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
[
Different options for a coordinated approach to research misconduct in Europe are outlined in a new report by the EMBO Science Policy Programme. The report, ‘Governance of research integrity: Options for a coordinated approach in Europe’ '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"', includes an analysis of the current systems for the governance of research integrity in a number of countries, and identifies gaps that could be addressed with a more coordinated approach in Europe. It further explores the advantages and disadvantages of each role for such a body, as well as the pros and cons of different possible structures and funding sources. It also looks at the implementation of a possible European body by a number of European organizations already active in the area of research integrity. Other possible mechanisms to reach a more consistent approach to address misconduct are discussed in the report, including the coordination of procedures used by research performing organizations, funders and publishers. The policy project was supported by an international group of experts who provided input through interviews and in a workshop organised in partnership with the OECD Global Science Forum.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to support the decision-making processes in patient care. A large number of guidelines are available both from medical associations and national health departments. The content of a CPG is based on a systematic review of clinical evidence - the main source for evidence-based care. Guidelines report the quality of the evidence used when they formulate the recommendations. For each recommendation in the guidelines, the level of evidence and strength of the recommendation are defined[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]. The quality of evidence has been defined as “reflecting the extent to which confidence in the estimate of an effect is adequate to support recommendations”[[#%20ftn2|[2]]]. The grading of the recommendations may vary across professional health agencies and scientific societies.
The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group have developed the GRADE system, which is intended as a common, sensible and transparent approach to grading the quality of evidence for the use in clinical guidelines[[#%20ftn3|[3]]]. The GRADE approach has a wide dissemination, with endorsement from more than 50 organizations worldwide, including WHO and Cochrane.
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Cura Della Redazione A. La costruzione delle linee guida [Clinical practice guidelines: what they are and how are developed]. Assist Inferm Ric. 2014;33:214-8.
[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck‐Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE: what is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336:995–8.
[[#%20ftnref3|[3]]] The GRADE working group [Internet]. GRADE [accessed 8 September, 2020]. Available online at: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000001-QINU`"' 2013.
<br /> +
Digital image manipulation is very easy. You might be tempted to make an image more convincing, but simultaneously, no researcher with integrity wants to misrepresent their data. Image manipulation can be classified as scientific misconduct. It can be hard to find the ethical lines of what is and what is not allowed. Also, some images might look suspicious to you as a reviewer or journal editor. Luckily, comprehensive guidelines and tools exist. +
Every institution where research is carried out should have codes that regulate research procedure from its conceptualization to publication. Besides institution guidelines, there should be rules on a national or an even larger scale. Every researcher needs to get familiar with codes that apply to themselves. +
When formal allegations of misconduct are made, institutions handling such allegations must follow certain procedures to ensure that legal and professional rights are not encroached upon. +
When scientists are accused of misconduct their legal rights may be encroached upon. +
Pressures to excel, obtain grants and funding and publish in prestigious journals can take its toll on even the most resilient academics. Concerns about mental health in the academic community have increased in the last couple of years, particularly those concerns regarding the mental health of doctoral students and early-career researchers. +
ORI (The Office of Research Integrity) is an American based platform for all things related to research integrity. Located in the department of Health and Human Services, ORI directs the Public Health Service (PHS) activity on research integrity and affects research institutions both within and beyond federal government programs. The responsibilities of ORI play a critical role in developing and maintaining research integrity. In order to teach and promote research integrity and properly handle and reduce research misconduct, ORI develops policies for detecting and subsequently addressing research misconduct, as well as developing and implementing training programmes for good conduct of research.
Here you can check the latest news in research integrity, inform yourself and learn from cases of misconduct, explore training programs and conferences, and follow their latest grant allocations. ORI offers and annual report and a quarterly newsletter for those interested in how misconduct has been handled and research integrity has been promoted. +
Open Science is the movement to make scientific research outputs accessible to all. Open science is sometimes described as a decentralised and collaborative process, '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' and other times as a philosophical perspective that challenges secrecy and promotes the idea that sharing data and collaboration are inherently good, and in order to promote these, barriers to access research should be removed.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' The key pillars of Open Science include open access to publications, open and FAIR data, and open source code.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
Plan S is an initiative for open-access publishing in science. It was set in motion by research organizations from 12 different European countries. The fundamental aim of Plan S is to mandate publicly funded research organizations and institutions to make their work freely available by publishing their manuscripts in open access journals and repositories. +
The Singapore statement specifies that “Research institutions should create and sustain environments that encourage integrity through education, clear policies, and reasonable standards for advancement, while fostering work environments that support research integrity.”'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
Research integrity advisors have a significant role in promoting research integrity within their institutions. If you have any concerns regarding research integrity issues, or you simply need a piece of advice on research integrity, RI advisors will promptly answer all your question and clear up possible doubts. +
Research integrity (RI) committees contribute to the responsible research conduct as the basis of research behavior, and play a role in dealing with cases of research misconduct and fostering research integrity among different research institutions.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
In order to assess the ethical dimensions of research projects, members of research ethics committees (RECs) need expertise. But what skills constitute expertise? The European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity (ENERI) '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' has identified crucial skills research ethics and research integrity experts should have. Four sets of skills can be distinguished: 1) hard skills, 2) soft skills, 3) process skills, and 4) emotional skills. While only some hard skills are necessary for conferring expert status to an individual, RECs benefit from memberships with diverse skill sets.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) were developed after WW2, particularly in response to the Nazi doctors’ trials. An Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board is responsible for ensuring that medical experimentation and human research are carried out in an ethical manner.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000000-QINU`"' +
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) refers to engaging the public in the research process to better align the goals and outcomes of research with the needs of society and to address societal challenges. +
Through the determination of funding and goals of the scientific community, science policy influences core aspects of all sciences. Science policy defines direction for research activities through investments both in people and equipment. Science policies are usually developed by governmental bodies and/or other stakeholders with any kind of interests in science (e.g., theoretical, practical, financial).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
Teaching sensitive and controversial issues in history education helps students to develop critical thinking, analytical skills and understand the world we live in better. Scholars agree that the question is not ''should'' we teach these issues but ''how'' should we teach them.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000017-QINU`"' The Committee of Ministers'"`UNIQ--ref-00000018-QINU`"' and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe'"`UNIQ--ref-00000019-QINU`"' also highlight the importance of teaching sensitive and controversial issues in history education.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000001A-QINU`"' +
On May 25th, 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) entered into force in Europe. The GDPR sets out the new rules researchers must adhere to when processing personal data.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'Personal data is any data with which a person can be directly or indirectly identified. Researchers should conform to the GDPR principles of data protection to protect the privacy rights of their study participants and avoid legal issues.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
The strength of an institution’s whistleblower protection influences whether people actively report misconduct or decide to passively witness a potential integrity breach. Whistleblower protections also show a given institution’s commitment to scientific integrity +
