Difference between revisions of "Resource:8692e962-3a7d-4fd1-a973-a7825f1ebdce"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Serious Accusation of Negligence of Ethical Principles in Human Sciences |Is About=. |Important Because=. Website Factual Anonymiz...") |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=Serious Accusation of Negligence of Ethical Principles in Human Sciences | |Title=Serious Accusation of Negligence of Ethical Principles in Human Sciences | ||
| − | |Is About=. | + | |Is About=A complaint was made my a member of the public against the editors of a symposium in social sciences on the basis that one of the published articles contained delicate, albeit anonymized, information relating to the personal history of the complainant. They claimed that the information was presented in such a way that it was easy to work out their true identity. This is a factual anonymized case. |
| − | |Important Because=. | + | |Important Because=The institutions associated with the two editors deemed the allegation to be unfounded because the person presented in the publication had been anonymised. Responding to the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity ('TENK'), the institutions stated that the matter did not fall within the scope of guidelines for responsible conduct of research. |
| − | + | By contrast, TENK stated that the editors were responsible for the content of the publication, the allegation was serious and the complainant had solid grounds for the validity of the allegation. Accordingly, TENK demanded that the institutions concerned initiate investigations into the matter in accordance with the guidelines for responsible conduct of research. | |
| − | + | |Important For=Researchers; Research Integrity Officers; Research Ethics Committees; Research institutions | |
| − | |||
| − | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
|Has Link=https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/TENK_annual_report_2017.pdf | |Has Link=https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/TENK_annual_report_2017.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Resource=Resource:Aefedfd7-bd36-4b3e-8dad-cdd1d6d92eb3;Resource:E37e02ca-bbf3-4c6f-86a2-0cb939d3cc91 | ||
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9;Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
|Involves=Finnish National Board on Research Integrity; TENK | |Involves=Finnish National Board on Research Integrity; TENK | ||
| Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect | |Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect | ||
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Privacy; Confidentiality; Data Management; Allegation of Misconduct; Data Protection; Anonymization; Personal Information | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Privacy; Confidentiality; Data Management; Allegation of Misconduct; Data Protection; Anonymization; Personal Information | ||
| − | |Related To Research Area= | + | |Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:53, 2 September 2020
ResourcesCases
Serious Accusation of Negligence of Ethical Principles in Human Sciences
What is this about?
A complaint was made my a member of the public against the editors of a symposium in social sciences on the basis that one of the published articles contained delicate, albeit anonymized, information relating to the personal history of the complainant. They claimed that the information was presented in such a way that it was easy to work out their true identity. This is a factual anonymized case.
Why is this important?
The institutions associated with the two editors deemed the allegation to be unfounded because the person presented in the publication had been anonymised. Responding to the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity ('TENK'), the institutions stated that the matter did not fall within the scope of guidelines for responsible conduct of research.
By contrast, TENK stated that the editors were responsible for the content of the publication, the allegation was serious and the complainant had solid grounds for the validity of the allegation. Accordingly, TENK demanded that the institutions concerned initiate investigations into the matter in accordance with the guidelines for responsible conduct of research.
