Difference between revisions of "Resource:Aad857e5-3f3d-4c43-bcbc-1e7df8651623"

From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology (National Committee for Research Ethics in the...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Resource
 
{{Resource
 
|Resource Type=Guidelines
 
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology (National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities, Norway)
+
|Title=Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology (NESH, Norway)
 
|Is About=The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) is one of the constituents of the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees. As such, it forms an impartial advisory body on research ethics and integrity. In this document, the NESH sets out the good research practices that are especially relevant to researchers within the social sciences and humanities, but also to the research community at large.
 
|Is About=The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) is one of the constituents of the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees. As such, it forms an impartial advisory body on research ethics and integrity. In this document, the NESH sets out the good research practices that are especially relevant to researchers within the social sciences and humanities, but also to the research community at large.
|Important Because=While the guidelines of the Finnish advisory board on Research Integrity (TENK) is the leading national document on research integrity in Finland, The NESH guideline provides an in-depth description of the ethical and legal bases of research, and the different domains where good practices are applicable. As opposed to the TENK guidelines, the NESH guidelines focus less on research misconduct and more on integrity.
+
|Important Because=While the guidelines of the Norwegian Research Ethics Committees  is the main national document, the NESH document provides an in-depth description of the ethical and legal bases of research, and the different domains where good practices are applicable. As opposed to the NREC guidelines, the NESH guidelines provide more practical norms that align with the values of research integrity.
 
|Important For=Researchers; Research institutions
 
|Important For=Researchers; Research institutions
 
|Has Best Practice=Detailed best practices relating to:
 
|Has Best Practice=Detailed best practices relating to:

Latest revision as of 12:32, 12 January 2022

Guidelines

Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology (NESH, Norway)

What is this about?

The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) is one of the constituents of the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees. As such, it forms an impartial advisory body on research ethics and integrity. In this document, the NESH sets out the good research practices that are especially relevant to researchers within the social sciences and humanities, but also to the research community at large.

Why is this important?

While the guidelines of the Norwegian Research Ethics Committees is the main national document, the NESH document provides an in-depth description of the ethical and legal bases of research, and the different domains where good practices are applicable. As opposed to the NREC guidelines, the NESH guidelines provide more practical norms that align with the values of research integrity.

For whom is this important?

What are the best practices?

Detailed best practices relating to:

- Respect for individuals

-Respect for groups and institutions

- Interacting with the research community

-Performing commissioned research

-Good dissemination practices
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
5.1.6