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
R
This factual case reports a failure to declare a conflict of interest by researchers of experimental interventions at a university. The researchers studied a disputed therapy that is endorsed by a controversial organization. According to the university and the publisher, the researchers failed to declare that they had affiliations with the organization. However, the authors stated in a press release on the situation that they did declare their conflicts of interest in all instances. +
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 links between '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063611#.X3cGAJNKjxQ research procedures and research integrity]'''.
It focuses on issues regarding:
*Hypothesizing after the results ('HARKing');*P-hacking;*Selection bias;*University procedures, processes and guidelines to address HARKing, P-hacking and selection bias.
It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative. +
This is a developed case study for organizing a detailed group discussion the issue of reproducibility or replicability. The case addresses many of the potential experimental design issues, practices, and pressures that can undermine research reproducibility. +
The Research and Scientific Integrity Policy (2018), published by the National Research Council Canada, sets out a national framework to strengthen research integrity and responsible conduct across the full research cycle. It emphasises honesty, accountability, stewardship, and professional courtesy, linking these values to credibility, reproducibility, and societal trust. The policy defines responsibilities for researchers, supervisors, institutions, funders, and journals, with clear expectations on authorship, citation, conflict of interest, transparency of data and methods, supervision, and peer review. It establishes fair procedures for addressing misconduct, including definitions, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities, while aligning Canadian practice with international standards such as the Singapore and Montreal Statements. Education and training are central, ensuring students and staff are equipped with integrity skills. The policy also addresses emerging issues such as open science, data management, and digital tools, and provides practical aids like checklists, reporting templates, and FAQs to support day-to-day implementation. Equity and diversity are embedded as cross-cutting themes, highlighting that inclusive, respectful environments are essential to credible research. +
The document 'Research and scientific integrity policy', developed in 2018 in Canada, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by National Research Council Canada, and available in English, it targets the research community in Canada . It provides clear expectations for responsible conduct in research and defines practices that safeguard honesty, transparency, and accountability. The text outlines responsibilities of both individual researchers and institutions. It identifies misconduct such as plagiarism, data falsification, fabrication, and unethical authorship, while also promoting good practices in publication, peer review, and collaborative research. It emphasizes effective data management, openness in reporting, and respect for colleagues, participants, and the wider community. Institutions are encouraged to create supportive environments through policies, training, and oversight mechanisms. The document serves as an official reference for aligning national research standards with international expectations, reinforcing ethical norms across research fields. +
A graduate student defends her dissertation proposal, but her study is rejected by the institutional review board by unnecessarily burdening research subjects without promising new results. The grad student believes she should try recruiting participants outside of the supervision of the review board. The case study discusses the responsibility of the student as well as the supervisor for planning and implementing a study. +
The Royal Society has started a programme of work to explore how to promote the cultural conditions that will best enable excellent research and researchers. he focus of this programme is on the assessment of research and researchers, researcher career development, and open science. The page consists of videos, blog posts and further material regarding research culture. +
Research culture can be defined in numerous ways and various perspectives can be taken on what constitutes a ‘good’ research culture. One possible definition of research culture is that it constitutes the “behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes and norms” of research communities.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
Research ethics committee conditions: Ethical challenges of researching with poor communities in Malawi +
As an international academic team we have been engaged with researching African household and young people’s livelihood trajectories in a Malawian village since 2007. Intermittently over more than a decade we have conducted surveys, interviews and participatory research with many of the young and adult residents of that small rural community, thereby building up a detailed knowledge of the community and developing extensive personal relations with individuals and families. +
Research ethics in emerging forms of online learning: Issues arising from a hypothetical study on a MOOC +
This study is about research ethics in context of online research such as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC), aiming to summarize recent debates regarding current approaches and different views on ethical decision-making in online learning setting. The author encourages the opportunity for contextualized ethical decision-making. +
Research ethics training of trainers: Developing capacity of Bolivian health science and civil society leaders +
This article provides information on RE Training of Trainers (TOT) that was conducted in Bolivia. The training included face-to-face, online and practicum components, with twenty trainees, including faculty, researchers and community leaders. It resulted in 10% increase in RE knowledge. +
This is a factual case.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000000-QINU`"' +
Science Europe published a comprehensive review of developments in research integrity across Europe and the US. Research integrity is about "the performance of research to the highest standards of professionalism and rigour, in an ethically robust manner", says the report. +
This short checklist consists of a table divided into three columns. The first column provides a list of different aspects of research integrity, such as authorship, conflict of interest and data management. The second column suggests specific actions for each of these aspects. The third colmun provides available resources /web links related to these issues. +
Research metrics, or Bibliometrics, refers to the statistical analysis of published articles and journals and their citations. Analysis of research metrics can be at a journal level, article level or author level.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"' Altmetrics is an alternative approach to research metrics. It adopts an online approach, utilising social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000008-QINU`"' +
This online training consists of three modules concerning research misconduct. The first provides information on what is misconduct, how to report it and how institutions can cope with it. The second aims to help researchers and students identify questionable practices and prevent them, offering 28 guidelines. The third provides information regarding image processing. I contains guidelines, case studies and quizzes among others. +
What is research misconduct? Which practices are considered ‘misconduct’ and which might be labelled a less serious ‘misbehavior’ or ‘questionable research practice’? For some, misconduct is synonymous with ‘FFP’ - Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"'– whereas others consider a failure to meet ethical, legal and professional obligations, and even a failure to properly deal with misconduct allegations, to qualify as misconduct. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"'.There is ongoing debate among academics how to precisely define research misconduct. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000000F-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000010-QINU`"'
The European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity '"`UNIQ--ref-00000011-QINU`"' refers to misconduct as FFP. Other violations which damage the integrity of the research are referred to as ‘other unacceptable practices’.'"`UNIQ--references-00000012-QINU`"' +
This is a factual case concerning the recent INTERGROWTH-21st study at the University of Oxford. +
This article provides information on possible responses to research misconduct by creating and enforcing a rule and ethics education. It addresses the best possible ways to apply them. +
The US Public Health Service found that a researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago had carried out research misconduct in relation to the legend and related text for a figure contained in their National Institutes of Health grant application. +
