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
C
In this article, I discuss calls for access to empirical data within controversies about climate science, as revealed and highlighted by the publication of the e-mail correspondence involving scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in 2009. (J.W. McAllister) +
Reports a procedural stage of a misconduct investigation that aims to clarify wheather researchers had a previous knowledge that their published data were potentially flawed. Under scrutiny is a research paper on whether the apparent rise in temperature readings in the late twentieth century could be an artefact of measurement sites that shifted from the countryside to cities, which are warmer. +
This article describes ethical issues regarding the Study 329. The Study wanted to determine the efficacy and safety of imipramine and paroxetine in the treatment of adolescents with major depression. However, it did not comply with the study protocol and ignored important safety problems, which led to some harmful effects. +
A graduate student discovers that the lab she once worked for plans to publish research in which she played an integral role; she argues for co-authorship. +
The Coalition for the Advancement of Research Assessment’s Working Group on ‘Ethics and Research Integrity Policy in Responsible Research Assessment for Data and Artificial Intelligence (CoARA-ERIP)’ addresses the need for the integration of research ethics and research integrity into digital research practices and the evaluation of scientific research engaging digital transformative tools and (eventually) evaluated by AI. The primary objectives of ERIP are to develop policy, methods, and tools that contribute to ethical and responsible research assessment practices in the context of data and artificial intelligence (AI). This includes establishing principles and standards for the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, as well as for AI and its eventual use the deployment of AI algorithms in research assessment processes. ERIP focuses on three area:<div>A. ‘Detection of AI-generated fake data or writing raises concerns’ [questions of research ethics and research integrity]</div><div>B. ‘Assessing data and AI research’ [how to value digital contributions to knowledge]</div><div>C. ‘The use of data and AI in research assessment’ [how to assess in this new digital research environment]</div>ERIP applies a trans-disciplinary approach across academic and other research institutions throughout Europe and globally. ERIP strives to be a platform that promotes equity in the European and global research community. It engages the full range of scientific research, including students and junior and senior researchers, across all types of research institutions and sectors.
ERIP brings European and global stakeholders together in an open dialogue among researchers, policymakers, funding agencies, and other actors to further the development and implementation of ethical research assessment policies for data and AI.
ERIP improves innovation in research evaluation policy and its implementation across universities and other research institutions regarding the engagement with data and AI methods and tools in scientific research. ERIP engages the cutting edge of transformative technologies and their impact on practices in scientific research, its contributions and communication.
Cochrane is an independent, non-profit organisation aiming to promote evidence-informed decision-making in healthcare, by gathering and summarizing the best and most relevant research in this field. The Cochrane-Library is a collection of high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence, that provides information for professionals and patients in order to enhance healthcare knowledge and decision making. The articles are translated into 14 languages and reviewed by consumers and patients, to ensure the content is easily understandable. The library is freely available and up do date contains over 7.500 articles. +
This document, available in Croatian, lays down the general principles of scientific integrity to be followed by all researchers. It also gives instances of dishonesty in science. +
This document, available here in (unofficial) English translation on the website of the Croatian Science Foundation, provides a set of principles in the area of scientific integrity and ethics that are to serve as guidelines for the professional and public activities of all stakeholders. The guidelines are meant to serve as a means of evaluating scientific conduct, and of promoting ethical and accountable professional and scientific conduct. +
The Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) is a publicly funded autonomous research body that focuses on scientific and technological advancement. In order to the socially relevant and acceptable, scientific endeavors need to conform to ethical good practice principles such as respecting human dignity, the autonomy of research, transparency and social responsibility. In their good practice code, the CSIC elaborates further on the principles of research, obligations of researchers, publication ethics, institutional framework and also include references to the supporting legal documents. +
Because of structural imperatives that overemphasize the good of efficiency (number of publications, h-index), researchers may feel it is not possible to do justice to principles and values related to research integrity (e.g. taking time in order to improve the quality of one publication, rather than publishing as much as possible). In such a situation, a researcher experiences cognitive dissonance and moral distress. The psychological notion of cognitive dissonance refers to the mental discomfort experienced by someone who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The ethical concept of moral distress denotes the experience of a person who knows what is the right thing to do, but is (or feels) unable to act accordingly. +
A group of three scientists fails to agree on the interpretation of their findings. One of the three decides to publish separately, the other two decide to wait for the first researcher's article to be published.
During the course of the project, the first researcher who is in the midst of the publication process, leaves the university. By accident, a fax from the publishing journal is sent to the old university, so the other two scientists discover where the first scientists intends to publish. They contact the journal, argue the first scientists interpretation is wrong and offer the journal their alternative view. +
Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: 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/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ collaborative working between academia and industry and the links with research integrity]'''.
It focuses on issues regarding:
*Conflicts of Interest between academia and industry;
*Data usage and data privacy;
*HARKing (Hypothesizing after the results are known);
*Preregistration of studies;
*Authorship criteria for academic publications;
*The duties of corresponding authors;
*Non-publication of results;
*Divergences in research integrity standards and processes between international collaborators.
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. +
The main goal of this online training is to encourage researchers for collaborative research. It examines benefits and problems that researchers can encounter when collaborating with their colleagues. Apart from the foundation text, the module presents two case studies that explore concrete issues of collaborative research, section with questions and answers as well as resources related to this topic. +
Collaborative working is "the act of two or more people or organizations working together for a particular purpose". '"`UNIQ--ref-0000004D-QINU`"' Collaborative working can cover formal or informal ways to work together. Formal collaborations include research projects under specified research grants, informal collaborations include, for example, networks or alliances.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000004E-QINU`"' Collaborations can be permanent or last for a certain time period. Important for succesfull research collaborations is having good underlying principles providing the basis for agreements of collaborations.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000004F-QINU`"' +
Columbia grad student faked data in study of socioeconomics and life experiences, says retraction notice +
This is a factual case of fake data and misleading conclusions in the field of socio-economics. +
These guidelines contain basic principles and standards for all peer-reviewers. They can be applied across disciplines. +
This document presents a guide for young researchers on the area of authorship, which many people agree is one of the more confused areas. It helps new researchers prevent and resolve authorship problems. In particular it provides:
*suggestions for good authorship practice that should reduce the incidence of such dilemmas,
*advice on what to do when authorship problems do arise, and
*a glossary of key concepts in authorship, with some reading lists and websites for those who wish to take this further.
<br /> +
This study provides information on feasibility and acceptability of a new approach to community consultation and public disclosure (CC/PD) for a large-scale Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trial by encouraging community members in designing and conducting the strategies. The authors argue that this approach has demonstrated a feasible CC/PD plan. +
Een online Community of Practice omgeving die specifiek is ingericht is samen met anderen te werken aan je onderzoeksvaardigheden. In de Communityomgeving kun je op elk gewenst moment (mede)studenten in een besloten online omgeving uitnodigen om samen te werken, te leren, te discussiëren en te delen.
<br /> +
This is a supplement to the Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development, by the US National Science Foundation. It begins with 'a brief overview of the central role of replication in the advancement of science, including definitions of key terminology for the purpose of establishing a common understanding of the concepts'. It also addresses 'the challenges and implications of planning and conducting reproducibility and replication studies within education'. +
