What are the best practices? (Has Best Practice)
From The Embassy of Good Science
(MWBot) |
(MWBot) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<-- DISPLAYTITLE -->{{DISPLAYTITLE:What are the best practices}}<!-- /DISPLAYTITLE --><!-- | <-- DISPLAYTITLE -->{{DISPLAYTITLE:What are the best practices}}<!-- /DISPLAYTITLE --><!-- | ||
| − | <!-- GLOBAL APPEND -->{{Generated by gesinn.it}} <!-- All content on this page: Copyright © | + | <!-- GLOBAL APPEND -->{{Generated by gesinn.it}} <!-- All content on this page: Copyright © 2020 gesinn.it GmbH & Co. KG --><!-- /GLOBAL APPEND --> |
Revision as of 15:01, 8 January 2020
1
10 Things for Curating Reproducible and FAIR Research
Thing 1: Completeness
Thing 2: Organization
Thing 3: Economy
Thing 4: Transparency
Thing 5: Documentation
Thing 6: Access
Thing 7: Provenance
Thing 8: Metadata
Thing 9: Automation
Thing 10: Review +
A
Reproducing any part of an article or book (figure, table, etc) definitely requires permission from the copyright holder. The copyright holder is usually the publisher since authors tend to transfer the copyright to the publisher upon submission of their manuscripts. +
COPE recommends the retraction of articles that contain fabricated data and a reporting made to the appropriate institutional misconduct body. Universities and research centres should be very sensitive to this important issue by reprimanding or dismissing researchers involved in fabrication. +
For COPE in matters relating to the addition or omission of an author, a request should be sent to the publishing journal. The journal will ask for the permission of all authors with corrections made following their consent. +
According to COPE, this is a clear case of guest or gift authorship. It is not recommended to add a researcher to the authors list of an article if he/she do not fulfil the requirements for authorship. If an editor finds out about an instance of gift authorship, COPE recommends the removal of the suspected gift author from the authorship list. For article submissions, it is strongly recommended that they include a statement of contributions agreed by all contributors. +
This practice is discouraged by COPE. Authors should resist such requests as much as possible. +
On submission of an article, authors are usually asked to mention whether their submission is under review elsewhere. Duplicate submission is a form of research misconduct. However, if a journal does not review a manuscript in an appropriate amount of time, authors can withdraw their manuscript. However, the editor-in-chief should be informed beforehand and a record of all correspondence maintained by the corresponding author. Authors should never submit a manuscript to another journal before appropriate withdrawal of the manuscript or notice of a rejection. +
On submission of an article, authors are usually asked to mention whether their submission is under review elsewhere. Duplicate submission is a form of research misconduct. However, if a journal does not review a manuscript in an appropriate amount of time, authors can withdraw their manuscript. However, the editor-in-chief should be informed beforehand and a record of all correspondence maintained by the corresponding author. Authors should never submit a manuscript to another journal before appropriate withdrawal of the manuscript or notice of a rejection. +
This is a case of redundant publication. Authors are usually asked to provide a signed statement that the manuscript they are submitting has not been published elsewhere. Any violation of this statement is considered to be a case of misconduct and can result in retraction. If a translation of a previously published article is going to be submitted to another journal, prior permission should be sought from the publisher of the first article and the second manuscript should contain an appropriate reference to the first publication +
Regulatory compliance
Data archiving and management +
- Maintaining Privacy
-Confidentiality and Anonymity
-Protecting vulnerable groups
-Data sharing +
This workbook discusses how to put the principle of AI Fairness into practice across the AI project workflow through Bias Self-Assessment and Bias Risk Management as well as through the documentation of metric-based fairness criteria in a Fairness Position Statement. +
In this workbook, we introduce fundamental concepts of AI, responsible research and innovation, and AI ethics and governance, such as the SSAFE-D Principles – which stands for Sustainability, Safety, Accountability, Fairness, Explainability, and Data-Stewardship. The SSAFE-D Principles are a set of ethical principles that serve as starting points for reflection and deliberation about possible harms and benefits associated with data-driven technologies. +
This workbook introduces the SUM Values (Support, Underwrite, Motivate), a set of ethical values intended to help AI project teams to assess the potential societal impacts and ethical permissibility of their projects. It then presents a Stakeholder Engagement Process (SEP), which provides tools to facilitate proportionate engagement of and input from stakeholders with an emphasis on equitable and meaningful participation and positionality awareness. +
This workbook provides a template of the SIA and activities that allow a deeper dive into crucial parts of it. For example, it discusses methods for weighing values and considering trade-offs during the SIA process, and highlights the need to approach the SIA as an end-to-end process of responsive evaluation and re-assessment. The workbook also includes a series of activities related to AI in Urban Planning to assist public sector bodies in developing a shared vocabulary and practical skills to implement ethical AI projects. +
When a complaint is submitted to the Executive Board of a university, it is the Board's duty to forward the case to the university's research integrity office.
When researchers are commissioned to produced research in a personal capacity, the associated studies should explicitly state that the authors are working in a personal capacity. In addition, there should be no mention of their academic affiliations. +
The policy brief provides a series of recommendations to minimize the impact of research misconduct. These focus on:
* Fostering a culture of integrity
* Monitoring and policy development
* Compliance and enforcement
* Peer support
* Incentives'"`UNIQ--ref-00000026-QINU`"' +
- Preservation and access
- Developing infrastructure
- Addressing interdisciplinary differences
- Recognition of good data practices
- Using standards +
The cases reveal practices to avoid:
<br />
*Plagiarism
*Undeserved authorship
*Duplicate submission
*Unprofessional conduct
*Lack of ethical approval
*Redundant or duplicate publication
Other experienced misconduct to avoid were:
<br />
*"‘salami‐slicing’– dividing up a piece of research as thinly as possible to get the maximum number of papers out of it; this naturally involves a great deal of repeated information, especially in the ‘methods’ section;"
*"cutting and pasting whole sections from 1 manuscript to another – another unfortunate temptation of the electronic age;"'"`UNIQ--ref-00000050-QINU`"'
*"publishing a paper in a small national journal, then having it translated into English and submitting it to a larger journal without revealing its previous publication;"
*"publishing a paper in a minor journal or in some other format such as an e‐journal and then submitting it to a larger journal without revealing its previous publication, and"
*"attempting to have a paper published in 2 journals simultaneously; some authors even go so far as to give identical papers different titles and list the authors in a different order in an attempt to disguise this type of misconduct." '"`UNIQ--ref-00000051-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000052-QINU`"' +
Following [http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) recommendations] +
