The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Theme:9025f215-cc6a-4b00-894b-68b9a089f173

2022-04-19T11:04:42Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8
|Title=Post-publication peer review
|Is About=Post publication peer review (PPPR) is a type of peer review where, unlike in the traditional peer review system, the review is done after the manuscript has been published. In post publication peer review, anyone can participate in the assessment of an article and suggest changes for improvement.
|Important Because=Pre-publication peer review is based on the editor’s choice of experts to whom the task of assessing a manuscript will be assigned. In post-publication peer review, the assessment is open to anyone. The exception to this is F1000, where post publication peer review is still by invitation, but still, anyone can comment and add their insights. Some argue that PPPR will help in the correction of literature and renew trust in science. <ref>Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A, Dobránszki J. Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017;23(4):1213-26. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9854-2.</ref> Others compare it to online comments, and argue that there is no guarantee that the persons commenting will have any expertise. <ref>Knoepfler P. Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends Genet. 2015;31(5):221–23. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2015.03.006</ref> <ref>Macbeth FR. Post-publication review. A tale of woe. BMJ. 2010;341:c5147.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Editors; Reviewers; Journal publishers; Journal editors
|Has Best Practice=The most famous practice example of post publication peer review system is [https://f1000.com/ F1000], which is not a traditional journal, but more of an open science platform where published articles can be modified. New versions are uploaded online, with references to previous versions and changes. Moreover, the entire peer review process is transparent from the beginning to the end of the procedure. In that way, the manuscripts can be changed and adapted to include new insights. However, there are some critics who point out that it is a problem that previous versions of the article are still available online to anyone, even if they contain flawed reporting. Recent research has been discouraging for PPPR. It showed that online comments in PLOS and BMC journals decline in frequency and that existing comments rarely contain anything related to the content of the article.

In addition, PubPeer is considered as one of the major platforms designed for post-publication peer review and also conversations about publications. Users can leave comments with their ORCID username or anonymously.<ref>PubPeer. 2020. Available at: https://pubpeer.com/</ref>
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:0222fd27-0a12-4cac-a6ac-6cc37879f72c;Resource:6c0d6e13-17cb-4e94-b66b-510da74c700e;Resource:3e08d026-9180-4d45-9a78-b45bded373b4
|Related To Theme=Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8;Theme:3a32df5c-e6e8-45f9-8132-434db3985a65
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer review
}}

Resource:25be9b69-4809-4c8d-881a-4c75fc50e02f

2021-02-07T16:51:34Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Integrity Factor Glossary
|Is About=Glossary on research integrity terms.
|Important Because=The glossary is useful for clarifying meaning of terms and concepts in the context of research integrity.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; Bachelor students; Graduate and postgraduate students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://integrityfactor.nl/glossary
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=UMCG; MCL
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research Integrity
}}

Resource:2bbdffa2-234c-4cbc-a087-94c1681d19d9

2021-02-07T16:47:40Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A Medical Ghostwriter’s Personal View
|Is About=This is a factual anonymized case about a person who worked as a medical writer for almost 11 years. During this time she has written a variety of texts including the occasional ghostwritten article. In the article she describes her experience, motivation and her views about the problem of fraud in authorship.
|Important Because=This is a real case which might be useful for discussions on ghost authorship.
|Important For=Researchers; PhD Students; Research integrity trainers; medical researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001071
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:540f8241-c354-4249-8b63-6bdc2e74bdf8;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2000
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Integrity; Professional courtesy and fairness
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Ghostwriting; Ghost authorship
|Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine
}}

Resource:5b8e9f7c-7c80-4aa5-9a01-cada03fe4533

2021-02-07T16:41:37Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Carlo Croce: data falsification and other scientific misconduct
|Is About=This is a factual case about Carlo Croce, a famous cancer researcher who has been charged with data falsification and other scientific misconduct.
|Important Because=This is a real case which can be discussed and analyzed as an example of scientific misconduct.
|Important For=Researchers; PhD Students; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/science/cancer-carlo-croce.html
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2013
|Has Location=United States; Ohio State University
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Integrity; Professional courtesy and fairness
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification; Image manipulation
|Related To Research Area=Biological Sciences; LS 07.06 - Gene therapy, cell therapy, regenerative medicine
}}

Resource:Ab35e24b-f21e-4ed9-9440-0778300c9f73

2020-11-04T16:20:21Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Age-Old Conflicts
|Is About=This is a fictional case on conflict of interest in biomedical research, including questions for discussion.
|Important Because=This is a useful resource for organizing a case discussion on conflicts of interest.
|Important For=Researchers; PhD Students; Research integrity trainers; Industry
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ori.hhs.gov/case-one-age-old-conflicts
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Bbcc248c-0ac3-4405-a35b-67e2c34ea571;Resource:Bdaacb81-740f-4483-b0b5-870701ef887a;Resource:77483561-dded-4881-92ee-4226bce4fc9f
|Related To Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:077cf9e7-62ff-4379-ab35-bed2a1821c15
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=U.S. Department of Health and Human Service; Office of Research Integrity
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Integrity
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest; Financial conflict of interest
|Related To Research Area=Biological Sciences
}}

Resource:19f6eb7b-213f-4f56-a225-f37fd535d3bc

2020-11-04T16:05:07Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Case Studies For Small Group Discussion
|Is About=This is a collection of fictional and real case studies in research ethics, including questions for discussion. The cases are presented in written or video format. Topics include research misconduct, data acquisition and management, reproducibility, safe laboratory practices and animal welfare.
|Important Because=This collection of cases is useful for organizing group discussions.
|Important For=Researchers; PhD Students; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.mskcc.org/sites/default/files/node/26556/documents/oct-cases-2018-final-7-9-18.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:D4a86c93-e32c-4b1c-b9bf-7d5930e6d638;Resource:34661954-bfa3-4b8f-b47d-95ebe379ff81;Resource:3b5cfd90-972a-4d17-accd-395b6cec560d
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:Fe62e07c-2e75-4a55-82e6-1908fa543b7a;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Memorial Sloan Kettering; The Rockefeller University; Weill Cornell Medicine
|Has Timepoint=2018
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Integrity
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Safety; Whistleblowing; Fabrication; Falsification; Data management; Research with Animals; Research with Humans; Publication ethics; Conflict of interest; Mentor/trainee relationship
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.06 - Gene therapy, cell therapy, regenerative medicine; LS 07.01 - Medical engineering and technology; LS 07.11 - Medical ethics
}}

Resource:55cea558-b370-4eec-b4f5-0de97f815e67

2020-11-04T12:57:13Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=COPE Cases
|Is About=This is a collection of case studies on publication ethics developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The collection is constantly updated with new cases which are submitted by COPE members.
|Important Because=The collection of cases is a useful recourse for teaching publication ethics and for discussing ethical dilemmas in the field.
|Important For=Editors; Researchers; PhD students
|Has Best Practice=COPE provides collection of [https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines guidelines] on publication ethics.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://publicationethics.org/cases
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:76a5fddb-924e-48ba-a5d5-9b318bf8e477
|Related To Theme=Theme:9fc17763-af35-4688-a87f-165f3b120897;Theme:49d71148-0df2-4a78-93d4-c802b48bbdb7
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=COPE
|Has Location=United Kingdom
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Professional courtesy and fairness; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research misconduct; Plagiarism; Authorship; Conflict of interest; Publication ethics; Peer review; Copyright; Collaborative research
}}

Resource:1e62d4a2-f249-4b00-9629-3241a5e4d6e1

2020-09-21T05:24:11Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Perioperative Mischief: The Price of Academic Misconduct
|Is About=This is an article about Don Poldermans, a well-known cardiology researcher who worked at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and was dismissed for scientific misconduct and fraud in 2012.
|Important Because=The article may be used as a case study in the context of research integrity training.
|Important For=Researchers; PhD students; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(12)00386-5/fulltext
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:4980e05d-80c0-4e23-9ff2-340f136edec4;Resource:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0;Resource:88fb9129-4338-4bd3-a332-2e5eee03c598
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Don Poldermans
|Has Location=The Netherlands; Erasmus Medical Center
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability; Trustworthiness
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Fraud; Misconduct Investigations
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:C4609126-4aaa-43c3-87e7-a99d3ac85948

2020-09-21T05:23:48Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=U.S. Gov’t Physicist Sentenced to 18 months in Prison for Fraud
|Is About=This is an article about physicist Sean Darin Kinion who was working at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He faked data and reports in quantum computing research. In 2016 Kinion was sentenced to 18 months in prison for faking data and ordered to pay back the funding.
|Important Because=The article may be used as a case study in the context of research integrity training.
|Important For=Researchers; PhD students; Graduate students; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/12/23/u-s-govt-physicist-sentenced-18-months-prison-fraud/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Sean Darin Kinion
|Has Timepoint=2016
|Has Location=United States; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Reproducibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Fraud; Computer Science; Faked Data; Legal Threats; Misconduct Investigations; Physics Retractions
|Related To Research Area=Computer and Information Sciences
}}

Resource:6bcb5216-4e02-470f-85e7-abd492d47134

2020-09-21T05:07:41Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=U.S. Finds Misconduct by Ex-Researchers at Chicago and UCSF
|Is About=This is an article about H. Rosie Xing, a cancer researcher working at the University of Chicago who engaged in research misconduct by using manipulated images in her publications, and James P. Warne, a diabetes researcher at the University of California at San Francisco who falsified data in publications and grant applications.
|Important Because=This article may be used as a source of case studies in the context of research integrity training.
|Important For=Researchers; Graduate students; PhD Students; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2014/12/15/us-finds-misconduct-ex-researchers-chicago-and-ucsf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Ae1b3645-f7f2-4c55-a09d-c24935fd73db;Resource:58f8a252-1eb7-42aa-8a66-31f042b632dd;Resource:20c8233b-7f3b-46f4-969a-882bb832581c;Resource:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0
|Related To Theme=Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:20f32f16-72a1-46f0-b9a6-24fac05b0937
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=H. Rosie Xing; James P. Warne
|Has Timepoint=2014
|Has Location=United States; University of California at San Francisco; University of Chicago; National Cancer Institute
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Integrity; Reliability; Reproducibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification; Image manipulation
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:1e62d4a2-f249-4b00-9629-3241a5e4d6e1

2020-09-21T04:52:36Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

Resource:1e62d4a2-f249-4b00-9629-3241a5e4d6e1

2020-09-20T19:03:24Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Perioperative Mischief: The Price of Academic Misconduct
|Is About=This is an article about Don Poldermans, a well-known cardiology researcher who worked at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and was dismissed for scientific misconduct and fraud in 2012.
|Important For=Researchers; PhD students; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(12)00386-5/fulltext
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:4980e05d-80c0-4e23-9ff2-340f136edec4;Resource:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0;Resource:88fb9129-4338-4bd3-a332-2e5eee03c598
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Don Poldermans
|Has Location=The Netherlands; Erasmus Medical Center
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability; Trustworthiness
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Fraud
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:1e62d4a2-f249-4b00-9629-3241a5e4d6e1

2020-09-20T19:01:13Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Perioperative Mischief: The Price of Academic Misconduct
|Is About=This is an article about Don Poldermans, a cardiology researcher who worked at the Erasmus Medical Center in Netherlands and was fired for scientific misconduct in 2012.
|Important For=Researchers; PhD students; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(12)00386-5/fulltext
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:4980e05d-80c0-4e23-9ff2-340f136edec4;Resource:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0;Resource:88fb9129-4338-4bd3-a332-2e5eee03c598
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Don Poldermans
|Has Location=The Netherlands; Erasmus Medical Center
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability; Trustworthiness
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Fraud
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:D4a86c93-e32c-4b1c-b9bf-7d5930e6d638

2020-09-20T18:48:33Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Case Study Collection
|Is About=This resource is a database of ethics cases from different fields of science: natural sciences, life sciences, engineering, social sciences, and business. Each case study includes a short description of the case and a link to either a full text version of the case or to its location on a web site maintained by another organization.
|Important Because=The database includes a broad collection of cases. The cases can be searched by keyword, subject, or discipline.
|Important For=Research integrity trainers; Graduate students; Undergraduate students; PhD students; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://ethics.iit.edu/eelibrary/case-study-collection
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:19f6eb7b-213f-4f56-a225-f37fd535d3bc;Resource:9d100510-993f-40a9-8f40-b60f0f975f26
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Illinois Institute of Technology
|Has Location=United States
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research with Animals; Research with Humans; Authorship; Questionable research practice; Research misconduct; Conflict of interest; Data management; Mentor/trainee relationship; Publication ethics; Intellectual property; Safety; Social responsibilities
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering; LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:D4a86c93-e32c-4b1c-b9bf-7d5930e6d638

2020-09-20T18:47:05Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Case Study Collection
|Is About=This resource is a database of ethics cases from different fields of natural sciences, life sciences, engineering, social sciences, and business. Each case study includes a short description of the case and a link to either a full text version of the case or to its location on a web site maintained by another organization.
|Important Because=The database includes a broad collection of cases. The cases can be searched by keyword, subject, or discipline.
|Important For=Research integrity trainers; Graduate students; Undergraduate students; PhD students; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://ethics.iit.edu/eelibrary/case-study-collection
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:19f6eb7b-213f-4f56-a225-f37fd535d3bc;Resource:9d100510-993f-40a9-8f40-b60f0f975f26
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Illinois Institute of Technology
|Has Location=United States
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research with Animals; Research with Humans; Authorship; Questionable research practice; Research misconduct; Conflict of interest; Data management; Mentor/trainee relationship; Publication ethics; Intellectual property; Safety; Social responsibilities
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering; LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:73d598f5-cb7e-4dfe-b4bc-3238ee7abe73

2020-09-20T18:36:53Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Case Study Videos
|Is About=The resource includes brief videos illustrating research ethics issues arising in academic settings. The core areas included are: Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing and Ownership; Conflict of Interest and Commitment; Human Subjects; Animal Welfare; Research Misconduct; Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship; Mentor/Trainee Responsibilities; Peer Review; Collaborative Science.
|Important For=Doctoral students; Early career researchers; PhD Students; Research integrity trainers; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://oric.research.wvu.edu/services/responsible-conduct/core-areas
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:8f9e6e48-0529-4eb4-9e81-495fffa10688;Resource:C37f8873-52e2-4867-bb57-8e798c0b7129
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9;Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a;Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8;Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=West Virginia University; CITI
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Integrity; Good stewardship; Responsibility; Trustworthiness
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data management; Conflict of interest; Research with Animals; Research with Humans; Research misconduct; Authorship; Mentor/trainee relationship; Peer reviewing; Collaborative research
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering; SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}

Resource:73d598f5-cb7e-4dfe-b4bc-3238ee7abe73

2020-09-20T18:29:36Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

Resource:49c12056-f90d-4d3a-8d23-e15755ccfa6b

2020-08-11T09:35:19Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Conflicts with Community Leaders
|Is About=This fictional case is about an infectious disease researcher who is conducting a survey with men who are HIV positive and sexually active with partners of both sexes. This research contains sensitive information and the community leaders of the research population are not pleased with its results.
|Important Because=When doing a research concerning a sensitive subject, it is important to think about the effect the results can have on the research population and to .
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Funders; General public; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=Researchers can consult the following guidelines on collaboration with communities:

* Kate Chatfield et al. (2018) Research with, not about, communities - Ethical guidance towards empowerment in collaborative research, a report for the TRUST project. http://trust-project.eu/
* Figueiredo Nascimento, S., Cuccillato, E., Schade, S., Guimarães Pereira, A. (2016) Citizen Engagement in Science and Policy-Making. doi:10.2788/40563 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/sites/jrccties/files/mc10_rio_sio-lopez_mobility_reading.pdf
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-two-conflicts-community-leaders
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F52ff816-1035-46a4-bf92-a5f6a349f787
|Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd;Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability; Care
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research Impact; Social responsibility
|Related To Research Area=Health sciences
}}

Theme:61d9a3f5-8f8b-4f6f-8363-fa53f959f131

2020-08-11T09:31:52Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:6f515a18-ce5f-42b0-8741-27248f6435a0
|Title=The impact of the GDPR on scientific data
|Is About=On May 25th, 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) entered into force in Europe. The GDPR sets out the new rules researchers must adhere to when processing personal data. <ref>EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (2018). Available online at: https://gdpr-info.eu/</ref> Personal data is any data with which a person can be directly or indirectly identified. Researchers should conform to the GDPR principles of data protection to protect the privacy rights of their study participants and avoid legal issues.
<references />
|Important Because=Research data often contains personal characteristics, such as a name, location data, or physical, physiological, genetic or cultural features of a person. For these, the GDPR provides the following principles in [https://gdpr-info.eu/art-5-gdpr/ article 5]:

*"Data should be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner."
*"Data should be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and is not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes."
*"Data should be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed."
*"Data should be kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed. For scientific data, it is often recommended to use pseudonymization as a technique to further protect subject privacy. Long-term archiving for scientific purposes is allowed when in accordance to Article 89 of the GDPR."
*"Data should be processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss."
|Important For=Students; Research subjects; Ethics committee members; Researchers; Research institutions; Policy makers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Journal publishers; Journal editors; industry stakeholders; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; General public; Research Integrity Officers; Funders; PhD Students
|Has Best Practice=Researchers that work with personal data can consult the GDPR online [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679 here]. In 2020 the European Data Protection Supervisor issued [https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/20-01-06_opinion_research_en.pdf A Preliminary Opinion on data protection and scientific research].

You should also be able to contact your local Data Protection Officer or study supervisor for more information on handling personal data.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F7ed25ad-cfab-4040-b52f-596accc3c317;Resource:9c917ab2-c01d-446b-89c1-a9cd415afb00;Resource:695b5c9b-f3ac-4fc8-8e20-1dfd5f7347ff;Resource:B47afc7d-44d6-4713-a209-953d58e81778;Resource:232ffbe0-b7fb-4d04-b605-493e10bc04c6
|Related To Theme=Theme:540c9ba0-bc9c-4311-b3e1-7a650d2b9f0f;Theme:0bd48e3b-3590-44ae-a21b-7cf2b425d6cb
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Reliability; Care; Respect; Trustworthiness; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data Management; Data Protection
}}

Theme:721dc5c7-8e47-41ca-a7b8-73d6a225c3c3

2020-08-11T09:20:09Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Networks and projects promoting research integrity
|Is About=Across the world networks and projects have been established to promote research integrity. These networks and projects aim to foster responsible research integrity practices.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice='''Networks'''

*[https://allea.org/ ALLEA] (All European Academies)
*[https://amsterdamresearchclimate.nl/ ARCA] (Amsterdam Research Climate)
*[https://publicationethics.org/ COPE] (The Committee on Publication Ethics )
*[https://ease.org.uk/about-us/ EASE] (The European Association of Science Editors)
*[http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ ENAI] (European Network for Academic Integrity)
*[http://eneri.eu/ ENERI] (European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity)
*[http://www.enohe.net/ ENOHE] (European Network of Ombuds in Higher Education)
*[http://www.enrio.eu/ ENRIO] (European Network for Research Integrity Officers)
*[https://www.eosc-portal.eu/ EOSC] (European Open Science Cloud)
*[https://www.equator-network.org/ EQUATOR Network] (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research)
*[http://www.eurecnet.org/index.html EUREC] (European Network of Research Ethics Committees )
*[https://irafpa.org/en/ IRAFPA] (Institute of Research and Action on Fraud and Plagiarism in Academia)
*[https://lari.lu/ LARI] (the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity)
*[http://www.scienceeurope.org/policy/working-groups/research-integrity Science Europe]
*[https://www.wcrif.org/ WCRIF] (World Conference on Research Integrity Foundation)

'''Projects'''

*[http://entireconsortium.eu/ EnTIRE] (Mapping Normative Frameworks for EThics and Integrity of REsearch)
*[https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/ FOSTER] (Fostering the practical implementation of Open Science)
*[http://h2020integrity.eu/ INTEGRITY]
*[https://www.nrin.nl/about/inspire-project/ INSPIRE] (Inventory in the Netherlands of Stakeholders' Practices and Initiatives on Research Integrity to set an Example)
*[https://on-merrit.eu/ ON-MERRIT] (Observing and Negating Matthew Effects in Responsible Research & Innovation Transition)
*[https://www.openaire.eu/ OpenAIRE]
*[https://www.path2integrity.eu/ Path2Integrity]
*[https://printeger.eu/ Printeger] (Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research)
*[https://satoriproject.eu/ SATORI]
*[https://www.sops4ri.eu/ SOPs4RI] (Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity)
*[http://trust-project.eu/ TRUST]
*[http://virt2ueconsortium.eu/ VIRT2UE] (Virtue-based ethics and Integrity of Research: Train-the-Trainer program for Upholding the principles and practices of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity)
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:3c6a13ad-6861-4a5f-bf5b-491693ee6b6d;Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:B4f3369c-e0ac-4cf5-acd9-cb2a6c11181d
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Respect; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research Integrity
}}

Resource:3f0172f6-1f9d-46b3-af7f-1ba4e4ae4619

2020-08-11T09:17:47Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Reporting guidelines: The EQUATOR Network
|Is About=What should be included within research reports? Reporting guidelines are consensus-based recommendations for minimum standards of reporting. They are structured and simple tools for researchers to be used during the writing process. The EQUATOR Network defines a reporting guideline as“[a] checklist, flow diagram, or structured text to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed using explicit methodology.” <ref>What is a reporting guideline. Available at:

https://www.equator-network.org/about-us/what-is-a-reporting-guideline/</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Reporting guidelines are essential in disseminating research results and supporting best research practices. Using guidelines will lead to more complete papers, increasing the quality of papers at the same time. There are several ethical advances related to using guidelines, such as fairly using resources, minimizing risk of harm and maximizing benefit of research <ref>Nicholls, S. G., Langan, S. M., Benchimol, E. I., & Moher, D. (2016). Reporting transparency: making the ethical mandate explicit.BMC medicine, 14(1), 44</ref>. As a result this might lead to a reduce in research waste. The aim of a reporting guideline is to ensure that, for instance, readers understand the text, research can be replicated by other researchers, that the research can be included in a systematic review or that it can aid doctors in making clinical decisions. A reporting guideline should include at least a clear list of what should appear in a paper and how that list was developed <ref>What is a reporting guideline. Available at:

https://www.equator-network.org/about-us/what-is-a-reporting-guideline/</ref>.
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Research institutions; Policy makers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Journal publishers; Journal editors; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Doctoral students; Professors
|Has Best Practice=There are hundreds of different reporting guidelines which an author can choose from. Selecting the right guideline seems difficult, but has been made easier with the use of a few tools. [http://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/20160226-RG-decision-tree-for-Wizard-CC-BY-26-February-2016.pdf This flowchart] depicts in several easy steps which of the most common research methods (i.e. systematic review, randomized trials, observational studies) match a reporting guideline. If you have a more specific study, [https://www.penelope.ai/equator-wizard this reporting guideline wizard] was developed to reveal which guideline you can use. Please visit the [http://www.equator-network.org/ EQUATOR Network] for more information on reporting medical research.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.penelope.ai/equator-wizard
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:3f0172f6-1f9d-46b3-af7f-1ba4e4ae4619
|Related To Theme=Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637;Theme:7df709ce-fb89-4703-966f-b33e68b83ad5
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accuracy; Efficiency; Objectivity; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication ethics; Authorship; Reproducability; Responsible research
}}

Resource:3f0172f6-1f9d-46b3-af7f-1ba4e4ae4619

2020-08-11T09:16:27Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Reporting guidelines: The EQUATOR Network
|Is About=What should be included within research reports? Reporting guidelines are consensus-based recommendations for minimum standards of reporting. They are structured and simple tools for researchers to be used during the writing process. The EQUATOR Network defines a reporting guideline as“[a] checklist, flow diagram, or structured text to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed using explicit methodology.” <ref>What is a reporting guideline. Available at:

https://www.equator-network.org/about-us/what-is-a-reporting-guideline/</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Reporting guidelines are essential in disseminating research results and supporting best research practices. Using guidelines will lead to more complete papers, increasing the quality of papers at the same time. There are several ethical advances related to using guidelines, such as fairly using resources, minimizing risk of harm and maximizing benefit of research <ref>Nicholls, S. G., Langan, S. M., Benchimol, E. I., & Moher, D. (2016). Reporting transparency: making the ethical mandate explicit.BMC medicine, 14(1), 44</ref>. As a result this might lead to a reduce in research waste. The aim of a reporting guideline is to ensure that, for instance, readers understand the text, research can be replicated by other researchers, that the research can be included in a systematic review or that it can aid doctors in making clinical decisions. A reporting guideline should include at least a clear list of what should appear in a paper and how that list was developed <ref>What is a reporting guideline. Available at:

https://www.equator-network.org/about-us/what-is-a-reporting-guideline/</ref>.
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Research institutions; Policy makers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Journal publishers; Journal editors; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Doctoral students; Professors
|Has Best Practice=There are hundreds of different reporting guidelines which an author can choose from. Selecting the right guideline seems difficult, but has been made easier with the use of a few tools. [http://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/20160226-RG-decision-tree-for-Wizard-CC-BY-26-February-2016.pdf This flowchart] depicts in several easy steps which of the most common research methods (i.e. systematic review, randomized trials, observational studies) match a reporting guideline. If you have a more specific study, [https://www.penelope.ai/equator-wizard this reporting guideline wizard] was developed to reveal which guideline you can use. Please visit the [http://www.equator-network.org/ EQUATOR Network] for more information.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.penelope.ai/equator-wizard
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:3f0172f6-1f9d-46b3-af7f-1ba4e4ae4619
|Related To Theme=Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637;Theme:7df709ce-fb89-4703-966f-b33e68b83ad5
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accuracy; Efficiency; Objectivity; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication ethics; Authorship; Reproducability; Responsible research
}}

Resource:3f0172f6-1f9d-46b3-af7f-1ba4e4ae4619

2020-08-11T09:15:34Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Reporting guidelines: The EQUATOR Network
|Is About=What should be included within research reports? Reporting guidelines are consensus-based recommendations for minimum standards of reporting. They are structured and simple tools for (health) researchers to be used during the writing process. The EQUATOR Network defines a reporting guideline as“[a] checklist, flow diagram, or structured text to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed using explicit methodology.” <ref>What is a reporting guideline. Available at:

https://www.equator-network.org/about-us/what-is-a-reporting-guideline/</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Reporting guidelines are essential in disseminating research results and supporting best research practices. Using guidelines will lead to more complete papers, increasing the quality of papers at the same time. There are several ethical advances related to using guidelines, such as fairly using resources, minimizing risk of harm and maximizing benefit of research <ref>Nicholls, S. G., Langan, S. M., Benchimol, E. I., & Moher, D. (2016). Reporting transparency: making the ethical mandate explicit.BMC medicine, 14(1), 44</ref>. As a result this might lead to a reduce in research waste. The aim of a reporting guideline is to ensure that, for instance, readers understand the text, research can be replicated by other researchers, that the research can be included in a systematic review or that it can aid doctors in making clinical decisions. A reporting guideline should include at least a clear list of what should appear in a paper and how that list was developed <ref>What is a reporting guideline. Available at:

https://www.equator-network.org/about-us/what-is-a-reporting-guideline/</ref>.
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Research institutions; Policy makers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Journal publishers; Journal editors; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Doctoral students; Professors
|Has Best Practice=There are hundreds of different reporting guidelines which an author can choose from. Selecting the right guideline seems difficult, but has been made easier with the use of a few tools. [http://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/20160226-RG-decision-tree-for-Wizard-CC-BY-26-February-2016.pdf This flowchart] depicts in several easy steps which of the most common research methods (i.e. systematic review, randomized trials, observational studies) match a reporting guideline. If you have a more specific study, [https://www.penelope.ai/equator-wizard this reporting guideline wizard] was developed to reveal which guideline you can use. Please visit the [http://www.equator-network.org/ EQUATOR Network] for more information.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.penelope.ai/equator-wizard
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:3f0172f6-1f9d-46b3-af7f-1ba4e4ae4619
|Related To Theme=Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637;Theme:7df709ce-fb89-4703-966f-b33e68b83ad5
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accuracy; Efficiency; Objectivity; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication ethics; Authorship; Reproducability; Responsible research
}}

Resource:49c12056-f90d-4d3a-8d23-e15755ccfa6b

2020-08-11T08:56:40Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Conflicts with Community Leaders
|Is About=This fictional case is about an infectious disease researcher who is conducting a survey with men who are HIV positive and sexually active with partners of both sexes. This research contains sensitive information and the community leaders of the research population are not pleased with its results.
|Important Because=When doing a research concerning a sensitive subject, it is important to think about the effect the results can have on the research population and to .
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Funders; General public; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=Kate Chatfield et al. (2018) Research with, not about, communities - Ethical guidance towards empowerment in collaborative research, a report for the TRUST project. http://trust-project.eu/

Figueiredo Nascimento, S., Cuccillato, E., Schade, S., Guimarães Pereira, A. (2016) Citizen Engagement in Science and Policy-Making. doi:10.2788/40563 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/sites/jrccties/files/mc10_rio_sio-lopez_mobility_reading.pdf
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-two-conflicts-community-leaders
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F52ff816-1035-46a4-bf92-a5f6a349f787
|Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research Impact; Social responsibility
|Related To Research Area=Health sciences
}}

Resource:49c12056-f90d-4d3a-8d23-e15755ccfa6b

2020-08-11T08:55:35Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Conflicts with Community Leaders
|Is About=This fictional case is about an infectious disease researcher who is conducting a survey with men who are HIV positive and sexually active with partners of both sexes. This research contains sensitive information and the community leaders of the research population are not pleased with its results.
|Important Because=When doing a research concerning a sensitive subject, it is important to think about the effect the results can have on the research population and to .
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Funders; General public; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=Figueiredo Nascimento, S., Cuccillato, E., Schade, S., Guimarães Pereira, A. (2016) Citizen Engagement in Science and Policy-Making. doi:10.2788/40563 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/sites/jrccties/files/mc10_rio_sio-lopez_mobility_reading.pdf

Kate Chatfield et al. (2018) Research with, not about, communities - Ethical guidance towards empowerment in collaborative research, a report for the TRUST project. http://trust-project.eu/
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-two-conflicts-community-leaders
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F52ff816-1035-46a4-bf92-a5f6a349f787
|Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research Impact; Social responsibility
|Related To Research Area=Health sciences
}}

Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182

2020-08-06T13:57:29Z

0000-0002-3190-100X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Authorship and publication
|Is About=This handout provides a broad conceptual subway map of the world of publication, to support the Authorship and Publication training provided by QUT Library and Office of Research Ethics and Integrity<ref>https://figshare.com/articles/Authorship_and_Publication/5801682</ref>. The map provides a framework to help explain and discuss the complex world of academic publication.
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Supervisors; Early career researchers; Graduate students; Professors; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://figshare.com/articles/Authorship_and_Publication/5801682
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Queensland University of Technology; OREI
|Has Timepoint=2018
|Has Location=Australia
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer review; Conflict of Interest; Authorship; Authorship and Contribution; Public Communication
}}

User:0000-0002-3190-100X

2020-08-06T13:36:03Z

0000-0002-3190-100X: create user page