Difference between revisions of "Category:Theme"
From The Embassy of Good Science
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--------------------------------- MOBO GENERATED CATEGORY ----------------------------------><!-- | <!--------------------------------- MOBO GENERATED CATEGORY ----------------------------------><!-- | ||
| − | + | ||
<!-- PREPEND -->{{#css: #mw-pages {display: none} }} | <!-- PREPEND -->{{#css: #mw-pages {display: none} }} | ||
{{Special:BrowseData/Theme}} | {{Special:BrowseData/Theme}} | ||
Revision as of 15:28, 3 December 2019
- Choose a category:
- Guide (8)
- Initiative (27)
- Instruction (69)
- Interactive Content (5)
- Report (16)
- Resource (1054)
- Theme (215)
Back
Themes
Learn about important Good Science themes that will stimulate awareness and dialogue around relevant issues or 'hot topics'. We also invite you to add or edit the pages in this section.
Click on one or more items below to narrow your results.
For whom is this important?
Research Area
Who
When
Where
Virtues & Values
Good Practices & Misconduct
Type
Pages in category "Theme"
The following 200 pages are in this category, out of 215 total.
(previous page) (next page)D
F
P
Q
R
[
- Qualitative research
- Collaboration In Research
- Cross-boundary collaborations
- High income and low- and middle-income country collaborations
- SSH research as part of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research
- Conflict of interest in peer review
- Conflict of interest: a research integrity and research ethics perspective
- Editorial conflicts of interest
- Intellectual conflicts of interest
- The influence of pharmaceutical company on drug availability
- Anonymisation and pseudonymisation
- Data management plans
- Data protection in a global pandemic (COVID-19)
- FAIR principles: sharing data for maximisation of results
- Feedback of findings in genome-wide association studies
- How to select trustworthy repositories
- Imputation of missing data in clinical trials
- Methods to increase data availability
- Sharing and preserving data in repositories
- “Five steps to decide what data to keep: a checklist for appraising research data”
- Conflicts of interest in the review of grant proposals
- Industry funded research
- Intellectual property rights in research collaborations
- Monitoring funding processes
- The ethics of managing a laboratory or research group
- Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company
- Informed consent in psychiatry
- "Met de billen bloot" (airing your dirty laundry)
- Computational reproducibility: safeguarding the backbone of science
- Data stewardship at TU Delft
- Initiatives promoting research integrity
- Integrity roadmap, Delft University of Technology
- PhD-pizza - Gathering for PhD-candidates to talk freely
- Publication archive (Radboud University)
- Research culture awards (University of Glasgow)
- Research culture group (University of Glasgow)
- Research culture statement (University of Glasgow)
- Research culture survey (University of Glasgow)
- Research Integrity and Research Ethics Scenarios for Teaching
- Research Integrity champions
- Research integrity in practice: dealing with everyday dilemmas
- Research Integrity lunch meetings
- Reward campaign
- Secondary corrections
- The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity
- Importance of healthy lifestyle
- Imposter Syndrome
- Dilemmas in daily practice
- COMET Initiative
- EQIPD (Enhancing Quality in Preclinical Data)
- European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity (ENERI)
- European Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC)
- Networks and projects promoting research integrity
- Path2Integrity
- Platform for Responsible Editorial Policies (PREP)
- SIENNA - Stakeholder-informed ethics for new technologies with high socio-economic and human rights impact
- The INSPIRE project
- The SOPs4RI project
- The TETRIAS project
- Workgroup of developers of RI training (NRIN)
- Not asking permission from contributors for the wording of the acknowledgement
- Open peer review - transparent way of gatekeeping science
- Peer Review in the Social Sciences and Humanities
- Post-publication peer review
- AI Generated Content
- Balancing harms and benefits
- Clarifying the aims of a research study
- Conducting research in high risk locations
- Confidentiality
- Ethical considerations in dealing with human remains
- Ethical issues in qualitative research
- Ethical issues of involving children with disabilities in research
- Incidental research findings
- Informed assent
- Informed consent
- Internet Research Ethics
- Privacy in research
- Research with animals
- Research with children
- Research with humans
- Vulnerable and non-competent subjects in clinical trials
- Affiliations
- Authorship criteria
- Consent for publication (Author)
- Consent for publication (Participant)
- High Integration of Research Monographs in the European Open Science (HIRMEOS)
- Initiative for Open Abstracts (I4OA)
- Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC)
- Open access Publication in the European Research Area for Social Sciences and Humanities (OPERAS)
- Open access publishing: the new norm?
- Publishers - COPE guidelines
- Retractions: correcting the scientific literature
- Standards of authorship
- CRISPR twins – an unethical practice
- Perverse incentives
- Polarized research
- Predatory publishing
- Questionable research practices & research misbehaviors
- Communicate results to the general public before a peer reviewed publication is available
- Data driven hypotheses without disclosure (‘HARKing’)
- Funding (Sponsorship) bias
- Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)
- Improper data use (a bias distorting research results)
- Inaccurate representation of results in the media
- Inferring from P-values
- Insufficiently reported study flaws and limitations
- Non-reporting of negative findings
- Outcome reporting bias
- P-value hacking
- Publication bias (positive results)
- Salami publication
- Selective citation
- Spin of research results
- (re)submitting without consent of all authors
- Be grossly unfair to your collaborators
- Fake peer-reviewing
- Gender bias
- Honorary or gift authorship
- Hostile peer review
- Inappropriate authorship
- Not acknowledging contributors who do not qualify for authorship
- Research collaboration
- Self-plagiarism
- Take no full responsibility for the integrity of the research project and its reports
- Turning a blind eye to breaches of integrity
- Unfair reviewing
- Inadequately handle or store data or (bio)materials
- Keeping inadequate notes of the research process
- Ignoring substantial safety risks of the study to participants, workers or environment
- Inappropriate study design
- Non-disclosure of changes to the research design
- Posing irrelevant research questions
- AllTrials campaign
- Forensic Statistics to detect Data Fabrication
- Preregistration of animal study protocols
- Prospective registration of clinical trials
- Statistical pre-registration
- Connecting researchers through ORCID
- Digital humanities
- Discipline specific codes and guidelines on research integrity
- FOSTER - Fosteropenscience.eu
- Governance of research integrity: Options for a coordinated approach in Europe
- Grading the quality of evidence in clinical practice guidelines
- Image Integrity
- Institutional codes of conduct for research integrity
- Institutional policies and procedures for research misconduct
- Legal rights of accused scientists
- Mental health in academia
- Open Science
- ORI - The Office of Research Integrity
- Plan S
- Reasonable standards for career advancement
- Research ethics committee members' skills
- Research ethics committees
- Research Integrity Advisors
- Research Integrity Committees
- Research integrity officers in Europe
- Responsible Research and Innovation - RRI
- Science policy
- Teaching sensitive and controversial issues in divided societies
- The impact of the GDPR on scientific data
- Whistleblower protection/rights
- Altmetrics
- Eigenfactor
- H-index
- Journal Impact Factor
- Journal Impact Factor based on the date of electronic publication
- SCImago Journal Rankings
- Fabrication
