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
O
The university that considered the complaint did not consider the matter to fall within the scope of a violation of research integrity nor did it consider the guidelines for responsible conduct of research to cover internet comments made by an employee during their spare time.
According to the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity ('TENK'), the internet comments put the limits of its guidelines for responsible conduct of research to the test. It deemed that the lecturer in technology had showed irresponsible behaviour by inappropriately hampering the work of another researcher. However, this was not enough to consider the act as a violation of research integrity. +
Problem-based learning can be a helpful educational tool to learn about complex issues. Additionally, the book uses case scenarios to make the course interactive, stimulate discussion and have a low threshold to engage in conversations about the topics at hand.
<br />
== Chapters ==
# The ethical basis of RCRH
# Research in humans
# Ethics and study design
# Conflicts of interest (COI)
# Monitoring research
# International clinical research
# Genetics and stem cell research
# Malfeasance and misconduct +
The CAS assumes the responsibility of uploading electronic versions of research output on a digital repository, and ensures that it is made available to the public. Publication embargoes that are contractually required by journals will be respected. Different forms of research output such as articles, teaching material, book chapters and presentations are covered by this policy. +
Fake peer-reviewing allows researchers to circumvent the scientific journal review system that is in place to ensure the quality of the publication. Serious consequences may follow if this quality control step is skipped. For instance, the meta-analysis, in this case, claims the opposite of the widely considered beliefs about the treatment in question. If clinicians base their treatments based on such a meta-analysis, substantial harm to patients could be done. Therefore, it is important to recognize certain red flags for fake peer reviews in the peer review system. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
This training program aims to train trainers to conduct a virtue-based research integrity training. It is composed of online and offline components which are designed to allow for flexibility. The program aims to (further) develop knowledge about relevant concepts of research integrity and to promote the development of didactical skills necessary to foster reflection about motivations to engage in good research practices among trainers in training. The program aims to: 1) promote the development of didactical skills necessary to foster virtue-based reflection about motivations to engage in good research practices among trainees and 2) support and reflect on the adoption of didactical approaches suitable for their work context. Trainers are encouraged to adapt materials in order to make them more suitable for the context in which they will offer their training. This supports contextualised teaching across different countries and disciplines and promotes the internalisation of the practices and principles of the ECoC. +
AD’ye ilişkin çeşitli davranış kodları ya da kılavuzlara göre, araştırmacıların “dürüstlük”, “güvenilirlik”, “sorumluluk” ve “hesap verebilirlik” gibi belirli erdemleri haiz olması ve bu erdemlere uygun biçimde davranması beklenmektedir. Peki, mesela “dürüstlük” erdeminin hakkını verecek davranış nedir? Benim bir araştırmacı olarak gereğinden fazla dürüst olmam ya da çok az dürüst olmam diye bir şey mümkün müdür? Bu alıştırmanın amacı, araştırma doğruluğu ile ilgili çetrefilli bir durumda erdemli davranış sergilemenin ne anlama geldiğine ilişkin eleştirel ve müşterek bir sorgulamayı teşvik etmektir. +
AD’ye ilişkin çeşitli davranış kodları ya da kılavuzlarda, araştırmacıların “dürüstlük”, “güvenilirlik”, “sorumluluk” ve “hesap verebilirlik” gibi belirli erdemleri haiz olması ve bu erdemlere uygun biçimde davranması beklenmektedir.<sup>[1]</sup> Bu erdemler, araştırmacılara, araştırma doğruluğu ile ilgili ahlaki sorunlarla karşılaştıklarında doğruluk içinde hareket etmeleri konusunda rehberlik etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Peki, mesela “dürüstlük” erdeminin hakkını en iyi verecek davranış nedir? Dahası, bir araştırmacının gereğinden fazla dürüst olması ya da çok az dürüst olması diye bir şey mümkün müdür? Dürüstlük örneği üzerinden gidilecek olursa: belirli bir kişi için belirli bir bağlamda, dürüst olmanın doğru yolu nedir?
Bu alıştırmanın amacı, bir eğitmen olarak sizi, katılımcılarınızın erdemli davranış sergilemenin ne anlama geldiğine ilişkin eleştirel ve müşterek bir sorgulama yürütmesine yardımcı olabilmeniz için eğitmektir. +
It shows that some researchers are willing to conduct unethical parts of their research in countries where regulations are less stringent. +
P
POIESIS Policy Recommendations for Promoting Trust in Science through Integrity, Integration, and Communication +
POIESIS sets out to probe the impact of integrity and integration on societal trust in science. The project takes its departure in three widely held and intuitive assumptions on the relationship between science and society. First, that trust in science depends on scientists’ capacity to demonstrate high standards of research integrity and breaches to research integrity will lead to mistrust. Second, that citizen and civil society’s involvement in co-creating research and innovation agendas and contents makes research more relevant and responsive to society, strengthening co-ownership and trust. And finally, that institutions foster integrity and societal integration by enabling and supporting researchers to act responsibly. Crucially, POIESIS reaffirms that trust in science is high, but simultaneously identifies cracks in the relationship between science and society that should be kept in mind to ensure that trust in science is maintained or even strengthened. POIESIS provides a firmer understanding of how integrity, integration, and trust are connected, and provides directions for how challenges to these relationships can be addressed in future research and science policy. +
Scientific credibility depends on integrity. When institutional systems push for rapid results, high output, or competitive funding, they can unintentionally compromise ethical standards. Embedding integrity at all levels ensures trustworthy results and sustained public confidence in science. +
This recommendation is crucial because public engagement enhances the social relevance, transparency, and legitimacy of science. When citizens and communities participate meaningfully in the research process, they feel ownership over its outcomes and are more likely to trust and support scientific initiatives. Inclusive and co-created research bridges the gap between expert knowledge and everyday experience, ensuring that research addresses real societal needs. It also helps counter misinformation and skepticism by fostering dialogue and shared understanding. By embedding public engagement within research design, science becomes more democratic, reflexive, and accountable to the people it serves. This approach ultimately strengthens mutual trust and ensures that innovation contributes to social well-being and sustainability. +
This recommendation matters because effective communication is the bridge between scientific discovery and societal understanding. Inaccurate, incomplete, or sensationalized reporting can easily distort research findings, leading to public confusion and mistrust. Strengthening communication across the entire chain from researchers to media to policymakers helps ensure that science is presented clearly, accurately, and transparently. When uncertainty and limitations are communicated honestly, it builds credibility rather than skepticism. Furthermore, well-trained communicators and scientists can jointly counter misinformation and foster a culture of open dialogue. In today’s complex information landscape, trustworthy science communication is essential for informed decision-making, resilient democratic debate, and maintaining confidence in the role of science within society. +
PREPARED Guidance for Fair and Fast Desk Assessment of Submitted Manuscripts during Times of Crisis +
<span lang="EN-GB">During the COVID-19 pandemic, most research focused on the virus was fast-tracked but often in a fragmented manner. In particular, research ethics committees struggled with requests to fast-track pandemic research because of increased workloads, new remote workflows, uncertainty regarding the risks and benefits of COVID-19 research, a lack of resources and training, and study and review duplication. At the same time, editors and publishers were inundated with research paper submissions, which tripled for some journals. Again, fast-tracking measures were attempted in the face of major difficulties, e.g. a lack of reviewers, especially for medical journals, and publishing staff who were themselves affected by the pandemic.</span>
Click [https://prepared-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Guidance-for-fair-and-fast-desk-assessment.pdf here] to open the guideline.
[[File:Https---prepared-project.eu-wp-content-uploads-2024-03-Guidance-for-fair-and-fast-desk-assessment.pdf.png|left|[https://prepared-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Guidance-for-fair-and-fast-desk-assessment.pdf Guidance-for-fair-and-fast-desk-assessment.pdf]]] +
This guidance is crucial because it enables faster ethics reviews during health crises without sacrificing ethical standards. By streamlining processes and promoting collaboration, it ensures urgent research can proceed quickly while protecting participants and maintaining scientific integrity. This balance is vital for generating trustworthy, timely evidence needed to respond effectively to emergencies and uphold public confidence.
Click [https://prepared-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Recommendations-for-expediting-ethics-review-during-times-of-crisis.pdf here] to open the guideline.
[[File:Https---prepared-project.eu-wp-content-uploads-2024-03-Recommendations-for-expediting-ethics-review-during-times-of-crisis.pdf.png|left|https://prepared-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Recommendations-for-expediting-ethics-review-during-times-of-crisis.pdf|alt=https://prepared-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Recommendations-for-expediting-ethics-review-during-times-of-crisis.pdf]] +
Research integrity education, especially on the undergraduate and secondary school level, is not yet widely embedded. The map intends to help curriculum designers and educators to learn about possibilities to integrate topics related to research integrity into study programs and courses. +
Opportunities to educate about research integrity are not limited to classrooms. Informal learning paths matter, too, and are are hitherto underutilized resource to foster a culture of research integrity. The Path2Integrity campaign contributes to filling this gap by enabling educational institutions to make research integrity visible in the everyday life of pupils, students and researchers. +
The Handbooks for Teachers and Trainers help educators navigate the learnings cards created by the Path2Integrity project. Focusing mostly on pedagogy and didactics, they provide examples of various good practices and ways to integrate learning units on research integrity into existing as well as new curricula. Thus, the handbooks accompany the Path2Integrity train-the-trainer program (to be launched in summer 2021) in the quest to facilitate effective teaching and learning of research integrity from the secondary school level to the early career researcher level.
Together with similar initiatives like the INTEGRITY project and the European Network for Academic Integrity (ENAI), Path2Integrity is committed to promote research integrity education already at the secondary school and undergraduate level in an attempt to integrate research integrity education throughout the entire qualification cycle, and to thereby foster trust in science. Enabling already pupils and undergraduate students to recognize what reliable and trustworthy research is and why it is crucially important not only for academia but also for society, is a skill likely to gain ever more momentum in knowledge-based societies and economies where research results and innovations permeate many aspects of life.
Thus, educators need competences and resources that support them in teaching research integrity (as well as related subjects like academic integrity and ethics of research) effectively. +
Education is a pillar to foster a culture of research integrity. The Path2Integrity learning cards facilitate learner-centered instruction of core principles and values of research integrity, and thus contribute to promoting trustworthy and reliable research. +
Research integrity education is crucial to develop a culture of research integrity. The learning cards support educators in developing learner-centered courses that help students recognize and embrace values, principles and norms of research integrity.
Because important facets of research integrity can already be learned on the secondary school and undergraduate level, the Path2Integrity learning materials not only address graduate students and young researchers, but also undergraduates and secondary school students. Thus, the learning cards, especially the s-series and the citizen education series, also serve a bridging function between research integrity and academic integrity.
To emphasize the importance of research integrity to society, the citizen education learning cards approach research integrity topics from the perspective of citizens rather than from the perspective of (prospective) researchers. In that way, they emphasize that research integrity, in societies permeated by research and innovation, matters far beyond what outside academic circles otherwise all too often might be thought of as a somewhat detached ivory tower. This also reflects how closely research integrity is related to the wider responsible research and innovation agenda. +
