What is this about? (Is About)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A short summary providing some details about the theme/resource (max. 75 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
P
This is a fictional case of a doctoral student and her supervisor who would like to publish data in the form of ethnographic photography. However, there are facing the following three challenges: a) permission for publishing photographs of the community researched had not initially been sought from the ethics review board, b) nor had it been sought from the subjects photographed, and, c) the photographic material contains images that might be considered questionable child rearing practices by today’s western societies’ standards. +
This study aims to evaluate research careers of physicians enrolled in the Program in Clinical Effectiveness (PCE) at Harvard School of Public Health with an emphasis on clinical research. It demonstrates that physicians who enrolled in the PCE at an early age and generalist physicians were particularly successful in establishing careers as clinician–investigators. Therefore, the study concludes that programs such as the PCE can help to sustain the workforce of physician–investigators. +
This is a factual case. +
Protecting peer review: Correspondence chronology and ethical analysis regarding logothetis vs. shmuel and leopold +
As the complexity of scientific investigation has advanced, bio‐medical research has progressively adopted a team‐based approach to research. In the life sciences, brain imaging is one of the most technically advanced and integrative disciplines. In this collaborative environment, scientific disagreements as well as inter‐personal conflicts inevitably arise. Investigators may disagree, for example, on the adequacy of the data for publication, the most appropriate analyses to be performed, or the appropriate conclusions to be drawn from the accumulated experiments. In the context of such disagreements, more fundamental disputes often arise, including the right of individual investigators to publish data acquired cooperatively. When efforts are made to publish disputed data, journal editors necessarily become involved. +
Research subjects should be protected to minimize the harms and maximize the benefits of research. Research subjects include both humans and animals, and both types of research are subject to regulations, professional codes, and even international agreements. +
Citizen science, according to the [https://www.ecsa.ngo/ European Citizen Science Association (ESCA)], is "an ‘umbrella’ term that describes a variety of ways in which the public participates in science. The main characteristics are that: (1) citizens are actively involved in research, in partnership or collaboration with scientists or professionals;and (2) there is a genuine outcome, such as new scientific knowledge, conservation action or policy change." +
A junior researcher in charge of an experiment involving animal subjects allows several protocol violations to occur, resulting in public backlash. +
A young social psychologist "fabricated" five experiments on social discrimination that she conducted while at Harvard University. In addition to retracting four published studies,she was banned from receiving federal research funds or serving on government advisory committees for 5 years. +
The career of a promising young social psychologist lies in ruins following her admission that she “fabricated” five experiments on social discrimination that she conducted while at Harvard University. Last week the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the Department of Health and Human Services announced that Karen Ruggiero, 33, who last year moved to the University of Texas (UT), Austin, “engaged in scientific misconduct by fabricating data in research supported by the National Institutes of Health.” A September report from Harvard assistant dean Kathleen Buckley to Harvard's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct cites Ruggiero's comments in a 21 August letter that the manuscripts were based on “fabricated” data. In addition to retracting four published studies, Ruggiero is banned from receiving federal research funds or serving on government advisory committees for 5 years. A woman who answered the phone at her Texas home declined to discuss the case. +
This case is about a former graduate student in psychology. He falsified data in several published papers and conference abstracts. +
These are the slides of a lecture in Dutch, on the psychology of misbehavior and research misbehavior in particular. +
An Institutional Review Board assesses a proposal that blurs the boundaries between research and practice. The IRB discusses issues concerning the disclosure of identifiable health information, informed consent, principles of beneficence and maleficence, coercion of research subjects and the intrusiveness of surveys. This is a factual case. +
Publication, in a broad sense, can be defined as the act of making information or stories available to people in a printed or electronic form. Scientific ideas have been communicated in printed form throughout history. Scientific publication in the traditional sense can be traced back to 1665, when the first academic journal was published'"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"'. Nowadays, the printed form has been extended with electronic forms of communication, and videos are becoming increasingly popular as well'"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"'.
Previously, many scientific articles were only available with paid subscriptions. Recently, the possibilities of digital publication led to the rise of [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:06925397-5843-495d-a22d-3e983bdcb99e Open Acces] publication. This increased the availability of scientific outcomes to those who did not have these subscriptions and also made the results publicly available'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"'. Nowadays, one of the hallmarks of 'good publication' is considered to be [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8 peer reviewed publication].
Academic publishing is an entire process on its own and what composes 'good publication' is not straightforward. Traditionally, the popularity of a journal and its impact factor also play a role in the consideration of scientific work. However, it has been shown that articles which have been rejected by popular journals with a high impact factor generally have more citations when eventually published elsewhere'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000B-QINU`"' +
A student is working with his co-students and his professor on an experiment. The student becomes impatient with the checks the professor want to do to make sure everything is correct. He writes and submits a manuscript on their joint work with himself as first author and the other students and the professor as co-author, unbeknownst to the authors. The editor of the journal becomes suspicious due to the writing style and the fact that the professor is not included in the email, and calls the professor. +
This study developed a professional statement on planning for publication of the biomedical research findings. It concluded that effective publication planning should be the result of collaboration of all contributors, it should encourage full transparency and contribute to scientific integrity. +
This online training concerns responsible authorship and peer review and raises questions on ethical challenges that both authors and peer reviewers often face. The quick guide on responsible authorship helps in identifying mistakes that can occur and considers common dilemmas in responsible authorship. +
This is a factual but anonymised question to COPE forum. A doctor and editor of a medical journal would like to publish a series of cases of unsuccessful medical treatments in order to improve knowledge and future practice. S/he proposes anonymization of the actors involved (both patients and their doctors/therapists) as well as removal of possible demographics identification variables (age, gender etc). However, the written consent of those involved (patients and doctors/therapists) might be missing. Would that violate COPE guidelines? +
Publishing Your Research Open Access (2020), produced by the Swedish Research Council, provides guidance for open science and open access in Sweden, framing openness as a default while respecting ethics, privacy, IP, and security. It links openness to research quality, reproducibility, rapid knowledge translation, and equitable access, covering open access publications, preferred licensing, FAIR data principles, data management plans, persistent identifiers, and trusted repositories. Responsibilities for researchers and institutions, justified embargoes, and exceptions for sensitive data are outlined, supported by enabling infrastructure and alignment with international frameworks like Plan S. Emphasis is placed on equity, responsible handling of sensitive data, and quality of openness, with practical examples and FAQs to help researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers implement open, interoperable, and inclusive practices efficiently. +
This policy brief examines the promise and practicalities of involving citizens and non-traditional stakeholders in research and innovation (R&I) funding and implementation. The brief argues that for innovation to effectively meet societal challenges and achieve large-scale impact, the perspectives of those affected must be integrated early in the process. It notes the wide variation in how participation is understood and implemented across organizations: the term “participation” covers many modes, and many funding organizations currently involve citizens only minimally or as a decorative add-on. Key challenges include resource constraints (time, money, expertise), lack of institutional support, unclear aims of participation, recruitment of participants, and role expectations. The brief calls for a shared ethical foundation and language for participation, and it suggests that participatory practices must be designed with attention to fairness, legitimacy, and alignment with societal needs. +
Q
Qualitative research is a type of research to answering research questions about the social, attitudinal, behavioral, and emotional dimensions of health care. Usually involves the collection of information, through direct observation, interviews, or existing documents (e.g. medical records). +
