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
[
Although online publication dates back to the mid-1990s, a journal’s IF is calculated based on print publication. Articles are available in electronic form prior to their print publication and the time between is called “online-to-print lag”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000010-QINU`"' This lag is short for some articles, but it can prolong for months or even years for others.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000011-QINU`"' Since papers available online can be cited immediately and impact factor calculation is based upon their publication in print, this time frame between gives them a greater chance of being cited in the 2-year window compared to articles with no online-to-print lag.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000012-QINU`"' Also, an article published online at the end of a year can be published in print in the next year.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000013-QINU`"' For instance, if a paper is published online in December 2019 and in print in January 2020, one author may cite the paper as being published in 2019 and another in 2020.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000014-QINU`"' Longer online exposure before the beginning of the citation counting can lead to a higher number of citations, which means online-to-print lags might artificially increase journals’ IFs.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000015-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000016-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000017-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000018-QINU`"' +
This bibliometric indicator is criteria when it comes to ranking of scientific journals based on quality. There are many journals which are indexed only on Scopus and can be validated by using SJR, as Impact factor (IF) considers only ISI Web of Science data '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"'. Both Web of Science and Scopus database use basically same model of clasification which commites on two levels, first one would be a number of areas and second one subject categories '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000F-QINU`"'. Improvements regarding SJR towards IF are that SJR counts citations in a given year to documents in 3-year publication window, every citation is not of equal value meaning that citations cited by more prestigious journals have more influence, last but not the least would be that Scopus is bigger database than Web of Sciences thus it takes into acocunt more journals '"`UNIQ--ref-00000010-QINU`"'. Meaning that this database ensures not only mesaurament of popularity or impact of certain journal, bit it rather takes into acocunt the prestige of journal and the prestige of the citing journal as well. Another great advantage of this database is that it is free of any charge '"`UNIQ--ref-00000011-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000012-QINU`"' +
Fabricating data is to be discouraged and should be prevented across all scientific disciplines.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"' Next to falsification and plagiarism, fabrication is seen as one of the most serious forms of research misconduct. It is estimated that 2% of researchers have falsified or fabricated data throughout their careers.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"' Fabrication of data differs from falsification, as the latter concerns distorting data, where the former is inventing and reporting made up data. Such data can range from making up research participants, creating false laboratory results or writing down invented observations.
The validity of knowledge created by science and the credibility of science;truth and trust, are undermined by fabrication. When detected, the sanctions for perpetrators can be severe and articles will be retracted. Not only does fabrication affect scientific careers, but when fabricated data is presented to be real and is consequently used in real-life practice it can have life-threatening consequences. One case of research misconduct estimates that up to 800,000 lives were lost due to fabrication of data of a single perpetrator.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000B-QINU`"' +
Falsifying data is a serious form of research misconduct. Falsified data includes omitting or adding data points, removing outliers in a dataset and manipulating images. Image manipulation is a special form of falsifcation, as it uses software to edit photos, usually of laboratory tests, to let the results appear more convincing. This concerns blots, gels, micrographs and radiological images.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' Fabricating data is making up non-existing results, where falsifying data is to edit, add, remove or alter results and/or data sets. Falsified results, when detected, lead to sanctions for the perpetrator. Sanctions include retractions of papers, and often the end of a career in research. Falsification of data is to be discouraged and prevented.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
Plagiarism denies authors the credit for their work, but it also gives the perpetrator unfair advantage over peers in terms of publications, researcher evaluations and career progression. It particularly violates the principle of honesty which is integral to research integrity.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"' Plagiarism is often described as a type of research misconduct which should be prevented and sanctioned in research integrity codes of conduct, statements and declarations. The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity states that “Researchers should report to the appropriate authorities any suspected research misconduct, including fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, and other irresponsible research practices that undermine the trustworthiness of research”. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"' Clearly, plagiarism involves deception. However, some have argued, in terms of ‘scientific integrity’, it might be less serious than fabrication and falsification and even some of the less frequently sanctioned ‘questionable research practices’. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000D-QINU`"' +
The integration of artificial intelligence into neurotechnology research introduces ethical challenges that extend beyond traditional biomedical frameworks. Unlike other forms of health data, neural data may reveal sensitive information about thoughts, intentions, or emotional states, raising concerns about privacy, autonomy, and data governance. The involvement of private companies in developing and testing these technologies may also affect research transparency, participant protection, and the management of conflicts of interest. Furthermore, uncertainties regarding long-term safety and the potential use of such devices for cognitive enhancement complicate the process of obtaining truly informed consent from research participants. Addressing these issues is essential to ensure that innovation in neurotechnology does not compromise fundamental ethical standards in human subjects research. +
Peer review is an important part of scientific process, because it identifies both quality and possible flaws in submitted research, and offers room for improvement. However, the peer review process is not perfect, and is susceptible to a number of conflicts, dilemmas and insecurities. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000004-QINU`"' +
Today, research integrity training is implemented in the curriculum of many doctoral schools as an obligatory part of postgraduate education. Alternatively, it is provided by independent research integrity bodies. Either way, the courses have the same important goal, and that is to teach young researchers how to adhere to research integrity practices and avoid involvement in research misconduct. Training on research integrity provides PhD students with knowledge of the principles of good research practice and how to foster them in their research work. Much emphasis is put on research misconduct, both on serious violations (fabrication, falsification and plagiarism), and detrimental research practices.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"' Besides the theoretical part, trainings also educate on practices of a more administrative nature, e.g., how to apply to obtain ethics committee approval or how to report a case of research misconduct.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000009-QINU`"' +
Specific disciplines deal with different problems concerning research integrity and research ethics. For instance, a physicist might have different concerns to a statistician or a researcher in a hospital. As universities have different faculties, often reflecting specific disciplines, research integrity training is often given per discipline. One study looked into the specific differences of doctoral courses on research integrity ('"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'). The main lesson learned from this study concerns the variation of the “problem narrative” underpinning the different courses.
These problem narratives frame the way the research integrity is presented, and also the way that the roles of the doctoral students are articulated.
*In the '''Health Faculty''', for instance, the course was based on the idea that researchers are inherently ‘small cheaters’ who individually have to navigate an inimical culture;a problem narrative that was reproduced in the pedagogical design and the didactical choices made by the course teachers.
*In the '''Social Sciences Faculty''', the problem narrative of the “broken system” was emphasized, where the doctoral students were caught between incentivizing and promotion systems which incentivize questionable practices and a scientific system with inherent biases and poor practices.
*In the '''Humanities Faculty''', ethical dilemmas were accepted as part of scientific practice.
*In the '''Natural Sciences Faculty''', the disciplinary field was thought to be fundamentally sound, and research integrity training merely served to provide early career academics with the research practices and techniques to maintain and strengthen this field of science.
Despite these different problematizations, the solutions that were promoted in the courses were surprisingly similar. While participants were informed about the institutional support that was available, all the courses (explicitly and implicitly) highlighted the responsibility of individuals and research groups for acting with integrity in their own local practice. All the courses used casework and group discussions to focus on everyday dilemmas in the belief that through ‘reflexivity’ participants would be empowered to act responsibly, even when surrounded by ‘small cheaters’ and dealing with structural pressures from an increasingly competitive research environment.
The study suggests that a common trait of the doctoral courses is to responsibilize the early career researchers, while not necessarily giving them the tools necessary to carry this responsibility. The concept of the varying problem narratives emerging from this study is a key insight which might be very valuable in the design of future training activities. Teachers and course leaders are very influential in framing the courses, based on their own conceptions of the “problem of research integrity”. These problem narratives might be based on disciplinary differences, but they may also be influenced by the background of the course leaders and teachers, their own experiences with research integrity or research cultures, and it is vital that course leaders reflect on these problem narratives and how they shape the training activities.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"'
Supervisors are usually swamped with obligations in the academic world, or with their own reserach projects. They do not have enough time to properly supervise students, or are too tired to do so. Moreover, after supervising a number of students during theses writing/research projects, supervisors take their role for granted and disregard active participation in the supervision process.
However, openeness and honesty in communication should be a priority in the supervision process. Supervision can have a significant impact on the development of virtues in students.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' Proper scientific communication can also impact the career development of the supervised student/researcher.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' Reserachers have stressed the need for the training of supervisors, and the construction of guidelines for supervisors as a key topic for the 2021-2027 Horizon Europe level.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"' Ensuring proper communication and approachability can create a better environment for students/early career researchers to develop virtues needed for responsible and ethical research. +
Academic research has a long tradition of master-apprentice relationships, where the apprentice (here: junior researcher) learns the fine skills of the trade (here: research) through the extensive supervision of a master (here: senior researcher). The more one grows in an academic career, the more likely a researcher is to supervise junior researchers (often PhD candidates).
Responsible supervision involves two main things. On the one hand, the supervisor should model responsible research, so that junior researchers are naturally socialized into responsible research practices. This could involve a variety of things: from assuring that the junior researcher is involved in good data management from the start of the project, to an open and timely conversation about (co-) authorship.
On the other hand, responsible supervision involves creating a safe learning climate for junior researchers to learn. The idea here is that if the learning climate is not safe, junior researchers may lack the space and confidence to share their concerns about the interpretation of the data, the planning of a particular research project, or the limitations of their capacity. Hence, if no safe professional relationship exists, certain doubts, concerns or limitations may remain under the radar, ultimately slowing down academic research. +
To be a good researcher, it is not enough just to know rules and codes of conduct of RCR. It is important to learn how to adapt and respond to real life situations. In order to respond ethically, you need to develop skills to recognize the right course of action and the values that will lead you to choose them. This is why many people stress the importance of virtues and virtue ethics in RCR education.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' Serious games simulate real life situations and require that players respond to them. They are similar to case based and role play education, but also significantly different. In gaming, there is no room to escape or hide behind the more extroverted members of the group. Here, the player is put into the center and has to reach a decision on his or her own.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"' +
The quality and success of postgraduate research is supported by effective supervision.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' A good supervisor plays a crucial role in the overall experience, satisfaction, retention, and completion of postgraduate students.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' Prevalence of depression, feelings of inadequacy and impostor syndrome are high in postgraduate students and academics in general,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' and supervisors are such an important piece of the PhD journey that they often play a crucial role in development of those for doctoral students.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000007-QINU`"' +
Supervision by a senior researcher is typically important for the development of any junior researcher. Having a healthy relationship with a supervisor is therefore important. Good guidelines help avoid potential conflicts between supervisor and supervisee. +
This play handles different themes related to research culture and research integrity. For instance, what is the policy on mentioning co-authors? Or on assessing the work of your competitors? How do individuals balance mentoring others and maintaining the quality of research? What is the influence of the duty to publish on the quality of your research? Therefore, the performance is typically followed by 30-60 minutes of discussion around themes raised in the script, with an instruction manual to facilitate discussions. +
Being a researcher, sooner or later in your career you may be faced with situations that may cause moral distress. The best way to meet these challenges is to be educated on research integrity and research ethics. As an interactive tool and addition to education, the Rotterdam dilemma game can be used as an exercise for considering and dealing with different research integrity issues. The game includes various themes, e.g. authorship, publications, mentoring Ph.D. students, data processing and data analysis. Whether you are a senior researcher or a Ph.D. student, the dilemma game can help you to reflect on moral issues in research.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' By presenting various dilemma scenarios (+75 of them), the “players” engage in discussions which enable them to choose and defend their position in different situations. Through its design, it aims to trigger the reconsideration of opinions and possible actions.
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"' +
Many of us think academia will provide a safe, sensible and intellectual environment in which #MeToo behaviour is absent. Unfortunately, it sometimes isn’t. Although the play is fictitious, it is based on interviews, some of which were confidential. The purpose of the play is to create awareness of harassment in academia – which tends to impact young researchers or support staff in particular – while also exploring individual and institutional ways to address these issues and create a safe working environment. +
Telemedicine acceptance among patients with cancer:
Acceptance is a critical precursor to sustained telemedicine adoption. For oncology patients, acceptance is a complex behaviour change that often challenges established healthcare norms (2).<div></div> +
Empathy means understanding the feelings of another person, but not necessarily sharing them.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000017-QINU`"' Historians use empathy to put themselves in the position of individuals or groups from another time period with an aim of understanding their thoughts and feelings, and explaining motives that guided their actions within a specific historical context.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000018-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000019-QINU`"' We can think of historical empathy as glasses that enable us to see history through the eyes of people who lived through it.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001A-QINU`"' We are able to understand complexities of situations that people had to cope with in some difficult times, for instance, position, thoughts and actions of the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his negotiations with Adolf Hitler in the fall of 1938,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001B-QINU`"' or that of Harry Truman and his decision to drop the atomic bombs at the end of World War II.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001C-QINU`"'
One of the most important benefits of empathy is learning to apply multi-perspectivity.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001D-QINU`"' This can help avoid passing simplistic judgements concerning the opposite terms of “just” and “unjust”, or “friend” and “enemy”, and learn how to critically interpret historical events. Therefore, empathy is suitable for studying sensitive, controversial and ambiguous issues and circumstances related to conflicts or tragedies.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001E-QINU`"' For example, if we think of a Holocaust victim who stole a piece of bread and do not know the context, we might think of him or her as a bad person. However, if we contextualize it and use “a healthy dose of empathy” we might be able to see a starving and desperate person, which makes it more difficult for us to blame him or her for stealing a piece of bread. We can also try to contextualize it further by introducing another Holocaust victim: What if the bread was stolen from them? What is right and wrong in this situation?'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001F-QINU`"'
Understanding falsifiability and attractor states is vital for maintaining research integrity and avoiding confirmation bias. These concepts provide a structured approach to evaluating scientific theories, especially those that may not have clear falsifiability criteria. By emphasizing the weight of evidence and its direction, researchers can make more informed decisions about the validity and reliability of their theories. +
