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
Australian Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research +
This guideline specifies the official procedures of investigating research misconduct (RM) in Australia. RM breaches, as defined in the guideline, occur on a spectrum, with RM being serious or repeated breaches of the Australian Code. +
The policy outlines requirements for institutions, and individuals engaged in Australian Research Council (ARC) business, to report to the ARC research integrity matters, and the action the ARC may take in response to reported breaches of the Code. It also describes how the ARC can refer concerns or complaints to research institutions, who, in accordance with the Code, are responsible for managing and investigating potential breaches of the Code. +
The Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (Osterreichische Agentur fur Wissenschaftliche Integritat - OeAWI) works to raise awareness of the standards of good scientific practice among scientists and researchers as well as the general public. It also contributes to ensuring that violations of the standards of good scientific practice are identified and remedied. The organisation works to strengthen the ethos of science and research, and advocates adherence to the code of conduct derived from that ethos. Its activities focus on investigating and preventing misconduct in research and scholarship, not on imposing sanctions for misconduct. Given that violations of the standards of good scientific practice are not necessarily also violations of applicable law, the OeAWI performs its duties as a complement to – but not in competition with – the legal system. Legislation relevant to science and research, the principles of research ethics and the standards of good scientific practice all contribute equally to ensuring a high degree of integrity in research and scholarship. +
Austrian Policy on Open Science and the European Open Science Cloud (2022) — Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBWF) +
The policy sets Austria’s national framework for open science, making openness the default while balancing ethics, privacy, and intellectual property. It requires open access to publications, use of Creative Commons licenses, persistent identifiers, FAIR data practices, and trusted repositories. Responsibilities are outlined for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers, covering rights retention, data management, and infrastructure support. Exceptions for sensitive or commercial data are allowed but must be justified transparently. Monitoring focuses on the quality of openness—metadata, links, reproducibility, and data/code sharing—rather than just publication counts. The policy aligns with international initiatives like Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud, emphasizes equity and inclusion, and provides practical guidance to help Austrian stakeholders implement open and responsible research. +
This case described how the limited space in journals is not aligned with the increase in submissions. Due to publication pressure authors sometimes cut corners, which can lead to cases of misconduct.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
We received a letter from a third party, accusing author A of putting his/her name against an article, published in our journal, when the research itself belongs to author A's student.
Our journal is a fully English language publication and the accusing third party and author A are from a non-English speaking country, as is the student (assumedly). The accusing third party forwarded the student's research paper to the editor which is entirely written in another language but contained an English abstract.
The Editor contacted author A and the response received included an attached confirmation letter supposedly from his/her student stating that they had no involvement in the published work by author A and that their research is completely separate to the published paper by author A.
We have several concerns:
1. It is difficult for the editor to examine the abstract the third party sent to us against the published article by author A.
2. We do not know if the response letter emailed from author A, confirming no involvement in author A's paper, is genuinely from the student.
3. The accuser's identity or relation to the matter is unknown to us. Ideally the editor needs to contact the student directly but we need bona fide contact details of the student and we are not sure we would get it from the accuser or the accused author A. Google is also of little help as there are so many people with the name. +
Researchers everywhere are under increasing pressure to publish in high quality journals. The amount of space available in a journal such as ''Medical Education'' has not kept pace with the rise in submissions. Against a background of fierce competition, authors sometimes cut corners. This may lead to misconduct. This paper aims to explore the most common types of publication misconduct seen in the ''Medical Education'' editorial office, and to consider the reasons for this and the implications for researchers in the field. +
Authors couldn’t find a patient to give consent for case report. Then the patient found the report. +
This short text informs about a case of a 35-year-old woman with a mysterious mass that took 11 years to be diagnosed. Since the authors could not reach the patient to obtain her consent for publication, they removed any identifiable information and published the paper anyway. The patient eventually read the paper, recognized herself and asked for retraction. +
Although ICMJE clearly defines the role of authors through its [http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html sets of recommendations], authorship criteria are not always strictly followed. The recommendations get blurry and faded based on convenience, interpersonal conflicts, or become subjected to manipulation. Such is the case described in this scenario, where a young researcher has a dispute with his superior about a rightful co-authorship. A publication would propel his career, but it appears there is no room for discussion. +
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-00000000-QINU`"'. The map provides a framework to help explain and discuss the complex world of academic publication.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-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.] +
