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
The purpose of this online training is to answer the question how should researchers act with regards to research ethics. It explores numerous topics concerning research ethics and provides regulations and guidelines as well as case studies. +
One of Dr. Cultu's research subjects is suspected of committing a murder at a bar where Cultu conducted observations and recorded interviews. The police requests access to Dr. Cultu's research notes and interviews. The case study asks whether the researcher should cooperate with the police and in what form. +
This online course portal is developed by Columbia University to support Responsible Conduct of Research practices. It provides a case based introduction regarding responsible conduct of research practices.
The course is suitable to junior researchers, students in their doctoral studies. However, the well-developed case studies could also support senior researchers or department heads in discussing RCR issues with their students and colleagues. The course involves six independent modules, built on six important RCR topics: Conflicts of Interest, Mentoring, Responsible Authorship and Peer Review, Research Misconduct, Collaborative Science, Data Acquisition and Management.
Authorship and Peer Review is the third module in the course that starts with a brief introduction, it provides three annotated case studies ("Who is an author?", "What is responsible peer-review?" and "Peer review and controversial research"). The module provides the reader with a brief introduction on the issue section with a list of questions and answers, comprehensive theoretical background and a rich compilation of resources, including video materials. +
This report, sponsored by IAC (Inter-Academy Council) and IAP (the global network of science academies), represents the first joint effort by the scientific academies to provide clarity and advice in forging an international consensus on responsible conduct in the global research enterprise. It acknowledges and draws on information and recommendations from the many national and international organizations that have issued guidelines and statements on the basic responsibilities and obligations of researchers. +
Collection of resources on Responsible Research and Innovation aimed at research-performing and research-funding organizations from the RRI-Practice H2020 project +
This course has 5 learning units. It spans five weeks and involves about 12.5 hours of work in total. The program introduces you to key challenges that you could face when collaborating with others during your PhD research, as well as a range of practical exercises.
[[File:Overview course RCR-1.png|center|frame|You can access the introductory video for this course here: [https://vimeo.com/707791207/0697af19f4 Teaser for the course]]]
One way of showing responsible conduct in practice is to talk about challenges that you could face as a PhD candidate with your supervisor or your mentor. That is why – as part of the course – we ask you to schedule a meeting with your supervisor or your mentor about RCR. At the end of every learning unit, you can collect possible topics for this meeting.
Collaboration is an important part of this course. There will be 3 plenary sessions (in week 1, 3 and 5). Next to that, there are interactive assignments in small subgroups (the group allocation is announced on the news forum). Subgroups can decide to meet live (online), or to work asynchronously.
A certificate will be provided to participants who completed every part. This course was developed in the [https://community.embassy.science/c/integrity/26 H2020 INTEGRITY project] by Mariëtte van den Hoven, Miriam van Loon, Hesther van Gulick and Eline Borsboom, and funded by EU H2020.<br /> +
The Institute of Science and Technology, Austria is a government-established research institution that organized and encourages both research in basic sciences and the dissemination of research results. Being a prominent PhD granting organization, the IST emphasizes the need for ethical research and upholding good scientific practices. Every researcher is required to respect the standards of good scientific practice set by the OeAWI (link under "related to" section). In addition, they also provide contact details of ombudspersons responsible for research ethics and good scientific practices. +
This tool is intended for researchers who are at the beginning of their research careers. The purpose of this Quick Guide is to promote RCR (in this case publication practices and authorship) through education and training. Its content is useful for young researchers when preparing their research or writing an article. For example, it includes some sample scenarios that can help researchers to detect and critique frequent mistakes in the research. +
This article describes the role of academies of science and of associations of such academies in developing codes of good research practices. It also discusses their role in encouraging research conscience based on values and research standards. +
The resource highlights the importance of collaboration and collaborative research in biomedical sciences. Collaboration in science has to take into consideration a large spectrum of responsible practices in line with the responsible conduct of research +
This short textbook is a tool designed for postdocs. It examines several topics related to RI and provides practical examples for young researchers that help them cope with some difficult issues. It also presents a wide range of useful handbooks and guidelines. +
Mentoring is a formal or informal professional relationship between an experienced researcher and a less experienced researcher.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' It is dyadic relationship, i.e. a committed relationship between two persons, usually characterized by institutional proximity and direct contact.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
This is the first volume of textbook on resposnible research and the result of a two-year study by a panel of experts of the National Academy of Sciences. It investigates reports dealing with research integrity and research misconduct and offers recommendations of the study panel. +
This textbook is the second volume on responsible research, the result of the panel of experts of the National Academy of Sciences. It includes papers and institutional reports, policies and procedures used to develop the first volume. It also provides selected guidelines for RCR. +
This is a factual case. +
Over rum cocktails at the World Conference on Research Integrity, experts discussed what can be learnt from the fallout of a flawed political-science paper. The world’s largest gathering of specialists in research misconduct kicked off on 31 May in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, shortly after science’s latest scandal broke. On the evening before the start of sessions on how to diagnose and remedy ethical faults in research, delegates to the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity sipped caipirinhas, Brazil’s national cocktail — and swapped views on what could be gleaned from a flawed political-science study. +
After a thorough investigation, the Publisher has concluded that the Editor was misled into accepting this article based upon the positive advice of at least one suggested reviewer report. The report was submitted from an email account provided by the author, that was later determined not to be the email of the supposed expert reviewer. +
This is a detailed retraction notice that reports the retraction of "A characterization of individual differences in prospective memory monitoring using the Complex Ongoing Serial Task" by Adam C. Savine, Mark A. McDaniel, Jill Talley Shelton and Michael K. Scullin (''Journal of Experimental Psychology: General'', 2012[May], Vol 141[2], 337-362). +
A scientist at a Danish research centre was accused of acting in a scientifically dishonest manner in a number of research papers. The practices included inaccurate descriptions of research participants, the undisclosed re-use of biopsy material and research subjects from previous studies, the manipulation of images, and the erroneous and misleading presentation of data. The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for Health and Medical Sciences ruled that scientific dishonesty had been committed in four instances relating to four out of the twelve research papers. This is a factual case. +
This is a factual case. +
