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
[
“''Everybody makes mistakes, even senior researchers, even after twenty years of experience… that makes you realize that we all make mistakes. It’s about how you act when they happen that counts.''” [1]
This initiative concerns an activity that stimulates an open research culture in which research integrity issues can be discussed. The way in which this initiative tries to foster research integrity is through having face-to-face sessions about research integrity in which senior-researchers first share a personal case of ‘sloppy science’ or a research integrity dilemma. By starting with senior-researchers, the session stimulates junior- or other researchers to talk more openly about their obstacles during research projects. Whereas the session mainly aims to foster research integrity, it also stimulates trust in researchers and research so that an open environment and good communication among the researchers is fostered.
[1] ''This text is based on an interview with Mark Dubbelman, PhD student at the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam and current member of the quality committee.'' +
An increasing focus on Research integrity (RI) has provided the impetus for numerous initiatives aimed at fostering good research practice and building public trust in science. These initiatives take various forms, such as codes, guidelines, recommendations, training sessions and workshops. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' Developed by various institutions and groups, including research performing and research funding institutions, as well as journals and governmental bodies, initiatives to promote RI help researchers to become aware of, and to adhere to, good scientific practices.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
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.
Each scenario is targeted at three broad groups:
#Researchers;#Research ethics committees ('RECs') and research integrity offices ('RIOs');#Research administrators.
Each scenario takes the form of a hypothetical narrative interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide deliberations concerning the issues raised by the narrative.
The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with The [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf '''European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity'''] ('ECCRI') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice. They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.
According to the ECCRI, there are eight categories of research ‘contexts’ that are covered by the standards of good research practice. In order to ensure that the set is comprehensive, members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed one scenario for each of the ECCRI's research contexts:
'''1) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead Research Environment]'''
'''2) [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6 Training, Supervision and Mentoring]'''
'''3) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a Research Procedures]'''
'''4) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4 Safeguards]'''
'''5) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674 Data Practices and Management]'''
'''6) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70 Collaborative Working]'''
'''7) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3 Publication and Dissemination]'''
'''8) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183 Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing]'''
The role of the Research integrity champion is to offer an informal opportunity to discuss concerns staff and students have about research integrity, in order to reduce the barriers and doubts often associated with reporting and discussing integrity concerns. The champion is responsible for ''a diverse range of integrity related aspects, such as: the promotion of ''good research practice within the context of the relevant disciplines. But also the responsibility of ensuring that the principles and relevant standards are embedded in cross-University and local guidance, in training and procedures, and integrated into mentorship programmes. Moreover, the champions need to ensure that local advice is available to researchers (staff and students) who are unsure about a research conduct issue and may be considering whether to make an allegation of misconduct. +
The Research Integrity lunch meeting is a monthly meeting taking place at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, connecting researchers interested in research integrity from different projects. The format is a 1-hour interactive get-together, where work in progress and new ideas are presented. Everyone involved in a research integrity related project can sign up as a speaker.
These meetings are organized with the aim of raising awareness of diverse projects and providing a space for networking and sharing expertise, and for the cross-fertilization of ideas. The lunches are not for the presentation of already finished papers. In order to utilize the meetings to the fullest, one person with a related background prepares a brief reflection on the work presented, after which the other participants are invited to ask questions, give feedback, or come up with suggestions. Lunch is provided +
For some, an important aspect of research integrity (RI) training is to make clear links between educational material and the “real life” practices of researchers. Discussing dilemmas in practice can be a valuable method to reflect broadly on how to be ‘good’ researchers. +
REWARD stands for REduce research Waste And Reward Diligence, and it is a campaign initiated by The Lancet in 2014. The aim of the campaign is to reduce waste and maximize value of research. +
Secondary corrections, or errata, are corrections of articles that are made when an article that was cited was retracted or significantly changed. Secondary corrections follow the same format as regular corrections, but in this case, the correction is not about an author’s mistake or error in the publication process. +
The Hong Kong Principles (HKPs) are five principles which were developed during the 6<sup>th</sup> World Conference on Research Integrity and focus on fostering research integrity in the assessment, evaluation and reward system of researchers. The principles were developed by a group of research integrity experts and are meant to be used by research institutions and funding agencies. The five principles, their rationale and examples of implementation have been published as a [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737 journal article] in PLOS Biology.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
With this writing, I hope to emphasize the importance of not only mental, but also physical health in teenagers. They are expected to be intelligent, tough, and healthy. In the academic world, a healthy lifestyle is not valued as highly as it should be. What is the severity of problem that's caused by not many teenagers maintaining healthy lifstyle? How does that impact the young researchers? +
In 1978, the term "imposter syndrome" was used for the first time. According to research, high-achieving women did not internalize their achievement;rather, they attributed it to chance or luck. These women admitted that they were afraid that their peers would suspect them of being incompetent imposters despite their degrees and achievements. Since then, other studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that many academics and professionals suffer from imposter syndrome. For instance, in a study conducted in 2016 with more than 100 medical students, approximately two-thirds of students expressed having those symptoms [1]. +
Many researchers encounter moral conflicts and moral dilemmas in their day-to-day practice. Most research on scientific dilemmas concentrates on questionable research practices or even misconduct suspicions'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'. Few publications address the prevalence and nature of common dilemmas directly. Here, you can find examples of moral dilemma's in daily practice.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
Across the world networks and projects have been established to promote research integrity. These networks and projects aim to foster responsible research integrity practices. +
Acknowledging persons without consent +
Open peer review can mean a few different things. It can be a process in which names of the peer reviewers of papers submitted to academic journals are disclosed to the authors of the papers in question. Sometimes the review texts are published with the accepted papers, and in some forms of open peer review, the reviewers’ names are published along with their comments.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
Peer review in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) differs from peer review in STEM disciplines. It is predominantly double-blinded, with the review process tending to last longer. Criticisms of the peer review system have led to ongoing discussions in the SSH community, and many have called for changes. +
Post publication peer review (PPPR) is a type of peer review where, unlike in the traditional peer review system, the review is done after the manuscript has been published. In post publication peer review, anyone can participate in the assessment of an article and suggest changes for improvement. +
Use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools (such as large language models and chatbots) in peer review is an inevitable occurrence, as well as the ethical considerations surrounding it. The question is how reviewers and editors might responsibly integrate AI (for example, for grammar checks or literature searches) while ensuring that human experts remain responsible for evaluation and that confidentiality is maintained. +
Artificial Intelligence is a broad term, with applications that are not all relevant to issues concerning research and research integrity.
AI Generated Content refers in this instance to texts, academic or otherwise, that are either produced by or in collaboration with AI tools like Chat GPT that use Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate text. These tools can be used in research, and raise interesting questions relating to authorship. +
<span lang="EN-GB">According to Oxford Languages</span> (1), <span lang="EN-GB">AI (Artificial Intelligence) is the application of computer systems capable of performing tasks or producing outputs that normally require human intelligence. Can the AI tools be used for analysis and writing a scientific manuscript? Is it ethical?</span> +
