Difference between revisions of "Maintenance:ExportThemes"
m (Admin moved page Maintenance:ExportThemes to Maintenance:ExportThemes) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[Category:Theme]] | [[Category:Theme]] | ||
|?Theme_Type | |?Theme_Type | ||
| + | |?Is_About | ||
| + | |?Important_Because | ||
| + | |?Important_For | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | __NOINDEX__ | ||
Latest revision as of 11:13, 26 October 2020
| Type | What is this about? | Why is this important? | For whom is this important? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive dissonance and moral distress | Principles & Aspirations | Because of structural imperatives that overemphasize the good of efficiency (number of publications, h-index), researchers may feel it is not possible to do justice to principles and values related to research integrity (e.g. taking time in order to improve the quality of one publication, rather than publishing as much as possible). In such a situation, a researcher experiences cognitive dissonance and moral distress. The psychological notion of cognitive dissonance refers to the mental discomfort experienced by someone who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The ethical concept of moral distress denotes the experience of a person who knows what is the right thing to do, but is (or feels) unable to act accordingly. | In participating in the communal practice of science, we have to accept certain standards of excellence (related to values, like truth) and rules to follow (to give an accurate account of the authors’ contributions). Thus, we are likely to experience cognitive dissonance or moral distress, when confronted with conflicting imperatives (for instance the need to give an authorship to one’s superior, even if she did not contribute to the specific paper). Cognitive dissonance theory holds that when we experience cognitive or dissonance or moral distress, we tend to justify our behavior. The more often we engage in justifying our unethical behavior, the more we will perceive this unethical behavior as already justified and the more likely we are to engage in it again.
Although we will always be blind to our own ignorance to a certain degree, we can learn to recognize our self-justification strategies as indicators of our (evolving) vices. By recognizing why we engage in self-justification strategies and how they impact our decision-making, we can foster conditions for good research. Virtue ethics emphasizes that we need to develop virtues in order to deal with imperatives that are detrimental to good research.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' According to MacIntyre, “virtues serve three functions: to enable individuals to achieve excellence in practice, to protect the practice from threat of corruption by goods of efficiency, and to be constitutive components of the good human life”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' So virtues can be seen as crucial to counter corruptive tendencies in the research system. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' Cultivating sensitivity for cognitive dissonance and moral distress is an important element of research integrity education.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"'It may support us in our attempts to find the right middle between being lenient and being too harsh on ourselves. What is the right middle depends on situational factors, as well as individual capabilities of the researcher. Knowing the right middle is not something that we can learn solely by understanding the underlying dynamics. It has to be learned in practice, over and over again. If we keep in sight the goods of excellence to achieve, we can be prepared not to be discouraged if we fail to assess a situation appropriately, but rather use any mistake we make as a means to fine-tune our cognitive strategies and moral behavior.
| PhD Students Students Researchers Supervisors Research integrity trainers |
| Collaborative working | Good Practices | Collaborative working is "the act of two or more people or organizations working together for a particular purpose". '"`UNIQ--ref-0000004D-QINU`"' Collaborative working can cover formal or informal ways to work together. Formal collaborations include research projects under specified research grants, informal collaborations include, for example, networks or alliances.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000004E-QINU`"' Collaborations can be permanent or last for a certain time period. Important for succesfull research collaborations is having good underlying principles providing the basis for agreements of collaborations. '"`UNIQ--references-0000004F-QINU`"' | A lot of scientific work happens through collaboration. Yet, collaborations can also lead to conflict when there is lack of clarity about the roles of different collaborators, or when expectations are not met.
Collaborative work has become more important over the past few decades, partially due to the rise of interdisciplinary research. The number of co-authors on a paper is a potential indifcatar for the rise of collaborations, with the average number of co-authors on research papers for the PNAS rose from 3.9 in 1981 to 8.4 in 2001. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000050-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000051-QINU`"' | Researchers PhD students |
| Conflict of interests | Misconduct & Misbehaviors | Conflict of interests pertain to situations that involve a person or organization with multiple interests (personal, professional, financial…). Working towards one interest could involve conflict with others. Conflicts can be (1) financial or (2) non-financial.
1) Treating patients and working for a pharmaceutical company (or owning their shares) that produces medicine for the same group of patients is an example of financial conflict of interests. Be prescribing and promoting medicine that is produced by this pharmaceutical company, the treating doctor may receive some sort of direct financial comission or have the value of their shares increased. 2) Non-publication of negative results and zero relations and making biased hypotheses are among examples of non-financial conflict of interests.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000029F-QINU`"' Researchers who hide their negative results (to make their data clean or their results more noteworthy), or hypothesise in a manner to yield their prefered results could be seen as examples of non-financial conflict of interests. It is important to note that conflict of interest includes the potential for conflict as well, and these should always be reported. '"`UNIQ--references-000002A0-QINU`"' | Conflict of interests erodes objectivity of science and leads to corruption, and most certainly create a space for bias in decision making. Conflict of interest can happen in a variety of research areas and human activities, but when we take consequences into consideration, in some areas such as science and research it becomes especially important.'"`UNIQ--ref-000002A1-QINU`"' A recent review revealed that industry sponsored studies are more often in favour to the sponsors’ products compared with studies with other sources of funding.'"`UNIQ--ref-000002A2-QINU`"' Because of the effect it can potentially have on research, scientific journals require a separate declaration of conflict of interest when submitting scientific articles.'"`UNIQ--ref-000002A3-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000002A4-QINU`"' | Researchers health care professionals academic staff |
| Data Practices and Management | Good Practices | The revised European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity outlines a number of recommendations on "Data Practices and Management". These are:
" • Researchers, research institutions and organisations ensure appropriate stewardship and curation of all data and research materials, including unpublished ones, with secure preservation for a reasonable period. • Researchers, research institutions and organisations ensure access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary, and where appropriate in line with the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable) for data management. • Researchers, research institutions and organisations provide transparency about how to access or make use of their data and research materials. • Researchers, research institutions and organisations acknowledge data as legitimate and citable products of research. • Researchers, research institutions and organisations ensure that any contracts or agreements relating to research outputs include equitable and fair provision for the management of their use, ownership, and/or their protection under intellectual property rights."'"`UNIQ--ref-0000069C-QINU`"' These recommendations emphasize the importance of good data management and stewardship, however they need to be further specified in individual country or disciplinary contexts. | Academic staff Researchers | |
| Development and Value of National Research Integrity Codes | Other | International declarations such as the Hong Kong principles and the San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment (DORA) aim to foster research integrity among the global research community 1, 2. At the European level, the European Code of Conduct (ECoC) is a research integrity document that aims to harmonize the research integrity standards across Europe 3. In addition, many individual European countries have developed their own national guidance detailing the principles and practices of research integrity and addressing instances of research misconduct. This theme page describes the development and value of these national research integrity codes in Europe. | Research integrity and research misconduct are of immense interest to stakeholders both within and outside the scientific community. Integrity in research not only enables good quality research, supports effective collaborations and delivers benefits to the public, but also safeguards the trust of the public in the research community. Research misconduct, on the other hand, can diminish trust in science, affect the quality of research results and misspend public funds. To prevent this, it is crucial that researchers receive guidance on research integrity.
National documents are important in laying down specific norms that are to be followed. For instance, the Estonian document provides considerations to be taken into account during different stages of the research, such as planning, conduct and publication 4. In the Danish and Swiss guidelines, the procedures to address a suspected breach of integrity are described in detail 5, 6. The Swiss document, in addition, also provides the legal background and implications of misconduct 6. Whilst there is a value for countries to have their own RI code or statement, challenges can arise when there are divergences both among national documents and between national level documents and the ECoC regarding the guiding values of research integrity and what constitutes research misconduct. These divergences are important to map and define, for two broad reasons: firstly, it could mean that in cases of research misconduct in international collaborations, responses to misconduct may vary, depending on the national norms, and secondly, these divergences go against the harmonizing effect envisaged in the ECoC, and could affect the overall coherence of research integrity guidance 4. These considerations are of importance not only to policy makers, but also to research institutions and researchers in general. | Research Integrity Officers Researchers Policy makers Research performing organisations |
| Dialogue versus debate | Principles & Aspirations | Dialogue is a vehicle for reaching understanding and learning from each other. Dialogue is to be distinguished from debate. Dialogue focuses on listening to the other and being open to the other’s perspective, whereas debate aims at convincing the other through argumentation. | Research integrity issues often require thorough consideration, as it is not always simple to apply rules and to know what is the right action given a code of conduct. A dialogue can help to find ways to deal with such issues. A dialogue can take place within the research team, or in a group aiming at reflection on research integrity issues.
The idea of dialogue is not only being nice and friendly. The aim is to come to a better view of the situation, gaining knowledge and understanding. This requires that one seriously investigates the relevance of the perspective of the other. Being open to the perspective of the other does not mean simply giving up one’s own point of view, but being prepared to learn from the other’s point of view. By exchanging perspectives, dialogue can result in a fusion of horizons.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000027-QINU`"' It is important to distinguish dialogue from debate. In a nutshell, the most relevant differences are the following :'"`UNIQ--ref-00000028-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-00000029-QINU`"'
| PhD Students Researchers Supervisors Research integrity trainers |
| Dutch National Survey on Research Integrity | Misconduct & Misbehaviors | The National Survey on Research Integrity (NSRI) is the first-ever nation-wide online survey targeting researchers of all universities and university medical centres in The Netherlands. NSRI aims to report on factors that promote or hinder Responsible Research Practices (RRPs). These factors cover for instance perceptions of organizational justice, scientific norms, work pressure, mentoring, and social support. It is possible that these factors play different roles in different disciplinary fields: biomedical, natural and engineering sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. Similarly, the importance of the factors may vary over the career stages of a researcher. The NSRI is designed to be large enough to look separately at subgroups. The survey will also report on the prevalence of RRPs, Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) and research misconduct (defined as falsification and fabrication) in each of the four disciplinary fields and across three academic ranks. Because of its unique methodology and its nationwide target of approximately 40,000 researchers across all disciplinary fields, NSRI can provide solid data to identify driving factors that promote or hinder RRP. | Many researchers work in environments that stimulate responsible behavior. However, scholarly environments are also complex and full of competition. Competition can stimulate people to work hard, but may also have downsides. What is an optimal research environment? What working conditions are detrimental to good research practices? Fostering responsible research and preventing questionable practices is important. However, the causes behind the variability in engagement in responsible and questionable practices and research misconduct are largely unknown. Once known, strategies to enhance responsible research practices while reducing questionable practices can be developed and evaluated. The NSRI attempts to play an important role in solving this. Watch this two-minute video on why research integrity matters to every one of us in society.
To optimally address all 40,000 academic researchers in The Netherlands, a survey instrument was the most fitting choice for this project. While it has its drawbacks, especially when studying a complex topic such as research integrity, the primary goal of this survey was to get concrete estimates of RRP, QRPs, and their associated factors for these practices across disciplines. Balancing time to answer such a survey, while protecting the privacy and the target sample size of about 40,000 researchers, a survey tool was most appropriate. This does not exclude us from exploring themes that will arise from the survey results through more detailed focus group discussions at the next stage of this project. The Dutch National Survey on Research Integrity (NSRI) is unique in a number of ways:
Given the sensitivity of the topic, NSRI has paid very close attention to fully ensuring the protection of the identity of the participants and their research institutions. Our privacy protection measures include:
Because of these measures, no data was analysed or published that can be traced to individual participants or specific research institutions. You can access the NSRI’s publications here. To find out more about the NSRI, visit our FAQ page here. | PhD students Postdocs Senior researchers Early career researchers Universities Research funding organisations |
| Epistemic virtues | Principles & Aspirations | Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge and its relations to concepts and definitions of truth, belief and justification of belief.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' Virtue is often defined as moral excellence, and epistemic virtues are described as intellectual virtues. A critical, conscientious thinker, could also be described as epistemically virtuous. '"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' | The ultimate goal of science is to seek truth at the realm of material things. Because of that, science itself cannot be practiced without somehow tapping into the field of epistemology. Ideally, researchers should be attentive, careful, thorough, impartial, open, willing to exchange ideas and aware of their own fallibility. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' These traits could serve as a preventative measure for research misconduct and other, various practices that are detrimental to science. '"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' | Postdocs PhD students |
| Funders | Good Practices | Funding for research comes from many sources, including from universities, industry, philantrophists and research funding organizations (RFOs). RFOs are the financiers of many research projects and provide grants to research projects, collaborations and individual researchers. The responsibility for ensuring that the funds and resources are utilized optimally without any misconduct lies with researchers, research performing organizations, ethics committees, and the funding organizations. This calls for the development of a code for appropriate utilization of funds, and to ensure academic autonomy, integrity, freedom and the rights of scholars in academic–industry relationships. | Financial support for research is often obtained from intramural (e.g. from university funds) or extramural (e.g. from funding agencies) sources. Funders have some responsibility for ensuring that the research they fund is conducted in accordance with relevant laws and good research practices. However, funders’ oversight and reporting standards differ greatly.
Collaborations, particularly those related to funding, also have the potential to influence the ways in which research questions are defined and the results presented. A particular concern involves collaborations between academia and industry-sponsors. Studies have shown that industry-sponsored research tends to favor the sponsor.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000021-QINU`"' Therefore, funders need to be transparant about their aims, researchers should declare the source of funding, academic autonomy must be ensured, and researchers must be aware that funders can potentially influence research. '"`UNIQ--references-00000022-QINU`"' | Research funding organisations Funders |
| How to be a good lab partner | Good Practices | How to coexist in the laboratory without committing a homicide/suicide? A few of the most typical laboratory difficulties that need to be handled are organization and staff issues. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000945-QINU`"'
Because of that, it is important to nourish the virtues of collaborative spirit, patience, and humility at the workplace. '"`UNIQ--references-00000946-QINU`"' | Working in the laboratory can be challenging. Like in every other collective you are stuck with people that you like and do not like, colleagues that work and that are slacking, deadlines are always pressing down, equipment is damaged and you must stay professional.
A new study emphasizes the importance of encouraging positive workplace social relationships, particularly male-female friendships'"`UNIQ--ref-00000947-QINU`"'. Thus, this theme helps us to induce all the virtues that one researcher must have to live a productive and fulfilled professional life. '"`UNIQ--references-00000948-QINU`"' | Bachelor students Collaborating researchers Doctoral students Graduate and postgraduate students Junior researchers Laboratory researchers PhD Students Professors |
| Mertonian norms | Principles & Aspirations | Mertonian norms are the four norms of good scientific research first introduced by the American sociologist, Robert K. Merton. These norms are communism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000323-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000324-QINU`"' | Robert Merton developed his norms as a way to describe what constitutes the ethos of modern science. Since then, research has shown that various practice-based problems still occur, such as research misconduct, falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and questionable research practices. Scientists are still aiming for improvement, and Mertonian norms are still very much relevant. | everyone |
| Moral conflict and moral dilemma | Principles & Aspirations | A moral conflict is a situation in which a person has two moral obligations, which cannot be met both at once. Behind these obligations lie conflicting values. Sometimes, the conflict can be resolved to the full satisfaction of the different parties involved, i.e. without leaving behind any regrettable remainder or residue. A moral dilemma is an irresolvable moral conflict, i.e. no fully satisfactory resolution is possible since all possible options for action leave behind a remainder that does not cease to be morally binding. | Research integrity can involve a situation of moral conflict. This means that two courses of action are possible, which exclude one another. If one goes for one action, the alternative cannot be realized. Moreover, one has to choose between both actions; a third option, such as not making a choice, is not possible. An example is the choice between adding a person as an author to an article or not. There is no third option: either the person is made author, or not.
A moral conflict implies two conflicting values. In the case of authorship, these values might be gratitude (for a – albeit small - contribution) versus righteousness (acting in line with the authorship guidelines). Sometimes, moral conflicts can be resolved because one of the values clearly overrides the other. Thus, from a research integrity perspective, authorship requirements are more important than gratitude. In order to do justice to the value of gratitude, the person can be mentioned in an acknowledgement. However, there are examples of situations in research where conflicts can be irresolvable, because the person who has to choose feels the obligation to do justice to two incompatible values. In such cases, one is confronted with a moral dilemma .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000035-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000036-QINU`"' A moral dilemma is a conflict situation in which the choice one makes causes a moral harm, which cannot be restlessly repaired. Take the example of how to respond when a fellow researcher needs help, but refuses your assistance. In light of the value of care, you should at least try to convince them that support is needed. On the other hand, the value of autonomy might indicate that you should not impose yourself upon them. Whatever you decide to do, you do harm to one of the two values involved. If you choose to try and get them to accept support, they might feel being treated as an incompetent researcher. If you choose to let go, they might get in serious difficulty with their research. '"`UNIQ--references-00000037-QINU`"' | PhD Students Researchers Supervisors Research integrity trainers |
| Peer review | Good Practices | This article is about scholarly (academic) peer review. In simple terms, peer review is an evaluation of a piece of work by persons from the same or a similar field of work (peers). This process is very important in science, and it is conducted to help journal editors decide what to publish. The purpose of peer review is to detect both the quality and the flaws of the presented piece of work in order to prevent poor research from publication. '"`UNIQ--ref-000000F9-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-000000FA-QINU`"' It includes checking for methodological rigor, quality of reporting, and critical assessment of conclusions. '"`UNIQ--ref-000000FB-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000000FC-QINU`"' | In a scientific journal, the editor is responsible for the quality of published research. Of course, an editor cannot possibly know everything about all areas of research. They must, therefore, seek help from other experts to assess the quality of research. They rely on their knowledge and experience to identify possible weaknesses in research. '"`UNIQ--ref-000000FD-QINU`"' For authors, the peer review process provides thoughtful comments to help them improve their manuscript. Peer review is important in scientific publishing, but also in reviewing project proposals or, sometimes, conference abstracts. '"`UNIQ--references-000000FE-QINU`"' | Scientists Journal editors Students Peer reviewers Reviewers Researchers Editors Journals Journal publishers |
| Poor mentoring or supervision of early career researcherers | Misconduct & Misbehaviors | Mentors/supervisors of early career researchers (master students, doctoral students, post-doctoral fellows) very often are not aware of what is expected from them in the diadic relationship of a mentor and a mentee. This can lead to misunderstandings and poor research practices, which can finally lead to research misbehaviour and misconduct. Analysis of misconduct cases by the US Office for Research Integrity in the USA showed that in man cases mentors failed to properly review research data collected by the mentee, did not teach them specific research standards, and did not ensure healthy, less stressful work environment. This is particularly relevant in large collaborative research collaborations, where the roles and responsibilities of all researchers in the collaboration may be unclear and blurred among different research groups. | Both the mentors and the mentees need to be aware of what is expected in their collaboration and professional relationship. Research performing institutions should ensure that they devote more attention to training of both the mentees and mentors about what mentoring means and how to build it for successful outcome of research mentoring. | Academic staff Advisors of students researchers Doctoral students Early career researchers Educators Mentors Funders |
| Preprint servers | Other | Preprint servers are open access online archives or repositories that contain research papers before their peer review and publication.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005E0-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-000005E1-QINU`"' Their main aim is to accelerate dissemination process of research findings and enhance their visibility. '"`UNIQ--references-000005E2-QINU`"' | Because of the lengthy duration of peer review process and subsequent delay in publication, preprint servers are useful tools for researchers to post full draft of their research papers and immediately get the feedback from their colleagues.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005E3-QINU`"' The articles can be posted at no charge'"`UNIQ--ref-000005E4-QINU`"' and authors have the possibility to submit revised versions to the server at any time.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005E5-QINU`"' Most of the articles are given a digital object identifier (DOI) so they can be cited.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005E6-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-000005E7-QINU`"' Readers can also upload their comments, which can result in productive discussions.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005E8-QINU`"'
This way of sharing research results and communication among researchers has its pros and cons.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005E9-QINU`"' The most obvious benefit would be higher speed of publication, from 7 days to 2-4 mouths'"`UNIQ--ref-000005EA-QINU`"' and evidence of authors’ productivity and accomplishment.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005EB-QINU`"' This would justify financial funds, especially in those disciplines with strong competition for development and limited funding.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005EC-QINU`"' The use of preprint servers would also foster open science, increase visibility and lead to fast feedback and recommendations for improvement in quality.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005ED-QINU`"' Furthermore, it could result in some new collaborations.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005EE-QINU`"' On the other hand, researchers need to consider that not all journals will accept manuscripts that have been submitted to a preprint server.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005EF-QINU`"' Researchers also might “rush out data prematurely” in order to get credit for their work, which could result in posting low quality and irreproducible data.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F0-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000005F1-QINU`"' | Researchers Students Peer-reviewers Journal editors |
| Protecting research subjects | Good Practices | Research subjects should be protected to minimize the harms and maximize the benefits of research. Research subjects include both humans and animals, and both types of research are subject to regulations, professional codes, and even international agreements. | In relation to human research, The Belmont report lays down three basic ethical principles which are aimed at protecting research subjects. '"`UNIQ--ref-000004E7-QINU`"'The three ethical principles are:
| PhD students Bachelor students Graduate students Undergraduate students Ethics committee members |
| Publication | Good Practices | Publication, in a broad sense, can be defined as the act of making information or stories available to people in a printed or electronic form. Scientific ideas have been communicated in printed form throughout history. Scientific publication in the traditional sense can be traced back to 1665, when the first academic journal was published'"`UNIQ--ref-00000499-QINU`"'. Nowadays, the printed form has been extended with electronic forms of communication, and videos are becoming increasingly popular as well'"`UNIQ--ref-0000049A-QINU`"'.
Previously, many scientific articles were only available with paid subscriptions. Recently, the possibilities of digital publication led to the rise of Open Acces publication. This increased the availability of scientific outcomes to those who did not have these subscriptions and also made the results publicly available'"`UNIQ--ref-0000049B-QINU`"'. Nowadays, one of the hallmarks of 'good publication' is considered to be peer reviewed publication. Academic publishing is an entire process on its own and what composes 'good publication' is not straightforward. Traditionally, the popularity of a journal and its impact factor also play a role in the consideration of scientific work. However, it has been shown that articles which have been rejected by popular journals with a high impact factor generally have more citations when eventually published elsewhere'"`UNIQ--ref-0000049C-QINU`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-0000049D-QINU`"' | Although it is nearly impossible to define 'good academic publishing', scientific gatekeeping must always be pursued'"`UNIQ--ref-0000049E-QINU`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-0000049F-QINU`"' | Early career researchers Editors Journal editors Journal publishers PhD Students |
| Qualitative research | Other | Qualitative research is a type of research to answering research questions about the social, attitudinal, behavioral, and emotional dimensions of health care. Usually involves the collection of information, through direct observation, interviews, or existing documents (e.g. medical records). | Qualitative studies increasingly form the foundation for quantitative research, intervention studies by generating hypotheses as well as further investigating and understanding quantitative data (1). Those researches answer the hows and whys instead of how many or how much thus exploring and providing deeper insights into real-world problems by gathering participants' experiences, perceptions, and behavior. While qualitative and quantitative approaches are different, they are not necessarily opposites, and the results can be complementary. | PhD Students Qualitative researchers Researchers health care professionals Graduate and postgraduate students |
| Questionable Research Practices in Analysis and Reporting | Misconduct & Misbehaviors | In a list of major and minor research misbehaviours collaboratively developed by a group of research integrity experts, the research phase ‘Reporting’ (which describes analysis and publication of results jointly) contains the most items.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000585-QINU`"' Needless to say, the potential for misbehaviors in this phase is exacerbated by the vast number of decisions researchers must take during the course of analysis and reporting. '"`UNIQ--references-00000586-QINU`"' | Integrity in analysis and reporting of results is important to fully understand your data. Misbehaviors related to analysis and reporting include:
| Early career researchers Junior researchers Senior researchers Researchers Scientists |
| Questionable Research Practices in Collaboration | Misconduct & Misbehaviors | Science is increasingly a team effort. Collaborations, however, are not without their challenges. A fact that is evident in the variety of research misbehaviors related to collaborations. | Good collaboration is not just about building networks and beneficial relationships, it also entails taking responsibility for research conduct, treating colleagues and collaborators with respect, and giving collaborators full credit for their work. Misbehaviors related to collaborations identifiedby research integrity experts include:
| All stakeholders in research Early career researchers Junior researchers Researchers Senior researchers |
| Questionable Research Practices in Data Collection | Misconduct & Misbehaviors | Numerous ‘misbehaviours’ are associated with the data collection phase of research, from the intentional misconducts of fabrication, to lesser but more frequent ‘sloppy’ research practices such as poor note taking or inadequate data storage. | The importance of the data collection phase cannot be overemphasized. For research results to be trustworthy, the underlying data needs to be of a high quality. ‘Misbehaviors’ related to data collection identified by research integrity experts'"`UNIQ--ref-00000581-QINU`"' include:
| Early career researchers Junior researchers Researchers Senior researchers Scientists |
| Questionable Research Practices in Study Design | Misconduct & Misbehaviors | Research practices that might be considered ‘questionable’ can occur at any point in the research process, from study design, through collaborations and data collection, to the reporting and dissemination of results. A list of major and minor research misbehaviours, categorised by when they occur during the research process, has been collaboratively developed by research integrity experts'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001C-QINU`"'. The list includes eight items specifically on study design. '"`UNIQ--references-0000001D-QINU`"' | An appropriate, transparent, and meticulous study design is the foundation on which to build trustworthy, high quality research. Questionable practices related to study design include:
1. Propose study questions which are clearly irrelevant [including questions that have already been or could be answered adequately by a systematic review of the literature] 2. Choose a clearly inadequate research design or using evidently unsuitable measurement instrument [which will not lead to a valid, reproducible and efficient answer to the main study question, taking into account the state‐of‐the‐art in the field at issue] 3. Present grossly misleading information in a grant application 4. Write no or a clearly inadequate research protocol [in which essential details are lacking] 5. Ignore substantial safety risks of the study to participants, workers or environment 6. Ignore substantial risks of the expected findings for society or environment 7. Importantly change the research design during the study without disclosure [or – if applicable‐ without permission of sponsor, Institutional Review Board or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee] 8. Give insufficient attention to the equipment, skills or expertise which are essential to perform the study (From Bouter et al 2016'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001E-QINU`"'). '"`UNIQ--references-0000001F-QINU`"' | Early career researchers Junior researchers Reserchers Senior researchers Scientists |
| Replicability | Good Practices | Replicability or replication in science refers to being able to repeat findings of another experiment. Successful replication supports the validity of a certain discovery, increases public trust in science and impacts public health. | Replication is of great importance to science, because science aims to discover laws of nature. Since such laws are permanent, experiments on which they are based should be infinitely replicable'"`UNIQ--ref-00000394-QINU`"'. This concept is highly important to medicine. Being able to replicate, for example, an epidemiologic study to determine health effects of certain risk factors could build up existing scientific evidence and impact decision making that might affect the public health'"`UNIQ--ref-00000395-QINU`"'. Replicability also represents a direct public interest since science is significantly funded by public resources. If a study cannot be replicated, the money invested in it is wasted. It is estimated that annual costs of non-replicable preclinical research are approximately US$28 billion'"`UNIQ--ref-00000396-QINU`"'.
Replication can be divided into direct and conceptual'"`UNIQ--ref-00000397-QINU`"'. Direct replication is an exact replication of an experiment and it ensures that the phenomenon is reproducible; however, it does not guarantee that the theory behind the phenomenon is true. Therefore, confirming the same results with a different methodology or a different experimental system adds more credibility to the proposed theory or model'"`UNIQ--ref-00000398-QINU`"'. Nevertheless, we cannot expect that every experiment can be replicated down to the last detail, especially in psychology and medicine. We can always expect to see random deviation in the results and conclusions when conducting an independent experiment'"`UNIQ--ref-00000399-QINU`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-0000039A-QINU`"' | All stakeholders in research PhD Students Funders Journal editors |
| Replicability in the Humanities | Principles & Aspirations | There is an ongoing discussion whether replicability is possible and even desirable in the humanities. While some scholars argue in favor of it, others criticize the idea and claim that replicability is neither possible or necessary in all of humanities. | Some scholars argue that replicability is possible at least in the fields of humanities which are empirical, such as history, archeology, linguistics, literature, art and theology. In other words, they are based on “the collection of data”.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B7-QINU`"' One of the most common arguments that refute this idea is that study objects in the humanities are usually “unique phenomena”, for example certain historical events.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B8-QINU`"' Therefore, it is not clear how a study should be replicated.
Scholars advocating for replicability in the humanities provide a counterargument: although subjects studied in the humanities are unique, they still have “multiple instances”. For example, French Revolution was as a unique event, however, a researcher can study it several times and each time generate new data (in artifacts, literary accounts and paintings) which enables repetition of a particular method (studying a text) and discovering new things about that unique event.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B9-QINU`"' Majority of scholars who refute the idea of replication in the humanities maintain that replication might be possible in some, but it is not possible in all fields of humanities. because the main reason for this is that the research issues and questions often rely on interpretation.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005BA-QINU`"' Further intra-disciplinary and interdisciplinary debates regarding this topic should be encouraged. '"`UNIQ--references-000005BB-QINU`"' | Researchers Students Research institutions Peer-reviewers Journals |
| Research culture | Good Practices | Research culture can be defined in numerous ways and various perspectives can be taken on what constitutes a ‘good’ research culture. One possible definition of research culture is that it constitutes the “behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes and norms” of research communities.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004EB-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000004EC-QINU`"' | Research communities can be the science system as a whole, institutions or research labs. In these places a different reseach cultures might reign. Nontheless, research culture has an impact on the science system as a whole. The impact encompasses research integrity, diversity and inclusion, career paths, collaborations, the reward system, communication and more. Creating and maintaining a good research culture is invaluable for good science.
| Academic staff Supervisors Senior researchers |
| Research metrics | Good Practices | Research metrics, or Bibliometrics, refers to the statistical analysis of published articles and journals and their citations. Analysis of research metrics can be at a journal level, article level or author level.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000011C-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-0000011D-QINU`"' Altmetrics is an alternative approach to research metrics. It adopts an online approach, utilising social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. '"`UNIQ--references-0000011E-QINU`"' | Research metrics are used to evaluate the popularity, impact and importance of individual scientists, articles and journals, as well as the performance of employees and projects. The logic behind such an approach is that cited items are perceived to have a bigger impact on science and are, therefore, of greater value. Consequently, research metrics can be employed as a basis of staff promotion and funding distribution. Bibliometrics are also used in research, when analyzing relationships between researchers, and when assessing the impact of research projects and grants. | phd students Scientists Researchers Journal editors |
| Research misconduct | Misconduct & Misbehaviors | 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 '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'– 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. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"'.There is ongoing debate among academics how to precisely define research misconduct. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' The European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity '"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"' refers to misconduct as FFP. Other violations which damage the integrity of the research are referred to as ‘other unacceptable practices’.'"`UNIQ--references-00000006-QINU`"' | 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.'
| 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 |
| Responsible mentoring | Good Practices | Mentoring is a formal or informal professional relationship between an experienced researcher and a less experienced researcher.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000547-QINU`"' It is dyadic relationship, i.e. a committed relationship between two persons, usually characterized by institutional proximity and direct contact. '"`UNIQ--references-00000548-QINU`"' | Mentoring is important as it has traditionally been a successful way for research development of individuals, as well as research institutions and systems.
Although mentoring is an old concept (Mentor and Telemachus in The Odyssey), it is a difficult concept. It is should not be confused with other types of professional research relationship, such as teaching, tutoring, coaching, advising, counselling, supervising, sponsoring, role-modelling, preceptoring, peer support.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000549-QINU`"' Mentoring is a complex phenomenon,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000054A-QINU`"' which integrates different functions, as mentors help their mentees to acquire, synthesize and integrate new knowledge and skills, as well as develop professionally and personally. It is an intense, personal as well as professional relationship with high commitment over a long period of time. It is reciprocal but asymmetrical, as the primary goal is the professional growth and development of a mentee. We do not have solid evidence that mentorship work. A systematic review of mentoring in academic medicine'"`UNIQ--ref-0000054B-QINU`"' showed that it is perceived as very important bur there is little evidence that it is actually successful. This is similar for many other disciplines and types of mentoring.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000054C-QINU`"' There are different ethical issues in mentoring, related to the individuals involved in the mentoring relationship but also related to the hosting organization.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000054D-QINU`"' Issues for mentees include lack of motivation and poor collaboration, and laps in professionalism, failure to acknowledge mentee’s contribution, lack of commitment and collaboration. Ethics burdens to a mentoring relationship may be the power imbalance, misalignment of goals, poor communication, competition, gender or cultural bias, and personality conflicts. Organizations where mentorship happen are also responsible for ethics problems generated by mentoring: they may not have adequate recruitment procedures, oversight, assessment and recognition of good mentorship, lack of clear guidelines, and lack of administrative support, such as protected time for mentoring. '"`UNIQ--references-0000054E-QINU`"' | Researchers Students Research performing organisations Research funding organisations policy-makers in science |
| The decision on ice | Other | In 1983, Trounson and Mohr'"`UNIQ--ref-00000964-QINU`"' announced the first human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing, and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Since then, embryo cryopreservation became a crucial tool that complements a standard in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure by maximizing its effectiveness and reducing the risk of multiple pregnancies by limiting the number of embryos transferred. However, as a consequence, a growing supply of embryos in cryostorage has been reported worldwide'"`UNIQ--ref-00000965-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-00000966-QINU`"'. | When it is decided that no further fertility treatments will be pursued, couples are facing the challenging decision regarding the disposition of their frozen embryos, also known as “embryo disposal decision” (EDD) '"`UNIQ--ref-00000967-QINU`"'. Essentially, at the end of the storage period, which varies amongst different countries and institutions, couples have 4 outcomes to choose from: to continue storage by paying an additional cost, to discard, or to donate embryos to research or to another couple. There is also the complex matter of “abandoned embryos” that refers to the cases where the couple cannot be reached and/or fails to provide the clinic with a decision pertaining to the embryos’ fate'"`UNIQ--ref-00000968-QINU`"', so the embryologists become their custodians and guardians, which raises ethical questions, as well as bureaucratic challenges. To avoid such complications, some have advocated the use of a “properly prepared legal document, i.e., a pre-freeze agreement,”'"`UNIQ--ref-00000969-QINU`"'. There are numerous studies describing patients’ views on the disposal procedure of their excess embryos. Some couples perceive them as barely, more than a group of cells, or a tissue, while others consider them as their unborn children'"`UNIQ--ref-0000096A-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-0000096B-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-0000096C-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-0000096D-QINU`"'. In a model of patients’ decision-making processes for the fate of frozen embryos, developed by Takahashi et al.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000096E-QINU`"', this burden was expressed as “Mottainai,” a prevalent, culturally embedded moral standard in Japan. “Mottai” is a Buddhist term that refers to the intrinsic dignity or sacredness of a material entity. “Nai” is negation'"`UNIQ--ref-0000096F-QINU`"'. Therefore, “Mottainai” is an expression of sadness and guilt over the disrespectful and wasteful treatment of valuable entities'"`UNIQ--ref-00000970-QINU`"'. | health care professionals Clinical researchers Educators Decision makers Human rights defenders Other Patients Physicians Reserchers |
| Values and norms | Principles & Aspirations | Values are important beliefs or ideals of a person in a community, serving as a motivation for action. Norms are action-guiding rules. The difference between a value and a norm is that a value is general, referring to an overall ideal, whereas a norm is concrete, specifying certain things that have to be done (or omitted). Values can be operationalized in specifying norms; norms refer to and are justified by underlying values. | In codes of conduct for scientific research, the concepts of values and norms are often used interchangeably. Yet, it is crucial to distinguish between the two concepts '"`UNIQ--ref-0000003B-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-0000003C-QINU`"'. Values are general ideals. They underlie norms, which are action-guiding rules. There are three kinds of such rules: permissions, orders or commands and prohibitions. Values show what persons and communities hold as important. Norms say what has to be done in order to realize values. Without a reference to underlying values, rules lack motivation and justification. Without corresponding norms, values lack specification and concrete direction.
Values and norms can be formal (that is: explicitly formulated) or informal (that is: implicitly assumed). Often, when values are discussed, corresponding norms are not explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, when norms are posed, the underlying values often remain implicit. Yet it is important to be aware of the concrete action-guiding rules envisaged when a certain value is mentioned, and of the general ideal behind a specific norm. An important aim of moral reflection is to provide such clarifications. '"`UNIQ--references-0000003D-QINU`"' | All stakeholders in research PhD students Junior researchers Senior researchers Research integrity trainers |
| Virtues in research integrity | Principles & Aspirations | ‘Virtue’ derives from ancient Greek - ἀρετή - and means ‘excellence of any kind’. To be virtuous means to strive towards living in compliance with one’s full potential, intellectually as well as morally. The reference to full potential shows that the ability to develop a virtue is innate yet, in order to become virtuous, one needs to practice. A distinction can be made between intellectual or epistemological virtues and moral virtues. Both types of virtues are character traits, relevant for research integrity, as doing good research requires intellectual and moral excellence. | Research integrity is not only about following rules. It also requires personal engagement and competence. These requirements show that research integrity requires virtues. A person who is virtuous, not merely follows methodological or moral rules, but embodies goodness or excellence . '"`UNIQ--ref-00000042-QINU`"' Goodness or excellence in research depends on what we do, as well as on who we are, intellectually and morally. The possession of a virtue says something about this person as a person. So, to tell of a person that she is imaginative or honest, is to say something about this person’s character. Aristotle described virtue as ‘the state of character which makes a man good and which makes him do his work well.’ '"`UNIQ--ref-00000043-QINU`"' MacIntyre defined virtue as ‘an acquired human quality the possession and the exercise of which tends to enable us to achieve those goods which are internal to practices and the lack of which effectively prevents us from achieving any such goods’. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000044-QINU`"' MacIntyre, therefore, emphasized the importance of practice for the expression and development of virtues.
Aristotle distinguishes between two kinds of virtues, intellectual and moral virtues. Examples of the first kind of virtues are critical thinking, curiosity, imaginativeness, perseverance and open-mindedness. Examples of moral virtues are courage, honesty, generosity, fair-mindedness, and justice. Although intellectual and moral virtues are distinct, they have in common that they are both character traits. A number of attempts have been made to identify which virtues are essential for good scientific practice . '"`UNIQ--ref-00000045-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000046-QINU`"' These include: honesty;curiosity;attentiveness or observance;perseverance or patience; objectivity; humility to evidence; skepticism; meticulousness; courage; collaboration; resoluteness; accountability; availability; competency; reliability; sincerity; creativity; accountability; punctuality; truthfulness; selflessness; reflexivity; clarity of purpose; collaborative spirit; fairness; loyalty; moderation; positivity/open-mindedness; respectfulness. According to Aristotle, a virtuous person has the disposition to act in accordance with the right middle. A virtuous person is able to see and do what is right in the specific situation, and knows how to avoid the extremes of showing too little or too much. An example of a virtue is courage. Someone who is brave knows how to find the right middle between the extremes of cowardice on the one hand and recklessness on the other. That applies not only to war, to the Greeks an important example of human action. It also applies to interacting with people with whom one collaborates. For example, if the person makes a mistake, it may be important to tell her ' the truth '. That requires courage, as the right middle between making an allusion in the hope that the other understands the message, and confronting the other in public with the fact that she does something wrong. What is the right middle depends on the situation, that is, the seriousness of the error, the openness of the other for the message, and the ability of the person who performs the act. In some cases the right middle is closer to being cautious;in other cases more emphasis is needed. Being virtuous means living in accordance with one’s natural potential. Thus, virtues refer to human nature. Yet, developing virtues requires training and exercise in practice. In practice, one learns to see what is the importance of, for example, honesty as openness to criticism, and how it can be adequately shaped. How much attention should you devote to literature before you do a study? When does that literature help sharpen the mind, and when does it lead to confusion? Of course it is important to study existing investigations before one starts to research, for example by doing a systematic review. But how to ensure that this really gives an insight into what was previously found, and provides a connecting factor for further research? The same applies to the discussion of possible explanations for results of own research. What literature do you refer to, and how do you use it to sharpen the findings? Do the quoted articles really help them to better understand the outcomes of the study, draw conclusions and formulate new questions? The answer to such questions does not come from textbooks, but requires insights and skills that are already acquired in practice. '"`UNIQ--references-00000047-QINU`"' | PhD Students Junior researchers Senior researchers Postdocs All stakeholders in research Research integrity trainers |
| Collaboration In Research | Good Practices | Many times, research requires a collaborative effort in order for it to be completed and this could have a number of challenges. While a collaboration may be permanent or temporary, in both cases, the partners must consider the principles of their colleagues during their work. Although they shouldn’t ignore their own values, they have to be flexible and be able to adapt to their partners’ ways for the research to be a success. | Scientific research is often done in a team, hence, one must be prepared to collaborate with others. Every researcher must know their role and what is expected of them before they begin their research, in order to avoid conflict. Having a list of principles that every scientist must follow throughout their research ensures that there won’t be any clashes or misunderstandings in the resulting works. All research components should be in sync and make sense when merged together in the final results. | Academic institutions All stakeholders in research Bachelor students Collaborating researchers Graduate and postgraduate students Laboratory researchers |
| Cross-boundary collaborations | Good Practices | Cross-boundary research collaborations involve cooperation across disciplines, institutions and countries. Collaborations pose particular challenges, due to the coexistence of different research norms and practices. Professional guidelines may differ between disciplines, codes and accepted practices may differ between institutions, and legal and ethical requirements may differ between countries. | Cross-boundary collaborations provide opportunities but also difficulties. It is important to be aware of differences in research practice, guidelines and legislation. Collaborators should try to reach consensus and agreement in the design and implementation of research. | PhD students Senior researchers Junior researchers Supervisors General public |
| High income and low- and middle-income country collaborations | Good Practices | Collaborations between high income countries and low- and middle-income countries are increasingly common in a globalized world. | Collaborations between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) can be mutually beneficial endeavors. Researchers from HIC might benefit from local expertise and experience and gain access to unique resources, environments and participants. Researchers from LMICs potentially benefit from access to funding, international networks and opportunities for local capacity building. Collaborations can also, unfortunately, lead to negative experiences, ranging from different standards in data management and ethics applications to a lack of participation in research agenda setting and even coercive recruitment practices or exploitation of people/samples/resources. | Senior researchers Funders Junior researchers |
| Conflict of interest in peer review | Misconduct & Misbehaviors | When reviewers’ own interests, such as personal or work relationships, could influence the way they criticize an article and advise a journal editor, that situation is equivalent to an existing conflict of interest (COI).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000023B-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000023C-QINU`"' | Peer review process is vital to science, as it provides quality assurance before publication of new knowledge. Any situation which can compromise peer review process by influencing decision making should hence be reported, and prevented.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000023D-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000023E-QINU`"' | Researchers Supervisors Journal publishers Journal editors Senior researchers |
| Conflict of interest: a research integrity and research ethics perspective | Misconduct & Misbehaviors | In the context of research, “a conflict of interest (COI) is a set of circumstances or conditions in which professional judgement of a primary interest, such as the integrity and quality of the research, tends to be unduly influenced by a secondary interest, such as personal financial gain”.[1] Consequently, COIs can incline researchers towards bias in favor of their secondary interest and thus undermine the reliability of research results. COIs as such are not breaches of research integrity or research ethics, but researchers having a COI are, all else equal, more likely to act inappropriately or unethically because they have unusually strong incentives to depart from good scientific practice. Thus, COIs require specific safeguards to ensure principles of research integrity and research ethics are followed. This theme page describes in more detail what COIs are and why they can have detrimental effects on the reliability of research. It also provides an overview of different types of COIs and outlines how adequate safeguards can help avoiding and managing COIs. | COI is a core concept in research integrity. It can even be argued that most research integrity issues are in some way related to underlying COIs, especially if integrity is understood to refer to doing what is right even if confronted by countervailing incentives.[2] Authorship conflicts, for example, often occur because researchers have a strong secondary interest to be listed as authors on as many papers as possible to advance their career, even if they have not contributed to a paper (or if their contribution does not constitute authorship). Usually, discussions on COIs in the research integrity literature focus on the narrower aspect of how COIs can bias research results and thus decrease the reliability of research results, however. In line with most of the relevant literature, this theme page adopts a narrow perspective on COIs.
In addition to their potential effects on research integrity, COIs have an important research ethics dimension as well, especially in biomedical research.[3] An example is the specific role of medical doctors in clinical research: According to the International Code of Medical Ethics, they are obliged to “be dedicated to providing competent medical service in full professional and moral independence, with compassion and respect for human dignity”.[4] However, if they act as researchers in clinical research, they are confronted with two potentially conflicting interests: a duty to care (primary duty) and the responsibility to generate new knowledge (which in this case is a secondary interest that can under certain circumstances conflict with the duty to care).[5] Therefore, it is crucial to understand what COIs are, how they affect research integrity and research ethics, and what the research community as well as individual researchers can do to minimize their potential detrimental effects. | Researchers Research Ethics Committees Research Integrity Officers Journal editors Journal publishers Peer reviewers Research funding organisations |
| Editorial conflicts of interest | Misconduct & Misbehaviors | Editorial conflicts of interest are a special type of conflict of interest (COI) in academia. They can happen when, for example, an editor of a scientific journal publishes his or her own work in the same journal. It is important to note that this is a potential conflict of interest and not an actual proof of misconduct. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000314-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000315-QINU`"' | Editors play a special role in science, as they ultimately determine what gets published in their journals. We often say that editors are gate-keepers of science, because of their control over journal policies.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000316-QINU`"' Publishing new discoveries is important in science, and following established methods of control such as the peer-review process is necessary. Sometimes, having an undisclosed interest could influence editorial decisions or hinder the proper review of manuscripts. This could lead to a loss of confidence in science, which can be particularly harmful when science is publicly funded.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000317-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000318-QINU`"' | Editors Researchers |
| Intellectual conflicts of interest | Misconduct & Misbehaviors | The term ‘intellectual conflicts of interest’ refers to the potential for a researcher to be attached to a specific point of view.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000035A-QINU`"' For instance, the researcher could be convinced that intervention A is more effective in treating a certain disease D, than intervention B even without the necessary evidence to back this view. Intellectual conflicts of interest usually occur based on the researcher’s prior research, education, institutional or other personal affiliations.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000035B-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-0000035C-QINU`"' For instance, if the researcher has received more education about intervention A than B, they could be more likely to favor intervention A. In the field of psychotherapy, the term ‘researcher allegiance’ is used to refer to intellectual conflicts of interest. '"`UNIQ--references-0000035D-QINU`"' | There is concern that intellectual conflicts of interest may cause bias in research. The idea is that if researchers prefer one intervention over another, they will intentionally or unintentionally introduce bias into the design of the study, data analysis or data interpretation so that the results are in favor of the preferred intervention. However, there is not enough evidence on this. In psychotherapy research, it has been shown that researcher allegiance (i.e. intellectual conflicts of interest) is associated with study results: therapies with higher allegiance are shown to be more effective in randomized clinical trials.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000035E-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-0000035F-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-00000360-QINU`"' It is not clear, though, whether this correlation is causal. It could be that researchers have allegiance towards more effective interventions because they are effective, rather than that the interventions appear to be more effective because the researchers have an allegiance to them.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000361-QINU`"' Although some argue that the association between researcher allegiance and study results might be causal since the association exists even when there is evidence that two interventions are equally effective, the evidence remains inconclusive on how researcher allegiance/ intellectual conflicts of interest might affect study results.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000362-QINU`"'
At the same time, some argue that intellectual conflicts of interest are unavoidable.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000363-QINU`"' Researchers will have a certain educational background, prior research experience, and personal and professional affiliations, which will naturally make them more likely to favor one research outcome over another.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000364-QINU`"' Not only is this unavoidable, but it is what drives science forward: researchers would not spend years researching a topic that they did not feel passionate about. It is precisely the passion and intellectual interest that researchers have that inspires them to delve into research.
If intellectual conflicts of interest lead researchers to introduce systematic biases into their research (e.g. selection bias, reporting bias, etc.), then they can be said to be problematic.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000365-QINU`"' More evidence is needed to establish whether this is the case. However, if intellectual conflicts of interest do not lead to systematic bias, it is hard to argue that they are problematic even if they do affect study results.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000366-QINU`"' For example, if researchers that prefer intervention A are more likely to have results that favor intervention A even in the absence of systematic bias, it could be that: 1) they are better trained in intervention A than other researchers, or 2) they know more about intervention A than other researchers , or 3) they carry out intervention A more diligently than other researchers. It would be difficult to argue that possibilities 1, 2 or 3 are problematic. Innovation in science is driven by passionate researchers who develop and propose new hypotheses, which they often strongly believe in. It makes sense that if these passionate researchers who know more about the hypotheses than others are not able to show their truthfulness, then no one else will be able to, indicating that the hypotheses are not correct. Yet, if the innovative researchers are able to provide evidence on the truthfulness of the hypotheses, the hypotheses remain open to a closer scrutiny by the rest of the scientific community.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000367-QINU`"' Since science is a self-correcting process, it may not matter if the researcher with the intellectual conflict of interest is more likely to obtain study results in line with their allegiances. Other researchers with different allegiances will be able to scrutinize and test the results, thereby correcting for the intellectual conflict of interest. '"`UNIQ--references-00000368-QINU`"' | Research performing organisations Research funding organisations Senior researchers medical researchers PhD students Postdocs |
| The influence of pharmaceutical company on drug availability | Misconduct & Misbehaviors | Given that the research is sponsored by a pharmaceutical company and that they deliver the drug to Croatia (drug is not available in Croatia), shipments of the drug may be delayed. | Delayed drug availability may affect research results. | Academic staff Authors Clinical researchers Doctoral students Mentors Journal publishers Patients Administrators support staff Researchers PhD Students Principal investigators Everyone |
| Anonymisation and pseudonymisation | Good Practices | An individual can be identified directly (e.g. by name, address, telephone number, photograph) or indirectly (e.g. by place of work, particular condition). Anonymisation and pseudonymisation remove or minimize the risk of re-identification of individuals by masking the data. When data is anonymised the individuals are no longer identifiable, while in pseudonymised data there is a residual risk of re-identification. | Data protection is defined as a fundamental human right and using personal data raises significant ethics issues '"`UNIQ--ref-000004CF-QINU`"'. Pseudonymisation and anonymisation are methods used to protect one's privacy and minimize the risk in the event of unauthorized access. Pseudonymised data are considered personal data and therefore are in the scope of GDPR, unlike irreversibly anonymised data which are no longer defined as personal data and are outside of the scope of GDPR '"`UNIQ--ref-000004D0-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000004D1-QINU`"' | PhD Students Junior researchers Clinical researchers |
| Data management plans | Good Practices | Data management plans (DMPs) are formal documents in which researchers describe how they plan to use data during and after the research.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006C5-QINU`"' This helps researchers in sharing their data according to the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-useable), as recommended by the European Code of Conduct (ECoC).'"`UNIQ--ref-000006C6-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-000006C7-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000006C8-QINU`"' | Since research funders, organisations, reviewers, and individual researchers all have different needs from data management , DPMs are becoming integral parts of grant applications and research organisations.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006C9-QINU`"' They are usually short, and state which data will be created and how. DMPs also define the plans for data sharing and presentation,'"`UNIQ--ref-000006CA-QINU`"' prescribe how the data will be stored, who will have access to it, what documentation and metadata will be created with it, and how it will be preserved.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006CB-QINU`"' Creating DMPs provides several benefits for researchers, such as reducing the loss of data, monitoring the research progress, and preparing data for future use. Apart from that, they are also time saving.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006CC-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000006CD-QINU`"' | Researchers Research organisations Academic staff Funders PhD students |
| FAIR principles: sharing data for maximisation of results | Good Practices | The FAIR principles describe the ideal way data should be stored and shared to maximise its usefulness and allow the whole research community to benefit from it. FAIR stands for “Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable”. The main goal of the FAIR principles is to enable the "‘long term care' of valuable digital assets"'"`UNIQ--ref-00000139-QINU`"', in order to allow them to be reused for future research. The scope of these principles goes beyond the data in the conventional sense but includes all the components of the research process, including the algorithms and workflows that lead to the resulting data. This means that FAIR data management supports both human-driven and machine-driven data discovery and exploitation activities. '"`UNIQ--references-0000013A-QINU`"' | While conducting our research we (as researchers) produce different kind of data: we write research designs and workflows, we collect raw data, we analyse them, we write about them. However, most of the time the only part of our research which is publicly shared is represented by the articles which we produce as a result of the entire research cycle. In fact, all phases of research could be of potential interest for other researchers, who could reuse the data we produce in a different way.
By maximizing access to and re-use of research data we can optimize the impact of the data that we produce. In line with the principles of Open Science, good data management becomes a fundamental instrument to promote and facilitate the reusability, accessibility and exploitation of research data, thereby allowing for the generation of new knowledge.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000013B-QINU`"' In 2014, a workshop named ‘Jointly Designing a data FAIRPORT’ was organized in Leiden by a group of academic and private sector stakeholders. The aim of the workshop was to improve the infrastructure supporting humans and machines in the discovery and analysis of scientific data and their associated algorithms and workflows. A set of guidelines was developed by the participants to support data producers, scientists and data publishers to take full advantage of the generation of data.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000013C-QINU`"' Four foundational principles were agreed by the community to allow stakeholders to discover, integrate, re-use and adequately cite the massive quantities of information being generated by contemporary data intensive science. These foundational principles were subsequently improved, detailed and elaborated on by the FORCE 11 working group, which is still engaged in fostering the implementation and continued update of the FAIR principles. These foundational principles are known as FAIR principles, see below for specification of the principles. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000013D-QINU`"' FAIR principlesFindable:
Accessible
Interoperable
Re-usable
| All stakeholders in research |
| Feedback of findings in genome-wide association studies | Good Practices | Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) test the association between genomic variants and diseases or quantitative traits. In order to perform such analyses, researches are genotyping a large number of genomic variants for a large number of individuals. The information from a GWA scan is derived from DNA, which is a powerful personal identifier and can provide information not just on the individual, but also on the individual’s relatives, related groups and populations. | The first sequencing of the whole human genome in 2003 cost roughly $2.7 billion. Advances in whole genome scanning technologies have enabled commercial companies to make genomic information available to the end consumer at competitive prices. Consumers can now have access to commercial genotyping of their genome from direct-to-consumer testing companies. According to NHGRI-funded genome-sequencing groups, the cost to generate a high-quality 'draft' whole human genome sequence in mid-2015 was just above $4,000; by late in 2015, that figure had fallen below $1,500. This changing of landscape and technologies in which GWAS takes place is likely to affect the problem of reporting of findings. Is it possible that the participants in GWAS will expect a feedback similar to the information provided by consumer genetics companies? | Authors PhD Students Researchers Research subjects |
| How to select trustworthy repositories | Good Practices | Selecting a digital data repository for sharing and preserving research data is an important task because different repositories are suited for different kinds of data. Since it is not always easy to choose the right repository, researchers should use tools such as guides and checklists that can help them in this process. | After deciding what research data to keep for long-term preservation, researchers should select the right repository. There is a variety of repositories – those that are focused on a specific research area and those for general purpose.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000091B-QINU`"' Funders, journals, and universities also have their own repositories.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000091C-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-0000091D-QINU`"' Since there are more than 2,000 data repositories,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000091E-QINU`"' researchers should use certain principles and standards in their selection process. They should:
-check whether there are any funder requirements that may mandate which repository to use -check with the journal they are submitting their paper to, because some journals keep a list of approved repositories they will accept or have specific policies on data archiving -check for discipline specific repositories because they could be more suitable to their datasets and other researchers expect to find them there -or deposit their data into a University repository.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000091F-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000920-QINU`"' | Researchers Research organisations Academic staff Funders PhD students |
| Imputation of missing data in clinical trials | Good Practices | Missing data is always a limitation in the interpretation of clinical trial results. This missing data may seriously affect the inference from clinical trials. Therefore, it is necessary to establish the criteria to handle missing data prior to the clinical trial. Imputation is a potential tool to overcome the bias from missing data but it must be carefully used. | Missing data are unavoidable in clinical trials. Frequently, complete cases analysis is used only including individuals with no missing data '"`UNIQ--ref-00000568-QINU`"'. However, that can generate bias and can lead to exclude several individuals, causing loss of precision and power '"`UNIQ--ref-00000569-QINU`"'. The risk of bias from missing data depends on the cause '"`UNIQ--ref-0000056A-QINU`"':
Missing completely at random: There are no systematic differences between the missing values and the observed values. Missing at random: Any systematic difference between the missing values and the observed values can be explained by differences in observed data. Missing not at random: Systematic differences remain between the missing values and the observed values. The determination of the type of missing values is difficult due to the nature of missing values '"`UNIQ--ref-0000056B-QINU`"'. Therefore, practical guidelines are needed to deal with missing data. | All stakeholders in research Clinical ethics consultants Clinical researchers Computer scientists Ethics committee members Research Ethics Committees |
| Methods to increase data availability | Good Practices | Research data availability is a growing burden due to the emerging number of studies, analytical improvements and unsatisfactory utilization of repository systems. One of the fast-growing initiatives that aim to increase data accessibility to the readers and other researchers is the open data movement. An increasing number of repositories allows routine and open publication of raw datasets along with the manuscript (eg. Open Science Framework – OSF), or alternatively upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. | Data access is extremely important for transparent modern science. The rising number of research studies impedes the filtering of research findings, aggravates peer-review process and increases the possibility of false study reports. Having in mind the direct implications of scientific findings on everyday practice, data availability is further prioritized. The open data movement follows the principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration (1). Open data policy is important because it nurtures the virtues of transparency and honesty, which allows each respondent to check the authenticity of the published results at any time. Data sharing represents a significant part of research ethics and nowadays, many journals require researchers to publish resources to make them available to other investigators (2,3). However, deposited published data may be incomplete, in some cases intentionally because authors could feel like losing priority in future publishing, which may complicate new analyses on previously published data (2). In an effort to enhance data-sharing practices, some journals have mandatory data availability statement (DAS). However, according to a recent study on data availability statements, 93% of authors of manuscripts with DASs that stated authors are eager to share their data either didn't respond or refused to share their data. In conclusion, the level of compliance is disappointing even when the authors state in their article that they will share data upon request, indicating that the DAS may not be enough to guarantee data sharing (4). | Authors Clinical researchers Junior researchers PhD Students Doctoral students Mentors researchers |
| Sharing and preserving data in repositories | Good Practices | Data repositories are “large database infrastructures” that collect, manage, and store data sets. They are also known as data libraries or data archives.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' Depositing data into digital repositories is beneficial for all stakeholders in research as researchers share them, make them visible, safe, preserved, and ready for future use. '"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"' | Not storing data properly and disregarding safeguards can lead to losing important research data. This does not occur rarely. A study carried out on 516 articles published from 1991 to 2011 has revealed that availability of research data in biology decreases about 17% per year.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' Various reasons can lead to unavailability of research data, whether researchers change their contact information and are not reachable anymore or they use outdated technology, such as floppy disks, to store their data.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"' Apart from that, even when researchers are able to access their data, they often lose hours and hours searching for them in their computer files.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"' Therefore, depositing data into repositories can save a considerable amount of time. There are several benefits for researchers who deposit their data into repositories:
-data is clustered together which enables easier and faster analysis and reporting -potential problems are detected easier because repositories are categorised -data is preserved and archived.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"' Overall, such practice promotes transparency in research and reduce misconduct.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"' However, data repositories also have some downsides. For example, there is a possibility of a system crash that could affect the stored data, so it is important always to back up datasets.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000000C-QINU`"' | All stakeholders in research |
| Paper Mills | Misconduct & Misbehaviors | Paper mills are companies that produce and sell scientific manuscripts. These manuscripts are usually of poor quality, relying on fraudulent data or plagiarised research.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000032-QINU`"' Paper mills thrive on the “publish or perish” imperative, allowing scientific researchers to quickly publish articles that resemble genuine research in scientific journals, and artificially inflating their research profiles.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000033-QINU`"' Paper mills cause serious harm by casting doubt on the trustworthiness of scientific research, and have led to calls for a reassessment of the mechanisms of scientific publication. '"`UNIQ--references-00000034-QINU`"' | Paper mills pose significant threats to the integrity and trustworthiness of academic research, and to the scholarly record. The possibility that hundreds, if not thousands, of ‘fake’ papers are published in academic journals seriously compromises the trust that scholars and the public have in published research. Paper mills also contribute to resource waste, as the investigation and retraction of fake papers is a costly and time consuming process for publishers. Moreover, more money could be wasted if fake papers are used to obtain funding for further research, and in the case of clinical research the health of patients may be put at risk.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000037-QINU`"'
Paper mills present a growing problem for the scientific community, with one estimate in 2022 suggesting that 2% of paper submissions across all scientific journals are likely to come from paper mills; in some subject areas, this figure is likely to be much higher .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000038-QINU`"' Estimates made using the Paper Mill Alarm indicate that the number of articles bearing a close textual similarity to paper mill products have been steadily rising since 2000.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000039-QINU`"' There is also concern that the proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools will exacerbate this problem, by providing paper mills with the ability to generate new papers and avoid detection techniques at greater speed.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003A-QINU`"' Paper mills can thrive because of the pressure for researchers to publish in order to advance their careers. Publication may be necessary to obtain their doctorate for example, or to be considered eligible for a promotion by their institution. For example, the Beijing municipal health authority had a policy in place as recently as 2021 requiring attending physicians in non-research roles to meet a minimum number of first-author publications in professional journals in order to gain promotion.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003B-QINU`"' In other cases, researchers may make use of paper mills to boost their chances of obtaining research funding when applying for a grant.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003C-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000003D-QINU`"' | Academic institutions Publishers Journals Journal editors |
| Conflicts of interest in the review of grant proposals | Good Practices | When a grant proposal is reviewed, the reviewers can have a confict of interest (COI). COIs should be declared by external reviewers and employees of research funding organizations (RFOs). RFOs and/or host institutions applying for funding need to have a code in place stating what constitutes a COI, how to declare a COIs, and what steps need to be taken when there is a COI. | By not declaring COIs, reviewers undermine the transparancy and honesty of the application process. The role of reviewers and the process of reviewing grant applications differs greatly among RFOs. However, many RFOs stipulate the role of reviewers for internal (staff) members, invited external reviewers and appointed committee members. In all instances having a COI when reviewing a grant proposal needs to be declared | Research funding organisations Funders Reviewers |
| Industry funded research | Good Practices | Research funds can be derived from private as well as public sources. Industry, or commerical organisations, are important private funders. Collaborations between academia and industry can be beneficial by generating knowledge on topics of mutual interest, or developing technologies, products, services, etc. Industry funded research has however also been subject to heavy criticism; industry stakeholders are known to set research agendas in their favour, supress publications and sometimes present only the results which favour the funder. '"`UNIQ--ref-000002F9-QINU`""`UNIQ--ref-000002FA-QINU`"' Practices which have been reported in tobacco, pharmaceutical, chemical and food industry funded research. '"`UNIQ--ref-000002FB-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-000002FC-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-000002FD-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-000002FE-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-000002FF-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000300-QINU`"' | Collaborations are essential to scientific progress, but should not undermine the independence of research. The Wellcome Trust, a UK based funder, does not for example fund any researchers that receive funding from the tobacco industry. They state “There is overwhelming evidence that tobacco damages the health of smokers and non-smoker” .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000301-QINU`"'The goals of industry (maximizing profit) and researchers (furthering knowledge) are often not aligned.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000302-QINU`"' There are a number of examples where the industry clearly interfered with scientific research to promote their own products. Industry stakeholders are known to have sponsered research to supress evidence showing the adverse effects of their products. For example, the tobacco industry funded research to show that second hand smoking was not harmful. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000303-QINU`"' The sugar industry funded research to show the harmful effect of total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol were more harmful than sugar intake for causing coronary heart disease.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000304-QINU`"' These are clear cases of intereference. There are also other ways in which industry sponsors affect research. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that industry sponsored research has more favourable outcomes than non-industry sponsored research. This is also called the funding effect. However, some systematic reviews have also shown that there is little or no difference between industry sponsors and study outcomes.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000305-QINU`"' Per discipline and type of research the “funder effect” may differ. '"`UNIQ--references-00000306-QINU`"' | Funders Researchers |
| ... further results | ||||
