Concept:Activity Stream
From The Embassy of Good Science
Description of concept "Activity Stream"RDF feed
Activity Stream
[[Category:Resource||Guide||Initiative||Instruction||Report||Theme]]
V
W
- WHO Policy on Open Access +
- WIFO AI Guidelines on the Proper Use of Generative Models of Artificial Intelligence +
- Want to make sure your paper gets published? Just do your own peer review like this researcher did +
- Wellcome Open Research +
- Wellcome – Open Access Policy and Guidance (2025) +
- Werte/Tugenden und Normen +
- What Universities can Learn from one of Science’s Biggest Frauds +
- What are the major ethical issues in conducting research? is there a conflict between the research ethics and the nature of nursing? +
- What can we do? +
- What do journal editors do when they suspect research misconduct? +
- What funders can do +
- What happens when an ex-physicist writes about gender identity? +
- What is Recklessness in Scientific Research? +
- What is Research Integrity? +
- What is ethics? +
- What is reproducibility? +
- What is research integrity? +
- What is the evidence for reproducibility in different epistemic contexts? +
- What my retraction taught me +
- What publishers and editors can do +
- What researchers and research ethics committees can do +
- What should a journal do when a scientist who committed misconduct submits a new paper? +
- What to communicate in retraction notices? +
- What's in That Bottle? What's in That Pipe? +
- When Sociologists Deceive Their Subjects +
- When is Advanced Training Necessary? +
- Where are they now? +
- Whistle blowing +
- Whistle-blower Claims his Accusations Cost him his Job +
- Who Owns the Field Notes +
- Who Rules the Ruler? On the Misconduct of Journal Editors +
- Who can make a difference? +
- Who will mentor the mentors? +
- Why do we have to think about ethics during research? 5 Controversial Psychology Experiments +
- Wiki functionalities +
- Withholding Study Purpose +
- Witness to Murder +
- Working with Research Integrity - Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement +
- WorldFAIR +
- Would You Do a Post Doc with this Guy? +
- Write your story +
- Writing usable qualitative health research findings +
X
- XR and General Purpose AI: from values and principles to norms and standards (policy brief) +
- XR in Research: A Case Study +
- XR4Human +
Y
- You want to do what? Paper on anal swabs for COVID-19 retracted for ethical issues +
- You want to do what? Paper on anal swabs for COVID-19 retracted for ethical issues +
- You want to do what? Paper on anal swabs for COVID-19 retracted for ethical issues +
- Your preprint pre-posting checklist +
[
- [OLD] Swedish Research Council's Guidelines on Good Research Practice +
- Collaboration In Research +
- Cross-boundary collaborations +
- High income and low- and middle-income country collaborations +
- Conflict of interest in peer review +
- Conflict of interest: a research integrity and research ethics perspective +
- Editorial conflicts of interest +
- Intellectual conflicts of interest +
- The influence of pharmaceutical company on drug availability +
- Anonymisation and pseudonymisation +
- Data management plans +
- FAIR principles: sharing data for maximisation of results +
- Feedback of findings in genome-wide association studies +
- How to select trustworthy repositories +
- Imputation of missing data in clinical trials +
- Methods to increase data availability +
- Sharing and preserving data in repositories +
- Responsible Use of AI in Research: Balancing Innovation and Integrity +
- Paper Mills +
- Conflicts of interest in the review of grant proposals +
- Industry funded research +
- Intellectual property rights in research collaborations +
- Monitoring funding processes +
- The ethics of managing a laboratory or research group +
- Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company +
- Consent and Assent for Research on Children +
- Informed consent in psychiatry +
- "Met de billen bloot" (airing your dirty laundry) +
- Initiatives promoting research integrity +
- Research Integrity and Research Ethics Scenarios for Teaching +
- Research Integrity champions +
- Research Integrity lunch meetings +
- Research integrity in practice: dealing with everyday dilemmas +
- Reward campaign +
- Secondary corrections +
- The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity +
- Importance of healthy lifestyle +
- Imposter Syndrome +
- Dilemmas in daily practice +
- Networks and projects promoting research integrity +
- Not asking permission from contributors for the wording of the acknowledgement +
- Open peer review - transparent way of gatekeeping science +
- Peer Review in the Social Sciences and Humanities +
- Post-publication peer review +
- AI Generated Content +
- Balancing harms and benefits +
- Clarifying the aims of a research study +
- Conducting research in high risk locations +
- Confidentiality +
- Ethical considerations in dealing with human remains +
- Ethical issues in qualitative research +
- Ethical issues of involving children with disabilities in research +
- Incidental research findings +
- Informed assent +
- Informed consent +
- Internet Research Ethics +
- Privacy in research +
- Research with animals +
- Research with children +
- Research with humans +
- Vulnerable and non-competent subjects in clinical trials +
- Affiliations +
- Anonymous Authorship +
- Authorship criteria +
- Consent for publication (Author) +
- Consent for publication (Participant) +
- High Integration of Research Monographs in the European Open Science (HIRMEOS) +
- Initiative for Open Abstracts (I4OA) +
- Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) +
- Open access publishing: the new norm? +
- Publishers - COPE guidelines +
- Retractions: correcting the scientific literature +
- Standards of authorship +
- Communicate results to the general public before a peer reviewed publication is available +
- Data driven hypotheses without disclosure (‘HARKing’) +
- Duplicate publications and secondary publications +
- Funding (Sponsorship) bias +
- Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing) +
- Improper data use (a bias distorting research results) +
- Inaccurate representation of results in the media +
- Inferring from P-values +
- Insufficiently reported study flaws and limitations +
- Non-reporting of negative findings +
- Outcome reporting bias +
- P-value hacking +
- Publication bias (positive results) +
- Salami publication +
- Selective citation +
- Spin of research results +
- (re)submitting without consent of all authors +
- Being grossly unfair to your collaborators +
- Fake peer-reviewing +
- Gender bias +
- Honorary or gift authorship +
- Hostile peer review +
- Inappropriate authorship +
- Not acknowledging contributors who do not qualify for authorship +
- Research collaboration +
- Self-plagiarism +
- Take no full responsibility for the integrity of the research project and its reports +
- Turning a blind eye to breaches of integrity +
- Unfair reviewing +
- Inadequately handle or store data or (bio)materials +
- Keeping inadequate notes of the research process +
- Ignoring substantial safety risks of studies +
- Inappropriate study design +
- Non-disclosure of changes to the research design +
- Posing irrelevant research questions +
- Perverse incentives +
- Polarized research +
- Predatory publishing +
- Questionable research practices & research misbehaviors +
- Forensic Statistics to detect Data Fabrication +
- Preregistration of animal study protocols +
- Prospective registration of clinical trials +
- Statistical pre-registration +
- Connecting researchers through ORCID +
- Digital humanities +
- Discipline specific codes and guidelines on research integrity +
- Governance of research integrity: Options for a coordinated approach in Europe +
- Grading the quality of evidence in clinical practice guidelines +
- Image Integrity +
- Institutional codes of conduct for research integrity +
- Institutional policies and procedures for research misconduct +
- Legal rights of accused scientists +
- Mental health in academia +
- ORI - The Office of Research Integrity +
- Open Science +
- Plan S +
- Reasonable standards for career advancement +
- Research Integrity Advisors +
- Research Integrity Committees +
- Research ethics committee members' skills +
- Research ethics committees +
- Research integrity officers in Europe +
- Responsible Research and Innovation - RRI +
- Science policy +
- Teaching sensitive and controversial issues in divided societies +
- The impact of the GDPR on scientific data +
- Whistleblower protection/rights +
- Altmetrics +
- Eigenfactor +
- H-index +
- Journal Impact Factor +
- Journal Impact Factor based on the date of electronic publication +
- SCImago Journal Rankings +
- Fabrication +
- Falsification +
- Plagiarism +
- Peer review card game +
- Research integrity training for PhD students +
- Research integrity training for diverse disciplines +
- Respectable and honest supervision ensures responsible and ethical research in the future. +
- Responsible supervision +
- Serious gaming in research integrity education +
- Superb Supervision: integrity training for supervisors +
- Supervision +
- Supervision Guidelines +
- The ConScience App - theatre play +
- The Dilemma Game +
- The learning curve - theatre play #MeTooAcademia +
- Empathy in History Research and Education +
- Falsifiability and Attractor States in Scientific Theories: A Framework for Evaluating Evidence +
c
- cOAlition S Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications +
f
h
i
- iRECS +
- improving Reproducibility In Science (iRISE) +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics module 1 audio 1 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 10 Audio Transcript 1 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 10 Video Transcript 1 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 10 video 1 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 11 audio transcript 1 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 11 audio transcript 2 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 11 hotspots Research as Continuum +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 12 audio transcript 1 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 12 audio transcript 2 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 13 Audio Transcript 1 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 13 Video Transcript +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 13 video Critical Reflection +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 14 Audio Transcript +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 15 Audio Transcript 1 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 15 Audio Transcript 2 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 15 hotspots A Model for Critical Thinking in Ethics +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 16 Quiz +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 2 quiz 1 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 2 quiz 2 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 2 quiz 3 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 2 quiz 4 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 3 Audio Transcript 1 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 3 Audio Transcript 2 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 3 Video Transcript 1 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 3 video 1 The Problem Of Induction +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 4 Audio Transcript 1 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 5 Audio Transcript 1 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 5 Video Transcript 1 Audio Transcript 2 +
- irecs Critical thinking, standpoint & ethics step 6 Audio Transcript 1 +
