What are the best practices? (Has Best Practice)
From The Embassy of Good Science
[
Experts in their respective fields and organizations who are in charge of creating clinical practice guidelines should be aware of discrepancies that may arise if the grading system is not well defined. Ratings of quality of evidence should be transparent and based on detailed and clear criteria, so it can be used by clinicians and patients. However, it can't be expected of clinicians or patients to comprehend a variety of grading systems. A simple, transparent grading of the recommendation, such as the GRADE system, is an example of a good solution. It's the system that provides their users to assess the judgments behind recommendations regarding health care. +
The Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) has a dedicated webpage on image integrity. They identified some of the most important sources and tools on the subject (available [https://www.kuleuven.be/english/research/integrity/practices/image-processing here], accessed on 24-04-2020). As their page is brief, a more elaborate description of what it contains, and additional sources, follows below.
Rossner & Yamada (2004)'"`UNIQ--ref-00000281-QINU`"' wrote a prominent article arguing for a standard for image integrity. Working as Editors for The Journals of Cell Biology, they noticed the discrepancies between guidelines on image integrity journals gave to their authors (if any). To have a comprehensive overview, they developed their own guidelines for the Journal of Cell biology. They write that, for every aspect of the guideline, the main question is: “Is the image that results from this adjustment still an accurate representation of the original data?”'"`UNIQ--ref-00000282-QINU`"' (p. 5). Whenever the answer is ‘no’, researchers should provide a detailed description of the adjustments, its purpose and the original image on request. If not, their actions might be regarded as misconduct.
A step-by-step translation of the guideline is available on the website of American Journal Experts (access [https://www.aje.com/en/arc/avoiding-image-fraud-7-rules-editing-images/, here], accessed on 24-04-2020) and on the KU Leuven webpage. A similar guideline, and additional editorials on the subject, are given by the journal Nature on their editorial policies page (available [https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/image-integrity here], accessed on 24-04-2020).
The Center for Ethics and Values in the Sciences, of the University of Alabama in Birmingham, created a website for both students and researchers with much material regarding image integrity (available [https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/RIandImages/default.html here], accessed on 24-04-2020). They provide guidelines with more in depth explanations and illustration videos, but also educational material such as case studies, discussion hand outs and a quiz.
The Office of Research Integrity provides a tutorial on how to use ‘action sets’ in photoshop (available [https://ori.hhs.gov/actions here], accessed on 24-04-2020). These actions sets allow you to document the changes you make to an image and ‘slide’ (i.e. going back and forward) between all the steps you made. The process of the image you manipulated will hereby be completely transparent if you provide the ‘action set’ combine with a copy of the original image.
For those reviewing papers, a free open source program, called InspectJ, is available on GitHub to identify cloning, stitching, patching and erased objects within an image. An advanced version also provides histogram equalization and gamma correction for improved image inspections (both available [https://github.com/ZMBH-Imaging-Facility/InspectJ here], accessed on 24-04-2020)
'"`UNIQ--references-00000283-QINU`"'
There should be an open dialogue about research practices between all levels of staff at an institution. The guidelines themselves, as a written set of rules should be easily accessible. All procedures should have a level of transparency and there should be secure channels of contact in case of concern about certain practices being planned out or implemented. +
The [https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity European Code of Conduct] states that fairness and integrity are most important for procedures for investigating misconduct, principles to be followed are also stated.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003B-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000003C-QINU`"' +
This is still a novel area of research. Official advice and policies regarding the prevention of mental health problems in academia is lacking. However, previous research has established connections between organizational climate and health '"`UNIQ--ref-000000BF-QINU`"'. Suggested actions to combat the rise of mental health problems in academia include raising awareness, creating more dialogue, providing training on mental health and emotional wellness, effective mentoring practices, monitoring mental health via anonymous surveys, and providing free counseling sessions for those marked as symptomatic or at high-risk. What should also be considered is the need to establish official policies that reward researchers not just for their scientific output and ability to obtain funding, but also for their educational, mentoring and “wellness” practices. '"`UNIQ--ref-000000C0-QINU`"'
[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:D3784352-c18f-4c40-b862-d9ee2afabb0a This guide] was developed during the COVID pandemic by the department of Experimental Immunology of Amsterdam UMC and is implemented by this department to talk about stress with their PhD-candidates.
'"`UNIQ--references-000000C1-QINU`"' +
When submitting the final, written output of their research, researchers can publish it in an Open Access Journal. The [https://doaj.org/ DOAJ] indexes more than 13k of open access, high quality and peer-reviewed journals. Given that only a small portion of these open access journals require payment of an Article Processing Charge (APC),'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"' researchers can choose from a variety of journals. At the same time, researchers can post a preprint of their article to a preprint server (a list of preprint servers, organised by discipline is available [https://osf.io/preprints/ here]).
Research data can also be stored online in a research data repository. For an extensive list of repositories researchers can check [https://www.re3data.org/ Registry of Research Data Repositories] and [http://databib.org/ Databib]. [https://zenodo.org Zenodo] is among the well-known repositories that allows researchers to archive various digital artefacts such as data sets, research software, reports, posters.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000C-QINU`"' +
The main principle of Plan S states that all research funded from public or private grants must be openly accessible when published. There are, in addition, ten sub-principals:
#Authors should have copyright of their publications, which should be made available under a Creative Commons Attribution license;
#Robust criteria for evaluation in high-quality open access journals, platforms and repositories should be developed;
#Funders should provide incentives to establish and support open access journals where there aren’t any;
#Funders should cover the cost of publication fees;
#Funders should support the diversity of business models for open access journals and platforms;
#Funders should ensure transparency by supporting alignment of strategies, policies and practices;
#Monographs and book chapters should have a longer process of achieving open access;
#Hybrid models of publishing should be only be a means of transforming to full open access;
#Funders should monitor compliance;
#Research outputs should be assessed on the basis of their internal value, and not their scientometric characteristics. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000274-QINU`"'
In September 2018, 11 national research funding organizations (from Austria, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom) signed a commitment to implement all that is necessary for the Plan S mission by 1<sup>st</sup> January 2020.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000275-QINU`"' +
The Qualification portfolio, implemented by Utrecht UMC. To be described in further detail elsewhere on The Embassy. +
Research integrity advisors are experienced researchers with in-depth knowledge of research integrity and research ethics. They are appointed by the university to serve the complex role of dealing with all sort of questions related to research integrity practices, procedures, and issues.
For example, in Australia, universities have established research integrity advisors’ teams to assist researchers and research students in conducting research with integrity and advise them on questions that may arise during the research process. If you are not sure who to talk with, the universities web pages contain lists of RIAs and guidance on when to approach to an advisor. '"`UNIQ--ref-000002C4-QINU`"' At Melbourne University, RIAs also have a responsibility to report alleged cases of research misconduct to authorized bodies. '"`UNIQ--ref-000002C5-QINU`"'
In Europe, for example, in Denmark, some Danish research institutions (e.g., Aarhus University) have special advisors for supporting the good scientific practice. '"`UNIQ--ref-000002C6-QINU`"' Moreover, LARI (Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity) provides research ethics consultations to researchers of all levels. While LARI advisors are not officially called RI advisors, they still have a similar role. '"`UNIQ--ref-000002C7-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000002C8-QINU`"' +
The organizational structures of RI committees and their responsibilities regarding cases of research misconduct may vary. In some countries, RI committees (or commissions) are established at the national level, hence their responsibility is to handle cases of research misconduct, or serve as an advisory body, for all research institutions within state borders (e.g. National Commission for Research Integrity-Luxembourg, Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, Danish Committee on Research Misconduct (DCRM), Commission for Research Integrity-Austria, French Office for Scientific Integrity, Netherlands Board on Research Integrity). For example, the Danish law on research misconduct stipulates the responsibility of the DCRM to handle the cases of research misconduct, while each institution has a responsibility to process cases of questionable research practices.
Some RI committees are established as a part of research integrity organisations, providing training and other educational activities for researchers (e.g. the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity, the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity).
In some countries, dealing with cases of research misconduct is the responsibility of research institutions and institution-based committees as there is no national body to handle investigations and process cases of misconduct. An example of the latter is Sweden, where each research institution is responsible for conducting an investigation of research misconduct and to impose a sanction.
All these RI bodies, both at the national and institutional level, are doing important work in the field of research integrity promotion and guiding researchers with the principles of good scientific practices. There are numerous documents, issued by RI bodies and committees in the form of guidelines and checklist, as well as documents describing committees’ procedures when dealing with misconduct allegations. Some European examples are: Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity, FNR Research Integrity Guidelines, Guidelines for the Investigation of Misconduct (by the Irish National Forum), Roadmap for Scientific Integrity 2020 (OFIS), Integrity and responsibility in research practices (CNRS-CPU), Scientific integrity guideline(CNRS), TENK Guidelines.
ENERI has recently published an insightful policy brief on what makes a research ethics and research integrity expert. Based on a participatory research design culminating in a series of consensus conferences with 50 stakeholders from various positions within or close to academia, ENERI has found the following skills to be particularly useful for REC members:
'''Hard skills'''
*comprehensive knowledge of relevant guidelines, regulations, and laws
*experience with ethical assessments or academic qualifications in relevant disciplines, like philosophy or law
*research experience
*legal expertise
*analytical skills
*the ability to think critically
'''Soft skills'''
*Communicative skills
*interpersonal skills
*attention to detail
*the ability to manage and resolve conflicts
*the ability to work collaboratively
'''Process skills'''
*administrative and management skills
*decision-making skills
*the ability to transform abstract theoretical ideas into practical recommendations
'''Emotional skills'''
*open mindedness
*independence
*awareness of social norms and the likely consequences of breaching them
*personal commitment
According to ENERI, RE experts individually inevitably need hard skills, but do not necessarily have to possess all soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills. However, all soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills should be present on the institutional level in RECs which, therefore, should have a diverse membership with complementary skills.
The role of the chair role is particularly crucial. The chair needs to have broad soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills to guarantee that all represented perspectives are included in assessment, review, and advice procedures. Hence, chairpersons need more skills than ordinary board members due to the pivotal position they occupy in organizing inclusive deliberations. +
Several documents and declarations have been developed in relation to ethical research committees. The European Network of Research Ethics Committees - EUREC is a network that brings together existing national Research Ethics Committees, networks or comparable initiatives on the level of European Union. RECs can be established for each academic institution and/or universities. In the United States, Institutional Review boards (IRBs) exist in both academic and state institutions. +
The details of an RIO's job vary from country to country, but the position is mandatory in many.
In the United States, any institution that receives Public Health Service funding reports to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the Department of Health and Human Services. A RIO serves as the liaison between the ORI and their institution. By law, they ensure that the institution has policies and procedures for investigations and reports these to the ORI.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000222-QINU`"' They also contribute to investigations that lead to retractions, expulsions, and (sometimes) arrests.
In the European Union, each country has slightly different requirements and roles for their RIOs, but their task is essentially the same. The European Network of Research Integrity Officers serves as the expert agency in the EU, assisting RIOs with advice and guidance.
With the increasing pace of scientific publications, an RIO's job is more important than ever. They serve an essential role in the scientific community. They protect individual researchers from accidental missteps. They protect the public from poor, fraudulent, and fabricated science. They protect the whole scientific community by building public trust. An RIO serves on the front lines of scientific integrity. They're present to guide researchers and foster trust in institutions. RIOs exist to protect science and are a resource for researchers who need guidance or help with misconduct questions.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000223-QINU`"' +
The ‘Research; Increasing value, reducing waste’ project, led by The Lancet medical journal, provides an excellent example of an RRI approach. This project aims to address deficiencies in the medical research system that reduce the value of research and often result in significant financial loss caused by inadequate research agendas, flawed research designs, not publishing negative results, and poorly reporting findings.
In order to increase the value of research and reduce waste, the project adopted four RRI process requirements: diversity and inclusiveness, transparency and openness, anticipation and reflection, as well as responsiveness and adaptation to change. Inclusion of patients and medical caregivers in setting the right research agenda is recommended to increase diversity in the research process. The project proposes that research should be more transparent and open, and supports a full and public documentation of the research process. The project also highlights a need to discuss current practices that lead to wasted effort. Finally, a series of five papers published in The Lancet offers 17 recommendations that outline the changes that should be made to current structures and systems'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003A-QINU`"'.
RRI is not just about better science from a scientist’s point of view; it is a continuous effort to talk to diverse societal actors and involve them in the research process, through meaningful conversations and contributions beyond “just” being a participant'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003B-QINU`"'. Various activities for bringing more awareness to research processes, such as science cafés or open lab days, are just a part of the framework'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003C-QINU`"'. Collaboration with small enterprises and social innovators, as well as citizen scientists, is also a crucial part of RRI. It involves the improvement of science and society through mutual sharing of expertise and experiences.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000003D-QINU`"' +
Different types of scientific policy may be adopted. Sometimes investment in basic research is preferred. In these cases the expectation is that some kind of breakthrough will result in a vast array of new technologies which will then be commercialized and pay back the investments. Other times the focus may be on technology development, and more support for engineering than basic science. The most extreme examples of such science policies are the Manhattan project'"`UNIQ--ref-00000295-QINU`"' and the Space projects pursued by the US and the Soviet Union in the second half of the 20th century.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000296-QINU`"' +
In these situations, history teachers are mediators between different and sometimes conflicting collective memories.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000029-QINU`"' Teaching topics such as the civil war in Northern Ireland, where everyday life reminds its population about their divisions due to past and present conflicts is particularly difficult for history teachers who teach in that area.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002A-QINU`"' According to recent findings, many teachers feel uncertain and underprepared when teaching controversial and sensitive issues because of the fear of the emotional reaction in the classroom, perception of pressures from school, parents, local community or state or even because of their own beliefs and identities.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000002C-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-0000002D-QINU`"'This is why some European universities offer courses on teaching controversial and sensitive issues in history education with aim of preparing future teachers for these challenges.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002E-QINU`"'
Providing students with balanced academic approach of these issues'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002F-QINU`"' is necessary to help them understand that almost every historical topic is open to different interpretations,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000030-QINU`"' particularly when teaching these issues in societies with opposite narratives. That is an opportunity for a multi-perspective approach,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000031-QINU`"' but also for developing students’ ability to deal with controversial issues and debating with people who do not share their opinion.
Main strategies teachers can use when dealing with these issues in the classroom are:
-distancing strategy (when an issue is highly sensitive in the community where the teacher is teaching or when the class is polarized. This strategy proposes examining analogies and parallels or going back further in time to trail the history of the issue that is being discussed).
-compensatory strategy (when students are expressing attitudes based on ignorance, when the minority is being bullied or discriminated against by the majority or when there is consensus in the class in favor of one particular interpretation. In these cases, teachers can play the devil’s advocate, highlight contradictions in students’ responses or demythologize popular beliefs).
-empathetic strategy (when the issue involves a group or nation which is unpopular with the students, when the issue involves latent discrimination against some group or where the issue is distant from the students’ own lives. Teachers can use several methods, such as role reversals, for-and-against lists, role play and simulations and also vicarious experience through examining films, novels or documentaries).
-exploratory strategies (when the issue is not clearly defined or where the teacher’s aim is also to use the issue as a tool to develop analytical skills. In such conditions, students can explore people’s diaries and memoirs or conduct oral history).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000032-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000033-QINU`"'
Researchers that work with personal data can consult the GDPR online [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679 here]. In 2020 the European Data Protection Supervisor issued [https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/20-01-06_opinion_research_en.pdf A Preliminary Opinion on data protection and scientific research].
You should also be able to contact your local Data Protection Officer or study supervisor for more information on handling personal data. +
Whistleblower protections are an important element in an institution's ethics code, describing procedures to deal with allegations and violations of misconduct. There is general agreement within the scientific community that reporting misconduct is essential in the prevention and management of misconduct and that whistleblowers should be provided adequate safeguards. Whistleblower protections also support a culture of scientific integrity within an institution. However, policies on researchers’ duties to report and the consequent protections differ significantly by institution and country.
[https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] '"`UNIQ--ref-00000238-QINU`"'contains the following guidance in the section “Dealing with Violations and Allegations of Misconduct”:
"National or institutional guidelines differ as to how violations of good research practice or allegations of misconduct are handled in different countries. However, it always is in the interest of society and the research community that violations are handled in a consistent and transparent fashion. The following principles need to be incorporated into any investigation process.[…] Procedures are conducted confidentially in order to protect those involved in the investigation. Institutions protect the rights of ‘whistleblowers’ during investigations and ensure that their career prospects are not endangered."
In the UK it seems that universities develop a specific whistleblowing policy for different misbehaviours (grievance, bullying and harassment, discipline, research misconduct). As an example, we refer to the [https://le.ac.uk/~/media/uol/docs/about-us/policies/whistleblowing-policy-updated-may-2017.pdf document of the University of Leicester],'"`UNIQ--ref-00000239-QINU`"' which guarantees confidentiality for whistleblowers:
"The University will treat disclosures of information made under this Policy in a confidential and sensitive manner. The identity of individuals making allegations may be kept confidential, if requested by the individual(s) concerned, so long as it does not hinder or frustrate any investigation. In this event, the University will consult the individual before it takes any further action which might break the initial confidentiality. It should be recognised, however, that the investigation process may, of necessity, reveal the source of the information and, as part of the investigation, an individual making a disclosure may need to provide a statement as part of the evidence required."
In the USA, whistleblowers have well established legal protection. The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 strengthened protection for federal employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse in government operations.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000023A-QINU`"'
There are different online companies offering altmetrics services. Some of them are Altmetric, Impactstory, and Plum Analytics.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000096-QINU`"' They can track HTML views and PDF downloads, shared articles on social media platforms, saved and cited items. Altmetrics scores are often indicators of how popular an article is online with the general public. Unlike typical research metrics, Altmetrics software enables the user to track the dissemination of publications in real time. Some publishers have started offering their readers this information (BioMed Central, PLOS, Nature, Elsevier). Some argue that this form of metric is not a good indicator of popularity or quality, as social media activity and time of publication can have a big influence on the metric. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000097-QINU`"' There seems to be no correlation between citations and altmetrics.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000098-QINU`"' +
The website [http://www.eigenfactor.org/ www.eigenfactor.org] reports measures for publications indexed by JCR as well as journals, books, newspapers, and other reference items that are referred to by these publications.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000016F-QINU`"' The number of journals has increased each year. In 1997 the website listed 6,439 journals, whereas in 2014 it measured influence of 11,200 journals.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000170-QINU`"'
Two principle scores are calculated: Eigenfactor score and Article Influence score. Eigenfactor scores are scaled so that the scores of all journals listed in JCR sum up to 100. If a journal has an Eigenfactor score of 1.0, it has 1% of the total influence of all indexed publications. In 2014, the journal PLoS One had the highest Eigenfactor score, with a value of 1.533.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000171-QINU`"' Since larger journals will have more citations, they will subsequently have larger Eigenfactor scores.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000172-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000173-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000174-QINU`"' However, the most prestigious journals are not necessarily the largest, but the ones that receive the most citations per article. With regards to that, the Article Influence score measures the influence of a journal per article. It is calculated as a journal’s Eigenfactor Score divided by the number of articles in that journal and normalized so that the average article in the JCR has an Article Influence score of 1.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000175-QINU`"' Therefore, if an Article Influence score of a journal is 3.0, then the articles of that journals are on average three times as influential as the average article in JCR.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000176-QINU`"' In 2014, the journal CA-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians had the highest Article Influence score, with value of 3.95.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000177-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000178-QINU`"' +
