Difference between revisions of "Resource:Aefedfd7-bd36-4b3e-8dad-cdd1d6d92eb3"
From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Good Practice and Reporting Cases in Finland |Is About=This is the 2017 annual report for the Finnish National Board on Research Integri...") |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=Good Practice and Reporting Cases in Finland | |Title=Good Practice and Reporting Cases in Finland | ||
| − | |Is About=This is the 2017 annual report for the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity ('TENK'). | + | |Is About=This is the 2017 annual report for the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity ('TENK'). As well as providing anonymised details of verified violations of responsible conduct of research in five cases, and details of the ten statements the Board had issued concerning specific allegations of misconduct, the report provides an overview of the work carried out by the Board in relation to preventative action and research integrity education. |
| + | |||
| + | The verified cases of misconduct and questionable research practices relate to: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Plagiarism; | ||
| + | * The denigration of the roles of other researchers; | ||
| + | * Inadequate or inappropriate referencing of earlier results; | ||
| + | * Self-plagiarism | ||
| + | |||
| + | The statements issued by TENK related to: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Online posts that damaged the reputation of another researcher; | ||
| + | * Inadequate investigation of alleged disqualification; | ||
| + | * Serious accusation of negligence of ethical principles in human sciences; | ||
| + | * Authorship dispute; | ||
| + | * The investigation of alleged plagiarism in a doctoral dissertation; | ||
| + | * Invalidation of the responsible conduct of research process; | ||
| + | * Negligent reporting and storage of interview material; | ||
| + | * Falsification vs. A difference in scientific views. | ||
| + | |Important Because=By making its annual report publicly available, the Board demonstrates the transparency of its reporting processes and investigation procedures as well as its commitment to accountability in matters involving allegations, investigations and requests for statements. Moreover, it provides the public the opportunity to see the ways in which the Board responds to statement requests and manages its investigations. | ||
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Research institutions; Policy makers; General public | |Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Research institutions; Policy makers; General public | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 14:38, 27 August 2020
ResourcesCases
Good Practice and Reporting Cases in Finland
What is this about?
This is the 2017 annual report for the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity ('TENK'). As well as providing anonymised details of verified violations of responsible conduct of research in five cases, and details of the ten statements the Board had issued concerning specific allegations of misconduct, the report provides an overview of the work carried out by the Board in relation to preventative action and research integrity education.
The verified cases of misconduct and questionable research practices relate to:
- Plagiarism;
- The denigration of the roles of other researchers;
- Inadequate or inappropriate referencing of earlier results;
- Self-plagiarism
The statements issued by TENK related to:
- Online posts that damaged the reputation of another researcher;
- Inadequate investigation of alleged disqualification;
- Serious accusation of negligence of ethical principles in human sciences;
- Authorship dispute;
- The investigation of alleged plagiarism in a doctoral dissertation;
- Invalidation of the responsible conduct of research process;
- Negligent reporting and storage of interview material;
- Falsification vs. A difference in scientific views.
Why is this important?
By making its annual report publicly available, the Board demonstrates the transparency of its reporting processes and investigation procedures as well as its commitment to accountability in matters involving allegations, investigations and requests for statements. Moreover, it provides the public the opportunity to see the ways in which the Board responds to statement requests and manages its investigations.
For whom is this important?
ResearchersResearch Ethics CommitteesResearch Integrity OfficersResearch institutionsPolicy makersGeneral public
