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
S
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000002-QINU`"' +
There is no evidence that psychology is more vulnerable to fraud than the biomedical sciences, and most frauds are detected through information from whistleblowers with inside information. On the basis of this analysis, the authors suggest a number of strategies that might reduce the risk of scientific fraud. +
Scientific Misconduct at an Elite Medical Institute: The Role of Competing Institutional Logics and Fragmented Control +
As noted in this case study, the incidence of scientific misconduct is on the rise.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' This case study describes some of the factors that contribute to a working climate in which scientific misconduct is possible. Firstly, the case study shows that the commercial mindset at the management level of a research institute may lead to the silencing of whistle-blowers and the sustainment of scientific misconduct. Secondly, the lack of well-organized regulation, both in the case of the research institute and the editorial board of the journals, also contributes to a working culture in which misconduct can take place. Finally, the case study highlights the important role that the media played in the reveal of the scientific misconduct in this case. Furthermore, this case also graphically describes the consequences that scientific misconduct may have for the health of the patients and research subjects. <br />'"`UNIQ--references-00000002-QINU`"' +
Increased competition in science can make it tempting to let personal interests prevail above the interests of science. This booklet is intended to encourage discussion of various issues so as to contribute to deliberate, responsible decision-making. The key question is always how one should act correctly from the point of view of science and responsibly from the point of view of ethics when designing, carrying out, and reporting on scientific research. +
Scientific values: Ethical guidelines and procedures distils national expectations for research integrity in India and clarifies what researchers and institutions in India (but also associates to the indian academy of science) 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 , it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
The article shows that fraud in clinical trials can happen in many forms and at various levels. Although the fraudulent actions sometimes may seem trivial, they can have a large impact. Cheating in a clinical trial may not only endanger the health of the patients participating in the study but also that of future patients.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' As pointed out by the article, these malpractices in clinical trails may be more frequent than some scientific leaders are willing to publicly admit. Therefore, clinical trail data should be reviewed via a central statistical review by independent committees or algorithms designed for this purpose.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000002-QINU`"' +
Scientist's code of ethics distils national expectations for research integrity in Lithuania and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Lithuania 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 2017, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
It nicely shows the self-correcting feature of science. In his 1978 paper, Gould accused Morton (a 19th-century intellectual) of racial bias and misconduct. However, Gould himself is later found to have selected his data in a biased manner. +
The study of research integrity in research can quickly become a rote process without knowing what goodness in research consists in. This exercise is meant to aid reflection on the basics of what we mean by a “good research” anyway. +
The study of research integrity can quickly become a rote process without knowing what goodness in research consists in. Knowing what goodness is and what a good research is are good foundations for the study of research integrity. This reflection brings focus on the very reason why we uphold integrity in research. +
The institutions associated with the two editors deemed the allegation to be unfounded because the person presented in the publication had been anonymised. Responding to the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity ('TENK'), the institutions stated that the matter did not fall within the scope of guidelines for responsible conduct of research.
By contrast, TENK stated that the editors were responsible for the content of the publication, the allegation was serious and the complainant had solid grounds for the validity of the allegation. Accordingly, TENK demanded that the institutions concerned initiate investigations into the matter in accordance with the guidelines for responsible conduct of research. +
Another factual anonymised case added to this illuminating collection of plagiarism types which was inspired by cases that an academic member of University encountered in his role as a research integrity officer.
This particular case highlights the fact that writing of a background section also constitutes intellectual effort (reviewing of available literature and synthesis towards an argument) and should therefore acknowledged and referenced appropriately.
It also provides another example of the possible outcomes of investigation of plagiarism allegations. +
This case is another reminder of the many different formats plagiarism can take. It also demonstrates that not every single case that appears to be plagiarism is actually a research misconduct practice.
The case explores the fine lines among practices such as ‘quoting oneself’, ‘duplicate submission/publication’, ‘plagiarism’, ‘deviation from accepted practices’, ‘reprints’, and when such practices are acceptable or not. +
This factual anonymised case shows that plagiarism can come in more than one formats. The case adds to the real-world examples of plagiarism scenarios that research integrity officers may encounter.
Examples are useful for recognizing, highlight, and avoiding plagiary. +
The case demonstrates one of the many different ways that plagiarism can occur. Furthermore, it shows that it is not always straight forward to investigate and resolve an enquiry of alleged plagiarism;this may be particularly challenging when dealing with institutions (whether research, academic or publishing) in different countries, as they may have different understandings of plagiarism, possibly different norms of intellectual property and/or different ethics guidelines & practices. +
Financial conflict of interests (COI) are prevalent in the contemporary research environments. COI could cause muliple harms, corrode public trust and decrease the reliabilty of scientific knowledge. It is important for researchers to raise awarness on COI, increase transparency and learn how to manage potential conflict of interests in research settings. +
The practice of simultaneous submission is considered a violation of medical publishing ethics and is frowned upon for several reasons'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
National codes can serve as guiding documents in countries to uphold the highest standards of research integrity and research ethics. +
This policy brief is important because societal trust in science is a cornerstone for adopting innovation, securing public investment in research, and achieving Europe’s strategic objectives (e.g., the European Green Deal, Sustainable Development Goals). By guiding RFOs and research institutions to embed integrity, transparency, stakeholder engagement and relevance into research systems, the brief helps address underlying causes of mistrust not just symptoms. Moreover, by recommending measures at the funding-system level, it holds leverage for systemic change rather than isolated interventions. This means outcomes such as better reproducibility, more inclusive research agendas, and stronger two-way science-society relationships are more likely all of which contribute to enhancing the credibility and social licence of science. +
This policy brief is most important for leadership and governance within higher education institutions such as university presidents, vice-rectors, deans, heads of research offices who shape institutional strategy and policies. It also matters for integrity officers, ethics committees, and open science coordinators working within HEIs who operationalise institutional practices and frameworks.
Additionally, it is relevant for institutional research managers and administrators who design evaluation, reward and monitoring systems. The brief also has value for funders and policymakers looking to engage HEIs in strengthening trust in science at a systemic level. By adopting the recommendations, these stakeholders can help transform HEIs into centres of trustworthy research, robust engagement and social relevance. +
