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
[
As important as moral values and integrity are, it's also very important to regulate what a researcher's legal limitations are too. Malpractice and misconduct can effect not only the staff involved but the entire institution as well, later on reflecting on other researchers and their work as well. It can stain the institution as a whole in funders eyes as well as other institutions who could've been involved collaboratively. Not only does it have negative connotations towards the scientific community involved, but it can also change public opinions towards the entire academic community. Even if all that's put aside, as a researcher your goal should always primarily be to be a part of a mission towards a deeper understanding of the world around us. +
The person who makes an allegation of misconduct may be penalized if he or she is not protected by the institutional investigation. Also, the accused has a right to due process, as false accusations can be made. That is why it is important that institutional procedures respect the rights both of the accuser and accused. +
It is important that the principles of proportionality and due process are respected in investigations of misconduct. Otherwise this may lead to erroneous judgments of integrity commissions, or unfair punishments. Moreover, scientists, as citizens, have legal rights, and if these are not respected in self-regulatory investigations, then cases of alleged misconduct will increasingly be handled by the courts. +
Different research has shown that the prevalence of depression among doctoral students in the US is high '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"', along with an increased risk for other psychiatric disorders, when compared to other highly educated groups. One in two PhD students experiences psychological distress'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"'. These problems often result from organizational change, increased workload, the rise in short term contracts, budget cuts, increased competition, and academic culture of ‘publish or perish’'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"'. Mental health problems include burnout, depression, anxiety and emotional exhaustion. This could impact the quality and number of published articles, influence the organizational climate of research teams, and lead to fewer students completing their PhDs '"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"' +
The promise of openness brings to mind a commitment to transparency and opportunities for greater engagement. By removing barriers to access research, the identification of errors and malpractice is facilitated, and the democratisation of knowledge production fostered.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' In the context of research integrity, open science is seen as an enabler of reproducibility because it allows wider evaluation and scrutiny of research results. Thus, also aligning itself closely with Mertonian ethos, especially, communism and organized skepticism.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"'
Open access has also been subject to political review and discussion. For instance, beneficiaries of the European funding scheme called Horizon 2020, “must ensure open access (free of charge, online access for any user) to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to its results”. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"'
It is clear that the first beneficiary of Open Science practices is, Science. If it’s true that the role of Science in society is to create knowledge, drive progress, and guarantee better human lives than it does not surprise that all of this can be achieved faster and more efficiently by following transparent, inclusive and participatory practices. Moreover, it has been shown that Open Science can help Early Career Researchers (ECRs) succeed,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"' especially through the practice of preprints and open access publications (which promote visibility in the scientific community and therefore improve the chance to collect feedback and be cited'"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"'). Lastly, it has been shown that with access to scholarly articles, entrepreneurs and small businesses can accelerate innovation and discovery, which is advantageous for advancing the entrepreneurial state of society.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000A-QINU`"' +
Plan S is a major scientific publishing initiative. Given the speed of scientific advances and the demand for relevant and quality information, there is an increased demand for quick and universal access to the most up-to-date findings. However, public access to scientific publications is still extremely limited, and is usually reserved for those who subscribe to specific journals or repositories.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' Many institutions, especially those in the developing world, cannot afford the subscription fees, which have been criticized for being disproportionately expensive.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"' +
If the standards for career advancement are not reasonable, this can lead to considerable friction between individual researchers and the research institution. This is not fair to the individual researcher, and by creating resentment, can hamper potential collaboration within a research institution, and can constitute a structural cause for research misconduct. +
Research integrity advisors (RIAs) are responsible for providing advice on matters related to research integrity. Whether you are in the early stage of your research career, or you are senior researcher, it is good to know there is someone who can answer you the questions related to research integrity and research misconduct. They usually do not have investigative roles, but they can definitely be a good stop for advice on how to proceed in a specific case. +
Research integrity committees usually serve as a base of knowledge for questions regarding research integrity and research misconduct. The importance of the RI committee lies in its responsibility in promoting research integrity, i.e. providing advice for researchers on how to adhere to the responsible conduct of research. This is usually done by guidelines, checklists and other documents in which good research practices are presented. Moreover, RI committees are responsible for dealing with cases of research misconduct and they should be notified if an alleged case of research misconduct has occurred. By performing these actions, RI committees contribute to better science and the prevention of research misconduct. +
Nowadays, not only research projects on the biomedical sciences, but increasingly also research projects in various other disciplines, like psychology or education, require ethical review. For that reason, RECs will continue to play an important role in ethical research governance. Hence, an important question is which skills REC members should ideally have.
Conducting thorough ethical reviews of research projects not only presupposes sufficient disciplinary expertise to understand proposed research designs and methodologies, but also skills crucial for delivering practical recommendations that accord with prevalent social norms. Moreover, skills conducive to maintaining dialogical attitudes among all REC members certainly are beneficial as RECs modus operandi is deliberation. Consequently, systematizing these skills is helpful for setting up effective RECs and selecting members according to transparent criteria. +
Research ethics committees have been created with two main goals. First is to protect the rights, safety, dignity and well-being of research participants;and second is to facilitate and promote ethical research that is of potential benefit to participants, science and society. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000002-QINU`"' +
Research and innovation are often funded by society and even if they are not, it is reasonable to expect that they have implications for society. This is why there is a movement aimed towards aligning research with societal needs and values and tackling societal challenges. There are several definitions of RRI. Von Schomberg defined it as “a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society)”'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"'. A broader definition is offered by Stilgoe et al., who refer to “taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present”'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"'. The UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council defined RRI as “a process that seeks to promote creativity and opportunities for science and innovation that are socially desirableand undertaken in the public interest”'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"'. According to the European Commission, RRI “means that societal actors work together during the whole research and innovation process in order to better align both the process and its outcomes, with the values, needs and expectations of European society”'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000D-QINU`"' +
Science policies address areas such as basic research, development of new technologies, and facilitation in bringing technologies to the market. They steer science into areas of importance and interest to society. Policies are determined by sets of values or priorities that policy makers have. In an ideal world policy makers should address the greatest needs of the community through the application of science policies, however the world of politics is far from an ideal one. +
The 20<sup>th</sup> century history contains a wide spectrum of controversial and sensitive issues such as treaty violations, military occupations, collaboration with occupying forces, civil wars, religious persecutions, colonialism, war crimes, deportations, ethnic cleansing and the Holocaust, among others.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001B-QINU`"'
Sensitive topics are those that are connected to exceptionally painful and tragic historical times and events. Examples of sensitive issues are the Holocaust, racism, treatment of Roma/Gypsies and refugees. Teaching about these events can renew old wounds and bring back painful memories.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001C-QINU`"'
Controversial issues regard disagreements about what happened, why it happened and how significant is the event. Sometimes these disagreements are present only at the academic level, when two or more historians interpret the same evidence in different ways. For example, some historians argue and debate over the war guilt of the outbreak of World War I.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001D-QINU`"' Other times, however, these issues divide groups, societies, whole nations and neighboring countries with regard to what occurred, why it occurred, who started it, who was right, who provides the best argument and who has been most selective with the evidence.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001E-QINU`"' Teaching of such topics presents a great challenge particularly in societies that are divided ethnically, nationally or religiously,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001F-QINU`"' such as Northern Ireland and Cyprus or in some countries from former Yugoslavia. There is no European country without its controversial and sensitive issues.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000020-QINU`"' Controversial topics can be also sensitive because they are disturbing, they challenge peoples’ loyalties and provoke their prejudices.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000021-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000022-QINU`"' +
Research data often contains personal characteristics, such as a name, location data, or physical, physiological, genetic or cultural features of a person. For these, the GDPR provides the following principles in [https://gdpr-info.eu/art-5-gdpr/ article 5]:
*"Data should be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner."
*"Data should be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and is not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes."
*"Data should be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed."
*"Data should be kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed. For scientific data, it is often recommended to use pseudonymization as a technique to further protect subject privacy. Long-term archiving for scientific purposes is allowed when in accordance to Article 89 of the GDPR."
*"Data should be processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss." +
Whistleblower protection affects not only researchers (including undergraduate, postgraduate and PhD students), but regulatory bodies, university administrators, research technicians, resource suppliers, funding bodies, editors, research ethics committees, research integrity officers and any other individuals and groups that may be indirectly involved in conducting research. +
Ever since its invention, the Internet has become an omnipresent part of everyday communication. It has become common in science to share your articles via Twitter, LinkedIn or Facebook. Measuring that part of online impact is important as it offers different insights into popularity and use of published articles. +
The Eigenfactor metrics, developed in 2007 by Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000023-QINU`"' measures the number of times articles from the journals published in the past five years have been cited in Thompson Scientific’s Journal Citation Reports (JCR).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000024-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000025-QINU`"' It considers which journals have contributed to these citations,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000026-QINU`"' therefore this approach identifies the most influential journals, those which are cited by other influential journals.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000027-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000028-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000029-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000002A-QINU`"'
Unlike the IF, the Eigenfactor Score counts citations to journals in social sciences and humanities as well, and it eliminates self-citations.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000002C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000002D-QINU`"' It considers citations in the period of five years, in contrast to the IF’s number of citations over a two-year window.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002E-QINU`"' This difference impacts fields where it takes longer for articles to receive citations.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002F-QINU`"' For example, the average article in leading cell biology journal can receive 10 to 30 citations in two years, whereas the average article in leading mathematics journal can receive 2 citations in the same time scale. Using the entire citation network, the algorithm takes into account these differences and enables better and more accurate comparison of different research areas.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000030-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000031-QINU`"' +
The h-index was partially introduced as an improvement over simply counting the quantity of a researcher’s publications. A researcher with 10 publications may have a higher h-index than a researcher with 100 publications.
However, as with any other metric, it is possible to ‘game’, or artificially increase, one’s h-index. Some well-established strategies include:
<br />
*Self-citation (cf. Italian scientists increase self-citations in response to promotion policy '"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"'
*Honorary authorship (putting a distinguished researcher on an authorship list often increases citation)
*Publishing on ‘hot topics’
*Writing review papers (often more cited than original studies)
Any aspect of citation bias can be taken advantage of for improving h-index.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000007-QINU`"' +
Impact factors are important because they provide an indication of quality of a scientific journal. The idea is that journals with higher IFs are read more frequently, have more of an impact within a field, and are of higher quality. They are also important because some academic institutions ask for publications in journals with high IFs for acquiring a PhD or advancement.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' Journal IFs are calculated each year by Clarivate (former Thomson Scientific or Thomson Reuters) and published on Journal Citation Reports platform.
Impact factors, however, can be manipulated. Examples of practices that influence IF are self and cartel citations, limitations of citable items, acceptance of certain types of publications.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' Self-citation is a practice of citing one’s own work, to artificially increase a number of citations. Citation cartel is a practice of mutual citing between journals to increase their IF.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"' Editors can also insist that newly submitted manuscripts cite some of the works already published in that journal. Journals can limit a number of citable items, and not include them in the IF analysis. For example, letter to editor is a type of publication that is often referenced, and journals get the citation. However, that type of publication is not considered a scholarly item and it is therefore not included in the IF formula, thus increasing the IF. Journals can also choose to accept more review articles, which are often cited more, and can increase their IF that way.
It’s also important to note that it takes at least three years to calculate IF of the journal, and IF cannot be calculated for new journals. Because of all this, IF should be used cautiously when determining the quality of a journal, and other bibliometric data should be considered before making the final decision.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000008-QINU`"'
