Why is this important? (Important Because)
From The Embassy of Good Science
(MWBot) |
(MWBot) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | <!--------------------------------- | + | <!--------------------------------- MANAGED PROPERTY ----------------------------------><!-- |
| − | <!-- DESCRIPTION --><div class="description-box">{{int:EGS | + | <!-- DESCRIPTION --><div class="description-box">{{int:EGS Important Because Desc}}</div><!-- /DESCRIPTION --> |
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
| − | <-- DISPLAYTITLE -->{{DISPLAYTITLE: | + | <!-- DISPLAYTITLE -->{{DISPLAYTITLE:Why is this important?}}<!-- /DISPLAYTITLE --> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 16:09, 28 November 2023
A description to provide more focus to the theme/resource (max. 200 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
'
Open, transparent, and fair reviewer selection is challenging.
There is a problem of polarized research. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000003D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000003E-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000003F-QINU`"' +
Peer reviewing is essential to maintaining the integrity of academic literature. Importantly, authors who submit a manuscript for peer review should be able to trust that their manuscripts will not be used for any purpose other than the peer review itself, unless they have given explicit permission for this. +
0
Fraenkel published a lot on research methodology, curriculum development and research in education. Guided by the work of Coombs and Meux'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001F-QINU`"', Fraenkel (1976) advanced an interesting method to analyse value conflicts meant for teachers “[…] to help students determine for themselves what individuals caught in value dilemmas should do […]”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000020-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000021-QINU`"' +
03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
While this method has deep philosophical roots, what clinicians like about it is the ease with which it fits with how we normally think about tough medical cases.[[#%20ftn1|<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup>]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|<sup>[1]</sup>]] http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
Though MCD is primarily designed to examine clinical cases, given that many research ethics deliberations – e.g. the work of RECs when assessing research protocols – take place before the research in question, this methodology could be used to assess research ethics dilemmas as well. Also, an MCD can be undertaken by a single individual – for example, by considering ‘imaginary’ research ethics committees and other stakeholders as part of a ‘virtual’ deliberation. Since such imaginary and empathy-based techniques are considered to be important aspects of our ethical thinking – in thought experiments, for example – MCD might be a useful tool for such assessments. +
The method is founded on the idea that each member of a research ethics committee (‘REC’), research integrity office (‘RIO’) or institutional review board (‘IRB’) will deliberate based on their initial views and beliefs about a particular case.
The purpose is to move from individual opinions to the underlying reasons for those opinions in order turn ‘I think’ claims regarding a particular case into ‘We agree’ judgments.
[[File:REalistiC Decisions Case Analysis Diagram.png|thumb]]
This procedure is only part of the process of coming to decisions about individual cases. Although the procedure helps members of RECs, RIOs and IRBs to shape and share their deliberations, it cannot make the decision for them.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000002E-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000002F-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000030-QINU`"' +
1
Offers a framework for implementing effective curation workflows for achieving greater FAIR-ness and long-term usability of research data and code. Adoption of the guidelines for curating reproducible and FAIR research will improve the prospects for a reproducible scholarly record. +
3
It describes different strategies that may be used for whistle-blowing and highlights the fact that not every suspicion is always worthy of exposure. +
A
It shows that using plagiarism-detection software to check books and articles published in the past might result in the discovery of plagiarised items. +
Copyright violation is a common form of misconduct in countries that do not observe copyright law. +
Data fabrication is a serious act of misconduct, which usually goes unnoticed. +
This is a case of editorial misconduct with the main aim of increasing impact factor. +
The four central questions the researchers pose in the study are:
* "What are the alternatives to anonymization?"
* "What is anonymization, in the context of secondary use of qualitative data?"
* "How can researchers best anonymize qualitative data for secondary use?"
* "What is ''enough'' anonymization?" +
This document is a guide for regulatory compliance in ethnography. Ethnography is a pillar of social-scientific research, and it is important to provide stakeholders with guidelines on how ethnographic research complies with current regulations. As a result, this document can help stakeholders to create their own data regulation plans and instruct them on the ethical compliance of ethnographic research. +
Since technological advances are occurring at a fast pace, research is also being conducted through media such as the internet. Besides the technical aspects being relatively new, the ethical tensions underlying such research are also relatively unfamiliar. For instance, how does consent for internet research differ from the traditional informed consent? How do we ensure that data is shared in a fair way? How can the privacy of participants be protected?
This document delves into many ethical gray areas ad offers practical advice on navigating them. As such, it is of immense practical value to researchers in Norway and around the world. +
Scientific misconduct cases should be dealt with carefully, with appropriate protections in place for those that did not commit the misconduct. The 'side effects' of misconduct, including reputational damage, should be minimized or restored when a person or institute has been inaccurately accsued of misconduct. +
This case is one of several examples - presented in this blog site - on how sexual misconduct can violate the ECCRI's principles and good practices in work spaces of academia. +
This is a real case which might be useful for discussions on ghost authorship. +
The health of the participants should be the top priority in clinical trials, especially in FIM trials where drugs are tested that potentially pose a high risk to the health of the participants. The case discussed here shows that even when the trial is reviewed and approved by ethical boards, it can end disastrously for the trial participants. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to review the errors made and learn lessons from tragic cases such as the one discussed here. The overview presented by the current article may help us to do so.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000028-QINU`"' +
A University of Liverpool investigation determined that a former researcher there fabricated his data +
Revealing, investigating, reporting, and following up fraud can be resource consuming. +
