What is this about? (Is About)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A short summary providing some details about the theme/resource (max. 75 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
M
This online training is intended for researchers who handle digital data as part of their research. It consists of several learning units on data management such as protecting sensitive data, organizing data and data management planning, among others. +
Since it has experienced a number of submissions of papers produced by paper mills, Springer has issued some additional submission requests:
- institutional email address
- supplemental original source data
- supplemental immunoblot data
- papers on molecular modelling or molecular dynamics must have pharmacological experiments or they will be rejected
- authors must include the statement that all data were generated "in-house" and that paper mills were not used
- to avoid fake reviews, only referees with institutional addresses will be taken into consideration. +
As part of the Horizon project CHANGER (https://changer-project.eu/) a scoping review was conducted, including 756 academic articles and 78 deliverables from EU-funded projects published between 2014 and 2024. The review followed the methodological frameworks of the Campbell Collaboration and the Joanna Briggs Institute.
By combining AI-assisted text mining with manual expert verification, the review identified 18 key ethical challenges across nine technology domains.
The findings have provided a structured overview of the ethical issues associated with emerging technologies and highlighted areas in which evidence, guidance or ethics review capacity remains limited.
The results of the scoping review were synthesised into an interactive and dynamic Evidence and Gap Map (EGM).
The EGM presents the available evidence on ethical challenges across the nine technology domains and makes it possible to identify both well-researched topics and areas in which significant knowledge gaps remain.
It has been developed as a practical resource for researchers, Research Ethics Committees, policymakers and other stakeholders. By making the evidence easier to explore and compare, the EGM supports further research, capacity building and the development of more responsive approaches to research ethics governance. +
This micromodule invites researchers and students to reflect on their work in relation to intersectional environmental justice using a visual “Crisis Tree”. The tree structure helps participants position their projects in broader socio-political and ecological systems, connecting research aims, methods, affected populations, and ethical responsibilities. Drawing on examples from Chapter 6 of the Coloring Connections ([https://zenodo.org/records/14258538 Verdonk et al., 2024]), this activity uses systems thinking and intersectionality as practical reflection tools for research design and impact assessment. +
This guide enables Higher Education, Funding and Research Centres (HEFRCs) to explore possible stakeholder engagement strategies that can help to encourage sustainable research and innovation (R&I) practices. It can serve as a concrete roadmap for engaging stakeholders from a wide range of societal groups who are willing to participate in a dialogue on ethical governance.
The stakeholder mapping guide aims to enhance the positive impact of implementing an ETHNA System by developing a governance structure that promotes more responsible research and innovation (RRI) based on citizen and community discourse. Using this guide can thus contribute to ensure that research is more responsive to society‘s needs, values, and expectations. +
As a PhD student in academia, there are difficulties you may encounter in the area of integrity, such as power relations and issues around social safety, authorship, intellectual property, and ensuring academic quality. How can you properly determine the order of authorship? In what way can social safety be improved? How do others deal with integrity issues?
The MOOC "Responsible Conduct of Research" will take you through these topics and provide ideas on how to become a responsible researcher, who feels empowered by knowledge of integrity. 6 modules will guide you in 7 hours through important topics, including examples, a lecture, expert views and experiences and the opportunity to investigate your own research practice.
[[File:Mooc video.png.png|center|frame]]
A certificate will be provided to participants who completed every part. This course was developed in the [https://community.embassy.science/c/integrity/26 H2020 INTEGRITY project] by Mariëtte van den Hoven, Miriam van Loon, Hesther van Gulick and Eline Borsboom, and funded by EU H2020. +
A researcher in material science has lost several paper to retractions due to figure duplication and data manipulation. +
This document of the Max Planck Society highlights the importance of scientific integrity in research. While not all misconduct can be prevented through guidelines, it aims to make researchers as aware as possible of the ways in which integrity breaches could occur. +
This is a factual case. This editorial article offers a short historic overview of scientific misconduct and outlines its various forms. Several recommendations are added to prevent the occurrence of these various forms of (unintentional) scientific misconduct. Importantly, the article stresses that research integrity is not merely concerns the research ethics boards but is important for all those involved in the scientific community.'"`UNIQ--references-00000000-QINU`"'
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
This module will give an overview of measurement tools and evaluate the possible use of the identified measurement methods for long-term effects.
We have divided the tools according to Kirkpatrick’s framework (1959) for training effectiveness. The framework has been used for training evaluation in REI context (Steele et al., 2016;Stoesz & Yudintseva, 2018) as well as HE context (Praslova, 2010), and includes the following levels (different kinds of tools may provide information about the achievement of the level):
# reactions (participants’ self-assessment) – different kinds of instrument may be used to collect learners’ affective and utility judgements
# learning process (knowledge, content) – content tests, performance tasks, other course-work that is graded/evaluated, pre-post texts (tests)
# behaviour and practices (acting in the research community) – end-of-programme/course integration paper/project, learning diaries/journals (kept over a longer period), documentation of integrative work, tasks completed as part of other courses
# results (e.g. institutional outcomes) – results can be monitored via alumni and employer surveys, media coverage, awards or recognition. In addition, nation-wide surveys may indicate the ‘health’ of RE/RI.
In this module we will look at tools that would provide information about trainings’ long-term effect, we will outline their feasibility and scale. All the presented tools would be usable with different target groups (e.g. students and supervisors) in HE context and are not discipline specific (unless otherwise specified). +
This module will give an overview of measurement tools and evaluate the possible use of the identified measurement methods for mid-term effects.
We have divided the tools according to Kirkpatrick’s framework (1959) for training effectiveness. The framework has been used for training evaluation in REI context (Steele et al., 2016;Stoesz & Yudintseva, 2018) as well as HE context (Praslova, 2010), and includes the following levels (different kinds of tools may provide information about the achievement of the level):
#reactions (participants’ self-assessment) – different kinds of instrument may be used to collect learners’ affective and utility judgements,
#learning process (knowledge, content) – content tests, performance tasks, other course-work that is graded/evaluated, pre-post texts (tests),
#behaviour and practices (acting in the research community) – end-of-programme/course integration paper/project, learning diaries/journals (kept over a longer period), documentation of integrative work, tasks completed as part of other courses,
#results (e.g. institutional outcomes) – results can be monitored via alumni and employer surveys, media coverage, awards or recognition. In addition, nation-wide surveys may indicate the ‘health’ of RE/RI.
In this module we will look at tools that would provide information about trainings’ mid-term effect, we will outline their feasibility and scale. All the presented tools would be usable with different target groups (e.g. students and supervisors) in HE context and are not discipline specific (unless otherwise specified). +
This module will give an overview of measurement tools and evaluate the possible use of the identified measurement methods for short term effects.
We have divided the tools according to Kirkpatrick’s framework (1959) for training effectiveness. The framework has been used for training evaluation in REI context (Steele et al., 2016;Stoesz & Yudintseva, 2018) as well as HE context (Praslova, 2010), and includes the following levels (different kinds of tools may provide information about the achievement of the level):
# reactions (participants’ self-assessment) – different kinds of instrument may be used to collect learners’ affective and utility judgements
# learning process (knowledge, content) – content tests, performance tasks, other course-work that is graded/evaluated, pre-post texts (tests)
# behaviour and practices (acting in the research community) – end-of-programme/course integration paper/project, learning diaries/journals (kept over a longer period), documentation of integrative work, tasks completed as part of other courses
# results (e.g. institutional outcomes) – results can be monitored via alumni and employer surveys, media coverage, awards or recognition. In addition, nation-wide surveys may indicate the ‘health’ of RE/RI.
In this module we will look at tools that would provide information about trainings’ short-, term effect, we will outline their feasibility and scale. All the presented tools would be usable with different target groups (e.g. students and supervisors) in HE context and are not discipline specific (unless otherwise specified). +
MedTech Europe is a trade association for medical technology manufacturers in Europe. To promote the growth of the medical technology industry and to fulfill the increasing healthcare needs, MedCom Europe complies with several laws, regulations, and ethical standards. Besides, in this Code of Ethical Business Practice, standards are provided to guide its members in the different types of activities they are involved in, such as interacting with health care professionals, providing demonstration products and samples, dealing with royalties, conducting research, etc. +
In this non-randomized intervention study, authors explored whether formal instruction on International Committee of Medical Journal editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria influences medical students' perceptions of authorship dilemmas. They also explored whether they perceive authorship as a conventional or moral concept. +
This is a series of video vignettes and discussion guidebook intended to tackle issues related to mentoring international post docs. The aim is to provoke discussion, facilitate problem-solving and identify alternate courses of action. +
Mentoring for Responsible Research: The Creation of a Curriculum for Faculty to Teach RCR in the Research Environment +
This study is about a workshop curriculum with aim of providing research faculty with concrete and specific tools to effectively introduce research ethics in research environment. The authors suggest that the best way to teach students about ethics in research is in the places where research is conducted, for example in the lab, the field or the clinic. +
A mentor has a research student for his research group. Over the course of the semester, the student becomes seriously ill with a chronic disease. As a result, the student regularly misses experiments and falls behind on the research.
The mentor is in doubt what to do. He wants to be supportive of the student, but also has an obligation to the research sponsor.
In addition, the student is foreign and will lose his right to stay in the country if he loses his affiliation with the university. +
A student enters graduate school with two years of funding. She easily finds a faculty member to work with. After the two years, the faculty member refuses to be the student's supervisor +
A second-year graduate student repeatedly fails the qualifier. What should she do? +
A graduate student is working under the supervision of a professor. However, the professor does not provide the student with a problem, nor seems interested in the work the student is doing alone. +
