What are the best practices? (Has Best Practice)
From The Embassy of Good Science
D
The Irish national statement for research integrity <sup>7</sup> is developed in line with the ECoC.
- Principles of Research Integrity
- Research Misconduct
- Collaboratiosns +
The philosophical importance of dialogue has been elaborated in philosophical hermeneutics. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000027A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000027B-QINU`"'
Moral Case Deliberation is an example of group reflection on moral issues through dialogue.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000027C-QINU`"' In MCD, a morally troublesome situation is investigated by a group, guided by a facilitator. During the investigation, the conflicting values in the situation are examined in dialogue.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000027D-QINU`"' +
Failures to disclose conflicts of interests should be investigated on the basis of institutional codes of conduct for research integrity. +
E
Core parts of the learning pathways are based on case studies because experience has shown that they are particularly suitable to promote knowledge and foster skills conducive to acting ethically and with integrity in research. More specifically, the case studies allow learners to reflect on what they have learned and to apply newly acquired skills to concrete examples. Moreover, learners can assess their knowledge by answering a set of questions and obtaining feedback on their responses via email. Thus, the ENERI Classroom is an interactive and responsive learning platform.
The cases in the resources section on the Embassy as well as the educational scenarios developed by the EnTIRE project that are available in the educational resources section can complement the ENERI Classroom by adding further issues of interest and/or elaborating existing ones. +
The ENERI Decision Tree summarizes and links to many important laws, regulations, codes and other documents that can help researchers to work ethically and with integrity and that can support RECs and RIOs in performing their roles adequately and fulfilling their responsibilities. More detailed information on all topics covered in the Decision Tree is available in the ENERI Manual on Research Ethics and Research Integrity. Besides, the [[Resource:C386dbba-2f69-4257-89c2-903898cf1f12|ENERI Classroom]] as well as the [[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|VIRT2UE Training Guide]] provide access to educational materials on research ethics and research integrity that help fostering skills conducive to ethical reflection.
Furthermore, the [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Special:BrowseData/Resource?_search_Resource_Type%5B0%5D=Cases cases] in the resources section of the Embassy as well as the educational scenarios developed by EnTIRE that are available in the [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Special:BrowseData/Resource?_search_Resource_Type%5B0%5D=Education educational resources] section can be used for further reflections and deliberations on specific research ethics and research integrity problems. +
All European Academies (ALLEA) published a revised and updated European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC), in which it emphasized the importance of addressing ethics and research integrity. The ECoC defines principles and practices of good research, and includes the virtues of reliability, honesty, respect and accountability. Usually philosophers consider honesty and the following characteristics to be epistemic virtues: attentiveness, benevolence (principle of charity), creativity, curiosity, discernment, humility, objectivity, parsimony, studiousness, understanding, warranty, and wisdom. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000300-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000301-QINU`"' +
- Exercising necessary care and competence, even in the face of pressure
- Exercise social responsibility
- Data management and publication practices
- Ensure that research is free from vested interests +
The ASA Ethical Guidelines present the responsibilities that researchers have with research participants, funders, sponsors, employers, host governments and the discipline of anthropology in general. +
Best practices in digital psychiatry focus on balancing innovation with patient rights and safety. Protecting privacy is key, as mental health data is sensitive and vulnerable to misuse. Transparency is essential—patients should know how digital tools work and how their data is handled.
AI and digital tools should support, not replace, human care. Digital mental health tools should undergo rigorous testing to prove their effectiveness and safety.
Improving digital literacy can help people make informed choices about their care. Ethical guidelines and clear regulations should evolve alongside technology to protect patients and ensure responsible innovation. By prioritizing fairness, privacy, and accountability, digital psychiatry can truly benefit those who need it most. +
F
The movies included in the final selection are:
*And the band played on (1993)
*Awakenings (1990)
*Creation (2009)
*Dallas Buyers Club (2013)
*Extreme measures (1996)
*Kinsey (2004)
*Lorenzo's oil (1992)
*On being a scientist (2016)
*Silkwood (1983)
*Star Trek 'Nothing human' (1998)
*The boys from Brazil (1978)
*The China syndrome (1979)
*The Fly (1986)
*The Insider (1999)
*The Island (2005)
*The Lawnmower man (1992)
*Wit (2001) +
Part Three (pages 161-224): Fostering Integrity in Research
Chapter 9 (page 163): [https://www.nap.edu/read/21896/chapter/1#content-toc_pz15-2 Identifying and Promoting Best Practices for Research Integrity]
Chapter 10 (page 195): [https://www.nap.edu/read/21896/chapter/1#content-toc_pz15-3 Education for the Responsible Conduct of Research] +
This Framework sets out the elements of a collaborative agreement that can be enhanced with regards to good research practices. +
==Funders and research ethics==
Reporting standards and ethics regulations vary between funding organizations. The European Commission has developed an elaborate procedure for ensuring that funded projects satisfy ethical requirements. In order to complete one´s application for funding within Horizon 2020, one must fill out an extensive ethics self-assessment. All projects that qualify for funding are subject to an ethics review procedure. The outcome of the ethical committee can influence the requirements funders have for the study. If ethical issues are judged to be particularly severe or complex, certain monitoring procedures may be required, such as engaging an ethics advisor or an ethics board within the project.
The Missenden Code of Practice for Ethics and Accountability'"`UNIQ--ref-000001BB-QINU`"' was drawn up to promote ethical research in British universities in the face of growing pressure from industry and private funders. The Missenden code identifies eight difficulties that some universities have encountered through their collaborations with industry: i) Safeguarding Academic Freedom; ii) Tasking an ‘Ethics Committee’; iii) Defending the Academic’s Right to Publish; iv) Protecting Intellectual Property Rights; v) Meeting the Student Expectation; vi) Preparing for Controversy; vii) Managing the New Model University; viii) Sourcing Alternative Funding. The code addresses each one of the difficulties using case studies, and makes 14 suggestions to help universities respond to the development of commercial funding of university research.
==Funders and research integrity==
The current climate for research funding is highly competitive. Many high-quality grant applications are rejected. Research shows that ‘high ranked’ institutions in the US were 65% more likely to succesfully receive grants, and received 50% more awards.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001BC-QINU`"' At the same time, lower ranked institutions had a higher impact with the research they performed.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001BD-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000001BE-QINU`"' This finding may be indicative of funding bias. Moreoever, a highly competitive funding climate can feed perverse incentives. On the one hand, funders rely on assessment criteria, which include publication records and journal impact factors. As a result, researchers may strive to get as many papers published as possible without due care for the integrity of their research. On the other hand, researchers may feel the need to exagarate the expected impact of the proposed research or exagarate their skills and qualitifications.
Nontheless, RFO’s can implement policies fostering research integrity. For example, the Wellcome Trust in the UK provides a ‘transition support fund’ for PhD students. '"`UNIQ--ref-000001BF-QINU`"' The fund can be used after the completion of a PhD project, and the student can decide how they want to further their career by using the fund as they see fit. The fund can be used, for instance, to write another paper or to do an internship.
RFOs can also develop initiatives to combat perverse incentives. For instance, many funders have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, or DORA.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001C0-QINU`"' The declaration’s aim is to reduce the use of journal impact factors in funding evaluations. Instead, other indicators, such as altmetrics, should be used. Implementing DORA in reviewing grant proposals can mean evaluating a researcher by asking about their most important publication, the impact of their previous research, and their other qualifications besides publications. '"`UNIQ--ref-000001C1-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000001C2-QINU`"'
G
General Code of Ethics in Scientific Research (Romanian Ministry of Education, Research and Youth) +
- Responding to misconduct +
The BRIDGE guidelines are the proposed best practices +
Apart from its work on concrete inquiries, the Commission states that its aim is to play a critical role in further developing the guidelines governing good scientific practice. It sees the alignment of legal requirements with the principles of research integrity as a key task for the future. To that end, the Commission states that it will initiate a regular forum on "Good Scientific Practice and the Law". +
TENK launched the Research Integrity Adviser system in order to raise awareness of the responsible conduct of research in Finland, to increase personal guidance on research integrity, and to offer expert training on responsible conduct of research and procedures.
TENK advised various parties on mechanisms to resolve allegations of research misconduct as well the guidelines for handling alleged violations.
TENK coordinates the ethical review of research in the field of human sciences and promotes cooperation between regional and institutional research ethics committees. The Board annually monitors the state of ethical review in universities and research institutions by gathering information on the cases handled by research ethics committees.
TENK established a working group to update the guidelines for the ethical review of research in the field of human sciences in order to meet the requirements of the new General Data Protection Regulations ('GDPR'). +
The Plagiarism Control Group checks the research proposals submitted to the SNSF both at random (5% of all submissions) and when it is alerted to potential research integrity cases by persons outside the SNSF.
The SNSF uses the ''iThenticate'' software, produced by Turnitin, in order to compare research proposals with texts on the internet and scientific databases. Only results with a similarity index of ≥ 10% and/or the largest possible degree of correspondence of >200 words are followed up. +
- Authorship acknowledgements
-Journal reviewing practices
<br /> +
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. +
