The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c

2021-03-27T09:47:45Z

Hugh.Desmond:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Title=Research misconduct
|Is About=What is research misconduct? Which practices are considered ‘misconduct’ and which might be labelled a less serious ‘misbehavior’ or ‘questionable research practice’? For some, misconduct is synonymous with ‘FFP’ - Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism <ref>Office of Research Integrity. Definition Research Misconduct. Available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct. Accessed: March 2019</ref>– whereas others consider a failure to meet ethical, legal and professional obligations, and even a failure to properly deal with misconduct allegations, to qualify as misconduct. <ref>European Science Foundation, All European Academies. The European code of conduct for research integrity. Revised edition: European Science Foundation; 2011.</ref>.There is ongoing debate among academics how to precisely define research misconduct. <ref>Resnik, David B., Talicia Neal, Austin Raymond, and Grace E. Kissling. 2015. “Research Misconduct Definitions Adopted by U.S. Research Institutions.” Accountability in Research 22 (1): 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.891943.</ref><ref>Andersen, Hanne. 2007. “Demarcating Misconduct from Misinterpretations and Mistakes.” First Biannual SPSP Conference, Twente. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4153/1/Andersen_Scientific_Misconduct.pdf.</ref><ref>Salwén, Håkan. 2015. “The Swedish Research Council’s Definition of ‘Scientific Misconduct’: A Critique.” Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1): 115–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9523-2.</ref>

The European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity <ref>European Science Foundation, All European Academies. The European code of conduct for research integrity. Revised edition: European Science Foundation; 2011.</ref> refers to misconduct as FFP. Other violations which damage the integrity of the research are referred to as ‘other unacceptable practices’.<references />
|Important Because=The proper conduct and reporting of research is fundamental to the scientific method and the integrity of the research record. Research misconduct however distorts the knowledge base. The practices of falsification, fabrication and plagiarism are widely agreed to constitute misconduct and are intentional deceptions. The Office of Research Integrity defines research misconduct as follows:

Research misconduct is ‘fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.'

*Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
*Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
*Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
*Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.’

Falsification, fabrication and plagiarism, however, are relatively rare <ref>Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005 Jun 9;435:737-8.</ref> <ref>Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one 2009;4(5):e5738.</ref>. In contrast, other behaviors, ranging from unintentional ‘sloppy' science to conscious minor breaches of research integrity are more frequent and possibly more damaging to science. <ref>Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005 Jun 9;435:737-8.</ref> <ref>Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one 2009;4(5):e5738.</ref><references />
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Research subjects; Scientists; Ethics committee members; Principal investigators; Researchers; health care professionals; academic staff; Research institutions; Policy makers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Universities; Funders; Journal publishers; Journal editors; industry stakeholders; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Reviewers; Teachers; General public; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=Various practices are related to research misconduct, ranging from building an environment conducive to good research conduct to the policies and procedures for reporting misconduct. Below, some initiatives to improve the reporting of misconduct are detailed.

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity focuses on the adherence to Integrity and Fairness in misconduct procedures. Find the code [https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity here.]

The Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) outline the responsibilities of journal editors and publishers in their ‘core practices’ [https://publicationethics.org/resources/elearning/introduction-publication-ethics/publication-ethics-and-misconduct here]. Recommendations include:

*"Journals must take seriously allegations of misconduct pre-publication and post-publication"
*"Journals should have a clearly described process for handling allegations, however they are brought to the journal's or publisher's attention"
*"COPE expects members to have robust and well-described, publicly documented practices in all these areas for their journals and organisations"
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:7fcb92c2-8d04-4106-875f-166af054c161;Resource:Acc068ac-a0c0-48fa-b6a2-ff7448bf2573;Resource:C473b44b-f01c-4873-bbf0-f9562aab275b;Resource:F243f440-69e9-44f8-b95a-5e0c2009f700;Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2
|Related To Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research misconduct
}}

Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db

2021-03-25T14:47:42Z

Hugh.Desmond:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:4596ffa1-88cd-40bc-b346-a58837206404
|Title=Standards of authorship
|Is About=Standards of authorship regulate the allocation of credit when researchers collaborate on publications.
|Important Because=Collaborations are becoming more frequent and gather anever increasing number of researcher. At the same time publications remain a key source of academic credit and career advancement. It is important to allocate credit for research contributions in a fair and transparent way.

The UK Research Integrity Office outlines why authorship standards matter:

“Correct authorship of research publications matters because authorship confers credit, carries responsibility, and readers should know who has done the research. Denying authorship to somebody who deserves it denies recognition and academic credit since publications are used to assess academic productivity. Including an undeserving author is unfair since this person gets credit for work they have not done. Omitting a deserving author from an author also list misleads readers (including journal editors) and may mask conflicts of interest.” <ref>UKRIO (2017). Good practice in research: Authorship. Accessed via: http://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Guidance-Note-Authorship-v1.0.pdf</ref>
<references />
|Important For=phd students; Early career researchers; PI; Peer reviewers; Journal editors; Journal publishers
|Has Best Practice====Difficulties===
Common practises on standards of authorship vary between scientific disciplines, and between countries, making standardizing difficult. They also change over time. As the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences note:

''“Customs have changed over the past few decades; for example, the practice of granting “honorary” authorship to an eminent researcher – formerly not unusual – is no longer considered acceptable.”''<ref>Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (2013). Authorship in scientific publications: Analysis and recommendations. Accessed via: <nowiki>http://www.akademien-schweiz.ch/en/dms/E/Publications/Guidelines-and-Recommendations/integrity/Academies_Authorship.pdf</nowiki></ref>

==='''European Code of Conduct '''===
''The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017)'' states the following:<ref>ALLEA (2017). European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Accessed via: https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/</ref>

*All authors are fully responsible for the content of a publication, unless otherwise specified
*All authors agree on the sequence of authorship, acknowledging that authorship itself is based on a significant contribution to the design of the research, relevant data collection, or the analysis or interpretation of the results
*Authors acknowledge important work and intellectual contributions of others, including collaborators, assistants, and funders, who have influenced the reported research in appropriate form, and cite related work correctly
*All authors disclose any conflicts of interest and financial or other types of support for the research or for the publication of its results

==='''COPE'''===

*Guideline: [https://publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf12_0.pdf How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers]
*Guideline: [https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standard_editors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf Responsible research publication: international standards for editors]
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:38cabc43-2b53-4c98-80ea-89b97ef5107d;Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:E996d601-bd6e-4f62-831c-c09f82652eb1
|Related To Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ALLEA; ICMJE
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication ethics; Mentor/trainee relationship; Authorship
}}

Theme:9fc17763-af35-4688-a87f-165f3b120897

2021-03-25T14:46:40Z

Hugh.Desmond:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:4596ffa1-88cd-40bc-b346-a58837206404
|Title=Publishers - COPE guidelines
|Is About=The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) aims to strengthen ethical practices in the culture of publishing. Together with the [https://doaj.org/ Directory of Open Access Journals] (DOAJ), the [https://oaspa.org/ Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association] (OASPA), and the [http://www.wame.org/ World Association of Medical Editors] (WAME), they have published the “Principles of Transparency and Best Practise in Scholarly Publishing”.

They also have published a list of “Core Practices”, which consolidates the [https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Editors] and [https://publicationethics.org/system/files/Code_of_conduct_for_publishers_Mar11.pdf Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers]
|Important Because=Journal editors often need to make difficult decisions about allegations of misconduct, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, lack of ethical oversight of a submission, and so on. The COPE “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing” and “Core Practices” consist of guidelines and tools to assist editors, publishers and other stakeholders to “preserve and promote the integrity of the scholarly record through policies and practices that reflect the current best principles of transparency and integrity”. <ref>COPE. Core practices. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices. Accessed 29 May, 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=phd students; Research institutions; Supervisors; funders; Journal publishers; Journal editors; Senior researchers
|Has Best Practice=COPE has guidelines on many different topics, for different target stakeholders, including those for [https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduc editors] and [https://publicationethics.org/system/files/Code_of_conduct_for_publishers_Mar11.pdf publishers]. In addition, there are ten core practices formulated by cope, ranging from allegations of misconduct to ethical oversight to data and reproducibility. For all ten practices and explanations, see the [https://publicationethics.org/core-practices COPE core practices].
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Aea9471a-e48b-4fe0-8df4-8013763c4b08;Resource:55cea558-b370-4eec-b4f5-0de97f815e67;Resource:38cabc43-2b53-4c98-80ea-89b97ef5107d
|Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0;Theme:Fe62e07c-2e75-4a55-82e6-1908fa543b7a;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Publication Ethics
}}

Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39

2021-03-25T14:45:40Z

Hugh.Desmond:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Discipline specific codes and guidelines on research integrity
|Is About=Some codes of conduct and guidelines discuss foundational principles which are relevant for researchers across all areas of research, and practices which are applicable in all disciplines. But there are other codes and guidelines which concern specific disciplines or areas of research.
|Important Because=Some research areas have domain-specific challenges or considerations when it comes to research integrity. These differences can be due to methodological, conceptual, historical or other differences between disciplines, and can also reflect priority issues that stem from the kind of research that is performed within a particular discipline. That is why it can be important to have more specific codes and guidelines that explicitly address these topics and put them into context.

In particular, research areas in which practitioners have a dual role and also offer services to clients - such as sociologists, psychologists, or statisticians - often have well-established domain-specific codes of conduct. It is also common for disciplines in which researchers collaborate with industry or media respresentatives, deal with sensitive data, or involve human and animal subjects in research, to provide more detailed guidance on these topics over and above that mentioned in domain-general codes and guidelines.
|Important For=PhD students; Supervisors; Junior researchers; Early career researchers; Senior researchers
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Ad7f9f5c-a519-4744-a7c6-5fba091e9264;Resource:Fd6e5aee-0aca-4fc2-854a-5fed52f2641a;Resource:1e1d90cf-ca7e-45d6-b9ba-c5e4791f6e8a
|Related To Theme=Theme:2446855b-0acc-4e28-817e-a65d7e00162e
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Responsibility of University
}}

Theme:B3684f7e-d66f-4c61-ba16-799bc2192b15

2021-03-25T14:44:11Z

Hugh.Desmond:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
|Title=Legal rights of accused scientists
|Is About=When scientists are accused of misconduct their legal rights may be encroached upon.
|Important Because=It is important that the principles of proportionality and due process are respected in investigations of misconduct. Otherwise this may lead to erroneous judgments of integrity commissions, or unfair punishments. Moreover, scientists, as citizens, have legal rights, and if these are not respected in self-regulatory investigations, then cases of alleged misconduct will increasingly be handled by the courts.
|Important For=Scientists; Principal investigators; Researchers; Supervisors; Universities; PhD students; Research funding organisations; Research performing organisations
|Has Best Practice=The [https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity European Code of Conduct] states that fairness and integrity are most important for procedures for investigating misconduct, principles to be followed are also stated.<ref>European Science Foundation, All European Academies. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. 2017.</ref>
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:E37e02ca-bbf3-4c6f-86a2-0cb939d3cc91;Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb
|Related To Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegations of misconduct; Research Misconduct Investigation
}}

Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267

2021-03-25T14:43:11Z

Hugh.Desmond:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Title=Institutional policies and procedures for research misconduct
|Is About=When formal allegations of misconduct are made, institutions handling such allegations must follow certain procedures to ensure that legal and professional rights are not encroached upon.
|Important Because=The person who makes an allegation of misconduct may be penalized if he or she is not protected by the institutional investigation. Also, the accused has a right to due process, as false accusations can be made. That is why it is important that institutional procedures respect the rights both of the accuser and accused.
|Important For=Research Integrity Officers
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegations of misconduct; Fabrication; Falsification; Plagiarism
}}

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

2021-03-25T14:42:36Z

Hugh.Desmond:

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

Theme:2040cd9d-877c-48de-b430-3d9761aa1e25

2021-03-25T14:33:26Z

Hugh.Desmond:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Reasonable standards for career advancement
|Is About=The Singapore statement specifies that “Research institutions should create and sustain environments that encourage integrity through education, clear policies, and reasonable standards for advancement, while fostering work environments that support research integrity.”<ref>Resnik, David B., and Adil E. Shamoo. "The singapore statement on research integrity." ''Accountability in research'' 18.2 (2011): 71-75.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=If the standards for career advancement are not reasonable, this can lead to considerable friction between individual researchers and the research institution. This is not fair to the individual researcher, and by creating resentment, can hamper potential collaboration within a research institution, and can constitute a structural cause for research misconduct.
|Important For=Researchers; Research performing organisations; Policy makers; Research institutions
|Has Best Practice=The Qualification portfolio, implemented by Utrecht UMC. To be described in further detail elsewhere on The Embassy.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:10e386f6-6881-4d88-bc72-e6391597029e;Resource:216fd809-8eca-4f5e-8cc7-c118b9bfb0cd;Resource:3cf12442-8943-4684-9e9c-8e5128674a79;Resource:90c5a9cf-16c5-441c-b69e-4de6162ae0e2
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2011
|Has Location=Singapore
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Fairness
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Reputation; Academic Responsibility of University
}}

User:Hugh.Desmond

2021-03-25T14:29:33Z

Hugh.Desmond: create user page