Category:Theme
From The Embassy of Good Science
The revision #1531 of the page named "Category:Theme" does not exist.
This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.
Pages in category "Theme"
The following 187 pages are in this category, out of 187 total.
D
F
P
Q
R
[
- Qualitative research
- Collaboration In Research
- Cross-boundary collaborations
- High income and low- and middle-income country collaborations
- Conflict of interest in peer review
- Conflict of interest: a research integrity and research ethics perspective
- Editorial conflicts of interest
- Intellectual conflicts of interest
- The influence of pharmaceutical company on drug availability
- Anonymisation and pseudonymisation
- Data management plans
- FAIR principles: sharing data for maximisation of results
- Feedback of findings in genome-wide association studies
- How to select trustworthy repositories
- Imputation of missing data in clinical trials
- Methods to increase data availability
- Sharing and preserving data in repositories
- Conflicts of interest in the review of grant proposals
- Industry funded research
- Intellectual property rights in research collaborations
- Monitoring funding processes
- The ethics of managing a laboratory or research group
- Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company
- Informed consent in psychiatry
- "Met de billen bloot" (airing your dirty laundry)
- Initiatives promoting research integrity
- Research Integrity and Research Ethics Scenarios for Teaching
- Research Integrity champions
- Research integrity in practice: dealing with everyday dilemmas
- Research Integrity lunch meetings
- Reward campaign
- Secondary corrections
- The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity
- Importance of healthy lifestyle
- Imposter Syndrome
- Dilemmas in daily practice
- Networks and projects promoting research integrity
- Not asking permission from contributors for the wording of the acknowledgement
- Open peer review - transparent way of gatekeeping science
- Peer Review in the Social Sciences and Humanities
- Post-publication peer review
- AI Generated Content
- Balancing harms and benefits
- Clarifying the aims of a research study
- Conducting research in high risk locations
- Confidentiality
- Ethical considerations in dealing with human remains
- Ethical issues in qualitative research
- Ethical issues of involving children with disabilities in research
- Incidental research findings
- Informed assent
- Informed consent
- Internet Research Ethics
- Privacy in research
- Research with animals
- Research with children
- Research with humans
- Vulnerable and non-competent subjects in clinical trials
- Affiliations
- Authorship criteria
- Consent for publication (Author)
- Consent for publication (Participant)
- High Integration of Research Monographs in the European Open Science (HIRMEOS)
- Initiative for Open Abstracts (I4OA)
- Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC)
- Open access publishing: the new norm?
- Publishers - COPE guidelines
- Retractions: correcting the scientific literature
- Standards of authorship
- Perverse incentives
- Polarized research
- Predatory publishing
- Questionable research practices & research misbehaviors
- Communicate results to the general public before a peer reviewed publication is available
- Data driven hypotheses without disclosure (‘HARKing’)
- Funding (Sponsorship) bias
- Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)
- Improper data use (a bias distorting research results)
- Inaccurate representation of results in the media
- Inferring from P-values
- Insufficiently reported study flaws and limitations
- Non-reporting of negative findings
- Outcome reporting bias
- P-value hacking
- Publication bias (positive results)
- Salami publication
- Selective citation
- Spin of research results
- (re)submitting without consent of all authors
- Being grossly unfair to your collaborators
- Fake peer-reviewing
- Gender bias
- Honorary or gift authorship
- Hostile peer review
- Inappropriate authorship
- Not acknowledging contributors who do not qualify for authorship
- Research collaboration
- Self-plagiarism
- Take no full responsibility for the integrity of the research project and its reports
- Turning a blind eye to breaches of integrity
- Unfair reviewing
- Inadequately handle or store data or (bio)materials
- Keeping inadequate notes of the research process
- Ignoring substantial safety risks of studies
- Inappropriate study design
- Non-disclosure of changes to the research design
- Posing irrelevant research questions
- Forensic Statistics to detect Data Fabrication
- Preregistration of animal study protocols
- Prospective registration of clinical trials
- Statistical pre-registration
- Connecting researchers through ORCID
- Digital humanities
- Discipline specific codes and guidelines on research integrity
- Governance of research integrity: Options for a coordinated approach in Europe
- Grading the quality of evidence in clinical practice guidelines
- Image Integrity
- Institutional codes of conduct for research integrity
- Institutional policies and procedures for research misconduct
- Legal rights of accused scientists
- Mental health in academia
- Open Science
- ORI - The Office of Research Integrity
- Plan S
- Reasonable standards for career advancement
- Research ethics committee members' skills
- Research ethics committees
- Research Integrity Advisors
- Research Integrity Committees
- Research integrity officers in Europe
- Responsible Research and Innovation - RRI
- Science policy
- Teaching sensitive and controversial issues in divided societies
- The impact of the GDPR on scientific data
- Whistleblower protection/rights
- Altmetrics
- Eigenfactor
- H-index
- Journal Impact Factor
- Journal Impact Factor based on the date of electronic publication
- SCImago Journal Rankings
- Fabrication
- Falsification
- Plagiarism
- Peer review card game
- Research integrity training for diverse disciplines
- Research integrity training for PhD students
- Respectable and honest supervision ensures responsible and ethical research in the future.
- Responsible supervision
- Serious gaming in research integrity education
- Superb Supervision: integrity training for supervisors
- Supervision
- Supervision Guidelines
- The ConScience App - theatre play
- The Dilemma Game
- The learning curve - theatre play #MeTooAcademia
- Empathy in History Research and Education
