma correction for improved image inspections (both available at: https://github.com/ZMBH-Imaging-Facility/InspectJ, accessed on 24-04-2020)
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Ae1b3645-f7f2-4c55-a09d-c24935fd73db
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability
}}

Theme:20f32f16-72a1-46f0-b9a6-24fac05b0937

2020-08-04T11:25:52Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=Image Integrity
|Is About=Digital image manipulation is very easy. You might be tempted to make an image more convincing, but simultaneously, no integer researcher wants to misrepresent their data. Image manipulation can be classified as scientific misconduct. It can be hard to find the ethical lines of what is and what is not allowed. Also, some images might look suspicious to you as a reviewer or journal editor. Luckily, comprehensive guidelines and tools exist.
|Important Because=Images often serve as primary data (e.g. cell biology). In other instances, they are key in making an article attractive to read or serve comprehensive purposes. Accordingly, images are often included in article abstracts. The information they carry is thus a vital part of research and should remain identical to what is observed in the experiment (Rossner & Yamada 2004).

Mike Rossner, Kenneth M. Yamada; What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation . J Cell Biol 5 July 2004; 166 (1): 11–15. doi: <nowiki>https://doi-org.vu-nl.idm.oclc.org/10.1083/jcb.200406019</nowiki>
|Important For=Researchers; students; Supervisors; Journal editors; Reviewers
|Has Best Practice=The KU Leuven has a dedicated webpage on image integrity. They identified some of the most important sources and tools regarding the subject (available at: https://www.kuleuven.be/english/research/integrity/practices/image-processing, accessed on 24-04-2020). As their page is very brief, a more elaborate description of what it contains, and additional sources, follow below.

Rossner & Yamada (2004) wrote a prominent article arguing for a standard for image integrity. Both working as editor for The Journals of Cell Biology, they noticed the discrepancy and wide range of guidelines journals gave to their authors (if any). To have a comprehensive overview, they propagate their own guidelines of the Journal of Cell biology. They write that, for every aspect of the guideline the main question is: “Is the image that results from this adjustment still an accurate representation of the original data?” (Rossner & Yamada 2004, p. 5). Whenever the answer is ‘no’, researchers should provide a detailed description of the adjustments, its purpose and the original image on request. If not, their actions might be regarded as misconduct.

A step-by-step translation of the abovementioned guideline is available at the website of American Journal Experts (at: https://www.aje.com/en/arc/avoiding-image-fraud-7-rules-editing-images/, accessed on 24-04-2020) and at the KU Leuven webpage. A similar guideline, and additional editorials on the subject, are given by the journal Nature on their editorial policies page (available at: https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/image-integrity, accessed on 24-04-2020).

The Center for Ethics and Values in the Sciences, of the university of Alabama at Birmingham, created a website for both students and researchers with much material regarding image integrity (available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/RIandImages/default.html, accessed on 24-04-2020). They provide guidelines with more in dept explanations and illustration videos, but also educational material such as case studies, discussion hand outs and a quiz.

The office of research integrity provides a tutorial on how to use ‘action sets’ in photoshop (available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/actions, accessed on 24-04-2020). They actions sets allow you to document the changes you make to the image and ‘slide’ (i.e. going back and forward) between all the steps you made. The process of the image you manipulated will hereby be completely transparent if you provide the ‘action set’ combine with a copy of the original image.

For those reviewing papers, a free open source program, called InspectJ, is available on GitHub to identify cloning, stitching, patching and erased objects within an image. An advanced version also provides histogram equalization and gamma correction for improved image inspections (both available at: https://github.com/ZMBH-Imaging-Facility/InspectJ, accessed on 24-04-2020)
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability
}}

Resource:4c1137a3-8b5e-411e-bc98-18ae6818d7b8

2020-08-04T11:08:48Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A Review of the Impact of the TeGenero Trial on the Design, Conduct, and Ethics of FIM Trials
|Is About=This paper reviews the controversy, analyzes the problems of the TGN1412 trial and FIM trials in general and the reaction of the lay and scientific communities. Difficulties in these high risk trials are highlighted and possible design and execution procedural improvements are recommended. Consideration is given to the ethical debate regarding participation of normal, healthy research volunteers in FIM studies. The role of monetary incentive(s) is discussed as well as the opposition of many participants in this debate on financial compensation of volunteers for the assumption of risk and the need to adopt a no-fault scheme that fairly compensates injured trial participants<ref>Nada, Adel, and John Somberg. "First-in-Man (FIM) clinical trials post-TeGenero: a review of the impact of the TeGenero trial on the design, conduct, and ethics of FIM trials." ''American journal of therapeutics'' 14.6 (2007): 594-604.</ref>. This is a factual case.
<references />
|Important Because=FIM studies are critical for the development of new therapeutic agents. Improving trial design and execution and fairly compensating volunteers will facilitate these studies, enhance equity and thus provide an ethical basis for continuing FIM studies that may pose a serious risk to participants, a risk that society needs taken for the development of needed therapeutic agents<ref>Nada, Adel, and John Somberg. "First-in-Man (FIM) clinical trials post-TeGenero: a review of the impact of the TeGenero trial on the design, conduct, and ethics of FIM trials." ''American journal of therapeutics'' 14.6 (2007): 594-604.</ref>.
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/2007/11000/First_in_Man__FIM__Clinical_Trials_Post_TeGenero_.20.aspx
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2006
|Has Location=England
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Patient safety; Informed consent; Experimental design
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Theme:6217d06b-c907-4b09-af4e-b4c8a17b9847

2020-08-04T10:24:54Z

0000-0002-2411-8586:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Dialogue versus debate
|Is About=Dialogue is a vehicle for reaching understanding and learning from each other. Dialogue is to be distinguished from debate. Dialogue focuses on listening to the other and being open to the other’s perspective, whereas debate aims at convincing the other through argumentation
|Important Because=Research integrity issues often require thorough consideration, as it is not always simple to apply rules and to know what is the right action given a code of conduct. A dialogue can help to find ways to deal with such issues. A dialogue can take place within the research team, or in a group aiming at reflection on research integrity issues.

The idea of dialogue is not only being nice and friendly. The aim is to come to a better view of the situation, gaining knowledge and understanding. This requires that one seriously investigates the relevance of the perspective of the other. Being open to the perspective of the other does not mean simply giving up one’s own point of view, but being prepared to learn from the other’s point of view. By exchanging perspectives, dialogue can result in a fusion of horizons .<ref>Gadamer, H-G (1989), ''Truth and Method'', 2nd edn, [[wikipedia:Sheed_and_Ward|Sheed and Ward]], London</ref>

It is important to distinguish dialogue from debate. In a nutshell, the most relevant differences are the following : <ref>[http://www.intellitics.com/ Bonnemann], T. Quick Comparison: Debate and Deliberation, 2007. Accessible at: http://www.intellitics.com/blog/2007/11/18/quick-comparison-debate-and-deliberation/.</ref><ref>Bonnemann, T. Dialogue and Deliberation 2007. Accesible at: http://www.intellitics.com/blog/2007/07/13/dialogue-and-deliberation/</ref>

*Dialogue focuses on learning from differences; debate focuses on finding the one right answer
*Dialogue focuses on understanding the other; debate focuses on convincing the other
*Dialogue focuses on listening and questioning; debate focuses on speaking and arguing
*Dialogue focuses on looking for strengths in the position of the other; debate focuses on looking for weaknesses in the position of the other
*Dialogue focuses on exploring and considering; debate focuses on attacking and defending
*Dialogue focuses on thinking slow; debate focuses on thinking fast
*Dialogue focuses on reflection and learning; debate focuses on concluding and deciding
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Researchers; Supervisors; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=The philosophical importance of dialogue has been elaborated in philosophical hermeneutics . <ref name=":0">Widdershoven, G. A., & Metselaar, S. (2012). Gadamer's Truth and Method and Moral Case Deliberation in Clinical Ethics. In ''Hermeneutics and the Humanities'' (pp. 287-305)</ref><ref>Gadamer, H-G (1989), ''Truth and Method'', 2nd edn, [[wikipedia:Sheed_and_Ward|Sheed and Ward]], London</ref>

Moral Case Deliberation is an example of group reflection on moral issues through dialogue . <ref name=":0" /> 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.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Collegiality
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethical Dilemma
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}