Difference between revisions of "Theme:2040cd9d-877c-48de-b430-3d9761aa1e25"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Hugh.Desmond (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{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;Resource:90c5a9cf-16c5-441c-b69e-4de6162ae0e2 | + | |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 | ||
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
