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
B
The article addresses misunderstandings and disputes regarding authorship in multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary health research teams. The authors propose a five-step "best practice" that includes the distribution of contributorship and authorship for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research. They conclude that this procedure involves dialogue and the use of a contributorship taxonomy as well as a declaration explaining contributorship. +
The study aims to explore the role of institutional culture in promoting research integrity. Research participants provide useful insighta in fostering research integrity, especially with regard to relationships and power differences between individuals or groups. +
This article provides several examples of bias in history research with an emphasis on cultural bias. The author concludes that while personal bias can be avoided, cultural bias is not easy to detect or avoid. +
A female physicist is applying for a prestigious job at a top university that has a reputation for being conservative. During the interview the physicist is asked if she has a significant other who works in the same field. Should she answer the question? +
Factual cases of research on people without their approval. +
An introductory series by Marianne Talbot exploring bioethical theories and their philosophical foundations. These podcasts will explain key moral theories, common moral arguments, and some background logic'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003E-QINU`"'. +
This is a factual case describing how an immunologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Luk Van Parijs, was found to be solely responsible for more than 11 incidents of data fabrication in grant applications and papers submitted between 1997 and 2004. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"'
Van Parijs avoided jail after several prominent scientists wrote letters begging for clemency on his behalf and was sentenced to home detention, community service and financial restitution.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000F-QINU`"' +
<br />The Biomedical Alliance in Europe (BioMed Alliance) is a group of 34 European medical societies, with a total of more than 400,000 members, created in 2010 to unite researchers and healthcare professionals and address common issues at the European level. +
The Embassy of Good Science is a wiki platform developed in the EnTIRE project, which was granted in the EU Horizon 2020 programme four years ago. The platform and its relevance for Research Integrity (RI) in Europe and beyond were presented during the final conference of the project, which was held online on October 25th and 26th, 2021. '''This case scenario was submitted as a part of research integrity scenario competition that was held during the second day of the conference.''' +
This is a factual case that describes the reasons for the (potential) retraction of various articles. Most of these articles are retracted due to authorship issues, while others are potentially retracted due to data falsification. One of the articles is retracted because one of the co-authors was not aware of its publication, nor did he permit for the publication. +
This article discusses why faculty plagiarism and fraud happen in business organizations and among students. The authors offer advices to universities to help them develop ethical culture that would reduce the possibility of such research misconducts. Based on these recommendations, universities should create defined policies and standards, develop codes of conduct and guarantee training, among others. +
C
CHAllenges and innovative chaNGes in research Ethics Reviews (CHANGER) is a three-year Coordination and Support Action (CSA) project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon WIDERA programme aiming to promote changes in research ethics reviews by strengthening the capacities of researchers to incorporate ethical judgements in the project design and implementation, and by supporting capacity building of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) to address new challenges posed by new technologies and new research practices. +
These guidelines provide detailed guidance for research institutions, providing standards and best practices for institutions to implement to facilitate the conduct of good, ethical scientific research. +
This is a collection of case studies on publication ethics developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The collection is constantly updated with new cases which are submitted by COPE members. +
This COPE's guide provides basic principles regarding patient's consent for publishing medical case reports. It informs about what information needs to be collected and gives several examples of these forms. +
The COPE core practices are guidelines for all stakeholders involved in academic publishing. They replaced COPE’s previous code of conduct and may be used in addition to national codes of conduct. +
The flowcharts are designed to help editors follow COPE’s Core Practices and implement its advice when faced with cases of suspected misconduct and have been translated into a number of different languages'"`UNIQ--ref-00000037-QINU`"'. +
These educational recourses provide recording of COPE seminars, webinars and COPE PPT presentations. They can serve as introduction regarding all research integrity issues related to publication ethics. +
Two authors wrote to an editorial committee to ask whether they could publish a paper anonymously. The authors work in a general practice, producing research that showed the health-related problems arising from the practice switching one of its contracts from one laboratory to another. The authors did not want to be perceived as assigning blame to any single party. The committee declined to publish the paper anonymously. This is a factual anonymized case. +
The Responsible Conduct of Research Framework describes policies and requirements related to applying for and managing funds from three Canadian Agencies (the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)). Requirements related to performing research, disseminating results, and the processes that institutions and agencies must follow in the event of an allegation of a breach of policy are also outlined.
<br /> +
