Difference between revisions of "Theme:2040cd9d-877c-48de-b430-3d9761aa1e25"
From The Embassy of Good Science
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Theme Type=Good Practices | |Theme Type=Good Practices | ||
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1 | |Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1 | ||
| − | |Title=Reasonable standards for career advancement | + | |Title=Reasonable standards for career advancement |
| − | |Is About=The Singapore statement specifies that “Research institutions should create and sustain environments that encourage integrity through education, clear policies, and reasonable standards for advancement, while fostering work environments that support research integrity.” ( | + | |Is About=The Singapore statement specifies that “Research institutions should create and sustain environments that encourage integrity through education, clear policies, and reasonable standards for advancement, while fostering work environments that support research integrity.”<ref>Resnik, David B., and Adil E. Shamoo. "The singapore statement on research integrity." ''Accountability in research'' 18.2 (2011): 71-75.</ref> |
| − | |Important Because=If the standards for career advancement are not reasonable, this can lead to considerable friction between individual researchers and the research institution. This is not fair to the individual researcher, and by creating resentment, can hamper potential collaboration within a research institution, and can constitute a structural cause for research misconduct. | + | <references /> |
| + | |Important Because=If the standards for career advancement are not reasonable, this can lead to considerable friction between individual researchers and the research institution. This is not fair to the individual researcher, and by creating resentment, can hamper potential collaboration within a research institution, and can constitute a structural cause for research misconduct. | ||
|Important For=Researchers; Research performing organisations; Policy makers; Research institutions | |Important For=Researchers; Research performing organisations; Policy makers; Research institutions | ||
|Has Best Practice=The Qualification portfolio, implemented by Utrecht UMC. To be described in further detail elsewhere on The Embassy. | |Has Best Practice=The Qualification portfolio, implemented by Utrecht UMC. To be described in further detail elsewhere on The Embassy. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Related To | {{Related To | ||
| − | |Related To Resource=Resource:10e386f6-6881-4d88-bc72-e6391597029e;Resource:216fd809-8eca-4f5e-8cc7-c118b9bfb0cd;Resource:3cf12442-8943-4684-9e9c-8e5128674a79 | + | |Related To Resource=Resource:10e386f6-6881-4d88-bc72-e6391597029e;Resource:216fd809-8eca-4f5e-8cc7-c118b9bfb0cd;Resource:3cf12442-8943-4684-9e9c-8e5128674a79;Resource:90c5a9cf-16c5-441c-b69e-4de6162ae0e2;Resource:Ca0ed587-ac8e-4259-9cc7-74de01941cd1 |
}} | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| + | |Has Timepoint=2011 | ||
|Has Location=Singapore | |Has Location=Singapore | ||
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Fairness | |Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Fairness | ||
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Reputation; Academic Responsibility of University | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Reputation; Academic Responsibility of University | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 16:06, 22 April 2021
ThemesReasonable standards for career advancement
What is this about?
The Singapore statement specifies that “Research institutions should create and sustain environments that encourage integrity through education, clear policies, and reasonable standards for advancement, while fostering work environments that support research integrity.”[1]
- ↑ Resnik, David B., and Adil E. Shamoo. "The singapore statement on research integrity." Accountability in research 18.2 (2011): 71-75.
Why is this important?
If the standards for career advancement are not reasonable, this can lead to considerable friction between individual researchers and the research institution. This is not fair to the individual researcher, and by creating resentment, can hamper potential collaboration within a research institution, and can constitute a structural cause for research misconduct.
For whom is this important?
What are the best practices?
The Qualification portfolio, implemented by Utrecht UMC. To be described in further detail elsewhere on The Embassy.
The Embassy Editorial team, Iris Lechner, Fenneke Blom, Hugh Desmond contributed to this theme. Latest contribution was Apr 22, 2021
