What are the best practices? (Has Best Practice)
From The Embassy of Good Science
1
10 Things for Curating Reproducible and FAIR Research
Thing 1: Completeness
Thing 2: Organization
Thing 3: Economy
Thing 4: Transparency
Thing 5: Documentation
Thing 6: Access
Thing 7: Provenance
Thing 8: Metadata
Thing 9: Automation
Thing 10: Review +
A
Reproducing any part of an article or book (figure, table, etc) definitely requires permission from the copyright holder. The copyright holder is usually the publisher since authors tend to transfer the copyright to the publisher upon submission of their manuscripts. +
COPE recommends the retraction of articles that contain fabricated data and a reporting made to the appropriate institutional misconduct body. Universities and research centres should be very sensitive to this important issue by reprimanding or dismissing researchers involved in fabrication. +
For COPE in matters relating to the addition or omission of an author, a request should be sent to the publishing journal. The journal will ask for the permission of all authors with corrections made following their consent. +
According to COPE, this is a clear case of guest or gift authorship. It is not recommended to add a researcher to the authors list of an article if he/she do not fulfil the requirements for authorship. If an editor finds out about an instance of gift authorship, COPE recommends the removal of the suspected gift author from the authorship list. For article submissions, it is strongly recommended that they include a statement of contributions agreed by all contributors. +
This practice is discouraged by COPE. Authors should resist such requests as much as possible. +
On submission of an article, authors are usually asked to mention whether their submission is under review elsewhere. Duplicate submission is a form of research misconduct. However, if a journal does not review a manuscript in an appropriate amount of time, authors can withdraw their manuscript. However, the editor-in-chief should be informed beforehand and a record of all correspondence maintained by the corresponding author. Authors should never submit a manuscript to another journal before appropriate withdrawal of the manuscript or notice of a rejection. +
On submission of an article, authors are usually asked to mention whether their submission is under review elsewhere. Duplicate submission is a form of research misconduct. However, if a journal does not review a manuscript in an appropriate amount of time, authors can withdraw their manuscript. However, the editor-in-chief should be informed beforehand and a record of all correspondence maintained by the corresponding author. Authors should never submit a manuscript to another journal before appropriate withdrawal of the manuscript or notice of a rejection. +
This is a case of redundant publication. Authors are usually asked to provide a signed statement that the manuscript they are submitting has not been published elsewhere. Any violation of this statement is considered to be a case of misconduct and can result in retraction. If a translation of a previously published article is going to be submitted to another journal, prior permission should be sought from the publisher of the first article and the second manuscript should contain an appropriate reference to the first publication +
Regulatory compliance
Data archiving and management +
- Maintaining Privacy
-Confidentiality and Anonymity
-Protecting vulnerable groups
-Data sharing +
This workbook discusses how to put the principle of AI Fairness into practice across the AI project workflow through Bias Self-Assessment and Bias Risk Management as well as through the documentation of metric-based fairness criteria in a Fairness Position Statement. +
In this workbook, we introduce fundamental concepts of AI, responsible research and innovation, and AI ethics and governance, such as the SSAFE-D Principles – which stands for Sustainability, Safety, Accountability, Fairness, Explainability, and Data-Stewardship. The SSAFE-D Principles are a set of ethical principles that serve as starting points for reflection and deliberation about possible harms and benefits associated with data-driven technologies. +
This workbook introduces the SUM Values (Support, Underwrite, Motivate), a set of ethical values intended to help AI project teams to assess the potential societal impacts and ethical permissibility of their projects. It then presents a Stakeholder Engagement Process (SEP), which provides tools to facilitate proportionate engagement of and input from stakeholders with an emphasis on equitable and meaningful participation and positionality awareness. +
This workbook provides a template of the SIA and activities that allow a deeper dive into crucial parts of it. For example, it discusses methods for weighing values and considering trade-offs during the SIA process, and highlights the need to approach the SIA as an end-to-end process of responsive evaluation and re-assessment. The workbook also includes a series of activities related to AI in Urban Planning to assist public sector bodies in developing a shared vocabulary and practical skills to implement ethical AI projects. +
When a complaint is submitted to the Executive Board of a university, it is the Board's duty to forward the case to the university's research integrity office.
When researchers are commissioned to produced research in a personal capacity, the associated studies should explicitly state that the authors are working in a personal capacity. In addition, there should be no mention of their academic affiliations. +
- Preservation and access
- Developing infrastructure
- Addressing interdisciplinary differences
- Recognition of good data practices
- Using standards +
The cases reveal practices to avoid:
<br />
*Plagiarism
*Undeserved authorship
*Duplicate submission
*Unprofessional conduct
*Lack of ethical approval
*Redundant or duplicate publication
Other experienced misconduct to avoid were:
<br />
*"‘salami‐slicing’– dividing up a piece of research as thinly as possible to get the maximum number of papers out of it; this naturally involves a great deal of repeated information, especially in the ‘methods’ section;"
*"cutting and pasting whole sections from 1 manuscript to another – another unfortunate temptation of the electronic age;"'"`UNIQ--ref-0000018F-QINU`"'
*"publishing a paper in a small national journal, then having it translated into English and submitting it to a larger journal without revealing its previous publication;"
*"publishing a paper in a minor journal or in some other format such as an e‐journal and then submitting it to a larger journal without revealing its previous publication, and"
*"attempting to have a paper published in 2 journals simultaneously; some authors even go so far as to give identical papers different titles and list the authors in a different order in an attempt to disguise this type of misconduct." '"`UNIQ--ref-00000190-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000191-QINU`"' +
Following [http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) recommendations] +
B
There are six tenets or principles: indigenous identity development, indigenous paradigmatic lens, reflexivity and power sharing, critical immersion, participation and accountability, and methodological flexibility.
See more at: [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476750315622542 Guidance in the article published in Action Research.] +
C
COPE provides collection of [https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines guidelines] on publication ethics. +
As an author, assuming responsibility and being accountable for one's work requires the disclosure of one's identity. +
Case-based ethics instruction: the influence of contextual and individual factors in case content on ethical decision-making +
Cases must include a rich and realistic description of the social context. +
This teaching material was developed by the NRIN. In the first session in which this material was used, case 1 was not entirely clear to the participants. Some information was therefore added to this material. A session with discussions on all dilemma’s would take about 60-90 minutes.
Cases 2 and 3 were slightly simplified for a meet-the-keynote-speaker session with Prof. Lex Bouter. He used one only case 2 (Case A in the ppt) in this session, because it already yielded a lively discussion with the participants who also discussed related dilemma’s they encountered in their work.
The material then was further developed for the course on research integrity for PhD-candidates at VUmc. New materials to be uploaded. +
- General Scientific Integrity
- Collegiality
-Responsibility to research participants
- Protection of animals in research
- Obligations to students
-Social Responsibility +
- Publication ethics
- Supervision and mentoring
- Institutional policy +
In their virtue-based model of ethical decision-making, Crossan et al. outline how a virtue-based orientation may be a means of resilience for individuals who are trying to navigate between high situational pressures and demands for ethical behavior.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"'
Medeiros et al. give an overview of cognitive biases prevalent among university staff.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"' Mecca et al. give valuable insights on the efficacy of a training intervention based on the finding of Medeiros et al.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"'
Cassam recently introduced an account on how epistemic vices may influence unethical decision-making.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"' Moreover, he gives an overview on how these vices may be corrected (see chapter 8 “Self-improvement“, p. 167-187).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000E-QINU`"' +
Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project +
The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices. +
The European Code of Conduct'"`UNIQ--ref-00000052-QINU`"' states that good research practice with regard to collaborations are based on the following principles:
*"All partners in research collaborations take responsibility for the integrity of the research.
*All partners in research collaborations agree at the outset on the goals of the research and on the process for communicating their research as transparently and openly as possible.
* All partners formally agree at the start of their collaboration on expectations and standards concerning research integrity, on the laws and regulations that will apply, on protection of the intellectual property of collaborators, and on procedures for handling conflicts and possible cases of misconduct.
*All partners in research collaborations are properly informed and consulted about submissions for publication of the research results. "(ECC 2017, section 2.6)
Vicens and Bourne (2007) suggest the following rules'"`UNIQ--ref-00000053-QINU`"':
#Do Not Be Lured into Just Any Collaboration
#Decide at the Beginning Who Will Work on What Tasks
#Stick to Your Tasks
#Be Open and Honest
#Feel Respect, Get Respect
#Communicate, Communicate, and Communicate
#Protect Yourself from a Collaboration That Turns Sour
#Always Acknowledge and Cite Your Collaborators
#Seek Advice from Experienced Scientists
#If Your Collaboration Satisfies You, Keep It Going
'"`UNIQ--references-00000054-QINU`"' +
While some COIs might be inevitable (e.g. in case of scientists who move between academia, industry, and government), disclosure and providing extra information is believed to empower readers to place credence on presented data. '"`UNIQ--ref-000002A5-QINU`"'
Conflict of interests is explained in numerous guidelines . For example, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has issued several guidelines for dealing with conflict of interest, from both reviewers’ and readers’ point of view. COPE guidelines for reviewers can be found [https://www.embassy.science/theme/A%20lot%20has%20been%20said%20about%20conflict%20of%20interest.%20For%20example,%20Committee%20on%20Publication%20Ethics%20(COPE)%20has%20issued%20several%20guidelines%20for%20dealing%20with%20conflict%20of%20interest,%20from%20both%20reviewers%E2%80%99%20and%20readers%E2%80%99%20point%20of%20view.%20COPE%20guidelines%20for%20reviewers%20can%20be%20found%20here here], and guidelines for readers can be accessed [https://www.embassy.science/theme/A%20lot%20has%20been%20said%20about%20conflict%20of%20interest.%20For%20example,%20Committee%20on%20Publication%20Ethics%20(COPE)%20has%20issued%20several%20guidelines%20for%20dealing%20with%20conflict%20of%20interest,%20from%20both%20reviewers%E2%80%99%20and%20readers%E2%80%99%20point%20of%20view.%20COPE%20guidelines%20for%20reviewers%20can%20be%20found%20here here].
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) also addressed the issue of conflict of interest, and defined purposeful failure to disclose conflicts of interest as a form of misconduct. They categorize conflict of interest as following: financial relationships (such as consultancies, stock ownership or options, honorary payments, patents…), personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs. A more detailed ICMJE explanation and guide can be found [https://www.embassy.science/theme/International%20Committee%20of%20Medical%20Journal%20Editors%20(ICMJE)%20also%20addressed%20the%20issue%20of%20conflict%20of%20interest,%20and%20defined%20purposeful%20failure%20to%20disclose%20conflicts%20of%20interest%20as%20a%20form%20of%20misconduct.%20They%20categorize%20conflict%20of%20interest%20as%20following%3A%20financial%20relationships%20(such%20as%20consultancies,%20stock%20ownership%20or%20options,%20honorary%20payments,%20patents%E2%80%A6),%20personal%20relationships%20or%20rivalries,%20academic%20competition,%20and%20intellectual%20beliefs.%20A%20more%20detailed%20ICMJE%20explanation%20and%20guide%20can%20be%20found%20here here].
A separate ICMJE declaration of conflict of interest form can be accessed [http://www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest/ here]. Completed ICMJE COI declaration is often a requirement for submitting an article to a scientific journal.
'"`UNIQ--references-000002A6-QINU`"'
- Awareness of potential conflicts of interest
- Institutional oversight +
Researchers can consult the following guidelines on collaboration with communities:
* Kate Chatfield et al. (2018) Research with, not about, communities - Ethical guidance towards empowerment in collaborative research, a report for the TRUST project. http://trust-project.eu/
* Figueiredo Nascimento, S., Cuccillato, E., Schade, S., Guimarães Pereira, A. (2016) Citizen Engagement in Science and Policy-Making. doi:10.2788/40563 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/sites/jrccties/files/mc10_rio_sio-lopez_mobility_reading.pdf +
D
- Green Open Access
- Golden Open Access
- Collaboration between partners
- Creation of a national Open Access Platform
- Quality assurance and monitoring +
Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project +
The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices. +
Resnik et al (2015) list four measures researchers can take to address deception by research subjects. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000197-QINU`"'
# Researchers can verify information by letting participants undergo physical exams and laboratory tests.
# Research subjects can be excluded from the study when deception is uncovered.
# Studies can consider rewarding research subjects when they provide accurate self-reported information.
# Researchers can require subjects to be registered in a clinical trial particpant registry. +
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-0000020A-QINU`"' +
The case provides some ideas of best practices in order to avoid such plagiarism allegations:
a) Create your own review model after you have read a number of different review examples, rather heavily relying on one single example
b) Acknowledge that the book review model used relies heavily on XX’s review by referencing appropriately +
The Irish national statement for research integrity <sup>7</sup> is developed in line with the ECoC.
- Principles of Research Integrity
- Research Misconduct
- Collaboratiosns +
The philosophical importance of dialogue has been elaborated in philosophical hermeneutics. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000002B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000002C-QINU`"'
Moral Case Deliberation is an example of group reflection on moral issues through dialogue.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002D-QINU`"' In MCD, a morally troublesome situation is investigated by a group, guided by a facilitator. During the investigation, the conflicting values in the situation are examined in dialogue.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000002E-QINU`"' +
Failures to disclose conflicts of interests should be investigated on the basis of institutional codes of conduct for research integrity. +
E
Core parts of the learning pathways are based on case studies because experience has shown that they are particularly suitable to promote knowledge and foster skills conducive to acting ethically and with integrity in research. More specifically, the case studies allow learners to reflect on what they have learned and to apply newly acquired skills to concrete examples. Moreover, learners can assess their knowledge by answering a set of questions and obtaining feedback on their responses via email. Thus, the ENERI Classroom is an interactive and responsive learning platform.
The cases in the resources section on the Embassy as well as the educational scenarios developed by the EnTIRE project that are available in the educational resources section can complement the ENERI Classroom by adding further issues of interest and/or elaborating existing ones. +
The ENERI Decision Tree summarizes and links to many important laws, regulations, codes and other documents that can help researchers to work ethically and with integrity and that can support RECs and RIOs in performing their roles adequately and fulfilling their responsibilities. More detailed information on all topics covered in the Decision Tree is available in the ENERI Manual on Research Ethics and Research Integrity. Besides, the [[Resource:C386dbba-2f69-4257-89c2-903898cf1f12|ENERI Classroom]] as well as the [[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|VIRT2UE Training Guide]] provide access to educational materials on research ethics and research integrity that help fostering skills conducive to ethical reflection.
Furthermore, the [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Special:BrowseData/Resource?_search_Resource_Type%5B0%5D=Cases cases] in the resources section of the Embassy as well as the educational scenarios developed by EnTIRE that are available in the [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Special:BrowseData/Resource?_search_Resource_Type%5B0%5D=Education educational resources] section can be used for further reflections and deliberations on specific research ethics and research integrity problems. +
All European Academies (ALLEA) published a revised and updated European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC), in which it emphasized the importance of addressing ethics and research integrity. The ECoC defines principles and practices of good research, and includes the virtues of reliability, honesty, respect and accountability. Usually philosophers consider honesty and the following characteristics to be epistemic virtues: attentiveness, benevolence (principle of charity), creativity, curiosity, discernment, humility, objectivity, parsimony, studiousness, understanding, warranty, and wisdom. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"' +
- Exercising necessary care and competence, even in the face of pressure
- Exercise social responsibility
- Data management and publication practices
- Ensure that research is free from vested interests +
The ASA Ethical Guidelines present the responsibilities that researchers have with research participants, funders, sponsors, employers, host governments and the discipline of anthropology in general. +
Recent advances in research allow for a more defined view of the ethical issues surrounding the treatment of aging. Today we know that the senescence of the organism is a pathological process with a great variety of pathological consequences in old age (which causes or aggravates cardiovascular disease, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases and many others). It has also been shown that in laboratory animals it is possible to slow down aging, prolong healthy adulthood and reduce the age incidence of a broad spectrum of aging-related diseases. This is accompanied by an overall extension of the life span, sometimes to a great extent. Ethics discussions in this area argue how the treatment of aging can have detrimental consequences on society as a whole.
Anyway, given the developments in research in the treatment of diseases linked to aging, it would be useful to define how these interventions must be applied without ethically compromising the meaning of existence as a society, devaluing life by extending its duration'"`UNIQ--ref-000004CE-QINU`"' . In conclusion, decelerated aging leads to conflicting decisions. The health benefits force us to pursue it, despite the change in some ethical aspects of human society will be inevitable. +
F
The movies included in the final selection are:
*And the band played on (1993)
*Awakenings (1990)
*Creation (2009)
*Dallas Buyers Club (2013)
*Extreme measures (1996)
*Kinsey (2004)
*Lorenzo's oil (1992)
*On being a scientist (2016)
*Silkwood (1983)
*Star Trek 'Nothing human' (1998)
*The boys from Brazil (1978)
*The China syndrome (1979)
*The Fly (1986)
*The Insider (1999)
*The Island (2005)
*The Lawnmower man (1992)
*Wit (2001) +
Part Three (pages 161-224): Fostering Integrity in Research
Chapter 9 (page 163): [https://www.nap.edu/read/21896/chapter/1#content-toc_pz15-2 Identifying and Promoting Best Practices for Research Integrity]
Chapter 10 (page 195): [https://www.nap.edu/read/21896/chapter/1#content-toc_pz15-3 Education for the Responsible Conduct of Research] +
This Framework sets out the elements of a collaborative agreement that can be enhanced with regards to good research practices. +
==Funders and research ethics==
Reporting standards and ethics regulations vary between funding organizations. The European Commission has developed an elaborate procedure for ensuring that funded projects satisfy ethical requirements. In order to complete one´s application for funding within Horizon 2020, one must fill out an extensive ethics self-assessment. All projects that qualify for funding are subject to an ethics review procedure. The outcome of the ethical committee can influence the requirements funders have for the study. If ethical issues are judged to be particularly severe or complex, certain monitoring procedures may be required, such as engaging an ethics advisor or an ethics board within the project.
The Missenden Code of Practice for Ethics and Accountability'"`UNIQ--ref-0000005B-QINU`"' was drawn up to promote ethical research in British universities in the face of growing pressure from industry and private funders. The Missenden code identifies eight difficulties that some universities have encountered through their collaborations with industry: i) Safeguarding Academic Freedom; ii) Tasking an ‘Ethics Committee’; iii) Defending the Academic’s Right to Publish; iv) Protecting Intellectual Property Rights; v) Meeting the Student Expectation; vi) Preparing for Controversy; vii) Managing the New Model University; viii) Sourcing Alternative Funding. The code addresses each one of the difficulties using case studies, and makes 14 suggestions to help universities respond to the development of commercial funding of university research.
==Funders and research integrity==
The current climate for research funding is highly competitive. Many high-quality grant applications are rejected. Research shows that ‘high ranked’ institutions in the US were 65% more likely to succesfully receive grants, and received 50% more awards.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000005C-QINU`"' At the same time, lower ranked institutions had a higher impact with the research they performed.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000005D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000005E-QINU`"' This finding may be indicative of funding bias. Moreoever, a highly competitive funding climate can feed perverse incentives. On the one hand, funders rely on assessment criteria, which include publication records and journal impact factors. As a result, researchers may strive to get as many papers published as possible without due care for the integrity of their research. On the other hand, researchers may feel the need to exagarate the expected impact of the proposed research or exagarate their skills and qualitifications.
Nontheless, RFO’s can implement policies fostering research integrity. For example, the Wellcome Trust in the UK provides a ‘transition support fund’ for PhD students. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000005F-QINU`"' The fund can be used after the completion of a PhD project, and the student can decide how they want to further their career by using the fund as they see fit. The fund can be used, for instance, to write another paper or to do an internship.
RFOs can also develop initiatives to combat perverse incentives. For instance, many funders have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, or DORA.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000060-QINU`"' The declaration’s aim is to reduce the use of journal impact factors in funding evaluations. Instead, other indicators, such as altmetrics, should be used. Implementing DORA in reviewing grant proposals can mean evaluating a researcher by asking about their most important publication, the impact of their previous research, and their other qualifications besides publications. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000061-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000062-QINU`"'
G
General Code of Ethics in Scientific Research (Romanian Ministry of Education, Research and Youth) +
- Responding to misconduct +
The BRIDGE guidelines are the proposed best practices +
Apart from its work on concrete inquiries, the Commission states that its aim is to play a critical role in further developing the guidelines governing good scientific practice. It sees the alignment of legal requirements with the principles of research integrity as a key task for the future. To that end, the Commission states that it will initiate a regular forum on "Good Scientific Practice and the Law". +
TENK launched the Research Integrity Adviser system in order to raise awareness of the responsible conduct of research in Finland, to increase personal guidance on research integrity, and to offer expert training on responsible conduct of research and procedures.
TENK advised various parties on mechanisms to resolve allegations of research misconduct as well the guidelines for handling alleged violations.
TENK coordinates the ethical review of research in the field of human sciences and promotes cooperation between regional and institutional research ethics committees. The Board annually monitors the state of ethical review in universities and research institutions by gathering information on the cases handled by research ethics committees.
TENK established a working group to update the guidelines for the ethical review of research in the field of human sciences in order to meet the requirements of the new General Data Protection Regulations ('GDPR'). +
The Plagiarism Control Group checks the research proposals submitted to the SNSF both at random (5% of all submissions) and when it is alerted to potential research integrity cases by persons outside the SNSF.
The SNSF uses the ''iThenticate'' software, produced by Turnitin, in order to compare research proposals with texts on the internet and scientific databases. Only results with a similarity index of ≥ 10% and/or the largest possible degree of correspondence of >200 words are followed up. +
- Authorship acknowledgements
-Journal reviewing practices
<br /> +
This guide was developed during the COVID pandemic by the department of Experimental Immunology of Amsterdam UMC and is implemented by this department to talk about stress with their PhD-candidates. +
- Procedures for misconduct investigation +
- Obligation to society
-Protection of research participants
- Citation and publication
-Protection of animals in research
-Whistleblowing +
Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology (NESH, Norway) +
Detailed best practices relating to:
- Respect for individuals
-Respect for groups and institutions
- Interacting with the research community
-Performing commissioned research
-Good dissemination practices +
Given the broad diversity that exists among research institutions, it is possible that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as tools that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs. +
Given the broad diversity that exists among research institutions, it is possible that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as tools that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs. +
H
Based on the provided information in the case, this can be seen as examplary conduct that shows how a virtuous researcher deals with problematic situations. +
Hungarian Decree on the system of integrity management at public administration bodies and the procedural rules of receiving lobbyists +
- Appointment of integrity officers
- Internal and external oversight mechanisms +
I
[[Resource:571bc2b5-9c13-4d5e-b371-c6eadd53a851]]
[[Resource:571bc2b5-9c13-4d5e-b371-c6eadd53a851]]
[[Resource:E205949b-f8b5-4b8b-91de-2aeaeca98b4c]]
[[Resource:Dd4e2cd2-c665-43a6-86ec-8e75a43eef3a]] +
Following should be disclosed:
*Funding received from government, commercial, private foundation, etc. for conducting the research
*Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work.
*Intellectual Property
<br /> +
Irish National Forum on Research Integrity's Guidelines for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research +
- Initial review
- Panel composition
- Formal investigation
-Maintaining Confidentiality +
Irish National Forum on Research Integrity's Report on Fostering a Climate of Excellence for Irish Research +
- Collaboration to ensure adherence to RI standards
- RI dilemmas +
L
-General Principles of Research Integrity: Respect, Honesty, Protecting Research Subjects, Publication and dissemination
- Integrity in different aspects of research such as teaching, mentoring, reviewing, providing expertise and contributing to society +
- Adherence to ethics guidelines
-Interdisciplinary and inter-institutional collaboration +
- General good practice guidelines, including data management practices, dissemination of results and research process;
- Misconduct, including misrepresentation of data, plagiarism, and intellectual property fraud;
- Misconduct handling and duties of the ombudsperson;
- Principles for handling industry partnerships such as academic independence and transparency +
M
- Excellence
-Honesty
- Openness
- Rigour
- Safety
- Ethical Responsibility
-Responsible Management
- Regulatory Compliance
- Professional Standards
- Reporting Research Misconduct +
- Check University RDM Policy and funder requirements
- Create and maintain a data management plan
- Address data protection and ethics
- Consider intellectual property and licensing
- Gather together all eligible costs +
- Data Protection by design
- Privacy notices +
- Confidentiality, data protection and information sharing
- IP Ownership
- Rights in IP Creation
-General Rights +
- General principles of conducting research , teamwork and publication
- Collaborations and Leadership
- Guiding early career scientists
- Data storage and retrieval
- Scientific publications
- Conflicts of Interest
- Ombudspersons and their duties
- Whistleblower protection
<br /> +
According to Merton:
*''Communism'' (sometimes referred to as communalism) addresses common ownership of scientific discoveries and the need for scientists to publicly share their discoveries. This could be seen as a precursor to modern initiatives such as open science;
*''Universalism'' is the idea that everyone can do science, regardless of race, nationality, gender or any other differences, and that everyone’s scientific claims should be scrutinized equally. In science, it’s all about your arguments, line of evidence and methodology, regardless of who you are;
*''Disinterestedness'' expresses the idea that scientists should work only for the benefit of science;
*''Organized scepticism'' expresses the idea that the acceptance of all scientific work should be conditional on assessments of its scientific contribution, objectivity and rigor. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000325-QINU`"'
These norms describe the ideal scientific community. In reality, however, the research climate falls short of this ideal. Scientific discoveries can often be found behind paywalls or remain unpublished. Research can sometimes be appraised and published on the basis of the authority and status of its authors. The culture of ‘publish or perish’ and the increased dependence on grants for success can sometimes obfuscate the value of scientific research.
These phenomena are described as counter-norms: secrecy, particularism, interestedness, dogmatism. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000326-QINU`"' Some have suggested employing originality and replication as additional norms. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000327-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000328-QINU`"' +
The European Code of Conduct states that good research practice with regard to collaborations are based on the following principles:
*All partners in research collaborations take responsibility for the integrity of the research.
*All partners in research collaborations agree at the outset on the goals of the research and on the process for communicating their research as transparently and openly as possible.
*All partners formally agree at the start of their collaboration on expectations and standards concerning research integrity, on the laws and regulations that will apply, on protection of the intellectual property of collaborators, and on procedures for handling conflicts and possible cases of misconduct.
*All partners in research collaborations are properly informed and consulted about submissions for publication of the research results. (ECC 2017, section 2.6)
Vicens and Bourne (2007) suggest the following rules: '"`UNIQ--ref-00000208-QINU`"'
#Do Not Be Lured into Just Any Collaboration
#Decide at the Beginning Who Will Work on What Tasks
#Stick to Your Tasks
#Be Open and Honest
#Feel Respect, Get Respect
#Communicate, Communicate, and Communicate
#Protect Yourself from a Collaboration That Turns Sour
#Always Acknowledge and Cite Your Collaborators
#Seek Advice from Experienced Scientists
#If Your Collaboration Satisfies You, Keep It Going
'"`UNIQ--references-00000209-QINU`"' +
Reflection on moral conflicts, and especially on moral dilemmas, is an important element of responsible research practice. Take for example Phase I trials that involve novel therapies for patients (so-called First-In-Human (FIH) Trials). '"`UNIQ--ref-00000038-QINU`"' These trials involve a high degree of uncertainty in intervention development and possible outcomes. Although this step, hopefully, in turn, will make a Phase-III clinical trial in compliance with the basic epistemological and ethical requirement of therapeutic trials possible, it is a fact that so far no widely accepted standards for judgments of uncertainty, safety, and value of FIH trials have yet been formulated. Consequently, no selection of patients to be included in such trials can be said to be fully satisfactory, i.e. without the possibility of moral failure. Through acknowledging the possible existence of irresolvable moral conflicts in research, researchers will learn modesty, and thereby also protect themselves from being infected by the vice of ''hybris''.
Reflection on moral dilemmas can be fostered by organizing Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). '"`UNIQ--ref-00000039-QINU`"' In MCD, a morally troublesome situation is investigated by a group, guided by a facilitator. During the investigation, the conflicting values in the situation are examined in dialogue. This enables participants to become aware of, and reflect on the moral conflict involved. MCD specifically focuses on moral conflicts that cannot be restlessly solved, that is on moral dilemmas. The aim is to investigate different values of stakeholders in practice, and become aware that in making a choice, certain values will be harmed. This may result in the awareness that, although a choice is unavoidable, one should be open to the negative consequences of and take responsibility for them.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000003A-QINU`"' +
N
Avoid the following pitfalls (behavioral aspect with an example): (a) Temptation - “Getting my name on this article would look really good on my CV”, (b) Rationalization - “It’s only a few data points, and those runs were flawed anyway”, (c) Ambition - “The better the story we can tell, the better a journal we can go for”, (d) Group and authority pressure - “The PI’s instructions don’t exactly match the protocol approved by the ethics review board, but she is the senior researcher”, (e) Entitlement - “I’ve worked so hard on this, and I know this works, and I need to get this publication”, (f) Deception - “I’m sure it would have turned out this way (if I had done it)”, (g) Incrementalism - “It’s only a single data point I’m excluding, and just this once”, (h) Embarrassment - “I don’t want to look foolish for not knowing how to do this”, (i) Stupid systems, “It counts more if we divide this manuscript into three submissions instead of just one”. +
O
TENK believes that it is important to keep the threshold low for initiating a preliminary inquiry into such cases. +
- Open access publishing +
P
Different publishers have a different set of rules for reporting research and conducting peer review so it is always recommended to familiarize yourself with any specific guidelines which are available on each journal’s webpage. Before you can accept an invitation to review, it is necessary to consider does your area of expertise match the topic of the proposed article as well as your potential conflict of interest. A successful peer review usually contains a clear answer on the question should the proposed article be accepted, rejected, or revised. It also contains a list of any major and/or minor issues, their location within the article as well as explanations and suggestions to the author(s). There are some freely available resources which can help with peer review process such as COPE's ethical guidelines for peer reviewers '"`UNIQ--ref-000000FF-QINU`"', Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist '"`UNIQ--ref-00000100-QINU`"' and the Handbook on Best Practices for Peer Review '"`UNIQ--ref-00000101-QINU`"', published by the Association of American University Presses.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000102-QINU`"' +
The researcher entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement with the ORI. They voluntarily agreed to exclude themselves from serving in any advisory capacity to the PHS and to certify in every PHS research application or report that all contributions to the application or report are properly cited or otherwise acknowledged. +
Polish Ministry of Science and Information Society Technologies' Good Scientific Research Practice Recommendations +
- Observing basic good conduct such as honesty
- Proper management and cooperation in research teams
- . Special consideration of the needs of young researchers
- Securing and maintaining research results
- Observance of copyrights of the scientific publications.
- Avoiding conflicts of interest +
[https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] defines good practices for training, supervision and mentoring:
"Senior researchers, research leaders and supervisors mentor their team members and offer specific guidance and training to properly develop, design and structure their research activity and to foster a culture of research integrity" +
- Tips to ensure public engagement
- Promoting gender equality in research
- Policy recommendations
- Open access
- Science education at schools +
- The pros and cons of self-regulation and statutory regulation
- Who oversees self-regulation? +
In areas such as physics, mathematics and economy, preprint servers have been in use for almost 30 years.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F2-QINU`"' In 1991 a centralized automated repository, the arXiv preprint server, was the pioneer in this method of dissemination of research results. It played an important role in physics, astronomy and mathematics, and later was implemented into other research areas.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F3-QINU`"' Significant number of journals has adopted this practice of posting their manuscripts on preprint servers. About 46% of the 2,566 publishers indexed in SHERPA RoMEO support preprint servers.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F4-QINU`"' The Lancet, for example, posts articles to preprint severs from Social Science Research Network (SSRN).'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F5-QINU`"'
Preprint servers can be journal (Netprints), non-journal (arXiv), mixed (ResearchGate), subject repositories (Social Sciences Research Network) as well as national and regional servers (Chinese Preprint Server Online).'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F6-QINU`"' They can be supported by con-commercial and non-editorial organizations as well. For example, the Welcome Trust in UK has its own preprint server.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F7-QINU`"' Research institutions and funding organizations also can have preprint servers. One of the examples is UK’s Medical Research Council (MRC) that includes the manuscripts posted on preprint servers in biomedical research grant applications.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F8-QINU`"'
Some of the most popular preprint servers are:
-[https://www.biorxiv.org/ BioRxiv] (a preprint repository for the biological sciences);
-[https://arxiv.org/ arXiv] (an open access archive operated by Cornell University, containing 1,774,607 articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science and economics);
-[https://thewinnower.com/ the Winnower] (an open access online publishing platform that offers an open post-publication peer review);
-[https://psyarxiv.com/ PsyArXiv] (a preprint server for the field of psychology, launched in 2016 by Cornell University);
-[http://www.prepubmed.org/ PrePubMed] (a platform that indexes preprints from PeerJ Preprints, Figshare, bioRxiv, and F1000Research)'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F9-QINU`"';
-[https://www.medrxiv.org/ medRxiv] (the first preprint server for medicine, launched in 2019 by Yale and BMJ).'"`UNIQ--ref-000005FA-QINU`"'
Longer list of preprint repositories can be found [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zYOy6bcydDZ9G56FKmDzg_pexTarVsJR5hH0KiQGt_I/edit#gid=1494155948 here] and [https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers here].
Although there are some preprint servers for medicine, shortcomings of this practice have to be considered. Medical research findings are often discussed by the media and public, so the media release of an unreviewed work can be harmful.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005FB-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000005FC-QINU`"' Preprints in medicine also raise ethical questions regarding research with humans, therefore the confidentiality of participants should be protected.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005FD-QINU`"'
Nevertheless, in this time of COVID-19 pandemic preprint servers showed to be a useful tool because of the accelerated dissemination of research results. This is important especially regarding treatments and vaccines.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005FE-QINU`"' From the early stages of the pandemic to the mid October, more than 19,000 preprints were produced.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005FF-QINU`"' We also have to consider that peer reviewed articles published in journals can present low-quality work. One of the examples is article about a Russian vaccine, published in the Lancet,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000600-QINU`"' which instigated objections and an open letter to the authors and the Lancet editor. The objections addressed data presented in the article and called for full availability of the original data in order to evaluate the study and enable reproduction of the research findings.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000601-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000602-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000603-QINU`"'
- Ensuring academic independence
- Enabling integrity in research
- Misconduct handling +
According to the Belmont[https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html]'"`UNIQ--ref-000004A7-QINU`"' report:
· Respect
· Beneficence
· Justice
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-000004A8-QINU`"' +
*Nowadays, ‘good publication’ is considered to be peer reviewed publication. Since 1830 peer review became systematic and operational and is considered essential for academic publishing in present times.
*Journal editors are responsible for the publication process. Their standards are defined in guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which were founded in 1997.
+
The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices. +
Q
When qualitative research is intended to generate hypotheses for future research or to test the feasibility and acceptability of interventions, then applying the results is relatively straightforward.
Can the results of qualitative research be applied directly to daily clinical practice? If the study population seems similar enough to one’s own, then the clinician can justifiably consider the usage of the study results to reflect on his or her practice (2). +
Pre-registration of study protocols enhances the transparency of the research process and lends credibility to results. +
R
Recommendations of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK for Research Integrity Advisers and related background organisations1 +
Advisors' range of activities include:
- Supporting the responsible conduct of research
- Providing guidance on the handling of misconduct
- Conducting preliminary ethical reviews +
Some of the most common examples of replication failures come from drug discovery and development. Usually drugs are developed in several stages, beginning with cells and animal studies and ultimately advancing to human trials. Failures in both conceptual and direct replication are frequent in this branch of science. Conceptual failure, for example, can occur when testing a drug that has promising action in animals for the first time in humans'"`UNIQ--ref-0000039B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000039C-QINU`"', whereas a direct replication failure might occur when testing the same drug on a similar group of people'"`UNIQ--ref-0000039D-QINU`"'. Since successful replications enhance public trust in science and medicine, the increasing number of non-replicable studies in various disciplines, mainly psychology, have resulted in what has been described as a “replication crisis” and raised serious concerns'"`UNIQ--ref-0000039E-QINU`"'. A study conducted by a team of 270 scientists at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville showed that only 35 of 100 studies published in one of the prominent psychology journals in 2008 could be replicated'"`UNIQ--ref-0000039F-QINU`"'. Some argue however that there is no such thing as a “replication crisis”; moreover, sometimes the “non-replicability” could be helpful to science'"`UNIQ--ref-000003A0-QINU`"'.
If replication fails, it does not necessarily mean that the original result of the experiment which is being replicated is false. It indicates some unknown factors are different in the replication experiment vs. the original experiment and an attempt should be made to investigate these '"`UNIQ--ref-000003A1-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000003A2-QINU`"'. If such factors are found (either of a technical or knowledge domain specific nature) they can substantially improve the understanding of the phenomena being studied.
In the last few years, leading scientific institutions in the United States have taken some steps to improve replicability. In 2014, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided training modules for postdoctoral fellows and a list of publications regarding replicability on their website, and emphasized addressing transparency in grant applications'"`UNIQ--ref-000003A3-QINU`"'. The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) have published Companion Guidelines on Replication and Reproducibility in Education Research in 2018. The guidelines suggest several actions to enhance replicability. For example, proposals for replication studies should guarantee objectivity, pre-registration of the research design and methods should ensure transparency, research should be described in detail, and all research data should be publically available'"`UNIQ--ref-000003A4-QINU`"'. Taking these important steps calls for a significant culture shift so that accuracy in research would be valued more than swiftness'"`UNIQ--ref-000003A5-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-000003A6-QINU`"'
There have been some cases of successful study replication. One of the most known cases is deciphering the Rosetta Stone. The Stone which was discovered during the Napoleonic Egyptian Campaign in 1799 contains texts both in Ancient Egyptian (hieroglyphic and Demotic script) and in Ancient Greek. By comparing the Demotic, hieroglyphic and ancient Greek texts, British scholar Thomas Young and French scholar Jean-François Champollion managed to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphic.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005BC-QINU`"' Numerous scholars have studied the stone later and the main results have been replicated multiple times.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005BD-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-000005BE-QINU`"'
Although there is no consensus in the research community, some research organisations, academic journals and platforms have been encouraging replication in the humanities. One of them is the [https://www.nwo.nl/en/about-nwo Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research] (NWO). The NWO recognizes that while not all humanities research is suitable for replication, this practice is possible in the empirical humanities and this is what it aims to “encourage and facilitate”.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005BF-QINU`"'
Cambridge University based journal [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-teaching Language Teaching] is also fostering original research articles which replicate previous experimental studies in the field of language learning and teaching.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005C0-QINU`"' It emphasizes that replication studies can improve the way we interpret empirical research because they provide a second opinion regarding the hypotheses, methods and results of the original paper.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005C1-QINU`"'
Publishing platform [https://opencontext.org/ Open context], founded by archaeologists, also supports and encourages replication in the humanities.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005C2-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000005C3-QINU`"' +
The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices. +
