The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0

2021-08-18T09:18:04Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:4596ffa1-88cd-40bc-b346-a58837206404
|Title=Retractions: correcting the scientific literature
|Is About=Retraction is the process of withdrawal from publication of those articles that display seriously flawed or erroneous data. Retraction aims to correct the scholarly literature and alert readers of an article’s serious mistakes. <ref>COPE. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Guidelines for retracting articles. 2010.</ref> The flawed data can be the result of honest error or from research misconduct. When unnoticed, retracted papers are still seen as valid and decrease the trustworthiness of science that follows.
<references />
|Important Because=The integrity of the scientific record is important because published research serves as a basis for new research or application in practice. If the published report on research results is not correct, it may waste future research effort and, what is more dangerous, have direct adverse effects on the public. This is particularly relevant for health research because incorrect health research results may cause harm to patients or the general population. After publication, when it becomes apparent that the results and/or interpretations of an article are seriously flawed, an article can be retracted. Retraction differs from correction, where an article is corrected after publication. Retraction is more serious as a retracted paper should no longer be considered as a source of scientific knowledge. It is also a signal to alert other scholars of the errors. Main reasons for retraction are honest research errors, plagiarism, redundant publication, fabrication, falsification, experimental artefacts and unexplained irreproducibility. <ref>Kleinert S. COPE's retraction guidelines. The Lancet 2009;374(9705):1876-1877.</ref><ref>Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S. Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas 2009;64(4):201-203.</ref> The COPE guidelines state that retractions are not to punish the authors. In addition, authors of a paper, as well as others, can call for a retraction upon discovering errors. COPE guidelines state that retracted papers should be labelled as retracted and be accessible (both offline and online). Most journals have their own retraction guidelines. Over the years an increase in the percentage of retracted papers is observed. <ref>Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S. Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas 2009;64(4):201-203.</ref> The two possible explanations for this are 1) an increase in pressure to publish flawed papers or 2) an increase in detection of such flaws. <ref>Cokol M, Ozbay F, Rodriguez‐Esteban R. Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep 2008;9(1):2.</ref> Nonetheless, retractions have an impact on the scientific community. First, it is a waste of resources, both in financial terms, time and participants. Second, when unnoticed, authors implicitly or explicitly use retracted sources as valid scientific results leading to decreasing trustworthiness of science. <ref>Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA 1998;280(3):296-297.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=phd students; Journal publishers; Journal editors
|Has Best Practice=For example, the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which produces PubMed, the largest bibliographical database in health research, describes different types of procedures for amendments to the [http://wayback.archive-it.org/org-350/20180312141525/https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/errata.html published scientific record]. Retraction of an article involves publishing a retraction notice that explains the reasons for retraction and who is making the retraction. This notice links to the retracted article, which is clearly marked in the indexing database.

The current list of all retractions in PubMed, regardless of the cause (error or misconduct) is available [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=retracted+publication+%5Bpt%5D here].

Some journals want to differentiate between retractions due to misconduct and those that are due to an error that makes a research conclusion wrong, but can be corrected. Such corrections have been termed “retraction with republication” or “retraction with replacement” by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). This type of retraction is used when a serious error makes published results unreliable, but it was judged that the error was not intentional and the corrections are possible. Such retraction and replacement should be accompanied by full explanation, including a clear presentation of the extent of changes that were made.

The problem may occur when the retracted and replaced articles keep the same pagination and bibliographic identifiers (such as DOI – digital object identifier). Some bibliographical databases may not recognize this as a proper correction of literature. Databases usually require that the original and corrected/replaced publication are kept as separated publication items, with added notice that links them. Different understanding of how a retracted publication can be replaced with a corrected publication has caused differences in indexing of such publications in bibliographical databases, creating confusion for the users of published research articles.

A relevant tool to detect retracted papers and keep up to date on retraction scandals is Retraction Watch. Retraction watch is both a blog and a database of an estimated 17,000 retracted papers. The blog regularly updates on papers and authors that are retracted/about to be retracted. The database, found [http://retractiondatabase.org/ here], is a tool to find out whether a paper has been retracted. Journals, authors and reasons for retractions are given in the search results.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:1b777e40-9d7f-4ef4-a601-6be70c9e386a;Resource:Aea9471a-e48b-4fe0-8df4-8013763c4b08;Resource:55cea558-b370-4eec-b4f5-0de97f815e67;Resource:38cabc43-2b53-4c98-80ea-89b97ef5107d;Resource:A2fda758-06fa-47d9-9fdd-7f12fe36e8ee;Resource:Adad1721-62c8-46fd-83f9-617770437d90;Resource:1f1ce2ff-9a46-413e-a780-dda31b29fa71;Resource:1b777e40-9d7f-4ef4-a601-6be70c9e386a
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication ethics; Journal Retractions
}}

Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0

2021-08-18T09:15:52Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:4596ffa1-88cd-40bc-b346-a58837206404
|Title=Retractions: correcting the scientific literature
|Is About=Retraction is the process of withdrawal from publication of those articles that display seriously flawed or erroneous data. Retraction aims to correct the scholarly literature and alert readers of an article’s serious mistakes. <ref>COPE. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Guidelines for retracting articles. 2010.</ref> The flawed data can be the result of honest error or from research misconduct. When unnoticed, retracted papers are still seen as valid and decrease the trustworthiness of science that follows.
<references />
|Important Because=The integrity of the scientific record is important because published research serves as a basis for new research or application in practice. If the published report on research results is not correct, it may waste future research effort and, what is more dangerous, have direct adverse effects on the public. This is particularly relevant for health research because incorrect health research results may cause harm to patients or the general population. After publication, when it becomes apparent that the results and/or interpretations of an article are seriously flawed, an article can be retracted. Retraction differs from correction, where an article is corrected after publication. Retraction is more serious as a retracted paper should no longer be considered as a source of scientific knowledge. It is also a signal to alert other scholars of the errors. Main reasons for retraction are honest research errors, plagiarism, redundant publication, fabrication, falsification, experimental artefacts and unexplained irreproducibility. <ref>Kleinert S. COPE's retraction guidelines. The Lancet 2009;374(9705):1876-1877.</ref><ref>Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S. Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas 2009;64(4):201-203.</ref> The COPE guidelines state that retractions are not to punish the authors. In addition, authors of a paper, as well as others, can call for a retraction upon discovering errors. COPE guidelines state that retracted papers should be labelled as retracted and be accessible (both offline and online). Most journals have their own retraction guidelines. Over the years an increase in the percentage of retracted papers is observed. <ref>Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S. Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas 2009;64(4):201-203.</ref> The two possible explanations for this are 1) an increase in pressure to publish flawed papers or 2) an increase in detection of such flaws. <ref>Cokol M, Ozbay F, Rodriguez‐Esteban R. Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep 2008;9(1):2.</ref> Nonetheless, retractions have an impact on the scientific community. First, it is a waste of resources, both in financial terms, time and participants. Second, when unnoticed, authors implicitly or explicitly use retracted sources as valid scientific results leading to decreasing trustworthiness of science. <ref>Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA 1998;280(3):296-297.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=phd students; Journal publishers; Journal editors
|Has Best Practice=For example, the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which produces PubMed, the largest bibliographical database in health research, describes different types of procedures for amendments to the [http://wayback.archive-it.org/org-350/20180312141525/https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/errata.html). published scientific record]. Retraction of an article involves publishing a retraction notice that explains the reasons for retraction and who is making the retraction. This notice links to the retracted article, which is clearly marked in the indexing database.

The current list of all retractions in PubMed, regardless of the cause (error or misconduct) is available [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=retracted+publication+%5Bpt%5D here].

Some journals want to differentiate between retractions due to misconduct and those that are due to an error that makes a research conclusion wrong, but can be corrected. Such corrections have been termed “retraction with republication” or “retraction with replacement” by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). This type of retraction is used when a serious error makes published results unreliable, but it was judged that the error was not intentional and the corrections are possible. Such retraction and replacement should be accompanied by full explanation, including a clear presentation of the extent of changes that were made.

The problem may occur when the retracted and replaced articles keep the same pagination and bibliographic identifiers (such as DOI – digital object identifier). Some bibliographical databases may not recognize this as a proper correction of literature. Databases usually require that the original and corrected/replaced publication are kept as separated publication items, with added notice that links them. Different understanding of how a retracted publication can be replaced with a corrected publication has caused differences in indexing of such publications in bibliographical databases, creating confusion for the users of published research articles.

A relevant tool to detect retracted papers and keep up to date on retraction scandals is Retraction Watch. Retraction watch is both a blog and a database of an estimated 17,000 retracted papers. The blog regularly updates on papers and authors that are retracted/about to be retracted. The database, found [http://retractiondatabase.org/ here], is a tool to find out whether a paper has been retracted. Journals, authors and reasons for retractions are given in the search results.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:1b777e40-9d7f-4ef4-a601-6be70c9e386a;Resource:Aea9471a-e48b-4fe0-8df4-8013763c4b08;Resource:55cea558-b370-4eec-b4f5-0de97f815e67;Resource:38cabc43-2b53-4c98-80ea-89b97ef5107d;Resource:A2fda758-06fa-47d9-9fdd-7f12fe36e8ee;Resource:Adad1721-62c8-46fd-83f9-617770437d90;Resource:1f1ce2ff-9a46-413e-a780-dda31b29fa71;Resource:1b777e40-9d7f-4ef4-a601-6be70c9e386a
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication ethics; Journal Retractions
}}

Resource:Fa27f5f7-b2cd-43b3-83df-892fc20d948b

2021-08-16T14:22:27Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The role of moral philosophy in the divide between science and non-science
|Is About=This is a factual case that examines the role of moral values in the distinction of science and non-science. The article details a recent (at the time of writing) case of scientific misconduct to show the difference in moral philosophy when applied to science and when applied to non-scientific practices. The rest of the publication further elaborates on these differences and if they might be used to distinguish between science and non-science.
<references />
|Important Because=Although there is much legislation and debate about science, its distinction from non-science is blurred. The article concludes that science is treated specially by moral philosophy, as cases of scientific misconduct are treated differently than cases of misbehaviour in other fields. Therefore, moral philosophy may play an interesting role in distinguishing non-science from science and may have consequences for the legislation on scientific research and the handling of cases of misconduct. Accordingly, it would be interesting to examine the exact role of moral philosophy in the distinction between science and non-science. Albeit answering this question is beyond the scope of this article, it may be an important first step towards a conclusion on this subject. 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11017-007-9035-z
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1993 - 2006
|Has Location=Norway
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; REC approval
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:18a89181-ee50-4dee-82c3-f44c4a7454dc

2021-08-16T11:59:53Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Researcher Accused of Breaching Research Ethics Faces GMC
|Is About=This factual case describes an instance in which a researcher is accused of scientific misconduct by the General Medical Council (GMC). The researcher allegedly lied to trial sponsors and other research institutions about have had ethical approval and about the presence of other sponsors. In addition, the accused researcher used the titles of professor and Ph.D. without obtaining a doctorate.
|Important Because=Ethical approval for scientific research is extremely important. Otherwise, the health of the research subjects may be harmed. Similarly, performing biomedical research without being properly trained for it may have serious consequences for both the health of the research subjects as well as the quality of the research. Therefore, lying about such approval and one’s credentials are serious offenses and should be punished severely.
|Important For=Researchers; research leaders; phd students
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.bmj.com/content/334/7605/1185
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:92439f75-5c0c-49d4-a21f-e9b41bd3a7db
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2001
|Has Location=United Kingdom; UK
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability; Transparency; Honesty; Integrity
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=REC approval; Deception
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

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

2021-08-16T10:16:10Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings
|Is About=This code of conduct tries to promote ethical research in lower-income countries by preventing so-called ‘ethics dumping’, which entails the practice of doing unethical research in lower-income countries.
|Important Because=Research should be done ethically, regardless of the setting it takes place in. Research subjects in lower-income countries may be more prone to exploitation due to their social-economic situation. Initiatives such as this code of conduct may help to achieve the same ethical standards in research in both higher and lower-income countries.

 
|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
}}

Resource:38cabc43-2b53-4c98-80ea-89b97ef5107d

2021-08-11T15:07:56Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=COPE core practices
|Is About=The COPE core practices are guidelines for all stakeholders in the process of academic publishing. They replaced COPE’s previous code of conduct and may be used in addition to national codes of conduct.
|Important Because=To prevent misconduct in academic publishing, it is important to define the best practices and ethical standards. Therefore, these core practices dictate how to ethically handle potential cases of misconduct and how to minimize the chances that misconduct may take place in the practice of academic publishing.
|Important For=Early career researchers; All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=COPE
|Has Timepoint=2017
|Has Location=United Kingdom
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication ethics; Research misconduct; Authorship; Conflict of interest; Data management; Reproducability; Peer review; Intellectual property; Allegations of misconduct
}}

Resource:6db91721-501b-4ec2-aff7-a2c732c4806f

2021-08-11T13:54:02Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Jesse's Intent
|Is About=This factual case describes the story of a teenage boy who died during a clinical trial in which a gene therapy for a rare metabolic disorder was tested. The story is told in great detail from the perspective of the father of the boy. After the death of his son, the father discovered that the researchers leading the trial had conflicts of interest and that he and his son were not properly informed of the risks of the trial.
|Important Because=Participants of clinical trials must be well informed of the risks they are taking by participating in the trial, especially when the investigated treatment is a non-therapeutic intervention. The benefits should outweigh the risks in the case of such a non-therapeutic intervention, which was not true in the tragedy described here: adverse effects were reported in previous cases, whilst no efficacy of the gene therapy was observed in humans. As noted in the article, the trial most likely progressed regardless of these risks due to the conflicts of interests of the trial’s principal investigator and faults by the responsible regulatory institutions. Therefore, this case is a prime example of how conflicts of interest may seriously harm the health of patients and trial participants. To prevent unnecessary deaths as detailed here in the future, it is important to keep these stories in the collective memory and draw lessons from them. The detailed account presented here may just do that.
|Important For=Researchers; Academic institutions; All stakeholders in research; Research Ethics Committees; Clinical researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12739533
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1998 - 1999
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Autonomy; Accountability; Care; Honesty; Openness; Transparency; Objectivity
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Patient safety; Informed consent; Deception
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:63435d54-ed0e-4d06-abdc-75a91b5a7661

2021-08-11T10:06:19Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=History, Ethics and the Presidential Commission on Research in Guatemala
|Is About=This is a factual case about a medical study that took place in a Guatemalan prison. In this study, experiments studying syphilis infection were performed on military personnel, prisoners and asylum inmates, and orphans without their consent. Rather than giving a detailed description of events, like other reports on this subject have already done, the article reconstructs the research environment that allowed this unethical study to take place.
|Important Because=To prevent future research misconduct and unethical behaviour, it is important to understand which factors make it possible for such practices to take place. In addition, as is noted in the article, it is important to do justice not only to the victims of the research misconduct but to all those involved in the practice, especially when the accused are deceased. When examining cases of research misconduct in the past, it is important to keep in mind the ethical standards at the time of the research and not apply our current ethical frameworks to the case. The analysis of the ethical standards in the present article contributes to these various aspects of retrospective understanding of research misconduct cases.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://academic.oup.com/phe/article-abstract/7/3/211/1483697?redirectedFrom=fulltext
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1946
|Has Location=Guatemala
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Autonomy; Dignity; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Patient safety; Equipoise; Informed consent; Vulnerable population; Balancing harms and benefits
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

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

2021-08-10T14:22:50Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{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 factual case details a so-called ‘’First-in-man’ (FIM) clinical trial that seriously harmed the six participants that received the drug under investigation. The report discusses the consequences of the disastrous trial for later FIM trials. The article first considers the scientific consequences, such as the procedure to determine the acceptable dose of the examined drug. Furthermore, the article reviews the ethical dimensions of FIM trials, like potential monetary compensation for the risks the participants take.
<references />
|Important Because=The health of the participants should be the top priority in clinical trials, especially in the FIM trials, where drugs are tested that potentially pose a high risk to the health of the participants. The case discussed here shows that even when the trial is reviewed and approved by ethical boards, it can end disastrously for the trial participants. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to review the errors made and take lessons out of tragic cases such as the one discussed here. The overview presented by the current article may help us to do so.
<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
|Related To Theme=Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:E5629f68-81f6-490d-84d6-fd1e63b8dbc7;Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2006
|Has Location=England
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Integrity; Autonomy; Compassion; Dignity
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Patient safety; Informed consent; Experimental design; Clinical trials
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

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

2021-08-05T13:09:22Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Scientific Misconduct at an Elite Medical Institute: The Role of Competing Institutional Logics and Fragmented Control
|Is About=This case study analyses a case of serious scientific misconduct by a transplantation surgeon that took place for several years at a famous research institution. The case is analysed from three different perspectives and describes how the misconduct could go on due to the reputation of the perpetrator and the commercial interests of the research institute. <references />
|Important Because=As noted in this case study, the incidence of scientific misconduct is on the rise.<ref>Karabag, S.F., Berggren, C., 2016.Misconduct,marginality and editorialpractices inmanagement, businessand economics journals.PLoS One 11(7), e0159492</ref> This case study describes some of the factors that contribute to a working climate in which scientific misconduct is possible. Firstly, the case study shows that the commercial mindset at the management level of a research institute may lead to the silencing of whistle-blowers and the sustainment of scientific misconduct. Secondly, the lack of well-organized regulation, both in the case of the research institute and the editorial board of the journals, also contributes to a working culture in which misconduct can take place. Finally, the case study highlights the important role that the media played in the reveal of the scientific misconduct in this case. Furthermore, this case also graphically describes the consequences that scientific misconduct may have for the health of the patients and research subjects. <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:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2010
|Has Location=Sweden
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Accountability; Transparency; Autonomy
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; REC approval
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:15de5331-8dc3-4dba-8b81-5abcb412e698

2021-08-05T13:08:50Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Aftermath of Scientific Fraud
|Is About=This factual case discusses the consequences of various occasions of scientific misconduct, such as data fabrication. This report takes a different approach than most cases on scientific misconduct, as it focuses on the consequences for collaborators and colleagues on a personal level rather than the consequences for the perpetrator, the scientific community and science in general.
<references />
|Important Because=Although the detrimental consequences of scientific misconduct on a community-wide level are well known, the aftermath on a more personal level is only sparsely described. As this case shows, the careers of supervisors, co-workers and students may be seriously damaged by the deeds of the perpetrator. This could potentially affect the willingness of aspiring scientists to report scientific misconduct. In addition, the present case carefully sketches the problematic situation of potential whistle-blowers. On the one hand, graduate students, post-docs, and other lab personnel are obliged to inform the authorities of potential scientific misconduct by their principal investigator. On the other hand, this whistle-blowing act will make them lose their jobs. A better understanding of the factors influencing these decisions and the personal consequences of scientific misconduct may aid us in creating a scientific community that is safer for whistle-blowers and conducts honest science. 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; All stakeholders in research; Editors; Students; Journals
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(06)00249-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867406002492%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2000; 2005
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Authorship; Honorary authorship
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine; Medical Biotechnology
}}

Resource:B2456a64-b3e1-4d36-866e-a3ba117633e9

2021-08-05T13:08:20Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Handling of Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries: Early stages in the 1990's
|Is About=This factual case analyses the similarities and differences in history, composition and functioning of committees on scientific dishonesty in medical research in the Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. For instance, the respective committees from these countries use different definitions of scientific dishonesty. Furthermore, eight cases of potential scientific misconduct that were brought to the committees are being discussed.
|Important Because=Scientific dishonesty and misconduct in medical research may be detrimental in various ways, e.g. it may endanger the research subject’s well-being and the public trust in science. The severity and consequences of scientific misconduct depend on the form in which it takes place. Nonetheless, research shows that there is still a substantial number of researchers that have admitted to dishonest behaviour.<ref>Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005 Jun 9;435:737-8.</ref> Accordingly, prevention and punishment of both small and large instances of scientific dishonesty and misconduct are of utmost importance to ensure research integrity. The best institutions to issue these measures are independent committees that are free from personal and commercial biases. The present case may give insight into possible complications in the establishment of such committees, such as the definition of scientific misconduct. Therefore, it may aid in the formation and enhancement of systems to prevent scientific dishonesty and misconduct.
<references />
|Important For=researchers; research leaders; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; medical researchers; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)07133-5/fulltext
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:F68f2226-005e-4321-b2a4-fc541fdf6c8d;Resource:740210e9-b695-428b-90a3-f3af7a94a174;Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty; Finnish National Board on Research Integrity
|Has Timepoint=1992-1999
|Has Location=Norway; Finland; Sweden; Denmark
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Ghost authorship; Dishonesty
|Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine
}}

Resource:Cc6c04c8-d628-457a-a514-e050023340ec

2021-08-05T13:07:21Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Ethics, Human Rights and HIV Vaccine Trials in Low-Income Settings
|Is About=This fictional case describes the human rights and ethical implications of vaccine trials in low-income communities and countries. Two short, fictional scenarios are analysed from both perspectives. The case revolves around two key points: the informed consent and comprehension of the research by the potential participants and the question to what extend persuasion by the trail conductor is justifiable.
<references />
|Important Because=The number of vaccine development trials that take place in low and lower-middle income countries increases.<ref>Grenham, A., & Villafana, T. (2017). Vaccine development and trials in low and lower-middle income countries: Key issues, advances and future opportunities. ''Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics'', ''13''(9), 2192–2199. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2017.1356495</nowiki></ref> With this increase in vaccine trials, the risk of exploitation of the local communities also rises. It is important to avoid exploitation and respect the right of autonomy of the research subjects. Therefore, identification of the important ethical issues and the human rights at stake is needed. In this manner, the analysis presented in the current case may be the first step towards policies and regulations that protect the rights of inhabitants of low and lower-middle income countries where vaccine trials take place.
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Pharma Industry
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://jme.bmj.com/content/38/5/286.info
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2012
|Has Location=Sub Saharan Africa
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Autonomy
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Vulnerable population
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:D37d8de4-899e-458c-aa5d-c0246286dd0f

2021-08-05T13:05:29Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Organised Crime Against the Academic Peer Review System
|Is About=This case describes an instance of fake peer review by a company that was hired by the authors of the paper to submit the paper. They suggested two high profile reviewers upon submission, which turned out to be fake. After the discovery of this practice, the paper was retracted from the journal.
|Important Because=Fake peer-reviewing allows researchers to circumvent the scientific journal review system that is in place to ensure the quality of the publication. Serious consequences may follow if this quality control step is skipped. For instance, the meta-analysis, in this case, claims the opposite of the widely considered beliefs about the treatment in question. If clinicians base their treatments based on such a meta-analysis, substantial harm to patients could be done. Therefore, it is important to recognize certain red flags for fake peer reviews in the peer review system. <ref>Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. ''Nature News'', ''515''(7528), 480. https://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Editors; Peer reviewers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bcp.12992
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8;Theme:Fb1a2e2a-aa2a-4eb4-ac9c-c9567c2b401b
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2016
|Has Location=England
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Integrity; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication ethics
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.03 - Pharmacology, pharmacogenomics, drug discovery and design, drug therapy
}}

Resource:606c4f6b-253b-475e-8ee3-d2762e65bdbe

2021-08-05T13:03:56Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Epistemic Integrity of Scientific Research
|Is About=This case defines the concept of epistemic integrity, which can be used to explain research integrity. The epistemic integrity of an experiment is inversely proportional to the deceptiveness of the results of the given experiment. For instance, the more deceptive the outcomes of an experiment are phrased, the lower the epistemic integrity of the practice is.
<references />
|Important Because=To promote research integrity, it is important that one completely grasps the concept of research integrity and that one can explain it. Various explications and definitions of research integrity have been offered over the years. However, none of these explications did fully meet the four criteria for a sufficient explication, as outlined by Rudolf Carnap.<ref>Carnap, R. (1950). ''Logical foundation of probability''. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.</ref> Therefore, this article comes up with an explication of research integrity that fully adheres to these principles and enables more people to understand research integrity. This explication may be used to test, explain, and increase the epistemic integrity of future scientific research.
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-012-9394-3
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Merck & Co
|Has Timepoint=2001
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data reporting; Dishonesty
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:19344715-932f-4599-b6db-cef280258d52

2021-08-05T12:56:22Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Ethics of Pharmaceutical Research Funding: A Social Organization Approach
|Is About=This is a fictional case about a researcher that works for a pharmaceutical company. Instead of looking from the viewpoint of the individual, the case adopts a ‘social organization approach’: it analyses how the interactions with the company personnel may subtly lead to unethical behaviour.
<references responsive="0" />
|Important Because=Studies that are financed by the pharmaceutical industry may be subject to a conflict of interest of the company. Routine contacts of the pharmaceutical company and the scientists may cause the scientist to perceive the unethical behaviour as normal. Adopting this new ‘social organization approach’, rather than analysing the individual characters, may give insight into how these company-scientist interactions can lead to unethical behaviour. Therefore, this case may potentially help us to prevent future unethical behaviour in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored studies. 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/jlme.12072
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:92439f75-5c0c-49d4-a21f-e9b41bd3a7db
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:270a135c-cf51-4a57-81b7-cdd162ea8fdf

2021-08-05T12:53:17Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Speculations and Ethical Concerns in the Conduct of Outsourced Clinical Trials in India
|Is About=This is a factual case about a study in which the various stakeholders of outsourcing clinical trials in India are interviewed. The study nuances the image sketched by the media about the size and the monetary worth of the practice of clinical trial outsourcing in India. In addition, the author raises the concern that the largest portion of India’s population does not benefit from the types of drugs tested in the outsourced clinical trials.
<references />
|Important Because=When outsourcing clinical trials from the West to countries with an upcoming economy, such as India, we must remain cautious whether the same ethical standards are used as with a regular clinical trial. However, we should not judge this process on account of single cases or merely on media coverage. This study may give insight into the different perspectives of the stakeholders in the process of outsourcing clinical trials. Moreover, the study raises the question of whether it is morally defensible to conduct clinical trials in countries whose population probably does not benefit from the drug under investigation. The declaration of Helsinki articulates that “medical research involving a disadvantaged or vulnerable population or community is only justified if the research is responsive to the health needs and priorities of this population or community”, suggesting that these clinical trials are not justifiable.<ref>Association, W. M. (2000). Declaration of Helsinki, Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. ''52 Nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland''. <nowiki>http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10011535346/en/</nowiki></ref> Therefore, as the author of the study suggests, more research into this topic is needed to determine the ethical implications of the outsourcing of clinical trials from the West to developing countries. 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613006837
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2017
|Has Location=India
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fairness
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:Ae70d213-bfc4-4def-b32b-ec04d8784f96

2021-08-05T12:50:39Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Rampant Plagiarism in Two Journals
|Is About=This factual case is about two journals that were involved in plagiarizing scientific articles. Both journals republished open-access articles, in some cases without the original authors knowing, and did not properly refer to the original publication. Furthermore, the journals listed the names of various researchers as if they were members of their editorial boards. However, these researchers never agreed to these positions or did not have any editorial tasks, suggesting that the journal was merely using their name.
|Important Because=The present case shows that plagiarism is not only committed by researchers, but also by publishers. Such plagiarism may not only harm the original authors of the articles by not attributing them for their work, but also the original publishers. It is important to recognize journals that do steal the work of others as fast as possible, so they cannot make many victims. This case may help to recognize such journals.
|Important For=Researchers; Journal publishers; Publishers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-news/rampant-plagiarism-in-two-journals-39289
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Science Reuters; Insight Knowledge
|Has Timepoint=22-5-2013; 2013
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Fraud; Science Publishing
|Related To Research Area=Biological sciences
}}

Resource:8367e13a-b836-4237-bfdd-e2d9dd491329

2021-08-05T12:50:02Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Bothered and Bewildered But not Bewitched
|Is About=This is a factual case that describes the reasons for the (potential) retraction of various articles. Most of these articles are retracted due to authorship issues, while others are potentially retracted due to data falsification. One of the articles is retracted because one of the co-authors was not aware of its publication, nor did he permit for the publication.
|Important Because=All authors listed on a manuscript or article should have permitted publication of the article. Otherwise, the paper will be retracted soon after publication and a lot of funding and hard work is wasted, as this case proves. The journal discussed here has measures in place to make sure that all authors have agreed to the publication, such as an agreement form that needs to be signed by all co-authors. However, the present case shows that this is not always effective and stresses the importance to remain vigilant even with these measures in place. In addition, the present case shows that it is in nobody’s interest to counterfeit the permission of one of the authors.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.jci.org/articles/view/37695
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:72c8ab8d-bbf8-4503-8b48-9de7eac37673
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2008
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:3ed20282-71b3-4ef0-bf37-d07d18d6674f

2021-08-05T12:48:40Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Extent and Causes of Academic Text Recycling or ‘Self-Plagiarism’
|Is About=This is a factual case. This research article first gives a short overview of a prominent case of text recycling or self-plagiarism. From this case, the authors have formulated several hypotheses about the extend and the possible correlates of text recycling in the Dutch scientific fields of biochemistry & molecular cell biology, economics, history, and psychology.
<references />
|Important Because=The current article suggests that text recycling may lead to an unfair advantage in our current scientific working environment, which values the number of publications of an individual researcher and awards grants and funding accordingly. In this system, scientists that engage in text recycling are rewarded more for their work than scientists that do not recycle their texts. Although some argue that text recycling cannot be classified as scientific misconduct, there are now policies and guidelines that contain regulations on text recycling.<ref>Harriman, S., Patel, J. Text recycling: acceptable or misconduct?. ''BMC Med'' '''12, '''148 (2014). <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0148-8</nowiki></ref><ref>Callahan JL. Creation of a Moral Panic? Self-Plagiarism in the Academy. Human Resource Development Review. 2014;13(1):3-10. doi:10.1177/1534484313519063

 </ref> The research discussed here shows that the incidence of problematic text recycling is considerable and higher than other forms of scientific misconduct, such as plagiarism and fabrication. In addition, it gives insight into its possible causes and the influence of policy and journal editors on this practice. Therefore, developing better policies might help to prevent problematic text recycling.
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733317301543?via%3Dihub
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ed7ce22e-667a-44a8-a3d0-2abdd0d37b1a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Self-plagiarism
|Related To Research Area=Economics and business; LS 01 - Molecular and Structural Biology and Biochemistry
}}

Resource:F5e8362e-3dd6-4b95-a148-e0ccdb1cd4f3

2021-07-12T15:19:28Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Olivieri Debacle: Where Were the Heroes of Bioethics?
|Is About=This is a factual case about a blood researcher that is pressured by a pharmaceutical company to not share any details on their clinical trial, which was terminated after the drug was suggested to be ineffective and maybe even harmful for the patients. The researcher received no support from the institution she was working for. The institution was later shown to have a conflict of interest. The article especially emphasizes the lack of action by the bioethical community in this case.
<references />
|Important Because=Publication of clinical trial results is important, especially if the drug under investigation is potentially harmful to the patients. If the pharmaceutical company tries to force the researcher to do otherwise, the institution should intervene and try to support its employee, even if this means that the institution receives no funding from the company. Similarly, the local bioethical community should offer support as well. The example at hand shows that the consequences if this is not the case: it may endanger the research integrity and both the patients' and researchers’ health. 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Universities; Academic staff; Academic institutions; Clinical researchers; Industry
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/1/44
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:Fe62e07c-2e75-4a55-82e6-1908fa543b7a;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1995
|Has Location=Canada
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty; Transparency; Compassion; Collegiality; Safety
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Conflict of interest; Patient safety
|Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine
}}

Resource:F5e8362e-3dd6-4b95-a148-e0ccdb1cd4f3

2021-07-12T15:16:32Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Olivieri Debacle: Where Were the Heroes of Bioethics?
|Is About=This is a factual case about a blood researcher that is pressured by a pharmaceutical company to not share any details on their clinical trial, which was terminated after the drug was suggested to be ineffective and maybe even harmful for the patients. The researcher received no support from the institution she was working for. The institution was later shown to have a conflict of interest. The article especially emphasizes the lack of action by the bioethical community in this case.
<references />
|Important Because=Publication of clinical trial results is important, especially if the drug under investigation is potentially harmful to the patients. If the pharmaceutical company tries to force the researcher to do otherwise, the institution should intervene and try to support its employee, even if this means that the institution receives no funding from the company. Similarly, the local bioethical community should offer support as well. The example at hand shows that the consequences if this is not the case: it may endanger the research integrity and both the patients' and researchers’ health. 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/1/44
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1995
|Has Location=Canada
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Conflict of interest; Patient safety
|Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine
}}

Resource:3cadb4be-b312-4afa-a723-4e12c4a801f3

2021-07-12T14:04:57Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Research Problems at Australian University Hit the News
|Is About=This factual case reports a failure to declare a conflict of interest by researchers of experimental interventions at a university. The researchers studied a disputed therapy that is endorsed by a controversial organization. According to the university and the publisher, the researchers failed to declare that they had affiliations with the group. However, the authors stated in a press release on the situation that they did declare their conflicts of interest in all instances.
|Important Because=Conflicts of interest may lead to the introduction of biases in the study. This is especially the case when the product or drugs under investigation is produced by a company, as this may lead to corruption. Recent research shows that company-sponsored research leads to more favorable results for the company than non-company-sponsored studies.<ref>Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2018 Oct;44(10):1603-1612. doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5293-7. Epub 2018 Aug 21. PMID: 30132025.</ref> Therefore, it is important to declare all potential conflicts of interest. Undeclared conflicts of interests, such as in the present case, may cast considerable doubt on the objectivity of the researchers.
|Important For=Researchers; Universities; Journal editors; Journals; Journal publishers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2018/04/19/research-problems-at-australian-university-hit-the-news/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Retraction Watch
|Has Timepoint=19-4-2018
|Has Location=Australia
|Has Virtue And Value=Transparency; Reproducibility; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest; Data management; Retraction
|Related To Research Area=LS 07 - Diagnostic Tools, Therapies and Public Health; LS 05 - Neurosciences and Neural Disorders
}}

Resource:E1827d9c-7be0-42ca-bf86-ef5003366ebd

2021-07-12T11:54:53Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Court Denies Appeal of HIV Fraudster’s 57-month Prison Sentence
|Is About=This factual case details a court's decision to maintain the prison sentence for a former researcher who was found guilty of scientific misconduct. The misconduct entailed the modification of HIV trial outcomes to make a drug look more effective. The attorney of the defendant appealed the decision, but the court decided to maintain the sentence.
|Important Because=Scientific misconduct, especially the spiking of research outcomes, in drug trials severely endangers the health of future patients that will be treated with the drug. In addition, it leads to the waste of research funds and diminishes the public trust in science. Therefore, offenses such as these must be punished.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/01/13/court-denies-appeal-of-hiv-fraudsters-57-month-prison-sentence/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:D61666e2-58df-470f-bfb6-9f8ac2eea64f
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Retraction Watch
|Has Timepoint=13-1-2016
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Transparency; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Faked Data
|Related To Research Area=Biological sciences
}}

Resource:E3a1be4e-2ff9-4b7f-b44c-abd409fe225a

2021-07-12T09:58:48Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title='I am really sorry': Peer Reviewer Stole Text for Own Paper
|Is About=This factual case describes an instance of plagiarism by a peer reviewer. The peer reviewer had sent the unpublished manuscript to a colleague with whom he was writing a review. Portions of text from the paper that needed to be peer-reviewed ended up in the published version of the review. The review was retracted, and the peer reviewer apologized.
|Important Because=Peer reviewing is essential to maintain the integrity of academic literature. Importantly, authors that submit a manuscript for peer-reviewing should be able to trust that their manuscripts are not used for any other end than the peer review itself unless they have given explicit permission for it.
|Important For=Researchers; Peer reviewers; Reviewers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/14/i-am-really-sorry-peer-reviewer-stole-text-for-own-paper/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Retraction Watch
|Has Timepoint=14-3-2016
|Has Location=Taiwan
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Transparency; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Peer review ethics violation; Journal Retractions
|Related To Research Area=Chemical sciences
}}

Resource:88fb9129-4338-4bd3-a332-2e5eee03c598

2021-07-12T09:46:13Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=What Universities can Learn from one of Science’s Biggest Frauds
|Is About=This factual case discusses an analysis of research misconduct investigations into a significant case of scientific misconduct. The investigators reviewed several misconduct reports of this instance of misconduct and found that all reports were inadequate.
<references />
|Important Because=Well-performed investigations are essential to prevent research misconduct and its negative consequences. As noted in the article, the current misconduct investigations mostly focus on the question of whether any scientific misconduct has occurred rather than the correctness of the literature that has followed from it. However, the negative consequences for patients and general practitioners are mostly caused by the publications that follow from the research. This literature can be incorrect, even if no real misconduct has been established, leading to potential harm for patients. Therefore, the researchers in the present case argue that research misconduct investigations should aim to preserve the integrity of the literature rather than to establish whether misconduct has taken place or not.
|Important For=Researchers; Academic staff; Universities; research integrity researchers; Research Ethics Committees
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01884-2
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2016
|Has Location=Japan; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Accountability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Retraction; Fabrication
|Related To Research Area=Health sciences
}}

Resource:88fb9129-4338-4bd3-a332-2e5eee03c598

2021-07-12T09:44:47Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=What Universities can Learn from one of Science’s Biggest Frauds
|Is About=This factual case discusses an analysis of research misconduct investigations into a big case of scientific misconduct. The investigators reviewed several misconduct reports of this instance of misconduct and found that all reports were inadequate.
<references />
|Important Because=Well-performed investigations are essential to prevent research misconduct and its negative consequences. As noted in the article, the current misconduct investigations mostly focus on the question of whether any scientific misconduct has occurred rather than the correctness of the literature that has followed from it. However, the negative consequences for patients and general practitioners are mostly caused by the publications that follow from the research. This literature can be incorrect, even if no real misconduct has been established, leading to potential harm for patients. Therefore, the researchers in the present case argue that research misconduct investigations should aim to preserve the integrity of the literature rather than to establish whether misconduct has taken place or not.
|Important For=Researchers; Academic staff; Universities; research integrity researchers; Research Ethics Committees
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01884-2
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2016
|Has Location=Japan; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Accountability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Retraction; Fabrication
|Related To Research Area=Health sciences
}}

Resource:Ea84de30-5f0c-4fc8-a57f-e61b53d03544

2021-07-12T09:10:38Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Art and Politics of Covert Research: Doing ‘Situated Ethics’ in the Field
|Is About=This factual case describes a covert sociological study on the work culture of nightlife bouncers. The author describes both practical and ethical problems he encountered during his research due to its covert nature. However, he argues that the research would not have been possible without its secrecy.
<references />
|Important Because=The practice of covert research in sociology has been a long subject of debate. It has received much criticism due to the deception of the research subjects among other objections.<ref>Homan, R. (1980) ‘The Ethics of Covert Methods’, British Journal of Sociology 31 (1): 36–59.</ref><ref>Homan, R. (1991) The Ethics of Social Research. London: Macmillan.</ref> Nonetheless, covert research methods may also have beneficial effects, as outlined in the present case. This may especially be true in the field of sociology and social sciences, where it is important to not disturb the behavioral and cultural patterns. It is important to not only take both these beneficial effects and the ethical objections into consideration when determining the justifiability of covert research practice. The present case may aid in the identification of these beneficial consequences, while it may also help to prepare sociologists for the problems they may encounter during a covert study. 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Sociologists
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://studysites.sagepub.com/dqr4/study/Student%20resources/Chapter%2010/Calvey.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Ba84b1f8-06f6-4582-95f9-ec033265ba22
|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1996
|Has Location=United Kingdom; UK
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Autonomy; Transparency; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Consent; Risk; Covert Research; Deception
|Related To Research Area=Sociology
}}

Resource:Ea84de30-5f0c-4fc8-a57f-e61b53d03544

2021-07-12T07:55:46Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Art and Politics of Covert Research: Doing ‘Situated Ethics’ in the Field
|Is About=This is a factual case.
<references />
|Important Because= 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://studysites.sagepub.com/dqr4/study/Student%20resources/Chapter%2010/Calvey.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Ba84b1f8-06f6-4582-95f9-ec033265ba22
|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1996
|Has Location=United Kingdom; UK
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Consent; Risk; Covert Research
|Related To Research Area=Sociology
}}

Resource:840c6a43-e373-4927-ae94-f4f583535a2e

2021-07-09T15:40:53Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Ethics of Public Health Research on Less Expensive, Less Effective Interventions
|Is About=This factual case analyses a study in which public health researchers investigated a less effective but also less expensive health measure. This study raised social justice and ethical concerns. Some argued that the study promoted inequality as the research subjects were not receiving the best possible treatment, while others argued that the subjects were treated as a mere means to further scientific knowledge. Therefore, this case examines whether studying an intervention that is less effective than known measures can ever be justified.
<references />
|Important Because=The rights of research subjects should be protected in all cases. One of the central principles in healthcare is to provide the best treatment possible. However, as stated in the article, sometimes a public health measure can be so expensive that one cannot reasonably expect taxpayers to carry its financial burden. Accordingly, it can be useful to have less expensive, but also less efficacious public health interventions. Nonetheless, the usage of such a less expensive measure may only be justified in certain situations. The ethical framework outlined in this article may help to decide when it is justified to study and use such less effective public health measures. 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2005.063719
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Autonomy
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Exploitation
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:9736d9b3-fbe1-45cf-a5d0-20e19038d394

2021-07-09T14:32:25Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Guest Authorship, Mortality Reporting, and Integrity in Rofecoxib Studies
|Is About=This factual case discusses various accusations of scientific misconduct, most notably the practices of guest authorship and ghostwriting. The case starts with various letters to the authors of an article on guest authorship and the editors of the journal, after which both the editors and the authors respond to these letters.
<references />
|Important Because=Ghostwriting and guest authorship give an unfair advantage to the guest author over a researcher that does not take part in such practices by awarding the guest author with publications without doing any work. In addition, the practice of guest authorship may seriously damage the public trust in science and may also cast considerable doubt on the independence of drug trial researchers. However, incorrect accusations of guest authorship, and scientific misconduct in general, harm the reputation of innocent researchers as well. Therefore, it is important to openly discuss the accusations of guest authorship that were made in a publication, as is done in the present case. 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Journal editors; Journal publishers; Pharma Industry
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/182444
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:540f8241-c354-4249-8b63-6bdc2e74bdf8;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2008
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Ghost authorship; Questionable research practice
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:A5e7428e-3972-40b6-b410-cfde15e088d2

2021-06-28T16:13:28Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Misrepresenting the characteristics of research participants in psychiatric studies
|Is About=This factual case is about various instances of scientific misconduct by a psychiatrist. The scientific misconduct ranges from stealing research funds from the government for personal use to the fabrication of data. The psychiatrist is now banned from research funding for two years and must correct or retract four of his previously published papers. 
<references />
|Important Because=Data fabrication in clinical trials endangers the health of both current participants and future patients that will be treated with the drug if it is ‘proven’ efficacious. In addition, data fabrication lowers public trust in science. Moreover, data fabrication and stealing of funding money for personal use may lead to the waste of precious research funding budgets on unscientific research.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/12/psychiatrist-engaged-research-misconduct-says-govt-watchdog/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=31-12-2019
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect; Transparency; Integrity
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Grant applications
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:Cc6c04c8-d628-457a-a514-e050023340ec

2021-06-28T16:12:02Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Ethics, Human Rights and HIV Vaccine Trials in Low-Income Settings
|Is About=This fictional case describes the human rights and ethical implications of vaccine trails in low-income communities and countries. Two short, fictional scenarios are analyzed from both perspectives. The case revolves around two key points: the informed consent and comprehension of the research by the potential participants and the question to what extend persuasion by the trail conductor is justifiable.
<references />
|Important Because=The number of vaccine development trials that take place in low and lower-middle income countries increases.<ref>Grenham, A., & Villafana, T. (2017). Vaccine development and trials in low and lower-middle income countries: Key issues, advances and future opportunities. ''Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics'', ''13''(9), 2192–2199. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2017.1356495</nowiki></ref> With this increase in vaccine trials, the risk of exploitation of the local communities also rises. It is important to avoid exploitation and respect the right of autonomy of the research subjects. Therefore, identification of the important ethical issues and the human rights at stake is needed. In this manner, the analysis presented in the current case may be a first step towards policies and regulations that protect the rights of inhabitants of low and lower-middle income countries where vaccine trials take place.
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Pharma Industry
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://jme.bmj.com/content/38/5/286.info
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2012
|Has Location=Sub Saharan Africa
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Autonomy
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Vulnerable population
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:Ba84b1f8-06f6-4582-95f9-ec033265ba22

2021-06-28T16:06:22Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=When Sociologists Deceive Their Subjects
|Is About=This factual case describes various instances of sociological research in which the research subjects are deceived. The deceit comes in many forms, from not telling the participants that they are taking part in research to the researcher disguising him or herself to collect data. Some researchers argue that the deceit is justified by the fact that it leads to better research, whilst others argue that it harms the participant's interest and obscures the data.
|Important Because=As sociologists want to study the normal behavior of individuals and groups of individuals, it is understandable that they do not want their subjects to know that they are being studied. However, research subjects have the right to know that they are studied, how they are studied and why they are studied to avoid exploitation. Therefore, research subjects must give informed consent before enrolling in a study. As noted in this case, the researcher may seek a waiver of such informed consent from research ethics committees in exceptional cases.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9711/9711.allen.html
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1997
|Has Location=United States; USA
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Autonomy; Honesty; Proportionality
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Deception; Consent
|Related To Research Area=Sociology
}}

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

2021-06-28T15:52:58Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Scientific Misconduct at an Elite Medical Institute: The Role of Competing Institutional Logics and Fragmented Control
|Is About=This case study analyses a case of serious scientific misconduct by a transplantation surgeon that took place for several years at a famous research institution. The case is analyzed from three different perspectives and describes how the misconduct could go on due to the reputation of the perpetrator and the commercial interests of the research institute. <references />
|Important Because=As noted in this case study, the incidence of scientific misconduct is on the rise.<ref>Karabag, S.F., Berggren, C., 2016.Misconduct,marginality and editorialpractices inmanagement, businessand economics journals.PLoS One 11(7), e0159492</ref> This case study describes some of the factors that contribute to a working climate in which scientific misconduct is possible. Firstly, the case study shows that the commercial mindset at the management level of a research institute may lead to the silencing of whistle-blowers and the sustainment of scientific misconduct. Secondly, the lack of well-organized regulation, both in the case of the research institute and the editorial board of the journals, also contributes to a working culture in which misconduct can take place. Finally, the case study highlights the important role that the media played in the reveal of the scientific misconduct in this case. Furthermore, this case also graphically describes the consequences that scientific misconduct may have for the health of the patients and research subjects. <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:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2010
|Has Location=Sweden
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Accountability; Transparency; Autonomy
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; REC approval
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

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

2021-06-23T15:07:23Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Other
|Title=Institutional dealing with scientific misconduct
|Is About=This is a factual case.
|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:15de5331-8dc3-4dba-8b81-5abcb412e698

2021-06-23T15:04:58Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Aftermath of Scientific Fraud
|Is About=This factual case discusses the consequences of various occasions of scientific misconduct, such as data fabrication. This report takes a different approach than most cases on scientific misconduct, as it focuses on the consequences for collaborators and colleagues on a personal level rather than the consequences for the perpetrator, the scientific community and science in general.
<references />
|Important Because=Although the detrimental consequences of scientific misconduct on a community-wide level are well known, the aftermath on a more personal level is only sparsely described. As this case shows, the careers of supervisors, co-workers and students may be seriously damaged by the deeds of the perpetrator. This could potentially affect the willingness of aspiring scientists to report scientific misconduct. In addition, the present case carefully sketches the problematic situation of potential whistle-blowers. On the one hand, graduate students, post-docs, and other lab personnel are obliged to inform the authorities of potential scientific misconduct by their principal investigator. On the other hand, this whistle-blowing act will make them lose their jobs. Better understanding of the factors influencing these decisions and the personal consequences of scientific misconduct may aid us in creating a scientific community that is safer for whistle-blowers and conducts honest science. 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; All stakeholders in research; Editors; Students; Journals
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(06)00249-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867406002492%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2000; 2005
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Authorship; Honorary authorship
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine; Medical Biotechnology
}}

Resource:B2456a64-b3e1-4d36-866e-a3ba117633e9

2021-06-23T12:39:54Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Handling of Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries: Early stages in the 1990's
|Is About=This factual case analyses the similarities and differences in history, composition and functioning of committees on scientific dishonesty in medical research in the Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. For instance, the respective committees from these countries use different definitions of scientific dishonesty. Furthermore, eight cases of potential scientific misconduct that were brought to the committees are being discussed.
|Important Because=Scientific dishonesty and misconduct in medical research may be detrimental in various ways, e.g. it may endanger the research subject’s well-being and the public trust in science. The severity and consequences of scientific misconduct depend on the form in which it takes place. Nonetheless, research shows that there is still a substantial number of researchers that have admitted to dishonest behavior.<ref>Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005 Jun 9;435:737-8.</ref> Accordingly, prevention and punishment of both small and large instances of scientific dishonesty and misconduct are of utmost importance to ensure research integrity. The best institution to issue these measures are independent committees that are free from personal and commercial biases. The present case may give insight in possible complications in the establishment of such committees, such as the definition of scientific misconduct. Therefore, it may aid in the formation and enhancement of systems to prevent scientific dishonesty and misconduct.
<references />
|Important For=researchers; research leaders; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; medical researchers; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)07133-5/fulltext
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:F68f2226-005e-4321-b2a4-fc541fdf6c8d;Resource:740210e9-b695-428b-90a3-f3af7a94a174;Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty; Finnish National Board on Research Integrity
|Has Timepoint=1992-1999
|Has Location=Norway; Finland; Sweden; Denmark
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Ghost authorship; Dishonesty
|Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine
}}

Resource:B2456a64-b3e1-4d36-866e-a3ba117633e9

2021-06-23T12:39:36Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Handling of Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries: Early stages in the 1990's
|Is About=This factual case analyses the similarities and differences in history, composition and functioning of committees on scientific dishonesty in medical research in the Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. For instance, the respective committees from these countries use different definitions of scientific dishonesty. Furthermore, eight cases of potential scientific misconduct that were brought to the committees are being discussed.

 
|Important Because=Scientific dishonesty and misconduct in medical research may be detrimental in various ways, e.g. it may endanger the research subject’s well-being and the public trust in science. The severity and consequences of scientific misconduct depend on the form in which it takes place. Nonetheless, research shows that there is still a substantial number of researchers that have admitted to dishonest behavior.<ref>Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005 Jun 9;435:737-8.</ref> Accordingly, prevention and punishment of both small and large instances of scientific dishonesty and misconduct are of utmost importance to ensure research integrity. The best institution to issue these measures are independent committees that are free from personal and commercial biases. The present case may give insight in possible complications in the establishment of such committees, such as the definition of scientific misconduct. Therefore, it may aid in the formation and enhancement of systems to prevent scientific dishonesty and misconduct.
|Important For=researchers; research leaders; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; medical researchers; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)07133-5/fulltext
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:F68f2226-005e-4321-b2a4-fc541fdf6c8d;Resource:740210e9-b695-428b-90a3-f3af7a94a174;Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty; Finnish National Board on Research Integrity
|Has Timepoint=1992-1999
|Has Location=Norway; Finland; Sweden; Denmark
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Ghost authorship; Dishonesty
|Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine
}}

Resource:Ba84b1f8-06f6-4582-95f9-ec033265ba22

2021-06-23T07:15:26Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=When Sociologists Deceive Their Subjects
|Is About=This factual case describes various instances of sociological research in which the research subjects are deceived. The deceit comes in many forms, from not telling the participants that they are taking part in research to the researcher disguising him or herself to collect data. Some researchers argue that the deceit is justified by the fact that it leads to better research, whilst others argue that it leads to harm for the participant’s interest and obscuring of the data.
|Important Because=Given the fact that sociologists want to study the normal behavior of individuals and groups of individuals, it is understandable that they do not want their subjects to know that they are being studied. However, research subjects have the right to know that they are studied, how they are studied and why they are studied to avoid exploitation. Therefore, research subjects must give informed consent before enrolling in a study. As noted in this case, the researcher may seek a waiver of such informed consent from research ethics committees in exceptional cases.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9711/9711.allen.html
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1997
|Has Location=United States; USA
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Autonomy; Honesty; Proportionality
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Deception; Consent
|Related To Research Area=Sociology
}}

Resource:31a4701c-46bd-47c2-b7f8-3f1d2308e8be

2021-06-22T08:41:37Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Human Research Violations By Eye Doctor Showcase A National Problem
|Is About=This case study presents a number of research ethics violations by a distinguished eye doctor who has helped in developing break-through medical treatments.
|Important Because=The authors of this blog provide an analysis that raises several interesting points. These concern not only the ethics violations by the researcher but also the response from a number of bodies, not least the doctor's institution, the ORI (Office of Research Integrity) and the Office for Human Research Protection.
|Important For=Academic institutions; ORI; Research Integrity Officers; Human rights defenders; Research Ethics Committees
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.kpbs.org/news/2019/apr/18/human-research-violations-ucsd-eye-doctor-showcase/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Location=USA
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Research with Humans
}}

Resource:2e32c067-6f2b-4c0c-9987-0ccb66bcb5a5

2021-06-22T08:38:43Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Everything We Know About Facebook's Secret Mood Manipulation Experiment. It was probably legal. But was it ethical?
|Is About=This case is about a Facebook study that manipulated users' data in order to examine emotions and their change. The study lasted for a week. Facebook claims that the use of data was in order to improve their services. The author of this case study poses the question of whether, although legal under the company's terms and conditions, such use of data is ethical.
|Important Because=This is a thought provoking case that provides some philosophical questions on what is legal and ethical. Issues around informed consent, the role of the IRB and the funding of the study are also discussed.
|Important For=Ethics committee members
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Facebook
|Has Timepoint=2012
|Has Virtue And Value=Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Deception
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}

Resource:A5e7428e-3972-40b6-b410-cfde15e088d2

2021-06-14T15:11:39Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Misrepresenting the characteristics of research participants in psychiatric studies
|Is About=This factual case is about various instances of scientific misconduct by a psychiatrist. The scientific misconduct ranges from the stealing of research funding money from the government for personal uses to the fabrication of data. The psychiatrist is now banned from research funding for two years and must correct or retract four of his previously published papers. 
<references />
|Important Because=Data fabrication in clinical trails endangers the health of both current participants and future patients that will be treated with the drug if it is ‘proven’ efficacious. In addition, data fabrication lowers the public trust in science. Moreover, data fabrication and stealing of funding money for personal uses may lead to the waste of precious research funding budgets on unscientific research. The present case shows that these practices are still present in our current time and scientific community and may span a long period. Therefore, one should remain vigilant for such types of scientific misconduct.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/12/psychiatrist-engaged-research-misconduct-says-govt-watchdog/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=31-12-2019
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect; Transparency; Integrity
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Grant applications
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:A5e7428e-3972-40b6-b410-cfde15e088d2

2021-06-14T14:58:33Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Misrepresenting the characteristics of research participants in psychiatric studies
|Is About=This is a factual case. 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/12/psychiatrist-engaged-research-misconduct-says-govt-watchdog/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=31-12-2019
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Grant applications
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:A5e7428e-3972-40b6-b410-cfde15e088d2

2021-06-14T14:58:13Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Misrepresenting the characteristics of research participants in psychiatric studies
|Is About= 
<references />
|Important Because=d to generate fake results.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/12/psychiatrist-engaged-research-misconduct-says-govt-watchdog/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=31-12-2019
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Grant applications
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:Cc6c04c8-d628-457a-a514-e050023340ec

2021-06-14T14:31:50Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Ethics, Human Rights and HIV Vaccine Trials in Low-Income Settings
|Is About=This fictional case describes the human rights and ethical implications of vaccine trails in low-income communities and countries. Two short, fictional scenarios are analyzed from both perspectives. The case revolves around two key points: the informed consent and comprehension of the research by the potential participants and the question to what extend persuasion by the trail conductor is justifiable.
<references />
|Important Because=The number of vaccine development trails that takes place in low and lower-middle income countries increases.<ref>Grenham, A., & Villafana, T. (2017). Vaccine development and trials in low and lower-middle income countries: Key issues, advances and future opportunities. ''Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics'', ''13''(9), 2192–2199. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2017.1356495</nowiki></ref> With this increase in trail conductance, the risk of exploitation of the local communities also rises. It is important to avoid exploitation and respect the right of autonomy of the inhabitants of these countries. Therefore, identification of the important ethical issues and the human rights at stake is needed. In this manner, the analysis presented in the current case may be a first step towards policies and regulations that protect the rights of inhabitants of the low and lower-middle income countries where vaccine trails take place.
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Pharma Industry
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://jme.bmj.com/content/38/5/286.info
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2012
|Has Location=Sub Saharan Africa
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Autonomy
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Vulnerable population
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Resource:Cc6c04c8-d628-457a-a514-e050023340ec

2021-06-10T13:52:18Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Ethics, Human Rights and HIV Vaccine Trials in Low-Income Settings
|Is About=This is a factual case.
<references />
|Important Because= 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://jme.bmj.com/content/38/5/286.info
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Location=Sub Saharan Africa
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Vulnerable population
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
}}

Theme:66ccb878-3c99-4e54-931d-d718bc0cb246

2021-06-10T13:41:52Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:92439f75-5c0c-49d4-a21f-e9b41bd3a7db
|Title=Monitoring funding processes
|Is About=As funders are an important stakeholder in many research projects, they often monitor the research process. The funder can decide to monitor the project closely, to have standard protocols in place (e.g. for research misconduct or changing research methods), and to evaluate a project. Prior to the commencement of a project, there should be agreement between the research funding organization (RFO) and the research performing organization (RPO) on how the project will be monitored.
|Important Because=RFOs want to ensure that the research projects they fund have a positive societal impact. In the most severe cases, research monitoring can result in the termination of project funding. Funders can monitor the allocation of finances, the quality of research, adherence to the research proposal, and whether laws, regulatory frameworks and contracts are upheld.

After the conclusion of a research project, a funder can have a follow-up period to assess the real-time impact of the research. In addition, RFO’s can perform regular Standard Evaluation Protocols (SEP’s). For example, in the Netherlands, all institutions receiving public funding are subject to a SEP every 6 years.<ref>KNAW (2016) Standard Evaluation Protocol 2015- 2021. Accessed via: https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/standard-evaluation-protocol-2015-2021</ref>

When a researcher wants to diverge from the research proposal, approval from the RFO needs to be sought. This often involves providing an explanation as to why the researcher wants to change the methodology.

According to research misconduct guidelines from the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO), when an allegation of misconduct is made to the organization performing the research, the RFO must be informed.<ref>UKRIO (2008) Procedure for the investigation of misconduct in research. Accessed via: https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Procedure-for-the-Investigation-of-Misconduct-in-Research.pdf</ref> Both the confidentiality of the whisteblower and the accused needs to be guaranteed when informing the RFO. In addition, allegations of research misconduct can be presented directly to the funding organization. RFOs should have guidelines in place to deal with allegations of misconduct involving their funded projects. In most instances, the funding organization will inform the research performing organization about the allegation, and the appropriate procedures will be started by the RPO (also see research misconduct). However, the person making the allegation may fear repercussions, and may wish to remain anonymous. The Wellcome Trust, a UK-based funding agency, states the following:<ref>Wellcome Trust (2019). Research misconduct. Accessed via: https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/guidance/research-misconduct</ref>

“If an informant wishes to remain anonymous, this will be respected unless:

*there are overriding legal requirements that we reveal the identity of the informant
*it is impossible to maintain anonymity to conduct an investigation
*the informant subsequently agrees to relinquish anonymity.

The informant will be notified of any proposed change to their anonymity”
<references />
|Important For=Funders; Research funding organisations
|Has Best Practice===Bullying and harassment policies==
Bullying and harassment policies allow RFOs to stimulate positive research cultures. Such policies can improve research culture, and their existence “sends a signal that certain ethical standards must be met by researchers and organizations in exchange for funding”.<ref>Else, H. (2018). Report harassment or risk losing funding, says top UK science funder. ''Nature'', ''557''(7706), 149-150.</ref> The US based funder National Science Foundation (NSF) requires RPOs receiving funding to inform the NSF about sexual harassment.<ref>Witze, A. (2018). US science agency will require universities to report sexual harassment. ''Nature'', ''554''(7692).</ref> In addition, the Wellcome Trust has elaborate rules on what they expect from the organizations they fund (7):<ref>Wellcome Trust (2018) Bullying and harassment policy. Accessed via: https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/guidance/research-misconduct</ref>

1. The funded organization requires policies that set out:

*standards of behavior from staff
*the procedure for responding to complaints

2. The funded organization should have an equivalent policy in place at sub-levels, where relevant.

3. The funded organization should investigate allegations of bullying and harassment in an impartial, fair and timely manner. It must:

*protect the rights of all employees involves
*take appropriate action.

4. The funded organization should contact the Wellcome Trust when an investigation has been opened.

5. The funded organization should contact the Wellcome Trust when the investigation has been completed.<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:92439f75-5c0c-49d4-a21f-e9b41bd3a7db
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Funders’ responsibilities
}}

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

2021-06-10T13:40:50Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=The Culture of Scientific Research in the UK
|Is About=In 2013, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics embarked upon a series of engagement activities that aimed to inform and advance debate about the ethical consequences of the culture of scientific research in terms of encouraging good research practice and the production of high quality science. 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:Dc1f1e11-fe21-4e8b-aa7d-c4938e74a197;Resource:7cf08223-5220-4155-b5a6-e908b64f1866;Resource:E7b73b56-7c6f-4e0c-a1cb-9c74c8e56f79;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:Ba84b1f8-06f6-4582-95f9-ec033265ba22

2021-06-10T13:29:20Z

0000-0002-6612-5047:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=When Sociologists Deceive Their Subjects
|Is About=This factual case describes various instances of sociological research in which the research subjects are deceived. The deceit comes in many forms, from not telling the participants that they are taking part in research to the researcher disguising him or herself to collect data. Some researchers argue that the deceit is justified by the fact that it leads to better research, whilst others argue that it leads to harm for the participant’s interest and obscuring of the data.
|Important Because=Given the fact that sociologists want to study the normal behaviour of individuals and groups of individuals, one may understand that they do not want their subjects to know that they are being studied. However, research subjects have the right to know that they are studied, how they are studied and why they are studied to avoid exploitation. Therefore, research subjects must give informed consent before enrolling in a study. As noted in this case, the researcher may seek a waiver of such informed consent from research ethics committees in exceptional cases.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9711/9711.allen.html
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=1997
|Has Location=United States; USA
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Autonomy; Honesty; Proportionality
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Deception; Consent
|Related To Research Area=Sociology
}}