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
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-00000000-QINU`"'. Nowadays, the printed form has been extended with electronic forms of communication, and videos are becoming increasingly popular as well'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-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-00000002-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-00000003-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000004-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). +
This document sets down principles, standards and procedures for high-quality higher education in Iceland. It covers not only academic but also research activities within these institutions, and is therefore important for students and staff in these institutions. +
This document sets down principles, standards and procedures for high-quality higher education in Iceland. It covers not only academic but also research activities within these institutions, and is therefore important for students and staff in these institutions. +
These Principles and guidelines are intended mainly for policy makers responsible for the development of the school history curriculum and also for teachers and teacher trainers who deliver the curriculum to students.
There are 8 basic principles and guidelines set forth in this document: 1. Developing flexible curricula and interactive pedagogies which acknowledge cultural differences;2. Teaching and learning about the complex history of democracy;3. Reflecting the ways in which the activities of ordinary individuals and groups of people have shaped the history of societies;4. Recognising that people of different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds have often been long established in societies;5. Valuing the multiple identities of both ‘the other’ and ourselves;6. Providing the tools for evaluating historical sources and combatting manipulative propaganda;7. Addressing issues that might be sensitive or controversial;8. Balancing the cognitive, the emotive and the ethical dimensions in history teaching and learning. +
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." +
In a list of major and minor research misbehaviours collaboratively developed by a group of research integrity experts, the research phase ‘Reporting’ (which describes analysis and publication of results jointly) contains the most items.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' Needless to say, the potential for misbehaviors in this phase is exacerbated by the vast number of decisions researchers must take during the course of analysis and reporting.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
Science is increasingly a team effort. Collaborations, however, are not without their challenges. A fact that is evident in the variety of research misbehaviors related to collaborations. +
Numerous ‘misbehaviours’ are associated with the data collection phase of research, from the intentional misconducts of fabrication, to lesser but more frequent ‘sloppy’ research practices such as poor note taking or inadequate data storage. +
Research practices that might be considered ‘questionable’ can occur at any point in the research process, from study design, through collaborations and data collection, to the reporting and dissemination of results. A list of major and minor research misbehaviours, categorised by when they occur during the research process, has been collaboratively developed by research integrity experts'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'. The list includes eight items specifically on '''study design'''.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
A new graduate researcher suspects her supervisor of having falsified research for publications which were needed for his tenure. What should the researcher do? This is a fictional case. +
R
RCR Casebook is a collection of case studies related to differenc topics of RCR. It explores important ethical dilemmas in research and is designed to help researchers, institutions and instructors to cope with these issues. +
RCR online course: build an online course to augment RCR training using evidenced-based learning theory +
This study shows how to implement evidence-based instructional design principles to develop a supplement online Responsible conduct of research (RCR) course. +
