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
R
This kind of research fraud can cause a disease outbreak and cost the lives of children. +
The report argues that research integrity is vital because it creates trust, and trust is at the heart of the research process. Researchers must be able to trust each other's work, and "they must also be trusted by society since they provide scientific expertise that may impact people's lives". As the report's conclusions highlight, "research integrity has the potential to increase the quality of research in the European research ecosystem, thereby increasing its overall effectiveness and impact into the future". The inclusion by Science Europe members of research integrity amongst their core priorities shows their commitment to addressing the challenge. +
Research metrics are used to evaluate the popularity, impact and importance of individual scientists, articles and journals, as well as the performance of employees and projects. The logic behind such an approach is that cited items are perceived to have a bigger impact on science and are, therefore, of greater value. Consequently, research metrics can be employed as a basis of staff promotion and funding distribution. Bibliometrics are also used in research, when analyzing relationships between researchers, and when assessing the impact of research projects and grants. +
The proper conduct and reporting of research is fundamental to the scientific method and the integrity of the research record. Research misconduct however distorts the knowledge base. The practices of falsification, fabrication and plagiarism are widely agreed to constitute misconduct and are intentional deceptions. The Office of Research Integrity defines research misconduct as follows:
Research misconduct is ‘fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.'
*<u>Fabrication</u> is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
*<u>Falsification</u> is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
*<u>Plagiarism</u> is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
*Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.’
Falsification, fabrication and plagiarism, however, are relatively rare '"`UNIQ--ref-00000013-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000014-QINU`"'. In contrast, other behaviors, ranging from unintentional ‘sloppy' science to conscious minor breaches of research integrity are more frequent and possibly more damaging to science. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000015-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000016-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000017-QINU`"' +
In their NIH grant application, the researcher falsely claimed that a figure represented preliminary results of their independent experiments, which differed from the source of the figure and the prior research in the field. +
It shows that academic institutions have a responsibility towards the publications of those who are/were affiliated with them. In this case, King's college shows exemplary stewardship. +
Scientific fraud is not only about presenting false data, but also about not 'cherry picking' i.e. selecting certain data points to confirm or suport a specific hypothesis or make a result appear more spectacular. +
Ethical approval for scientific research is extremely important. Otherwise, the health of research participants may be harmed. Similarly, performing biomedical research without being properly trained to do so may have serious consequences for both the health of research participants as well as the quality of the research. Therefore, lying about such approval and one’s credentials are serious offences and should be punished severely. +
It shows that research in some disciplines might take years to be published. Researchers should respect their colleagues and be patient. +
With cases of scientific misconduct such as these, it is important that details about the investigation are given. As mentioned by scientists commenting on the case, the refusal to communicate the details of the case at hand may discredit the entire research field of the scientist under investigation by instigating rumors. In addition, denying to openly share the details of the investigation renders all findings of the accused scientist unusable, as scientist cannot distinguish the reliable outcomes from the untrustworthy ones. Thus, details should be disclosed to prevent the unnecessary loss of precious research funding and to preserve the reputation of the research field and the investigation itself. +
Researcher’s Code of Ethics distils national expectations for research integrity in Thailand and clarifies what researchers and institutions in nan need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark;for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by nan in 1998, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
The ORI found that the physician had engaged in research misconduct in five publications by including large amounts of text and an illustration that they had plagiarised from publications supported by 10 NIH grant awards. +
This resolution sets a vision for the future of research and innovation in Slovenia. Among other aspects, it encourages more accountability and responsibility in public-domain research organizations, to ensure better self-regulation in research. +
Writing research papers and reviewing manuscripts and grants are essential activities in the scientific process. But authors and peer reviewers constantly face ethical issues for which they need to be prepared. This course module has a list of learning objectives. It helps to recognize the importance of the responsible authorship and identify the role of an author in writing an academic paper in the sciences and the arts. Characterizes the role of a peer reviewer in assessing a paper or grant application. Supports the examination of the major ethical issues surrounding publication and peer review. Help students to understand some of the ways to deal with controversies or conflicts that might arise in authorship or peer review. Introduces resources about publication and peer review and makes us reflect on the way one handles the role of author, editor, or peer reviewer. +
The report serves as a guide to basic values that govern the conduct of research and the communication of research results and recommends specific actions that should be used to ensure and maintain the integrity of research. It forges an international consensus on responsible conduct in the global research enterprise. +
As a leading research institute in Austria, the IST aims to contribute excellent basic sciences research to advance social and technological progress. Therefore, it is essential that all scholarly inquiry is performed in a reliable, reproducible and ethical way. By explicitly asking all researchers and staff to adhere to good scientific practices, they set the tone for integrity and transparency in research. This webpage is also useful for researchers looking for more information, as it provides links to the OeAWI guidelines and details of research ethics officers. +
The resource is important to give an overview of all RI-related problems concerning collaboration in biomedical sciences +
Mentoring is important as it has traditionally been a successful way for research development of individuals, as well as research institutions and systems.
Although mentoring is an old concept (Mentor and Telemachus in The Odyssey), it is a difficult concept. It is should not be confused with other types of professional research relationship, such as teaching, tutoring, coaching, advising, counselling, supervising, sponsoring, role-modelling, preceptoring, peer support.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"'
Mentoring is a complex phenomenon,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"' which integrates different functions, as mentors help their mentees to acquire, synthesize and integrate new knowledge and skills, as well as develop professionally and personally. It is an intense, personal as well as professional relationship with high commitment over a long period of time. It is reciprocal but asymmetrical, as the primary goal is the professional growth and development of a mentee.
We do not have solid evidence that mentorship work. A systematic review of mentoring in academic medicine'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000F-QINU`"' showed that it is perceived as very important bur there is little evidence that it is actually successful. This is similar for many other disciplines and types of mentoring.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000010-QINU`"'
There are different ethical issues in mentoring, related to the individuals involved in the mentoring relationship but also related to the hosting organization.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000011-QINU`"' Issues for mentees include lack of motivation and poor collaboration, and laps in professionalism, failure to acknowledge mentee’s contribution, lack of commitment and collaboration. Ethics burdens to a mentoring relationship may be the power imbalance, misalignment of goals, poor communication, competition, gender or cultural bias, and personality conflicts. Organizations where mentorship happen are also responsible for ethics problems generated by mentoring: they may not have adequate recruitment procedures, oversight, assessment and recognition of good mentorship, lack of clear guidelines, and lack of administrative support, such as protected time for mentoring.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000012-QINU`"'
For research ethics committees and research integrity offices, this case report demonstrates the value of ensuring that case details are reported accurately, transparently and in significant detail, particularly when appeals are made by defendants regarding previous rulings.
In terms of the specific practices of scientific dishonesty, the case demonstrates that:
#Reusing biopsy material in order to support the conclusions of subsequent studies is a serious breach of good scientific practice if and when readers are not informed that an article is based on the results of previous studies;#Reusing biopsy material in order to support the conclusions of subsequent studies undermines the validity of these studies when the different studies are based on different population sizes and different methodologies;#Using the same images to represent different proteins is an instance of image manipulation even when the colours have been changed and the images rotated. +
Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare has the potential to enhance accuracy, speed, and efficiency of medical treatment by automating standard or repetitive tasks, as well as to help maintain a better organized and efficient doctor-patient relationship. It also comes with a flood of legal, ethical and regulatory questions to be answered. +
