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 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-0000000B-QINU`"' It is dyadic relationship, i.e. a committed relationship between two persons, usually characterized by institutional proximity and direct contact.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000C-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. +
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) face a number of challenges when reviewing research involving Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health and healthcare. In this policy brief the Horizon EU-funded project irecs highlights three key issues and provides recommendations for risk mitigation. +
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) face a number of challenges when reviewing research involving biobanking. In this policy brief the Horizon EU-funded project irecs highlights three key issues and provides recommendations for risk mitigation. +
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) face a number of challenges when reviewing research involving Extended Reality (XR). In this policy brief the Horizon EU-funded project irecs highlights three key issues and provides recommendations for risk mitigation. +
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) face a number of challenges when reviewing research involving Genome editing. In this policy brief the Horizon EU-funded project irecs highlights three key issues and provides recommendations for risk mitigation. +
Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project +
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 [https://zenodo.org/record/4063746#.X3cXC5NKjxQ '''the ethical and integrity standards governing peer review processes'''].
It focuses on issues regarding:
*The integrity of peer review processes;*Institutional obligations to uphold the standards of good peer review practices;*Plagiarism.
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. +
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." +
Oscar Martinez is a grad student who improved code used in Nick Manson's study. He later noticed that Manson published a paper which relied heavily on the new code and requested to be counted as one of the authors of the papers. Manson claimed that an acknowledgement was sufficient as he did the rest of the work on his own. The case study asks whether Martinez's contribution merits authorship. +
This study shows that delays between online and print publication of articles artificially increase the journal's impact factor (IF). Therefore, authors propose that calculation of the IFs should be based on the date of electronic publication. +
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." +
