Why is this important? (Important Because)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A description to provide more focus to the theme/resource (max. 200 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
M
This LMS is important because it provides '''accessible, structured training''' on key aspects of ethical and regulatory practice in health research, aligned with the '''MRC’s expectations'''. High-quality e-learning helps researchers and staff understand ethical principles, legal requirements, and good research standards, improving compliance and research quality. The availability of assessments and certificates also supports professional development and institutional training programmes. Especially for those involved in clinical or data-intensive research, this centralised platform enhances understanding of complex topics like confidentiality, data protection, and human tissue legislation, helping reduce errors and ensure ethical conduct. +
The case shows the extent of adverse consequences for researchers, patients and research institutes when proper ethical guidelines and practices are not followed. +
Presented by the American Sociological Association, this is an interesting case for research and academic professionals in every field. It poses some thought provoking questions as to one’s ethical obligations towards fulfilling the roles that come with one’s post.
It also gives a glimpse of how competing responsibilities may allow a fall in performance and how academic institutions and their employees can work together towards coming to mutual understanding and agreement on how to promote high standards and improvement. +
This is an interesting case for several reasons. Firstly, it shows that allegations of misconduct are not restricted to individual researchers and their institutions but also to journal editors and publishers; although such cases have so far been less frequently encountered, they are now becoming increasingly common.
Secondly, the specific allegations may appear more difficult to investigate and/or prove as misconduct. One of these two journals, in this specific case, maintain that there was no intention to inflate the impact factor and any excessive self-citation was due to a 'niche' area where no many other journals publish on the topic.
The case is also interesting and can stimulate discussions as to what is a good balance between broad and specialized referencing. +
Besides national research integrity guidelines, University-level guidelines are also crucial in ensuring good research practices. To help staff and students adhere to these practices, this guideline enumerates the principles of good research and what constitutes research misconduct. +
The DMP is created in the planning phase of a research project, and outlines how the (prospective) researcher will create, maintain, protect and store data in an ethical and secure manner, both during and after the project. Thus, it is important to be aware of the standards for good data management. The University also provides links to data management support staff who could optimize researchers' DMPs. +
Since the institution handles large amounts of data on a routine basis, it is important for staff and students to be aware of data protection principles and laws. To ensure compliance to national and international standards, the Manchester University provides detailed guidance to its members who handle personal data. +
The creation of Intellectual Property entails important legal procedures that pertain to ownership, property rights, revenue generation and sharing and dissemination of scholarly work. This guideline details these legal and ethical aspects, as well as provides information on the supporting offices and infrastructure at the university. +
As also described in the article, the incidence of scientific misconduct seems to be increasing.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000014-QINU`"' However, not all scientific misconduct is deliberate, but may also result from insufficient training or a lack of knowledge. The overview and recommendations described in this article may aid in the prevention of such accidental scientific misconduct. Moreover, this resource can also help to uncover more intentional forms of scientific misconduct. It is noted in the article that many cases of scientific misconduct are reported by the thoughtful readers of scientific articles. This article may assist readers and other members of the scientific community in the recognition of the various forms of scientific misconduct. Hopefully, it also convinces them of the importance of reporting these cases. +
Adhering to ethical standards is fundamental to ensure a successful outcome for the medical technology industry, the safe and effective use of medical technology, and the advancement of medical technologies. Besides, this code is endorsed by the Biomedical Alliance in Europe in their Code of Conduct. +
Medical curriculum prepares medical students for their future profession by teaching them the facts and rules of medicine as well as other aspects of medical profession, such as professional behavior and ethics. +
Robert Merton developed his norms as a way to describe what constitutes the ethos of modern science. Since then, research has shown that various practice-based problems still occur, such as research misconduct, falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and questionable research practices. Scientists are still aiming for improvement, and Mertonian norms are still very much relevant. +
Program dahilinde üzerinde durulacak temel kavramlara ilişkin ortak bir anlayışa sahip olabilmek adına katılımcıların yüz yüze eğitime geçmeden önce bu online dersi tamamlaması oldukça önemlidir. +
This case demonstrates that it sometimes can be difficult to distinguish scientific misconduct from scientific errors. It shows that the definition of misconduct can be interpreted in different ways and it shows the importance of education of scientist to prevent ‘unintentional scientific misconduct’ and improve research integrity. +
Data fabrication in clinical trials endangers the health of both current participants and future patients that will be treated with the drug if it is ‘proven’ efficacious. In addition, data fabrication lowers public trust in science. Moreover, data fabrication and stealing of funding money for personal use may lead to the waste of precious research funding budgets on unscientific research. +
The '''PREPARED App''' is important because it offers practical, real-time ethical guidance to researchers working in fragile, crisis-affected, or rapidly changing environments—such as conflict zones, refugee camps, and disaster areas. In these settings, traditional research ethics procedures may be difficult to apply due to limited infrastructure, time pressure, or unstable conditions. The app supports researchers in making responsible decisions that uphold research integrity and protect participants, even when facing complex or urgent dilemmas. It includes scenario-based advice, fast-access to essential documents like the Fragile Settings Code, and tools to help with adapting research protocols quickly. Developed as part of the EU-funded PREPARED project, the app helps bridge the gap between standard ethical guidelines and the realities of working in the field. By empowering researchers with immediate support, it plays a critical role in maintaining ethical standards, minimizing harm, and improving the quality and trustworthiness of research in vulnerable contexts. +
Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day actions and decisions. This might lead them to consider other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own, when faced with day to day moral dilemma. Moreover, the modified version of the RDG helps participants to reflect on their preferred course of action in light of the principles and practices presented in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. +
Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas with others in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day decisions and actions. That might lead them to consider and understand other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own in the light of RI values and the principles outlined in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity when faced a specific moral dilemma. +
A lot of scientific work happens through collaboration. Yet, collaborations can also lead to conflict when there is lack of clarity about the roles of different collaborators, or when expectations are not met. Collaborative work has become more important over the past few decades, partially due to the rise of interdisciplinary research. For instance, the average number of co-authors on research papers for the PNAS rose from 3.9 in 1981 to 8.4 in 2001'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"' .'"`UNIQ--references-0000000F-QINU`"' +
Research integrity can involve a situation of moral conflict. This means that two courses of action are possible, which exclude one another. If one goes for one action, the alternative cannot be realized. Moreover, one has to choose between both actions; a third option, such as not making a choice, is not possible. An example is the choice between adding a person as an author to an article or not. There is no third option: either the person is made author, or not.
A moral conflict implies two conflicting values. In the case of authorship, these values might be gratitude (for a – albeit small - contribution) versus righteousness (acting in line with the authorship guidelines). Sometimes, moral conflicts can be resolved because one of the values clearly overrides the other. Thus, from a research integrity perspective, authorship requirements are more important than gratitude. In order to do justice to the value of gratitude, the person can be mentioned in an acknowledgement.
However, there are examples of situations in research where conflicts can be irresolvable, because the person who has to choose feels the obligation to do justice to two incompatible values. In such cases, one is confronted with a moral dilemma .'"`UNIQ--ref-000002BE-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-000002BF-QINU`"' A moral dilemma is a conflict situation in which the choice one makes causes a moral harm, which cannot be restlessly repaired. Take the example of how to respond when a fellow researcher needs help, but refuses your assistance. In light of the value of care, you should at least try to convince them that support is needed. On the other hand, the value of autonomy might indicate that you should not impose yourself upon them. Whatever you decide to do, you do harm to one of the two values involved. If you choose to try and get them to accept support, they might feel being treated as an incompetent researcher. If you choose to let go, they might get in serious difficulty with their research.
'"`UNIQ--references-000002C0-QINU`"'
