Difference between revisions of "Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183"
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
8) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063746#.X3cXC5NKjxQ '''Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing'''] | 8) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063746#.X3cXC5NKjxQ '''Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing'''] | ||
| + | |||
| + | <br /> | ||
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; PhD Students; Early career researchers; Junior researchers; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Peer reviewers; Researchers; Universities; Research institutions; Supervisors; Editors; Journal editors; Journals | |Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; PhD Students; Early career researchers; Junior researchers; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Peer reviewers; Researchers; Universities; Research institutions; Supervisors; Editors; Journal editors; Journals | ||
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices. | |Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices. | ||
Revision as of 08:57, 8 October 2020
ResourcesReviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
What is this about?
Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.
This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the ethical and integrity standards governing peer review processes.
It focuses on issues regarding:
- The integrity of peer review processes;
- Institutional obligations to uphold the standards of good peer review practices;
- Plagiarism.
Why is this important?
The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.
They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.
The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.
According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:
1) Research Environment
2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring
3) Research Procedures
4) Safeguards
5) Data Practices and Management
6) Collaborative Working
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
