Difference between revisions of "Theme:2040cd9d-877c-48de-b430-3d9761aa1e25"

From The Embassy of Good Science
(mobo import migrateAll)
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Theme
 
{{Theme
 
|Theme Type=Good Practices
 
|Theme Type=Good Practices
 +
|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.” (Responsibility #13)
+
|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 For=phd students
+
|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.
|Has Reference=a
+
|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.
 +
}}
 +
{{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;Resource:Ca0ed587-ac8e-4259-9cc7-74de01941cd1
 +
}}
 +
{{Tags
 +
|Has Timepoint=2011
 +
|Has Location=Singapore
 +
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Fairness
 +
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Reputation; Academic Responsibility of University
 
}}
 
}}
{{Related To}}
 
{{Tags}}
 

Latest revision as of 16:06, 22 April 2021

Reasonable 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]

  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.

Other information

When
Where
Virtues & Values
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
5.1.6