The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Resource:978edb5d-ce36-4361-ac8c-bc101c791d6d

2021-12-02T15:13:42Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=French plant biologist cleared of misconduct in new inquiry |Is About=National research council absolves one previously sanctioned lab l..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=French plant biologist cleared of misconduct in new inquiry
|Is About=National research council absolves one previously sanctioned lab leader of misconduct, and holds another researcher responsible. France’s national research council has ruled that one of its plant biologists committed misconduct through manipulation and data fabrication in published figures, but it cleared another researcher whom it had heavily sanctioned in 2015.

The ruling should add some clarity and closure to the long-running saga — although the cleared researcher, Olivier Voinnet, is now raising fresh questions over how the French research agency, CNRS, handled its initial investigation.
|Important For=Academic institutions; reserach integrity offices
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06966-1
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Olivier Voinnet
|Has Timepoint=2018
|Has Location=France
}}

Resource:1598111c-bbae-491c-8648-e459c14c7e7b

2021-12-02T15:04:15Z

0000-0002-6817-5697:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Make research misconduct involving agri inputs a criminal fraud: CCFI
|Is About=Crop Care Federation of India (CCFI) claims that incidences of research misconducts in educational institutes, such as JNU, hurt Indian agriculture, which is sixth in agri exports globally. In 2014, a few researchers at the JNU collected an undisclosed number of vegetable samples from around Delhi, analysed them at the government funded laboratory in the JNU using undisclosed testing methods.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Policy-makers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.business-standard.com/article/b2b-connect/make-research-misconduct-involving-agri-inputs-a-criminal-fraud-ccfi-116051800256_1.html
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Location=India
|Related To Research Area=LS 09.05 - Agriculture related to crop production, soil biology and cultivation, applied plant biology
}}

Resource:1598111c-bbae-491c-8648-e459c14c7e7b

2021-12-02T15:03:58Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Make research misconduct involving agri inputs a criminal fraud: CCFI |Is About=Crop Care Federation of India (CCFI) claims that inciden..."

Resource:9963d80b-682a-47cc-b96c-542ae514a630

2021-12-02T14:58:25Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=BT Cotton Hoax in a University in India |Is About=Based on a news from Times of India (TOI), a study regarding the development of a new..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=BT Cotton Hoax in a University in India
|Is About=Based on a news from Times of India (TOI), a study regarding the development of a new indigenous gene was completely fake. The gene that was stated is a new variety of Bt Cotton or Bt gene (BNla106 truncated cry1 AC). Hence, the project team responsible for the study claimed that they had already developed a new variety of Bt cotton seeds. However, experts found that the construct of Bt cotton has a Monsanto gene (Mon-531), which exemplifies that the cotton seeds was never altered or still it is the common seed. Moreover, the variety of BT cotton was already brought in the public in the year 2008 and the paper work of the UAS was published in the Current Science regardless of dubious claims that was later found out and thus, the published work was later on withdrawn (dated December 25, 2007). In 2012, the Monsanto gene was introduced by the media through a UAS staffer that it was indeed present and was never altered at all. Furthermore, it was found out through a 129-page report that a scope was contaminated due to the seeds being mass multiplied.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://btcottonmisconduct.blogspot.com/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2011
|Has Location=India
|Related To Research Area=LS 09.05 - Agriculture related to crop production, soil biology and cultivation, applied plant biology
}}

Resource:911c0670-d4f2-44d1-9d7c-517ebe1b2ae2

2021-12-02T14:52:57Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Suborning science for profit: Monsanto, glyphosate, and private science research misconduct |Is About=Monsanto engaged in ghostwriting a..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Suborning science for profit: Monsanto, glyphosate, and private science research misconduct
|Is About=Monsanto engaged in ghostwriting and other types of research misconduct to disrupt regulatory oversight of one of its most profitable products. Although public-science organizations have sanctions in place to punish research misconduct, private-science organizations do not. At least one Monsanto employee boasted about research misconduct in promotion materials. Journal editors who oversaw decisions in which Monsanto manipulated the peer review process did not disclose their conflicts of interest. Scientific misconduct by private firms threatens the integrity of public science and the public's trust in science.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Research funding organisations; Policy-makers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733321000925
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Monsanto
|Related To Research Area=LS 09.05 - Agriculture related to crop production, soil biology and cultivation, applied plant biology
}}

Resource:Bf239cf8-72cc-42b1-b6c9-8c4d849a30ae

2021-12-02T14:47:27Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=The REAPPRAISED checklist to identify flawed papers |Is About=The REAPPRAISED checklist can be used by anyone struggling to assess a sub..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The REAPPRAISED checklist to identify flawed papers
|Is About=The REAPPRAISED checklist can be used by anyone struggling to assess a submitted or published article, and includes common-sense assessments that go beyond the text itself. It can, and should, be applied independently of whether misconduct is suspected. Its use can help to speed up the identification and correction of flawed papers, preventing wasted resources and even protecting patients from harm. How did we come to see the need for this tool? From early 2013, three of us (A.A., A.G., M.J.B.) began to contact journals about multiple, serious problems we had identified in 33 reports of trials led by bone-health researchers Yoshihiro Sato and Jun Iwamoto. The first retraction did not appear until late 2015. This delay is all the more regrettable given that concerns had been raised more than a decade earlier.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Journal editors; Peer-reviewers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03959-6
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Yoshihiro Sato; Jun Iwamoto
|Has Timepoint=2003; 2015
|Has Location=Japan
}}

Resource:Dc9ac289-e143-41b6-a818-210cc4fb6d46

2021-12-02T14:35:56Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=A Famous Honesty Researcher Is Retracting A Study Over Fake Data |Is About=Renowned psychologist Dan Ariely literally wrote the book on..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=A Famous Honesty Researcher Is Retracting A Study Over Fake Data
|Is About=Renowned psychologist Dan Ariely literally wrote the book on dishonesty. Now some are questioning whether the scientist himself is being dishonest. A landmark study that endorsed a simple way to curb cheating is going to be retracted nearly a decade later after a group of scientists found that it relied on faked data. According to the 2012 paper, when people signed an honesty declaration at the beginning of a form, rather than the end, they were less likely to lie. A seemingly cheap and effective method to fight fraud, it was [https://www.fastcompany.com/3068506/lemonade-is-using-behavioral-science-to-onboard-customers-and-keep-them-honest adopted] by at least one insurance company, [http://38r8om2xjhhl25mw24492dir.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BIT_FraudErrorDebt_accessible.pdf tested] by [https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/2016%20Social%20and%20Behavioral%20Sciences%20Team%20Annual%20Report.pdf government] [http://38r8om2xjhhl25mw24492dir.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BIT_FraudErrorDebt_accessible.pdf agencies] around the world, and taught to corporate executives. It made a splash among academics, who cited it in their own research more than 400 times.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Peer-reviewers; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/dan-ariely-honesty-study-retraction#:~:text=A%20landmark%20study,than%20400%20times.
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Dan Ariely
|Has Timepoint=2021
|Has Location=USA
|Related To Research Area=SH 01.03 - Microeconomics, behavioural economics
}}

Resource:3c27a17e-40c7-4402-ba22-9ae57ad68cc2

2021-12-02T14:31:00Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Who Rules the Ruler? On the Misconduct of Journal Editors |Is About=There are very few (published) accounts of editorial misconduct, and..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Who Rules the Ruler? On the Misconduct of Journal Editors
|Is About=There are very few (published) accounts of editorial misconduct, and those that do exist are almost exclusively focused on medicine-related areas. In the present article we detail a case of editorial misconduct in a rather underexplored domain, the social sciences. This case demonstrates that although legal systems provide different instruments of protection to avoid, compensate for, and punish misconduct on the part of journal editors, the social and economic power unbalance between authors and publishers suggests the importance of alternative solutions before or instead of bringing a lawsuit to court. It puts forward strong arguments in favour of the need for effective regulatory bodies so as to achieve and maintain a culture of research integrity by ''all'' involved in the process.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Journal editors; Peer-reviewers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10805-010-9107-y
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:5da6359d-03ec-4867-b996-2b0e12be9411

2021-12-02T14:28:15Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Author misconduct: Not just the editors' responsibility |Is About=Researchers everywhere are under increasing pressure to publish in hig..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Author misconduct: Not just the editors' responsibility
|Is About=Researchers everywhere are under increasing pressure to publish in high quality journals. The amount of space available in a journal such as ''Medical Education'' has not kept pace with the rise in submissions. Against a background of fierce competition, authors sometimes cut corners. This may lead to misconduct. This paper aims to explore the most common types of publication misconduct seen in the ''Medical Education'' editorial office, and to consider the reasons for this and the implications for researchers in the field.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Journal publishers; Peer-reviewers; Authors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02027.x
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:51511d64-e166-4c49-9692-6126929f959b

2021-12-02T14:26:17Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Protecting peer review: Correspondence chronology and ethical analysis regarding logothetis vs. shmuel and leopold |Is About=As the comp..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Protecting peer review: Correspondence chronology and ethical analysis regarding logothetis vs. shmuel and leopold
|Is About=As the complexity of scientific investigation has advanced, bio‐medical research has progressively adopted a team‐based approach to research. In the life sciences, brain imaging is one of the most technically advanced and integrative disciplines. In this collaborative environment, scientific disagreements as well as inter‐personal conflicts inevitably arise. Investigators may disagree, for example, on the adequacy of the data for publication, the most appropriate analyses to be performed, or the appropriate conclusions to be drawn from the accumulated experiments. In the context of such disagreements, more fundamental disputes often arise, including the right of individual investigators to publish data acquired cooperatively. When efforts are made to publish disputed data, journal editors necessarily become involved.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Clinical researchers; Data protection officers; Peer-reviewers; Journal editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2715868/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Nikos K. Logothetis; Amir Shmuel; David Leopold
|Has Timepoint=2008
|Has Location=Germany; Canada; USA
}}

Resource:0428d712-722e-41e5-bb29-51d4637a7a43

2021-12-02T14:22:11Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Retraction notice - fake email peer-review |Is About=After a thorough investigation, the Publisher has concluded that the Editor was mis..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Retraction notice - fake email peer-review
|Is About=After a thorough investigation, the Publisher has concluded that the Editor was misled into accepting this article based upon the positive advice of at least one suggested reviewer report. The report was submitted from an email account provided by the author, that was later determined not to be the email of the supposed expert reviewer.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Journal editors; Mentors; Educators; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386142516300592
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=SevcanAytac Korkmaz
|Has Timepoint=2016
|Has Location=Turkey
|Related To Research Area=PE 07.02 - Electrical and electronic engineering: semiconductors, components, systems
}}

Resource:8ef7efcc-acce-4a2f-a308-3c1a0e2dc904

2021-12-02T14:17:49Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Fraud and dishonesty in "scientific" publication |Is About=Briefly discussing several cases of scientific misconduct. |Important For=Men..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Fraud and dishonesty in "scientific" publication
|Is About=Briefly discussing several cases of scientific misconduct.
|Important For=Mentors; Educators
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=125715
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:F9a9efff-17e6-43ef-9d3f-ed82807fa17f

2021-12-02T14:13:53Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Retracted gay-marriage study debated at misconduct meet-up |Is About=Over rum cocktails at the World Conference on Research Integrity, e..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Retracted gay-marriage study debated at misconduct meet-up
|Is About=Over rum cocktails at the World Conference on Research Integrity, experts discussed what can be learnt from the fallout of a flawed political-science paper. The world’s largest gathering of specialists in research misconduct kicked off on 31 May in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, shortly after science’s latest scandal broke. On the evening before the start of sessions on how to diagnose and remedy ethical faults in research, delegates to the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity sipped caipirinhas, Brazil’s national cocktail — and swapped views on what could be gleaned from a flawed political-science study.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Editors; Peer-reviewers; Human rights defenders
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/522014a
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Michael LaCour
|Has Timepoint=2015
|Has Location=USA
}}

Resource:90a29d9d-9e04-40fa-b3bb-dfb116c0bca4

2021-12-02T14:08:46Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Croatia's science minister rejects calls to resign amid plagiarism scandal |Is About=Pavo Barišić says he won't step down after a parl..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Croatia's science minister rejects calls to resign amid plagiarism scandal
|Is About=Pavo Barišić says he won't step down after a parliamentary ethics committee found he copied another scholar's work. In a plagiarism scandal in Croatia, the country’s highest-level research ethics committee is clashing with its science minister — who says he won't step down after the committee found he had copied another scholar’s work. Scientists say the case raises questions about academic integrity at the top of a research system that is already riven with misconduct allegations.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Media; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/541272a
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Pavo Barišić
|Has Timepoint=2008; 2016
|Has Location=Croatia
}}

Resource:10cfd797-0884-4ff9-9d69-7fc759c4144f

2021-12-02T14:05:22Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’ |Is About=Among the various forms of academic misconduct, text..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’
|Is About=Among the various forms of academic misconduct, text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’ holds a particularly contentious position as a new way to game the reward system of science. A recent case of alleged ‘self-plagiarism’ by the prominent Dutch economist Peter Nijkamp has attracted much public and regulatory attention in the Netherlands. During the Nijkamp controversy, it became evident that many questions around text recycling have only partly been answered and that much uncertainty still exists.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Mentors; Educators; Peer-reviewers; Journal editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733317301543
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Peter Nijkamp
|Has Timepoint=2015
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Related To Research Area=SH 01.01 - Macroeconomics
}}

Resource:6b444733-69df-4de1-af7c-c977e1781528

2021-12-02T14:01:44Z

0000-0002-6817-5697:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Retraction of Savine, McDaniel, Shelton, and Scullin
|Is About=This is a detailed retraction notice that reports the retraction of "A characterization of individual differences in prospective memory monitoring using the Complex Ongoing Serial Task" by Adam C. Savine, Mark A. McDaniel, Jill Talley Shelton and Michael K. Scullin (''Journal of Experimental Psychology: General'', 2012[May], Vol 141[2], 337-362).
|Important For=Academic institutions; ORI; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://content.apa.org/record/203-27475-001
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Adam C. Savine
|Has Timepoint=2013
|Has Location=USA
}}

Resource:6b444733-69df-4de1-af7c-c977e1781528

2021-12-02T14:01:12Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Retraction of Savine, McDaniel, Shelton, and Scullin (2012) |Is About=This is a detailed retraction notice that reports the retraction o..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Retraction of Savine, McDaniel, Shelton, and Scullin (2012)
|Is About=This is a detailed retraction notice that reports the retraction of "A characterization of individual differences in prospective memory monitoring using the Complex Ongoing Serial Task" by Adam C. Savine, Mark A. McDaniel, Jill Talley Shelton and Michael K. Scullin (''Journal of Experimental Psychology: General'', 2012[May], Vol 141[2], 337-362).
|Important For=Academic institutions; ORI; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://content.apa.org/record/203-27475-001
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Adam C. Savine
|Has Timepoint=2013
|Has Location=USA
}}

Resource:Eb1f0ede-772e-4657-964e-b28822d53455

2021-12-02T13:22:43Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Psychologist made up sex bias results |Is About=The career of a promising young social psychologist lies in ruins following her admissio..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Psychologist made up sex bias results
|Is About=The career of a promising young social psychologist lies in ruins following her admission that she “fabricated” five experiments on social discrimination that she conducted while at Harvard University. Last week the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the Department of Health and Human Services announced that Karen Ruggiero, 33, who last year moved to the University of Texas (UT), Austin, “engaged in scientific misconduct by fabricating data in research supported by the National Institutes of Health.” A September report from Harvard assistant dean Kathleen Buckley to Harvard's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct cites Ruggiero's comments in a 21 August letter that the manuscripts were based on “fabricated” data. In addition to retracting four published studies, Ruggiero is banned from receiving federal research funds or serving on government advisory committees for 5 years. A woman who answered the phone at her Texas home declined to discuss the case.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Research funding organisations; ORI
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.294.5551.2457a?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Karen Ruggiero
|Has Timepoint=2001
|Has Location=USA
}}

Resource:875fb9fd-165d-4f95-9ef6-6ff21a9b7887

2021-12-02T13:20:15Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Government Sanctions Harvard Psychologist |Is About=In 2010, Harvard University psychologist Marc Hauser seemed to be at the pinnacle of..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Government Sanctions Harvard Psychologist
|Is About=In 2010, Harvard University psychologist Marc Hauser seemed to be at the pinnacle of his career. His provocative work probing the biological origins of cognition and morality had yielded collaborations with prominent scholars, as well as frequent media attention. And with the recent publication of a popular book on moral cognition, he had moved into the rarified sphere of the public intellectual. Then a Harvard investigation concluded that the author of ''Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong'' had engaged in scientific misconduct. Last week, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity (ORI) confirmed the findings, revealing that Hauser fabricated and falsified methods and data in six federally funded studies.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Publishers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.337.6100.1283
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Marc Hauser
|Has Timepoint=2011
|Has Location=USA
}}

Resource:A957f959-0dd8-456b-82b2-00505ebe5931

2021-12-02T13:16:48Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Fresh Misconduct Charges Hit Dutch Social Psychology |Is About=Scientists here are still searching their souls about two previous scanda..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Fresh Misconduct Charges Hit Dutch Social Psychology
|Is About=Scientists here are still searching their souls about two previous scandals—involving Diederik Stapel of Tilburg University in 2011 and Dirk Smeesters of Erasmus University in Rotterdam a year later. Now they have learned that a national research integrity panel has found evidence of data manipulation in the work of Jens Förster, a social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam (UvA). The university has already announced that it will request the retraction of one of Förster's articles. bThe case is drawing widespread international attention as well, in part because Förster, who's German and came to Amsterdam in 2007, enjoys a sterling reputation. "He is among the most creative and influential social psychologists of his generation," says Jeffrey Sherman of the University of California, Davis.
|Important For=RIO; RECs; Academic institutions; Journal editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.344.6184.566?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Jens Förster
|Has Timepoint=2014
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Related To Research Area=SH 04.05 - Social and clinical psychology
}}

Resource:B3e016f4-8bea-4ad2-852d-5b4970fe653b

2021-12-02T13:12:21Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Facebook Manipulated 689,003 Users' Emotions For Science |Is About=Facebook is the best human research lab ever. There’s no need to ge..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Facebook Manipulated 689,003 Users' Emotions For Science
|Is About=Facebook is the best human research lab ever. There’s no need to get experiment participants to sign pesky consent forms as they’ve already agreed to the site’s data use policy. A team of Facebook data scientists are constantly coming up with new ways to study human behavior through the social network. When the team releases papers about what it's learned from us, we often learn surprising things about Facebook instead -- such as the fact that it can keep track of the status updates we never actually post.
|Important For=Policy-makers; Media; Ethics committee members
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science/?sh=7e3378bc197c
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Facebook
|Has Timepoint=2012
}}

Resource:F51ed7a9-5f93-4267-98bd-51fa7a9f7a6d

2021-12-02T13:08:33Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Plagiarism scandal grows in Iran |Is About=Investigation finds more cases of duplication in publications co-authored by ministers and se..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Plagiarism scandal grows in Iran
|Is About=Investigation finds more cases of duplication in publications co-authored by ministers and senior officials. ''Nature'' has uncovered further instances of apparent plagiarism in papers co-authored by government ministers and senior officials in Iran. The spate of new examples raises questions about whether such incidents are symptomatic of conditions also common in other developing countries — such as difficulties with English or pressure to acquire academic credentials as a prerequisite for promotion — or whether they are also linked specifically to the Iranian regime, where growth of a merit-based university culture has been undermined by political appointments and purges of reform-minded scientists.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/462704a
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Hamid Behbahani; Hassan Ziari
|Has Timepoint=2005; 2012
|Has Location=Iran
}}

Resource:534f220c-3b5b-4529-a024-a40b9dfb991e

2021-12-02T12:54:27Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Japan fails to settle university dispute |Is About=Investigations highlight need for a national, independent body to oversee research et..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Japan fails to settle university dispute
|Is About=Investigations highlight need for a national, independent body to oversee research ethics. It has been a rough year for materials scientist Akihisa Inoue, the president of Tohoku University in Japan. Last March, an earthquake crippled his campus (see [https://doi.org/10.1038/483141a Nature 483,141–143; 2012]). Since then, he has had to retract a series of papers because they contained text that had appeared in his previous publications, and has faced continuing calls for his resignation from the university, which he has rejected. His critics, mostly professors at his university, claim that some of his work cannot be replicated, and that there are irregularities in the data in some of his papers (see [https://doi.org/10.1038/470446a Nature 470, 446–447; 2011]).
|Important For=Academic institutions; Research funding organisations; Journal editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/483259a
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Akihisa Inoue
|Has Timepoint=2012
|Has Location=Japan
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Related To Research Area=PE 05 - Synthetic Chemistry and Materials
}}

Resource:B650299f-a118-48a9-883c-9d2cff4987fc

2021-12-02T12:48:29Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Self-plagiarism case prompts calls for agencies to tighten rules |Is About=Technology is bringing down instances of duplication, despite..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Self-plagiarism case prompts calls for agencies to tighten rules
|Is About=Technology is bringing down instances of duplication, despite variability in oversight. Is plagiarism a sin if the duplicated material is one's own? Self-plagiarism may seem a smaller infraction than stealing another author's work, but the practice is under increasing scrutiny, as the eruption two weeks ago of a long-standing controversy at Queen's University in Kingston, Canada, makes clear.
|Important For=Researchers; Authors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/468745a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ed7ce22e-667a-44a8-a3d0-2abdd0d37b1a
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Reginald Smith
|Has Timepoint=2010
|Has Location=Canada
|Related To Research Area=SH 03 - Environment, Space and Population
}}

Resource:C9491ece-e0fa-4e7f-bd45-e54703ca7979

2021-12-02T12:24:58Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Mad Scientist: The Unique Case of a Published Delusion |Is About=In 1951, entomologist Jay Traver published in the ''Proceedings of the..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Mad Scientist: The Unique Case of a Published Delusion
|Is About=In 1951, entomologist Jay Traver published in the ''Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington'' her personal experiences with a mite infestation of her scalp that resisted all treatment and was undetectable to anyone other than herself. Traver is recognized as having suffered from Delusory Parasitosis: her paper shows her to be a textbook case of the condition. The Traver paper is unique in the scientific literature in that its conclusions may be based on data that was unconsciously fabricated by the author’s mind. The paper may merit retraction on the grounds of error or even scientific misconduct “by reason of insanity,” but such a retraction raises the issue of discrimination against the mentally ill.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Journal editors; Human rights defenders
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-011-9339-2
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Jay Traver
|Has Timepoint=1951
|Has Location=USA
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Accauntability
}}

Resource:Cbe4dbda-d5f9-47c3-9dda-54c91bec4b2c

2021-12-02T11:06:58Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Where are they now? |Is About=A brief retrospective look at some past fraud investigations, showing that, whether researchers are found..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Where are they now?
|Is About=A brief retrospective look at some past fraud investigations, showing that, whether researchers are found to be guilty or innocent, the wounds are slow to heal. The afterlife of Jon Sudbo, Andres Pape Moller, Jan Hendrik Schön, Thereza Imanishi-Kari, Woo Suk Hwang, Luk Van Parisj, Bengü Sezen, Shinichi Fujimura.
|Important For=Early career researchers; Educators; Doctoral students; Mentors; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/445244a.pdf
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Jon Sudbo; Hwang Woo-Suk; Schön Jan Hendrik; Imanishi-Kari; Luk Van Parisj; Bengü Sezen; Shinichi Fujimura; Andres Pape Moller
}}

Resource:Afe3f389-bcf5-4864-ad22-62247fb28ac4

2021-12-02T10:55:39Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Swedish plastics study fabricated, panel finds |Is About=t was a Swedish thriller, science style. To get at the truth about an alarming,..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Swedish plastics study fabricated, panel finds
|Is About=t was a Swedish thriller, science style. To get at the truth about an alarming, high-profile ''Science'' paper suggesting that tiny bits of floating plastic threaten fish populations, members of a panel at Uppsala University (UU) in Sweden sifted through hundreds of emails, travel documents, receipts, and bank statements. They were attempting to retrace the steps of UU ecologist Oona Lönnstedt, the paper's first author, during six crucial weeks in the spring of 2015. That is when Lönnstedt said she conducted the experiments described in the paper at the Ar Research Station on the Baltic Sea island of Gotland. But whistleblowers accusing her of fraud had alleged that she didn't spend nearly enough time on the island to have gathered the data.
|Important For=Academic institutions; RIO; RECs; Journal editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.358.6369.1367?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Oona Lönnstedt
|Has Timepoint=2015
|Has Location=Sweden
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Related To Research Area=LS 08.01 - Ecology (theoretical and experimental
}}

Resource:161ed372-698d-4d5b-b9c0-ba1d9738720a

2021-12-02T10:48:08Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=The future of scientific justice: the case of The Sceptical Environmentalist |Is About=In January 2003, the world learned that Denmark..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The future of scientific justice: the case of The Sceptical Environmentalist
|Is About=In January 2003, the world learned that Denmark’s national research council convenes a body whose name is rendered ominously in English as ‘Committee of Scientific Dishonesty’ (CSD). The CSD normally deals with forms of misconduct—negligence, fraud, and plagiarism—that beset the more competitive reaches of the biomedical sciences. However, the CSD had now set its sight on Bjørn Lomborg, whose transatlantic bestseller, ''The'' ''Sceptical'' ''Environmentalist'', purported to show that ecologists routinely overstate the world’s environmental problems to fit their political agenda [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328703002027#BIB4 <nowiki>[4]</nowiki>]. If the CSD thought it would settle the matter once and for all, it was mistaken. Shortly after the committee’s judgement, the Danish government commissioned an inquiry into the CSD’s own future.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Journal editors; RIO; Media
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328703002027
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Lomborg Bjorn
|Has Timepoint=2001
|Has Location=Danmark
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
|Related To Research Area=SH 03.02 - Environmental change and society
}}

Resource:418aaa9f-b7a4-438f-9029-9cd6764fd7e2

2021-12-02T10:42:13Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Research Integrity: the Experience of a Doubting Thomas |Is About=The sensational “reactome array” paper published in Science in 200..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Research Integrity: the Experience of a Doubting Thomas
|Is About=The sensational “reactome array” paper published in Science in 2009 was investigated in Spain by the Ethics Committee of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) after Science issued an editorial expression of concern. The paper was retracted in 2010 because of “skepticism” due to “errors” in chemistry. The “errors” were so profound that many readers expressed doubt that they were really errors, but part of an elaborate hoax.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Journal editors; Peer reviewers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00005-014-0272-3
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Beloqui Ana
|Has Timepoint=2010
|Has Location=Spain
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Related To Research Area=PE 04 - Physical and Analytical Chemical Sciences
}}

Resource:754c8de6-1b22-49e7-b72a-71220662e59e

2021-12-02T09:48:57Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Misconduct? It's all academic |Is About=The legal quagmire, strain and bad press of misconduct investigations leave many universities te..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Misconduct? It's all academic
|Is About=The legal quagmire, strain and bad press of misconduct investigations leave many universities tempted to ignore misconduct allegations. But getting an investigation right can reduce the pain and boost an institution's reputation.
|Important For=Academic institutions; RIO; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/445240a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:E36da78d-2595-4578-b657-8cba90d5585f
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Rusi Taleyarkhan
|Has Timepoint=2006
|Has Location=USA
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Related To Research Area=PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering
}}

Resource:8202c15e-26f6-4eb8-9547-290e1e74b72c

2021-12-02T09:39:42Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Misconduct oversight at the DOE: Investigation closed |Is About=A legal case about public access to documents is raising questions about..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Misconduct oversight at the DOE: Investigation closed
|Is About=A legal case about public access to documents is raising questions about the US Department of Energy's scrutiny of alleged scientific misconduct. On 6 April, a federal district judge in Boston, Massachusetts, dismissed a lawsuit that I had filed in 2009 under the US Freedom of Information Act. He concluded that the US government does not have to release a report on an investigation into a case of alleged scientific misconduct at a national laboratory. The ruling was disappointing but liberating: I finally had occasion to write about a case that has shown how the US Department of Energy (DOE) takes a strikingly hands-off approach to the oversight of such investigations.
|Important For=RIO
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/475020a
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Pennycook
|Has Timepoint=2011
|Has Location=USA
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability
|Related To Research Area=PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering
}}

Resource:3d244f66-938f-4564-91a7-657945e2b09e

2021-12-02T09:30:58Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Misconduct: the stars who fell to earth |Is About=Controversy has been the watchword in a year dogged by dispute. Misconduct revelations..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Misconduct: the stars who fell to earth
|Is About=Controversy has been the watchword in a year dogged by dispute. Misconduct revelations, clashes over transgenic crops, and confusion over stem cells have threatened to overshadow triumphs in fields from palaeoanthropology to fundamental physics. ''Nature''<nowiki/>'s reporters recount the year's talking points.
|Important For=Academic staff; Editors; RIO
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/420728a
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Schön Jan Hendrik
|Has Timepoint=2002
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability
|Related To Research Area=PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering
}}

Resource:6e812885-4fac-4c9b-95dc-c78775becc31

2021-12-02T09:26:00Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Plagiarism charge for Romanian minister - Scandal adds to fears that country’s research reform is in peril |Is About=Romania’s new g..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Plagiarism charge for Romanian minister - Scandal adds to fears that country’s research reform is in peril
|Is About=Romania’s new government was thrown into turmoil last week after its education and research minister, Ioan Mang, was accused of extensive plagiarism in at least eight of his academic papers.

The allegations first began circulating on 7 May, just hours after Prime Minister Victor Ponta, a Social Democrat, announced the appointment of Mang and other ministers of the new government. Last week, former prime minister Emil Boc, of the Democratic Liberals, called for Mang’s resignation, dramatically waving the allegedly plagiarized articles and the original papers in front of television cameras.

The scandal has dismayed many Romanian scientists, who are already nervous that the incoming centre-left coalition government might reverse some of the energizing reforms that were introduced by the previous centre-right coalition to improve the country’s sluggish research system
|Important For=Academic institutions; Educators; General public
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/485289a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:332e6fac-35d3-4d3b-a6b2-e737668a5ee7;Resource:3fd090a4-a99d-432f-976c-48b0f52cb426;Resource:665d026b-cdc3-4d14-aeeb-2a2d5a38bab9;Resource:8c17578f-5681-441b-b84d-25af66f9af4b
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Ioan Mang
|Has Timepoint=2012
|Has Location=Romania
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Related To Research Area=PE 06 - Computer Science and Informatics
}}

Resource:55294173-26fd-48bd-9af3-d8d040c8972b

2021-11-24T14:09:28Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Child protection and confidentiality: Surveying children’s experiences of violence, abuse and neglect |Is About=In 2008 the National S..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Child protection and confidentiality: Surveying children’s experiences of violence, abuse and neglect
|Is About=In 2008 the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) decided to set up a comprehensive UK-wide study of the prevalence and impact of violence towards children and young people at home, in school and in the community. The study was the first ever in the UK to ask children and young people directly about all forms of violence experienced during childhood and within the past year. A UK-wide household survey was conducted in 2009 with 6196 participants, of whom 2160 were parents/carers of children under 11 years, 2275 were children and young people aged 11 to 17 years and 1761 were young adults aged 18 to 24 years. See www.nspcc.org.uk/childstudy for further details.
|Important For=Research Ethics Committees; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://childethics.com/case-studies/child-protection-and-confidentiality-surveying-childrens-experiences-of-violence-abuse-and-neglect-by-lorraine-radford/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2020
|Has Location=UK
}}

Resource:63bdbb22-f6c8-42ee-8ba2-ad45e2a0d42b

2021-11-24T14:04:40Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Payments to young researchers in Malawi |Is About=During a research project on children’s transport and mobility in sub-Saharan Africa..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Payments to young researchers in Malawi
|Is About=During a research project on children’s transport and mobility in sub-Saharan Africa young people, (mostly under 18 years old) were invited from secondary schools in Malawi, Ghana and South Africa, to train as young researchers to collect data from their peers alongside adult researchers (www.dur.ac.uk/child.mobility).
|Important For=researchers; RECs
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://childethics.com/case-studies/__trashed/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:6ba4a38c-1b66-4001-ad13-7992a9af2f40

2021-11-24T13:30:30Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Payment in different contexts: How can payment reflect local considerations? |Is About=Young Lives is an international study of childhoo..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Payment in different contexts: How can payment reflect local considerations?
|Is About=Young Lives is an international study of childhood poverty, involving 12,000 children growing up over 15 years in Ethiopia, the state of Andhra Pradesh in India, Peru and Vietnam. Two cohorts of children – a younger cohort who were born in 2001-02 and an older cohort born in 1994-95 – are being followed. A variety of survey and qualitative methods are being used to collect data with children, parents, and others in communities.
|Important For=researchers; Research Ethics Committees
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://childethics.com/case-studies/__trashed-2/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:C76f6608-f7bf-4ac1-8d1d-d6c5b1dcf58f

2021-11-24T13:27:32Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Tongan children’s involvement in research |Is About=In 2015, for the first time, children and young people in Tonga were invited to ta..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Tongan children’s involvement in research
|Is About=In 2015, for the first time, children and young people in Tonga were invited to take part in research about their lives. From the UK, I worked with the project leaders of two Tongan national charities, Ma’a Ffine mo e Famili (For Women and Families; MFF) and Naunau ‘o ‘Alamaite Tonga Association (NATA), to design, oversee and conduct qualitative research into the experiences and needs of Tongan children. The project leaders wanted to include children, and specifically children with disabilities, not only because they had not been included in research before, but because both anecdotal evidence and evidence from a research project on domestic violence and abuse had suggested Tongan children were at risk of violence and abuse in families.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://childethics.com/case-studies/tongan-childrens-involvement-in-research-by-jo-aldridge/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2015
|Has Location=Tonga
}}

Resource:F6a8a6bf-de51-4bdd-837a-e9353d2a9b7c

2021-11-24T13:25:03Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Immediacy of fieldwork in participatory research with children in precarious contexts |Is About=Conducting participatory fieldwork with..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Immediacy of fieldwork in participatory research with children in precarious contexts
|Is About=Conducting participatory fieldwork with children can result in a researcher becoming involved in their lives more broadly, blurring the lines around the researcher role. This may be particularly the case when working with children in precarious situations, such as AIDS-affected children, parentless children, child beggars, child laborers, and street children. As educated, relatively wealthy, interested and supportive adults, researchers appear to hold considerable power and children may see this as a potential benefit or asset that could help to improve their situation. Researchers who undertake research with children in these sorts of contexts are generally motived by social justice and seek through their work to help improve the conditions of these children’s lives and others like them. These underlying motivations – a desire to be helped and a desire to help – can create added ethical complexity to participatory research relationships, particularly in relation to expectations, safety and capacity. In this case study, which is somewhat connected to my case study in the Payment and Compensation section on reciprocity in participatory research with children, I draw on an example of an incident involving the police and street children that occurred when I was undertaking participatory research in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://childethics.com/case-studies/immediacy-of-fieldwork-in-participatory-research-with-children-in-precarious-contexts-by-tatek-abebe/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2020
|Has Location=Ethiopia
}}

Resource:Abf308a7-8d7d-4d91-8f3d-402891a52abb

2021-11-24T13:22:52Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Negotiating confidentiality, privacy and consent in focus groups with children and young people. |Is About=In 2015, the Australian Royal..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Negotiating confidentiality, privacy and consent in focus groups with children and young people.
|Is About=In 2015, the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse contracted us to complete a study to understand what children need to be safe and feel safe in organisations such as schools, sporting groups, religious institutions and holiday camps. In focus groups, children and young people considered what it meant to be safe, what adults and organisations were doing and could do to improve their safety and prevent safety concerns (such as abuse) and to ensure that adults and organisations responded in child-friendly ways.

In our participatory research projects we have worked with a number of child and youth advisory groups to guide and strengthen our practice. We seek their feedback on the nature and purpose of our studies and advice on the ethical challenges of conducting sensitive research with groups often deemed ‘vulnerable’. For the Children’s Safety Study we recruited three groups of advisers: one was made up of primary-school-aged children (11-12 year olds), another from high-school-aged young people (15-16 years) and a group comprising young people from an alternate education program (aged 13-17 years).
|Important For=Research Ethics Committees; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://childethics.com/case-studies/negotiating-consent-confidentiality-and-privacy-in-focus-groups-with-children-and-young-people/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2020
|Has Location=Australia
}}

Resource:2303880a-edb5-478f-b3bf-a15579eb658e

2021-11-24T13:20:01Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Interviewing young people on sensitive topics: An iterative approach |Is About=In 2015, a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Interviewing young people on sensitive topics: An iterative approach
|Is About=In 2015, a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was established to understand the nature and extent of sexual abuse that occurred in Australian institutions and to determine ways that past failures might be avoided into the future. In addition to private sessions with survivors, public forums and case studies that investigated occurrences of abuse and organisation’s responses the Royal Commission implemented an ambitious research agenda to gather new knowledge to enhance strategies for identifying and responding to child sexual abuse. As part of this agenda, the Royal Commission contracted us to complete a series of studies to understand how children and young people think about and experience safety and ways that they would like adults and organisations to prevent abuse and respond when children are harmed. One group of children and young people who were deemed most vulnerable to institutional child sexual abuse, peer sexual violence and exploitation were those living in residential care. Understandably, the Royal Commission and various stakeholders and gatekeepers were anxious about researchers engaging children and young people about issues such as child sexual abuse. In addition to concerns that discussing such topics might be triggering for survivors of abuse, stakeholders were fearful that in participating in the study some young people would be introduced to content and safety threats to which they had not previously been exposed. However, the Royal Commission was adamant that children and young people should be provided an opportunity to engage in this important discussion.
|Important For=Research Ethics Committees; researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://childethics.com/case-studies/interviewing-young-people-on-sensitive-topics-an-iterative-approach-by-tim-moore-jodi-death-steven-roche/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2021
}}

Resource:1e164a35-4d88-40dc-bc3d-a2681c4afde9

2021-11-24T13:17:25Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Navigating disability identity and language in research involving children and young people. |Is About=Despite contemporary tourism rese..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Navigating disability identity and language in research involving children and young people.
|Is About=Despite contemporary tourism research being more inclusive of previously neglected groups, the views of children with disability are still largely absent, reflecting a disregard for both their agency and voice. My research sought to address this gap by focusing on understanding the holiday experiences of disabled children, using their self-reported narratives.

Locating the study in New Zealand, I invited children and young people aged 5-18 years who have a disability and who had holiday experiences in the past 12 months (domestic or international) to take part. This included children and young people with a range of intellectual, cognitive and physical disabilities. I utilised child/age/disability-friendly consent procedures (e.g., easy-read pictorial versions) and obtained dual consent from children and parents. To meet the unique characteristics and requests of the participants, I tailored the interviews (face-to- face or online), adopting a variety of approaches such as photo-elicitation. Overall, I worked hard to facilitate a respectful and participatory research process. However, a central challenge was addressing questions about disability identity (Who are disabled children? Is that the ‘right’ language?). In struggling to understand and address such foundational issues, I consulted a wide range of literature. However, navigating questions related to disability identity and language was tough in practice, given diverse expectations, interests and beliefs among the different groups of people with whom I was working (e.g., disability service providers, disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) and parent groups).
|Important For=Research Ethics Committees; Researcher
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://childethics.com/case-studies/navigating-disability-identity-and-language-in-research-involving-children-and-young-people-by-fathimath-shiraani/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2021
|Has Location=New Zealand
}}

Resource:Ac2ddea6-bbb9-4462-8504-96c94e7ca804

2021-11-24T13:13:19Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Developing an ethical and reflexive mindset in emerging childhood researchers. |Is About=As thinking and practice has grown around ethic..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Developing an ethical and reflexive mindset in emerging childhood researchers.
|Is About=As thinking and practice has grown around ethical research involving children, so too has the need to train and equip new researchers with relevant knowledge and the associated mindsets. However, developing a comprehensive training program on ethical research involving children can be a complex task. When I (Daniella Bendo) took up an Assistant Professor position at King’s University College (at Western University) Canada last year, I developed a third-year undergraduate unit entitled, ‘Researching Childhood (in Childhood and Social Institutions).’ The ERIC materials were invaluable in providing an established, rights-based framework for the course, as well as a wealth of material and resources to draw upon in the lectures and tutorials. In terms of assessment, I sought a way to draw the students’ learning together and ask them to demonstrate their theoretical and practical understanding of ethical issues in research involving children, in what was, otherwise, a theoretical unit. Based on the many real-life case studies on the ERIC website, I set students the assignment of developing their own hypothetical case study. Here, one of our students, Paige Sheridan, shares the approach she took with this assignment. The depth of her ethical understanding is evident in the reflexive detail of her case study and, while hypothetical, the five-step process she describes would likely be a useful tool to consider in research practice.
|Important For=Ethics committee members; Educators
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://childethics.com/case-studies/developing-an-ethical-and-reflexive-mindset-in-emerging-childhood-researchers-by-daniella-bendo-and-paige-sheridan/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:4c2f0119-99e6-4c11-a9fa-73ecdf8cdb9c

2021-11-24T13:08:16Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Research ethics committee conditions: Ethical challenges of researching with poor communities in Malawi |Is About=As an international ac..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Research ethics committee conditions: Ethical challenges of researching with poor communities in Malawi
|Is About=As an international academic team we have been engaged with researching African household and young people’s livelihood trajectories in a Malawian village since 2007. Intermittently over more than a decade we have conducted surveys, interviews and participatory research with many of the young and adult residents of that small rural community, thereby building up a detailed knowledge of the community and developing extensive personal relations with individuals and families.
|Important For=Ethics committee members; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://childethics.com/case-studies/research-ethics-committee-conditions-ethical-challenges-of-researching-with-poor-communities-in-malawi/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2020
|Has Location=Malawi
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}

Resource:04191f5e-e9df-4ced-96ee-2726727969c2

2021-11-24T12:53:14Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=New claim to authorship of published paper |Is About=A journal received a submission from author A with co-authors B, C and D. After rev..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=New claim to authorship of published paper
|Is About=A journal received a submission from author A with co-authors B, C and D. After review and revision it was published in mid-2012. In April 2013 we received a complaint from author X, saying that the work published in this paper was his work, and that although author A had been his research supervisor at the time the work was done, authors B, C and D had either little or no input to the work. Author X said that the correct authorship should be X and A in that order.
|Important For=Academic staff; Authors; Journal editors; Peer-reviewers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://publicationethics.org/case/new-claim-authorship-published-paper
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2011
}}

Resource:62d5d4ed-1af3-4617-aa59-cfdfd1317a85

2021-11-24T12:49:59Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Image manipulation as a general practice |Is About=As managing editor, I view all manuscripts before they are assigned to an editor. Wit..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Image manipulation as a general practice
|Is About=As managing editor, I view all manuscripts before they are assigned to an editor. Within a 4 week period, I have detected five manuscripts where photographs of either gels or plant materials were used twice or three times in the same manuscript. These manuscripts were immediately rejected.

However, we are not convinced that these are cases of deliberate misleading of the scientific community. It rather seems to us that many laboratories consider photographs as illustrations that can be manipulated, and not as original data. Thus gels are often cleaned of impurities, bands are cut out and photographs of plant material only serve to show what the authors want to demonstrate, and the material does not necessarily originate from the experiment in question.

When the editor-in-chief rejected such a manuscript, a typical response was: “I am surprised by the question and problem you pointed out in our manuscript. I checked the pictures you mentioned and I agree that they are really identical. But please be reminded that the purpose of these gel pictures was only to show the different types of banding pattern, and the gels of a few specific types were not very clear, so my PhD student repeatedly used the clearer ones. This misleading usage does not have an influence on data statistics or the final conclusion”.
|Important For=Journal editors; Peer-reviewers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://publicationethics.org/case/image-manipulation-general-practice
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:20f32f16-72a1-46f0-b9a6-24fac05b0937;Theme:Bc0cb5c2-ac78-4c7a-b83d-b1e6033f16c6
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2014
}}

Resource:A17e0508-0a4b-46c6-bb54-6a0823996e17

2021-11-24T12:45:51Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Possible omission of information essential for conclusions in a research paper |Is About=In 2013, a COPE member journal published a pape..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Possible omission of information essential for conclusions in a research paper
|Is About=In 2013, a COPE member journal published a paper describing an observational study comparing two drugs (A and B) for the management of a chronic disease over a period of 10 years. The conclusion in the paper was that mortality was higher in group A (97 deaths) compared with the other group B (52 deaths) (hazard ratio 1.76, 1.22 to 2.53; P=0.003). This analysis was done after adjustment for a large number of confounders, and was approved by our statistical advisor. The authors of the papers did acknowledge that this was an observational study, and did state that residual confounding might be present.

In 2014 COPE received a letter of concern by a researcher, employed by the company selling drug A, who felt that the authors of the 2013 paper omitted essential information that might impact on the conclusions. It appears that the routine management of this disease has changed substantially over the 10 year period, and this should have been treated as a confounder for which statistical adjustments should have been made. This change in routine management of the disease is documented in a paper published in 2014, but the researcher felt that these authors were probably aware of this much earlier and should have disclosed this information during the review process of their 2013 paper.

In our initial response in July 2014 to the letter of concern, we asked the researcher who sent us the letter of concern to send us a detailed rapid response to the 2013 paper, which we could publish. We have also asked advice of our statistical advisor who reviewed the 2013 paper, and he acknowledged that this information might impact on the statistical calculations and thus the conclusions of the paper. But with the data available to him, he is not able to make a definitive assessment of how much impact it would have. He has suggested to put these questions to the authors of the 2013 paper.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Journal editors; Clinical researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://publicationethics.org/case/possible-omission-information-essential-conclusions-research-paper
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2014
}}

Resource:Ac1ad9a3-c804-4343-ba91-f3644047dc3a

2021-11-24T12:41:24Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Institution alleges that paper includes fabricated data |Is About=In 2014 we, at COPE received a communication from the Research Integri..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Institution alleges that paper includes fabricated data
|Is About=In 2014 we, at COPE received a communication from the Research Integrity Officer of an academic institution informing us that a paper, published in our journal in 2013, included falsified or fabricated data. We were informed that, following an investigation, they had determined that scientific misconduct had occurred.

Within a few days we received a communication from one of the authors of the paper (who is no longer at the institution) reiterating this assertion and providing some further explanation; that a former student had fabricated data and that it affected the paper (but providing no specifics).
|Important For=Academic institutions; Journal editors; Journal publishers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://publicationethics.org/case/institution-alleges-paper-includes-fabricated-data
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2016
}}

Resource:5fea423a-4917-46b9-af44-b406df8aa938

2021-11-24T12:38:51Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Handling self-admissions of fraud |Is About=In November 2014, the first author of a decade old paper in our journal and a 15-year-old pa..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Handling self-admissions of fraud
|Is About=In November 2014, the first author of a decade old paper in our journal and a 15-year-old paper from another journal informed us that he faked the data in two figure panels in the paper in our journal and one figure panel in the paper in the other journal. The main gist of the manipulation was loading unequal amounts or delayed loading of gel lanes.

Self-admission of data falsification is a serious charge that is difficult to disprove, and we felt a challenge to identify evidence to counter or support this type of allegation. As general guidelines, we felt there were three types of evidence that could help resolve the standoff:

(1) compelling original raw data with evidence for or against unequal or delayed gel loading;

(2) verified replication already existing within the published literature; and

(3) as a last resort, a replication study performed by a wholly independent laboratory.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Journal editors; Journals; Peer-reviewers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://publicationethics.org/case/handling-self-admissions-fraud
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2015
}}

Resource:E1d93a85-b49f-403e-82cb-9c669e783b50

2021-11-24T12:35:44Z

0000-0002-6817-5697: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Suspected image manipulation involving four journals |Is About=Editorial office staff at journal A noticed possible image manipulation i..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Suspected image manipulation involving four journals
|Is About=Editorial office staff at journal A noticed possible image manipulation in two figures of a new paper submitted by author X. These suspected manipulations involved images of gels which appeared to contain multiple duplicated bands. This prompted editorial staff to look at the submission history of author X to journal A in more detail.

It was found that author X had previously submitted to journal A numerous times. All previous submissions had been rejected for reasons unrelated to the concerns raised here but one paper had been accepted for publication. Unfortunately, this author X paper which journal A had published appeared to contain possible band duplications in two gel images, as did an earlier submission which had been rejected at the start of 2015. As at least three papers received by journal A from author X has suspected image problems, authors X’s recent publication history was examined.

Similar possible gel issues along with a suspected image duplication relating to a photo of bacterial colonies were identified in three papers published in three different journals (journals B, C and D). Two members of editorial staff along with the editor-in-chief of journal A have considered all of the suspected issues and feel confident they are legitimate. As it currently stands, journal A has rejected the most recent submission from author X on the grounds of possible gel issues identified. However, the suspected issues identified in the four published papers in journals A, B, C and D were not mentioned in the rejection letter to allow time for an appropriate course of action to be decided.

As the paper was only recently (12 August) rejected by journal A, it has yet to hear back from author X, if indeed it does at all.

Journal A feels that it is important that journals B, C and D are made aware of the issues in the papers they have published. However, they also feel that it is important that they are made aware of all of the papers involved so they can appreciate the full picture as this may determine how they choose to handle the issues in their own respective journals.
|Important For=Journal editors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://publicationethics.org/case/suspected-image-manipulation-involving-four-journals
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Bc0cb5c2-ac78-4c7a-b83d-b1e6033f16c6;Theme:20f32f16-72a1-46f0-b9a6-24fac05b0937
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2015
}}

Resource:F49f5db8-1008-4ff2-900e-356894dff0dd

2021-11-24T12:31:43Z

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Suspected image manipulation involving four journals
|Is About=Editorial office staff at journal A noticed possible image manipulation in two figures of a new paper submitted by author X. These suspected manipulations involved images of gels which appeared to contain multiple duplicated bands. This prompted editorial staff to look at the submission history of author X to journal A in more detail.

It was found that author X had previously submitted to journal A numerous times. All previous submissions had been rejected for reasons unrelated to the concerns raised here but one paper had been accepted for publication. Unfortunately, this author X paper which journal A had published appeared to contain possible band duplications in two gel images, as did an earlier submission which had been rejected at the start of 2015. As at least three papers received by journal A from author X has suspected image problems, authors X’s recent publication history was examined.

Similar possible gel issues along with a suspected image duplication relating to a photo of bacterial colonies were identified in three papers published in three different journals (journals B, C and D). Two members of editorial staff along with the editor-in-chief of journal A have considered all of the suspected issues and feel confident they are legitimate. As it currently stands, journal A has rejected the most recent submission from author X on the grounds of possible gel issues identified. However, the suspected issues identified in the four published papers in journals A, B, C and D were not mentioned in the rejection letter to allow time for an appropriate course of action to be decided.

As the paper was only recently (12 August) rejected by journal A, it has yet to hear back from author X, if indeed it does at all.

Journal A feels that it is important that journals B, C and D are made aware of the issues in the papers they have published. However, they also feel that it is important that they are made aware of all of the papers involved so they can appreciate the full picture as this may determine how they choose to handle the issues in their own respective journals.
|Important For=Journal editors; Journal publishers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://publicationethics.org/case/suspected-image-manipulation-involving-four-journals
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2015
}}