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
P
During a research project on children’s transport and mobility in sub-Saharan Africa young people, (mostly under 18 years old) were invited from secondary schools in Malawi, Ghana and South Africa, to train as young researchers to collect data from their peers alongside adult researchers (www.dur.ac.uk/child.mobility). +
This is a guide to peer review for early career researchers. It aims to help them understand basic principles of peer review, some of its limitations and its role in society. +
This article is about scholarly (academic) peer review. In simple terms, peer review is an evaluation of a piece of work by persons from the same or a similar field of work (peers). This process is very important in science, and it is conducted to help journal editors decide what to publish. The purpose of peer review is to detect both the quality and the flaws of the presented piece of work in order to prevent poor research from publication. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' It includes checking for methodological rigor, quality of reporting, and critical assessment of conclusions. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
This online training contains several tools related to peer review. Online module Responsible Authorship and Peer Review discusses challenges that authors and peer reviewers are constantly facing and provides some useful case studies. The software Peer Review Tool: Data Analysis aims to improve the analytic skills of peer reviewers and it serves as a statistical tool. Ethics of Peer Review: a Guide for Manuscript Reviewers provides some guidelines for peer reviewers. Finally, Peer Review Quick Guide intends to detect common mistakes and reflects on dilemmas in peer review. +
A professor tells a student that he is peer-reviewing the article of another research group, with whom you are in direct competition for funding.
The student recognizes the conflict on interest at play. The professor asks the student for his opinion on the paper, which the student reads. The student sees that the professor is reviewing the article "unfavourably", but thinks the professor has plausibly argued in the review. +
This card game for research integrity training addresses ethics and integrity in the peer review system and aims to help journal editors in publication process. The training materials included 32 statements regarding peer review in domains of responsiveness, competence, impartiality, confidentiality, constructive criticism and responsibility to science. The game can be used as an introductory activity for teaching integrity and ethics in peer review training. +
Peer-mentored research development meeting: a model for successful peer mentoring among junior level researchers +
This case report describes interdisciplinary peer mentoring program called Peer-mentored Research Development Meeting (PRDM). It showed that the program's members increased the efficiency of their research development activities during the study. +
'''People Studying People: Research Ethics in Society''' is an open and free online course which explores the value of ethical thinking for research. It is run by the University of Leicester and FutureLearn and is runs four times a year (Dec, Mar, Jun and Sep). It is designed to take 3 weeks of study for 2 hours per week.
<br /> +
This study provides information on medical students', graduate students', doctors' and medical teachers' perceptions of research contributions as criteria for authorship. Authors conclude that most important cluster for all research participants were conception, design, analysis and interpretation as well as drafting of articles. +
This is an article about Don Poldermans, a well-known cardiology researcher who worked at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and was dismissed for scientific misconduct and fraud in 2012. +
This charter functions as a declaration between PhD researcher and supervisor and sketches the role of both in the doctoral process. At the start of the collaboration the supervisor and PhD researcher use the charter as a basis to make necessary arrangements concerning the supervision, thereby contributing to an effective and fruitful scientific collaboration. In order to not to overlook certain topics or aspects, a [https://www.kuleuven.be/english/research/integrity/Checklist checklist] is available. +
This case is about a philosophy professor at the University of Leuven, who had 14 retractions. One of the plagiarised articles was spotted by another researcher from the same research area who then notified the journal on this issue. In 2010 an investigation conducted at the University of Leuven found that philosophy professor has indeed committed plagiarism. Upon the inquiry K.U. Leuven notified the journal editors about the results of the investigation and stated that plagiarised work is no longer considered as the scientific output of the university as well as that professor has resigned'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
A reviewer from an NIH study section gives a trainee a research project based on a submission she reviews. +
This article is about allegations of plagiarism against the Romanian minister of education and research, Ioan Mang. Mr. Mang's 2004 publication is believed to be a near-identical copy of a paper authored by the Eli Biham, the dean of computer science at the Technion Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. +
The US Public Health Service found that a researcher at the Harvard School for Public Health engaged in scientific misconduct in research funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH). +
Plagiarism charge for Romanian minister - Scandal adds to fears that country’s research reform is in peril +
Romania’s new government was thrown into turmoil last week after its education and research minister, Ioan Mang, was accused of extensive plagiarism in at least eight of his academic papers.
The allegations first began circulating on 7 May, just hours after Prime Minister Victor Ponta, a Social Democrat, announced the appointment of Mang and other ministers of the new government. Last week, former prime minister Emil Boc, of the Democratic Liberals, called for Mang’s resignation, dramatically waving the allegedly plagiarized articles and the original papers in front of television cameras.
The scandal has dismayed many Romanian scientists, who are already nervous that the incoming centre-left coalition government might reverse some of the energizing reforms that were introduced by the previous centre-right coalition to improve the country’s sluggish research system +
A committee on scientific dishonesty investigated accusations of plagiarism that a supervisor brought against his student. The student was accused of plagiarizing figures, equations and text from (1) the supervisor’s published and unpublished work and (2) the PhD dissertation of a former student of the supervisor. The committee ruled largely in the supervisor’s favour, though it stipulated that the use of others’ material did not always constitute plagiarism. The student corrected their thesis. +
Investigation finds more cases of duplication in publications co-authored by ministers and senior officials. ''Nature'' has uncovered further instances of apparent plagiarism in papers co-authored by government ministers and senior officials in Iran. The spate of new examples raises questions about whether such incidents are symptomatic of conditions also common in other developing countries — such as difficulties with English or pressure to acquire academic credentials as a prerequisite for promotion — or whether they are also linked specifically to the Iranian regime, where growth of a merit-based university culture has been undermined by political appointments and purges of reform-minded scientists. +
Based on an investigation conducted by Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, the Office for Research Integrity found that an Associate Professor in Immunology/Microbiology engaged in scientific misconduct involving two instances of plagiarism in publications related to two Public Health Service (PHS) grants. +
