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
A
A researcher is left feeling resentful after not having been made an author on a research paper even though the researcher provided the underlying idea for the project. +
This handout provides a broad conceptual subway map of the world of publication, to support the Authorship and Publication training provided by QUT Library and Office of Research Ethics and Integrity'"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"'. The map provides a framework to help explain and discuss the complex world of academic publication.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000009-QINU`"' +
This article describes how the HF-ACTION investigators devised a system to address assignment of authorship on trial publications. The HF-ACTION Authorship and Publication (HAP) Scoring System was designed to increase dissemination, recognize investigator contributions to the trial and apply individual expertise in manuscript production. +
Authorship in scholarly manuscripts: practical considerations for resident and early career physicians +
This article addresses different issues regarding authorship in scholarly manuscripts. The authors suggest that residents and early career physicians need to be educated about authorship rules and problems as well as equitable resolutions. They also invite for considering alternative ways to credit authorship. +
This video is about determing authorship. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of working alone or in a team. Advices are giving about working in a team. +
These guidelines are intended for researchers or publishers with aim of helping them identify what they need to request permission to reproduce material created by others, including images and text quotations. +
This study examined a plagiarism detection system PAIRwise for instructors, researchers and students. It showed that PAIRwise can detect verbatim plagiarism efficiently. +
Avoiding Plagiarism, Self-plagiarism, and Other Questionable Writing Practices: A Guide to Ethical Writing +
This tool is intended for students and researchers to identify and prevent questionable research practices. It deals particularly with plagiarism and self plagiarism. +
This short text gives five tips to avoid bias in qualitative data analysis: 1. Use multiple people to code the data; 2. Have participants review your results; 3. Verify with more data sources; 4. Check for alternative explanations; 5. Review findings with peers. +
Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images +
This study provides 12 guidelines for digital image manipulation. The guidelines can be included into lab meetings and trainings of graduate students with aim of inciting discussion that could lead to the end of "data beautification". +
B
BEYOND Bad Apples: Towards a Behavioural and Evidence-Based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Research Integrity in Europe. BEYOND is a Horizon Europe project dedicated to exploring the root causes of research misconduct, developing effective methodologies for impactful training, and creating and enhancing training materials. This project contributes to Europe's ongoing efforts to cultivate a research culture that upholds the highest standards of ethics and integrity, thereby fostering public trust in science.
Please have a look at the project's deliverable [https://zenodo.org/communities/beyondbadappleseu/records?q=&l=list&p=1&s=10&sort=newest here.] +
The BEYOND Guidelines for Preventing and Addressing Research Misconduct are an aspirational document intended to guide research communities in cultivating environments that promote responsible research conduct and institutional accountability. Rooted in the belief that research integrity (RI) is a shared responsibility, these Guidelines are addressed to all actors in the research ecosystem, including researchers, research performing organisations (RPOs), research funding organisations (RFOs), citizen scientists, ethics and integrity bodies, publishers, and policymakers.
This document follows the lead of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC) and affirms its core principles of reliability, honesty, respect, and accountability. In particular, it endorses the ECoC’s emphasis on the importance of the research environment in sustaining RI. The BEYOND Guidelines adopt and further develop this perspective by explicitly advancing an ecosystem approach to research misconduct (RM), one that recognises how systemic, organisational, epistemic, socio-technical, and psychological factors interact to shape research culture and behaviour. +
This collection of cases for teaching and training was developed within the EU-funded BEYOND (Beyond Bad Apples: Towards a Behavioral and Evidence-based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Integrity in Europe) project.
Ethics and ethics education have traditionally emphasized individual responsibility in decision-making and actions. While this perspective remains vital, it does not encompass the full complexity of ethical decision-making processes. Human beings are inherently social creatures and their decisions are influenced not only by personal choices but also by their broader environment and situational contexts. This underscores the need to integrate an understanding of social and contextual factors into ethical frameworks and teaching methodologies.
Ethical and other decisions within the research context are conditioned by institutional missions and values, disciplinary rules, organizational culture, and the particular, often implicit, practices of specific units and teams. These layers of context can and do influence how research is conducted, for example by emphasizing ethical considerations and equipping individuals with critical thinking tools, training opportunities, and providing a “research ethics infrastructure” comprising guidelines, transparent procedures, safeguards, and counseling opportunities.
BEYOND cases for young and early career researchers have been developed to support critical ethical reflection, acknowledging that practical ethics often involves choosing between incompatible values within complex social environments.
The material consists of ethical dilemmas which are developed in accordance with the methodology described by Parder et al. (2024)[https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/For%20upload%20on%20the%20embassy/BEYOND%20training%20material%20for%20early%20career%20researchers_for%20resource%20presentation.docx#_ftn1 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000002D-QINU`"'].
· The narrative is described from the perspective of the protagonist – the protagonist must be someone that the trainees find it easy to identify with.
· The characters and the basic relationships between them are described without too much detail, leaving thus room for trainees to fill the missing information with their own life experiences.
· The information about the motives of the actors has been kept to a minimum to give the trainees an opportunity to draw from their experiences.
· The temporal dimension of the narrative is also kept limited – in some cases background information is given, but the pre-given choices were kept within one temporal moment.
· The dilemma and the pre-given solutions were balanced – the narrative was written from the neutral perspective and the pre-given solutions were morally acceptable from the perspective of at least one ethical theory.
The drafting of solutions was inspired by four ethical theories: deontology, utilitarianism, care ethics and virtue ethics. It has to be noted that the solutions are not in perfect accordance with the theories as the aim of this training methodology is not to teach ethical theories to trainees, but rather to provide realistic alternative solutions to choose from.
Finally, the aim of the methodology is not to teach a “right” answer to the dilemma as dilemmas often involve conflicts between two or more valuable ethical principles, but to focus on the reflection of the cases and solutions and to guide participants to carry out moral reasoning with emphasis on the skills of listening and discussing.
The purpose of this training activity is to engage participants in a game to encourage discussion and promote better self-understanding and mutual understanding, while also enhancing listening and argumentation skills. The game is played in groups of 3–6 players. There can be as many groups as needed, although facilitation might require more effort with more groups. The cases focus on issues that are especially relevant for young and/or early career researchers and attempt has been made to cover topics that have emerged more recently in research ethics and integrity field (AI, researcher rehabilitation etc.).
Educators and trainers can find detailed instructions on how to facilitate reflection using these cases here .
[https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/For%20upload%20on%20the%20embassy/BEYOND%20training%20material%20for%20early%20career%20researchers_for%20resource%20presentation.docx#_ftnref1 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000002E-QINU`"'] Parder, M. L., Tammeleht, A., Juurik, M., Paaver, T., Velbaum, K., and Harro-Loit, H. (2024). Digital Discussion Game on Values: Development, Use and Possibilities for Measuring Its Functionality. In Y. P. Cheng, M. Pedaste, E. Bardone, Y. M. Huang (eds). (2024). Innovative Technologies and Learning. ICITL 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 14785. Springer, Cham.
This collection of cases for teaching and training was developed within the EU-funded BEYOND (Beyond Bad Apples: Towards a Behavioral and Evidence-based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Integrity in Europe) project.
Ethics and ethics education have traditionally emphasized individual responsibility in decision-making and actions. While this perspective remains vital, it does not encompass the full complexity of ethical decision-making processes. Human beings are inherently social creatures and their decisions are influenced not only by personal choices but also by their broader environment and situational contexts. This underscores the need to integrate an understanding of social and contextual factors into ethical frameworks and teaching methodologies. +
Bridging Integrity in Higher Education, Business and Society (BRIDGE) is an Erasmus+ funded project, it is a multidisciplinary three-years project (2020-2023).
Academic integrity, research integrity, integrity in business, integrity in society are usually described as separate fields. In this project, we seek to create a bridge between them in order to reach a broader understanding of interrelated aspects of integrity between these fields. The target groups of this project are early career researchers, i.e. master and PhD students, and their supervisors. +
Based on a news from Times of India (TOI), a study regarding the development of a new indigenous gene was completely fake. The gene that was stated is a new variety of Bt Cotton or Bt gene (BNla106 truncated cry1 AC). Hence, the project team responsible for the study claimed that they had already developed a new variety of Bt cotton seeds. However, experts found that the construct of Bt cotton has a Monsanto gene (Mon-531), which exemplifies that the cotton seeds was never altered or still it is the common seed. Moreover, the variety of BT cotton was already brought in the public in the year 2008 and the paper work of the UAS was published in the Current Science regardless of dubious claims that was later found out and thus, the published work was later on withdrawn (dated December 25, 2007). In 2012, the Monsanto gene was introduced by the media through a UAS staffer that it was indeed present and was never altered at all. Furthermore, it was found out through a 129-page report that a scope was contaminated due to the seeds being mass multiplied. +
An anthropologist working for two organisation has been asked to delay her (developed) funding application with one organisation in order to faciliatate the other +
In 1986, Thereza Imanishi-Kari co-authored a scientific paper on immunology with five other authors including Nobel laureate David Baltimore '"`UNIQ--ref-00000035-QINU`"'. Margot O'Toole, who was a postdoc in Imanishi-Kari's laboratory and also acknowledged in the paper “for critical reading of the manuscript”, reported Imanishi-Kari for fabrication after discovering laboratory notebook pages with conflicting data. Baltimore refused to retract the paper and Imanishi-Kari dismisses O'Toole from the laboratory. After a series of published statements in Nature and a bitter debate within the biomedical community '"`UNIQ--ref-00000036-QINU`"', Baltimore and three co-authors then retracted the paper. Baltimore publicly apologized for defense of fabricated data and not taking a whistle-blower's accusations seriously '"`UNIQ--ref-00000037-QINU`"'. The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found Imanishi-Kari guilty for data fabrication and attempts of covering up those fabrications with additional frauds. However, the appeals panel of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ruled that the ORI had failed to prove misconduct by Imanishi-Kari and dismissed all charges against her '"`UNIQ--ref-00000038-QINU`"'. This is a factual case.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000039-QINU`"' +
A woman brushes off her most recent diagnosis, Huntington disease (HD), and resists her doctor’s recommendations to tell her family about the diagnosis. By not disclosing this information to her family, they would not know that they might want to get tested for HD. Prior to diagnosis, the woman and her family provided genetic samples to a research database to investigate a genetic disease unrelated to HD. Since the database project required written consent for using samples in future research, the doctor wonders if he can run tests for HD on the stored samples that would include the materials of the woman and her family. +
'''Becoming an Ethical Researcher''' is a badged open course run by the Open University on its OpenLearn platform. This runs for 11 months of the year and was launched on 1 October 2020. It is designed to take 6 weeks of study for 2 hours per week. +
