What are the best practices? (Has Best Practice)
From The Embassy of Good Science
R
Good scientific practices (general)
- Good practices in grant applications
- Ethics in research involving animals +
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 Concordat to Support Research Integrity lists eight aspects which are important for a good research environment to promote best practices and research integrity.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004ED-QINU`"' They state a good research culture should include, as a minimum, the following: <br>
*Have clear policies, practices and procedures to support researchers
*Have research ethics and integrity training, including mentoring opportunities
*Have robust management systems ensuring implementation of policies related to research, its integrity and researchers behaviour
*Create awareness among the standards of behaviour of researchers
*Ensure a system is in place that can identify concerns at an early stage
*Provide support mechanisms for those that need assistance
*Have policies in place ensuring no stigma is attached to those that find they need assistance from their emplyees
*Communicate and implement processes to raise concerns about research integrity
'"`UNIQ--references-000004EE-QINU`"' +
On an individual level, the most important research metrics are the H-index and the i-10 index. The H-index, also known as Hirsch index, is an author level metric that shows how many articles have been cited a certain number of times. For example, a h-index of 10 shows that the author has 10 articles, each cited at least 10 times.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000011F-QINU`"' The i-10 index shows the number of articles an author has published with at least 10 citations.
On a journal level, the impact factor shows an average number of citations per article in two consecutive years.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000120-QINU`"' Other famous journal metric systems are Eigenfactor and the SCImago Journal Rankings.
It is important to note that every metric system has its flaws. As a result, they should not be the only criterion when determining the quality and performance of a particular researcher, article, journal or research project.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000121-QINU`"' +
Various practices are related to research misconduct, ranging from building an environment conducive to good research conduct to the policies and procedures for reporting misconduct. Below, some initiatives to improve the reporting of misconduct are detailed.
The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity focuses on the adherence to Integrity and Fairness in misconduct procedures. Find the code [https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity here.]
The Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) outline the responsibilities of journal editors and publishers in their ‘core practices’ [https://publicationethics.org/resources/elearning/introduction-publication-ethics/publication-ethics-and-misconduct here]. Recommendations include:
*"Journals must take seriously allegations of misconduct pre-publication and post-publication"
*"Journals should have a clearly described process for handling allegations, however they are brought to the journal's or publisher's attention"
*"COPE expects members to have robust and well-described, publicly documented practices in all these areas for their journals and organisations" +
- Following the OeAWI guidelines on Good Scientific Practice
- Scientific record-keeping +
The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC RI) defines a good practice in mentorship:'"`UNIQ--ref-0000054F-QINU`"'
“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.” The ECoC RI also defines the misuse of seniority to encourage violations of research integrity as an unacceptable practice.
The Office for Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services defines the expectations of trainees and mentors in the research process.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000550-QINU`"'
“Trainees need to know:
· how much time they will be expected to spend on their mentor’s research;
· the criteria that will be used for judging performance and form the basis of letters of recommendation;
· how responsibilities are shared or divided in the research setting;
· standard operating procedures, such as the way data are recorded and interpreted; and, most importantly,
· how credit is assigned, that is, how authorship and ownership are established.
Mentors need to know that a trainee will:
· do assigned work in a conscientious way,
· respect the authority of others working in the research setting,
· follow research regulations and research protocols, and
· live by agreements established for authorship and ownership.”
'"`UNIQ--references-00000551-QINU`"' +
Good scientific practice involves researchers providing explicit information on the origin of their test material in a way that is clear to readers of the paper.
All authors of a scientific article have responsibility for its overall content, including reading the final manuscript carefully before submitting it to a journal. +
Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: 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. +
S
SOPs4RI - Guidelines for research institutions on community building for a positive research culture +
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 possi- ble that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guideline should not be seen as a ‘one- size-fits-all’, but rather as a tool 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 a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.
Furthermore, several best practices are highlighted in the guidelines itself. +
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 a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.
Furthermore, several best practices are highlighted in the guidelines itself. +
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on Responsible Supervision and Leadership - Supervision requirements & guidelines +
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 a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.
Furthermore, several best practices are highlighted in the guidelines itself. +
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 a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs. +
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on the research integrity education of bachelor, master and PhD students +
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 a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs. +
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on the research integrity education of institutional research integrity stakeholders +
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 a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs. +
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on the research integrity education of post-doctorate and senior researchers +
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 a tool 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 a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.
Furthermore, several best practices are highlighted in the guidelines itself +
Safeguards, Data-sharing and the Disclosure of Sensitive Results: 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. +
Authors highlight the role that organisations such as the US Office of Research Integrity or the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty can play in streamlining the process of dealing with cases of misconduct. +
It shows that researchers' responsibilities towards their projects and collected data extends beyond the duration of their employement in a particular research institute. +
Specific advice for authors: "Do not put your name on a manuscript written by someone else. • Do not insert someone else’s text as a place-holder in a draft manuscript. The original might not be replaced later. • Do not copy verbatim the background section of someone else’s paper. Copying an amount beyond fair use might violate copyright law. The background section could be incomplete or erroneous. A subsequent inquiry or investigation would consume a lot of time from faculty and administrators, and it could embarrass the institution. • Include references to all sources, with appropriate citations, in all manuscripts and grant proposals. • Take allegations of plagiarism to a research integrity officer. If there is no research integrity officer, then consult a knowledgeable administrator"'"`UNIQ--ref-000002CA-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000002CB-QINU`"' +
- Establishing research networks
- Quality assessment of scientific training +
- Maintaining an equal gender distribution in evaluation panels
- Ensuring that the gender ratio among grant awardees is representative of that of the applicants
- Ensuring that men and women have equal success rates in grant applications
- Incorporate gender equality into analysis, evaluation and communication +
- Early identification of potential conflicts of interest
- Preventing conflicts of interest: by notifying council members or colleagues in the evaluation panel, avoiding handling applications which could be potentially conflicting +
- Planning research
-Collaboration
-Publication
-Avoiding misconduct +
- Obligations to list authors
- Authorship requirements
- Procedure for determining authorship
- Order of authorship
- Authors' responsibility
- Acknowledgements +
This guideline has best practice recommendations with respect to
- Institutional structures
- Collaborations
- Publication and dissemination
- Authorship
- Data management
- Assessment and evaluation
- Research process
- Private funding +
T
The Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sports' Law on Scientific Activity and Higher Education' +
- Regulation and quality assurance in higher education
- General provisions of scientific work
- Academic freedom and responsibilities
- Academic collaborations +
- Management of the research process
- Research results and idssemination +
- Policy measures to prevent undue influence
- Emphasis on personal scientific integrity +
There are hundreds of different reporting guidelines which an author can choose from. Selecting the right guideline seems difficult, but has been made easier with the use of a few tools. [http://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/20160226-RG-decision-tree-for-Wizard-CC-BY-26-February-2016.pdf This flowchart] depicts in several easy steps which of the most common research methods (i.e. systematic review, randomized trials, observational studies) match a reporting guideline. If you have a more specific study, [https://www.penelope.ai/equator-wizard this reporting guideline wizard] was developed to reveal which guideline you can use. Please visit the [http://www.equator-network.org/ EQUATOR Network] for more information on reporting medical research. +
- Transparency regarding proposal authorship and collaborations
- Cautious use of authorship information by RFOs
- Transparency regarding misconduct procedures
- Avoiding duplicate funding +
The German Association of University Professors and Lecturers' (DHV) Position Paper on Scientific Self-regulation and Scientific Misconduct +
- Honesty in all scientific endeavors
- Supervision and guidance of students
- Dealing with misconduct +
- Awareness of legal basis
- Ethical principles of authorship +
The document offers a rationale and examples of each of the five principles. +
For department leaders: ask your coworkers to read the executive summary, and organize a meeting to talk about it and what role the department and the individuals in that department could play to address the issue. +
Leiden university also made a MOOC with this movie: https://www.coursera.org/learn/scientist. Read more on the university website https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2018/01/mooc-on-the-dilemmas-of-science
This movie is also included in the collection of fiction movies for RCR education (NRIN). See www.nrin.nl/ri-collection/library/videos/on-being-a-scientist-movie-2016/ +
The Manchester University's Code of Practice for Investigating Concerns about the Conduct of Research +
- Identifying what constitutes Research Misconduct
- Initial Screening
- Investigative procedures and possible outcomes
-Maintaining fairness, confidentiality and integrity +
Six principles: Honesty and scrupulousness, Reliability, Verifiability, Impartiality, Independence and Responsibility +
- Integrity
- Openness
- Legal requirements
- Supervision and training
- Maintaining data records
- Publication practices
- Ethical principles in human and animal research +
The Swiss National Science Foundation and National Research Council's Regulations on scientific misconduct +
- Responsibilities regarding misconduct proceedings and appeals +
Although adequeate checks and balances seem to have not been in place at the time when the experiment was being conducted, Dr. Green should have informed his patients about the unorthodox method he was using. +
- Standards of Professionalism and trust
- Equality
- Academic freedom
- Teamwork and mutual respect
- Social responsibility
- Integrity and loyalty
- Response to misconduct allegations +
- Honesty
- Respecting the dignity of human subjects
- Non-maleficence
- Proportionality
- Social responsibility
- Respect for the environment +
- Abiding by the Law of Academic Freedom
- Honesty in scientific work
- Following ethical guidelines of specific area of research
- Acknowledging colleagues and sources
- Ensuring good collaboration
- Being accountable for resources
- Ensure validity of results
- Adhering to publication norms
- Unbiased reporting of results
- Maintaining and improving scientific competence +
- Impartiality
-Students' and Supervisors' Obligations +
Worldwide, governmentally regulated limitations for maintaining embryos in cryostorage vary from 24 months to an infinite duration'"`UNIQ--ref-00000971-QINU`"'. Although consensus regarding the ethics of thawing and discarding does not exist, in the absence of explicit, contemporaneous consent, approaches to the issue of unclaimed embryos have been proposed by other advisory bodies. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Task Force on Ethics and Law has advocated standard time limits that can be renewed a limited number of times on a couple’s demand'"`UNIQ--ref-00000972-QINU`"', while the ASRM committee concluded that a clinic can consider embryos abandoned and discard them if 5 years has passed since the last contact with the couple and if significant efforts have been made to contact that couple'"`UNIQ--ref-00000973-QINU`"'. Spanish regulations mandate that embryos should only be used for reproductive purposes, which makes embryo donation the only legal solution when couples do not want the embryos for their own transfer'"`UNIQ--ref-00000974-QINU`"'. Meanwhile, Malta is one of the countries whose legislation does not permit embryo discarding and allows to inseminate up to three oocytes while all resulting embryos are required to be transferred'"`UNIQ--ref-00000975-QINU`"'. Although this immensely complicated issue is substantially discussed in the bioethical and philosophical literature, it is still one of the most significant ethical dilemmas in the world of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART)'"`UNIQ--ref-00000976-QINU`"' +
See also: http://www.nature.com/news/fewer-numbers-better-science-1.20858 +
As Anne Pybern (a member of the Committee on Ethics) notes, such scenario requires carefully considered and flexible responses so that we do not end up serving the various existing rules instead of using these rules to service the ethical needs of humanity accordingly. +
*A set of guidelines to develop mentorship training designed to take into account ethical ambiguities from a cultural perspective and identifying beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviors that could impact interpretation or acceptance of institutional standards and guidelines (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia guidebook).
*A set of online modules designed to offer the user an open-ended learning environment. This is to say that there is no set path that all users must follow, while there will be a strongly suggested path, the module will not force each user into an area. Users are free to decide how to use the materials presented to suit their individual needs and interests. Of course, our wish is that the user will review all sections of the module in depth along our suggested path (Columbia University training module)
*A set of online modules on RCR topics developed with the support of RCR Education Grants awarded by the Office of Research Integrity to the Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center at Northern Illinois University (Northern Illinois University training module).
*A series of video vignettes and discussion guide to provoke discussion, facilitate problem-solving and identify alternate courses of action (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia training module).
+
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. +
Editors need to publish a retraction notice and specifically clarify the unreliability of results, without making a reference to the mental state of the author. +
U
The concordat targets four main areas:
*Maintaining the highest standards of research integrity
*Embedding a culture of research integrity
*Dealing with allegations of research misconduct
*A commitment to strengthening research integrity
<br /> +
- Institutions' role in promoting good authorship practices
- Handling authorship disputes
- Deciding when faulty authorship practices constitute misconduct +
- Preparatoty steps
-Steps of investigative procedure: pre-screening, screening, formal investigation +
- Maintaining RI standards
- Ethical and other frameworks
- Fostering a culture of research integrity
- Handling and preventing research misconduct
- Practices to strengthen integrity +
Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety: A guide for the responsible design and implementation of AI systems in the public sector +
This document provides end-to-end guidance on how to apply principles of AI ethics and safety to the design and implementation of algorithmic systems in the public sector. The guidance has set the foundation for The AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Programme curriculum which is composed of a series of eight workbooks, the first four published in 2023 and the second four to be published in 2024.
Each of the workbooks in the series covers how to implement a key component of the PBG Framework. These include sustainability, fairness, technical safety, accountability, explainability, and data stewardship. Each of the workbooks also focuses on a specific domain, so that case studies can be used to promote ethical reflection and animate the key concepts. +
The Belmont report '"`UNIQ--ref-0000020E-QINU`"' , the Declaration of Helsinki '"`UNIQ--ref-0000020F-QINU`"' and similar ethical and legal documents were enacted by governing bodies and professional associations.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000210-QINU`"' +
V
Values and norms are core concepts in moral reflection about research integrity. For instance in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), a method used to reflect on morally troublesome situations, investigation of values and norms is used to deepen the understanding of the situation at stake.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003E-QINU`"' A core element in this investigation, guided by a facilitator, is analysing the case by looking at the values and norms of all relevant perspectives (persons involved in the case and/or participants in the MCD meeting). Which values motivate each person? How can these values be specified into norms? For example, a moral issue might concern supervision. Should one, as a supervisor of a PhD student, in preparing a response to a reviewer, give guidance and correct mistakes, or at some point take over the writing? A relevant value for the supervisor in the case might be: autonomy. The corresponding norm in the case could be: I should give the opportunity to the PhD student to try this herself. Another value might be: effectiveness. The norm related to this value in the concrete situation could be: the article should be accepted and published. In analysing the case from the perspective of the supervisor, the group becomes aware of these conflicting values. This may then give rise to a dialogue on what value is most important in this situation. This can lead to a conclusion on the most desirable norm and related course of action. Also, the dialogue might provide insights in how to deal with the conflicting value which turns out less important. How can one do justice to the value which will not be realized? In the example, efficiency might turn out to be the most important for the supervisor, meaning that, at a certain point, she will take over the writing. In order to do justice to the value of autonomy, the supervisor might, for instance, propose that the PhD student will get more responsibility for writing the response after submission of the next article. MCD can thus foster decision making, not by prescribing a rule, but by encouraging reflection and dialogue, enabling participants to achieve a new and richer view of the situation.
It is useful to differentiate between three different types of scientific values and norms: ''internal'' values and norms, ''external'' values and norms, and ''linkage'' values and norms.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003F-QINU`"' Internal values and norms of science justify and guide the practice of science itself. Examples of scientific values of the internal kind are: truth, honesty, simplicity, consistency, coherence, economy, exactitude and completeness, openness, open-mindedness, confidence, originality and ‘interestingness’. External values and norms comprise general ideals and rules for action, which are relevant for science, but are not constitutive of the practice of science itself. Examples of external values are human (and animal) welfare notions, which are related to the wider social and cultural context in which scientists operate. Finally, we have a different set of values and norms guiding scientific research, which represent normative points of contact - linkage - between the research community and the community at large, between internal and external values and norms. Examples are requirements of fruitfulness and relevance.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000040-QINU`"'
Values and norms are core concepts in moral reflection about research integrity. For instance in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), a method used to reflect on morally troublesome situations investigation of values and norms is used to deepen the understanding of the situation at stake. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000049-QINU`"' A core element in this investigation, guided by a facilitator, is analysing the case by looking at the values and norms of all relevant perspectives (persons involved in the case and/or participants in the MCD meeting). Which values motivate each of the persons? How can these values be specified into norms for the person? For example, a moral issue might concern supervision. Should one, as a supervisor of a PhD student, in preparing a response to a reviewer, give guidance and correct mistakes, or at some point take over the writing? A relevant value for the supervisor in the case might be: autonomy. The corresponding norm in the case could be: I should give the opportunity to the PhD student to try this herself. Another value might be: effectiveness. The norm related to this value in the concrete situation could be: the article should be accepted and published. In analysing the case from the perspective of the supervisor, the group becomes aware of these conflicting values. This may then give rise to a dialogue on what value is most important in this situation. This can lead to a conclusion on the most desirable norm and related course of action. Also, the dialogue might provide insights in how to deal with the conflicting value which turns out less important. How can one do justice to the value which will not be realized? In the example, efficiency might turn out to be most important for the supervisor, meaning that at a certain point she will take over the writing. In order to do justice to the value of autonomy, the supervisor might, for instance, propose that the PhD student will get more responsibilty for writing the response after submission of the next article. MCD can thus foster decision making, not by prescribing a rule, but by fostering reflection and dialogue, enabling participants to achieve an new and richer view on the situation.
It is useful to differentiate between three different types of scientific values and norms: ''internal'' values and norms, ''external'' values and norms, and ''linkage'' values and norms . '"`UNIQ--ref-0000004A-QINU`"' ''Internal'' values and norms of science justify and guide the practice of science itself. Examples of scientific values of the internal kind are: ''truth, honesty, simplicity, consistency, coherence, economy, exactitude and completeness, openness, open-mindedness, confidence, originality and ‘interestingness’.'' External values and norms comprise general ideals and rules for action which are relevant for science, but are not constitutive of the practice of science itself. Examples of external values are human (and animal) welfare notions which are related to the wider social and cultural context in which scientists operate. Finally, we have a different set of values and norms guiding scientific research which represent normative points of contact - linkage - between the research community and the community at large, between internal and external values and norms. Examples are requirements of fruitfulness and relevance.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000004B-QINU`"'
[
Before the research commences, all researchers must be in agreement on a number of components. First of all, they should agree on what they are aiming for and the goals of their research as well as what is expected from them and their part of the research. Moreover, they should also plan for ways of meeting and communicating and how they will handle any cases of conflict. Also, all researchers should put forward any virtues that they wish to be followed, in order to ensure that everyone is respected and protected.
Researchers should be aware of differences in research practice and should try to reach consensus in the design of their research and how they will be implementing it. All researchers should take responsibility for their part of the work and hold themselves accountable for it. Also, one must communicate and seek advice in case of any difficulties in their work as after all, the purpose of a collaboration is to work together and help each other. It could also be beneficial for researchers to review one another’s work besides their own.
Finally, before any work is submitted, all researchers should give their consent and make sure that there was no breach of research integrity. Also, all collaborators should be given credit for all the parts that they contributed towards. +
The [https://wcrif.org/documents/354-montreal-statement-english/file Montreal Statement on Research Integrity] in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations was developed at the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, 2013. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000055-QINU`"' The statement details twenty separate responsibilities of individuals and institutions concerning general collaborations, management of collaborations, collaborative relationships, and outcomes of research.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000056-QINU`"' +
'''Montreal Statement'''
[https://wcrif.org/documents/354-montreal-statement-english/file The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity] in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations was developed at the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, 2013.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000024-QINU`"' The statement details twenty separate responsibilities of individuals and institutions concerning general collaborations, management of collaborations, collaborative relationships, and outcomes of research.
'''TRUST'''
TRUST is an EU funded project which aims to foster high ethical standards in research globally and to counteract the practice of “Ethics dumping” or double standards in research.
The TRUST project have developed a [http://www.globalcodeofconduct.org/ global code of conduct for research in research poor settings].
For the project website, click [http://trust-project.eu/ here].
'''Bridge Guidelines'''
The BRIDGE guidelines for good epidemiological practice in (global health) research foster high-quality epidemiological studies with impact where it is needed the most: in the local communities and local research systems where the research is conducted.
For more information see [[Resource:Edb02e27-f2e5-4b75-a78c-ec42e76011f6|here]].
'''Cape Town Preamble Statement on fostering Research Integrity through Fairness and Equity'''
This statement was drafted at the 7th World Conference in Research Integrity, held in Cape Town in 2022. The statement offers recommendations and principles for conducting research in a fairer and more equitable way, especially when the research in question involves collaborations between high and low- or middle-income countries.
The WCRI have developed [https://www.wcrif.org/downloads/main-website/cape-town-statement/580-cts-poster/file a poster summarising and explaining the preamble to the statement].
You can read the Cape Town Statement in full [https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/cape-town-statement here].
'''Lancet Global Health Initiative'''
In 2023, the Global Health team at the ''Lancet'' published a statement in support of the decolonising agenda in global health, and against "helicopter research" in particular. This statement outlines measures that can be taken to counter helicopter research, including a new Equitable Partnership Declaration that will be published alongside future articles where at least one author is from a high-income country, but in which the research itself was conducted in a low- or middle-income country.
You can find the statement [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(23)00278-4/fulltext here].
'''International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans'''
The 2016 guidelines published by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) offer guidelines for different aspects of research involving humans, to ensure it is conducted in an ethical manner.
Guidelines two and three concentrate explicitly on guideliens for the ethical conduct of research in low-resource settings and for the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens among partners in the conduct of research respectively.
You can find the full guidelines [https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf here].
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000025-QINU`"'
Knowledge produced by the SSH does not receive enough attention from policy-makers and other research communities.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000650-QINU`"' These disciplines are often not involved in formulating the research questions that identify the interdisciplinary projects from the beginning; they are only included in specific work packages and activities.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000651-QINU`"' Some argue that one of the reasons for that is that research programs do not consider differences between STEM and SSH disciplines which reflects negatively on efficiency, since SSH “have a more complex relationship to truth, power and knowledge than their siblings from the sciences”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000652-QINU`"' Also, SSH are still concentrated on disciplinary research'"`UNIQ--ref-00000653-QINU`"' and their objectives are mainly local.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000654-QINU`"' With regards to that, there have been ongoing discussions that try to come up with a solution for successful integration of SSH in interdisciplinary research.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000655-QINU`"'
Representatives of some European SSH institutions presented a strategy to embed SSH in interdisciplinary research.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000656-QINU`"' This resulted in publication of the [http://horizons.mruni.eu/vilnius-declaration-horizons-for-social-sciences-and-humanities/ Vilnius Declaration] which articulated main principles for integration of SSH in one of the major funding programs, the European Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Horizon 2020.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000657-QINU`"' The Declaration stated that the SSH knowledge and methodologies can lead to new ways of dealing with societal problems. It also presented conditions for the successful integration of the SSH into H2020, for example, through recognising the knowledge diversity, encouraging interdisciplinary training and research as well as connecting social values and research evaluation.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000658-QINU`"'
Although SSH have been part of Horizon 2020 through some programs, their impact has been inconsistent.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000659-QINU`"' Social sciences are not included in almost 75% of interdisciplinary projects, while humanities are engaged in about one third of the SSH-flagged topics, which shows that humanities are not included in 90% of Horizon 2020.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000065A-QINU`"' This led to a new [https://www.h2020.cz/files/svobodova/SSH-position-FP9.pdf declaration] in 2018, adopted by several European universities, which suggested five concrete actions: creating an SSH Platform to facilitate the collaboration, encouraging researchers to consider academic and societal impact when drafting proposals, recognising that all disciplines can contribute to an “inclusive and prosperous Europe”, investing in SSH research and innovation and also introducing target budget for SSH spending, which is set at 10% of the civil research budget for 9th EU Framework Programme for Research & Innovation.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000065B-QINU`"' Regardless of the efforts, the integration of the SSH in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research has been moving at a slow pace. There is still a lot of work to do for the SSH to be recognized as important as other disciplines'"`UNIQ--ref-0000065C-QINU`"' and to reach their potential. It has been argued that maximizing their participation in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary projects will require new platforms and tools.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000065D-QINU`"'
In its guidelines for editors, Elsevier states a number of possible situations which are considered to be a conflict of interest. Some of these are: co-authoring or working in the same department with some of the authors in the last three years, being a supervisor or supervisee of the author, having a personal relationship with the author, and having a direct financial interest or other professional benefit from the review. Another example is when you are asked to review a research submitted from a competing research team (Elsevier guidelines for conflict of interest in peer review provided in the tools section). Your own research experience and ambition may influence the way you see other teams’ work.
To handle this issue, not much can be done. If we would prevent everyone with potential conflict of interest to do a peer review, the quality of peer review would drop. Many researchers with knowledge and expertise can have a personal or professional connection with the authors, especially in a small and niche research area. Another option is blinding the reviewers, so that they do not know the names of the authors. Research has shown that reviewers often recognize the authors even when blinded, and blinding doesn’t mask the products or medicines used in research.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000023F-QINU`"' However, any researcher asked to do a review should decline to do so if they have a COI. Clearly defined journal policies on this matter should also be put in place.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000240-QINU`"' +
The [[Resource:C386dbba-2f69-4257-89c2-903898cf1f12|ENERI Classroom]] as well as the ENERI [[Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434|Research Ethics and Research Integrity Manual]] describe in more detail what COIs are and how they can be avoided and managed responsibly.
[[Theme:1fc5c5b6-6c30-4400-a79b-8838b5a041cc|Path2Integrity]] has developed a [[Resource:C13f2fea-2e63-4da9-8b9a-e4039c3dfde1|learning card]] (instruction for a learning unit) on COIs (card Y7).
The Research Ethics Program of the University of California, San Diego has developed an [http://research-ethics.org/topics/conflicts-of-interest/#summary educational resource on COIs].
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has collected [https://ori.hhs.gov/conflicts-interest-and-commitment resources on COIs and commitment].
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has developed [https://publicationethics.org/competinginterests guidelines] for addressing COIs in the realm of publication ethics.
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has [http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ disclosure of interest form]. +
Different journals have different rules concerning editorial conflicts of interest. Some journals have no requirements, while others have strict rules (3). The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) states that journal editors cannot participate in editorial decisions regarding submitted articles if they have a COI. The same rules apply to editorial staff and guest editors. Editorial staff must not use information gained through working with manuscripts for private gain. Editors should also regularly publish disclosure statements about potential conflicts of interests related to their own commitments and those of their journal staff. For more information, click [http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html <u>here</u>].
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provided a case of an editor who submitted a manuscript to their own journal. This can often happen when the choice of journals is limited due to the highly specialised nature of the particular subject matter. In such cases, a well-documented and transparent process is necessary to minimise potential bias in the review process. This is usually done by requiring another associate editor to guide the peer review process. One could also have the manuscript anonymized (which is often impossible in a very narrow fields) and publish supplemental material to ensure transparent reporting of the peer review process. +
Good organization between the pharmaceutical companies, CRO and clinics where the research takes place. +
The use of DMPs in aeronautical and engineering projects in the 1960s expanded into other engineering and scientific fields in the late 1970 and 1980s. Their purpose was to help complex projects cope with their data management requirements during data collection or analysis stages.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006CE-QINU`"' In the early 2000s the Organisation Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has recommended that “responsibility for the various aspects of data access and management should be established in relevant documents”, such as grant applications, and six major UK research funding bodies recommended that all funding bodies should mandate submission of DMPs with grant applications.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006CF-QINU`"' Some of them have implemented the recommendation, among them Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006D0-QINU`"' Today, 86% of UK Research Councils and 63% of US funding bodies requires submission of DMPs with funding applications.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006D1-QINU`"' DMPs have been created and promoted mostly by University libraries which have become “institutional centres of data management practice”.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006D2-QINU`"' Two most known are the Digital Curation Centre and California Digital Library.
The Digital Curation Centre (DCC), a leading centre in digital information curation that gives advice and help on how to store, manage, protect and share digital research data, provides resources, such as online tools, guidance and training. One of them is DMP online, a free web-based tool that supports researchers in developing DMPs by providing them with templates and guidelines.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006D3-QINU`"'
California Digital Library has also developed DMPTool, an open and international source project, that helps researchers, institutions, and funders in the USA in creating DMPs.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006D4-QINU`"'
Science Europe, an association of Research Funding Organisations and Research Performing Organisations, has developed Practical Guide to the International Alignment or Research Data Management. This Guide, which provides a basis for development of data practices and management, has identified six main requirements for DMPs:
1. Data description and collection or re-use of existing data
2. Documentation and data quality
3. Storage and backup during the research process
4. Legal and ethical requirements, codes of conduct
5. Data sharing and long-term preservation
6. Data management responsibilities and resources.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006D5-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000006D6-QINU`"'
Data Protection Authorities in the EU and the EDPB have emphasized that data protection rules cannot override the measures implemented to fight against the pandemic.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004FC-QINU`"' According to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), “the processing of special categories of personal data may be necessary for reasons of public interest in the areas of public health without consent of the data subject” and “such processing should be subject to suitable and specific measures so as to protect the rights and freedoms of natural persons”.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004FD-QINU`"' However, “such processing of data concerning health for reasons of public interest should not result in personal data being processed for other purposes by third parties such as employers or insurance and banking companies”.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004FE-QINU`"'
In April 2020 the EDPB has released [https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_202003_healthdatascientificresearchcovid19_en.pdf Guidelines 03/2020 on the processing of data concerning health for the purpose of scientific research in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak]. The guidelines stated that both consent of the data subject and GDPR can provide legal basis for data processing concerning health in the COVID-19 pandemic.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004FF-QINU`"' Apart from that, the EU and the national legislator of each Member State can enact specific laws with regard to that.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000500-QINU`"' Sensitive data such as health data (i.e. data related to the physical or mental health of a person) must have higher protection because processing them could have negative impacts for data subjects.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000501-QINU`"' The guidelines emphasized that principles of transparency, data minimization and storage limitation as well as integrity and confidentiality should be respected.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000502-QINU`"'
These guidelines, however, will keep developing further and in more detail as guidance for the processing of health data for the purpose of scientific research is part of the annual work plan of the EDPB.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000503-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000504-QINU`"'
The European Commission decided to run a pilot under Horizon 2020 the [http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/oa-pilot/h2020-hi-erc-oa-guide_en.pdf Open Research Data Pilot] (ORD pilot). Which aims to improve and maximise access to and re-use of research data generated by Horizon 2020 projects. This initiative supports and requires the application of FAIR principles within the H2020 research projects, and therefore it strives to maximise the output and outreach of publicly funded research. +
Feeding back results from genomic studies is complicated because GWA is a research tool and is not designed for clinical diagnosis. In addition, most of the discoveries of whole genome methods identify genetic variants that explain very little in disease risk or quantitative trait variance. Feeding back raw data, would however, be completely misleading and not widely understandable. Providing participants with information about the general findings of research, such as publications based on the research, is an uncontroversial and welcome practice. +
Digital Curation Centre (DCC) has issued a checklist containing relevant questions for researchers concerning criteria for their selection of repositories. However, it has emphasised that while it provides “a shortcut through relevant policies and standards”, it does not guarantee that these repositories comply with specific standards or funders’ policies. Therefore, this guide provides a framework to help researchers with what can be a somewhat difficult decision. By going through these questions, researchers should be able to make a well informed decision on whether their repositories are suited for their data. They should also always check funder and journal policies for compliance.
The checklist contains five questions to consider when looking for repositories:
-Is a repository of your choice reputed?
-Will it take the data you want to deposit?
-Will it be safe legally?
-Will it sustain the data value?
-Will it support analysis and tract data usage?'"`UNIQ--ref-00000921-QINU`"'
This guide also contains information on where researchers can find repository registries, such as Re3data and Biosharing.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000922-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000923-QINU`"' +
'''Planning stage of the clinical trial'''
To reduce the risks of missing data in the panning of the clinical trial, statistical analyses should be specified, key data items should be identified, and the procedures to prevent missing data '"`UNIQ--ref-0000056C-QINU`"'.
'''Analysis stage'''
There are different strategies to deal with missing data that will depend on the specific clinical trial and type of missing data:
1. Complete cases analysis could be used when the proportions of missing data are below 5%and the potential impact of the missing data is negligible '"`UNIQ--ref-0000056D-QINU`"'.
2. Single imputation replaces missing values by a value defined by a certain rule. However, this method ignores the data variation and can potentially introduce bias and should be used with great caution '"`UNIQ--ref-0000056E-QINU`"'.
3. When the missing data accomplish certain characteristics, multiple imputation may be used to minimize bias . Missing values are replaced by a random sample of plausible values imputations. There are several multiple imputation methodologies that must be chosen according to the variable with missing values '"`UNIQ--ref-0000056F-QINU`"'.
To conclude, handling missing data validly is an important, yet difficult and complex, task. This theme showed different strategies to handle missing data but always statistical expertise’s advice is needed.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000570-QINU`"' +
To support wide data availability, authors should publish their data so it could provide inputs to new hypotheses, and innovation (5,6). Journals could increase awareness on data availability and request mandatory data deposition. Modern manuscript checklists should routinely include data availability part which should additionally emphasize its importance to the authors. Finally, all of this could improve the verification of result, and reduce the misconduction related to data fabrication and falsification, and could serve as training tools for junior researchers (6). +
Some journals, such as Nature, require depositing data to data repositories as part of the manuscript submission process. This is one of the prerequisites for publication.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000917-QINU`"' Nature has set out certain criteria for data repositories. They should:
-provide long-term preservation of data (at least 5 years after publication)
-be supported by a research community or institution
-provide deposited datasets with stable and persistent identifiers
-allow open access
-provide terms of data use
-facilitate for anonymous reviewers to access data under embargo.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000918-QINU`"'
The journal also offers a list of repositories across research areas for researchers who are not certain where to deposit their data:
-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=Generalist%20repositories-,Biological%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Biological sciences]
-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=Generalist%20repositories-,Biological%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Health sciences]
-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRshaing%20entry-,Chemistry%20and%20Chemical%20biology,-%E2%A4%B4 Chemistry and Chemical biology]
-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRsharing%20entry-,Earth%2C%20Environmental%20and%20Space%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Earth, Environmental and Space sciences]
-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRsharing%20entry-,Physics,-%E2%A4%B4 Physics]
-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20re3data%20entry-,Materials%20science,-%E2%A4%B4 Material science]
-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRsharing%20entry-,Social%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Social sciences]
-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20re3data%20entry-,Generalist%20repositories,-%E2%A4%B4 Generalist repositories].'"`UNIQ--ref-00000919-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000091A-QINU`"'
The purpose of “Five steps to decide what data to keep” checklist for appraising research data, developed by the Digital Curation Centre (DCC) is to guide researchers and help them choose what data to keep in order to meet their objectives and comply with the institutional and external funders demands.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000090C-QINU`"' These are five steps proposed by the Guide:
Step 1. Identify purposes that the data could fulfil
Before deciding what data to keep, researchers should be able to identify goals and objectives of these data: verification, further analysis, building academic reputation, community resource development, further publications, learning and teaching, or private use. Identifying one of more of these purposes will make the selection process go smoother and faster.
Step 2. Identify data that must be kept
This concerns legal principles that should be respected. With regard to this issue, researchers should answer following questions: Are there Research Data Policy reasons to keep it? Do regulations require the availability of the data? Are there other legal or contractual reasons? Does it contain personal data relevant to the reuse purpose?
Step 3. Identify data that should be kept
This step concerns researchers’ expertise and knowledge on research data. Before making a decision regarding this aspect, they should consider following questions: Is it good enough? Is there likely to be a demand? How difficult is it to replicate? Do any barriers to further use exist? Is it the only copy?
Step 4. Weigh up the costs
Considering this step will help researchers in economic aspects of data keeping, i.e. potential costs of all the stages of data keeping - creation, collection & cleaning, short-term storage & backup, short-term access & security, team communication & development, preservation & long term access, and staff time.
Step 5. Complete the data appraisal
This final step includes filling out the table on data collection, reuse purposes, value, risk of budget shortfall and whether you plan to keep your data.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000090D-QINU`"'
The Dutch funding agencies ZonMw and NWO have set up guidelines for dealing with COIs in the reviewing process. COI citeria include:
*personal interests
*professional interests
*interests arising out of other positions
*business (financial or economic) interests
The following personal interests always exclude participation in the process:
*being the applicant or joint applicant
*having written any part of an application without being an applicant or joint applicant
*having any of the following relations with the applicant or joint applicant
*actual or anticipated project manager or sub-project manager
*direct manager
*blood relation or affinity (up to and including the third degree
*contract of cohabitation (other than a civil partnership
*dean of the applicant’s institute'"`UNIQ--ref-00000220-QINU`"'
Both ZonMw and NWO ask reviewers to declare their COIs. Next, the head of the committee assesses the impact of the declared COIs. He or she can decide if the reviewer cannot assess a particular application, or if he or she should not partake in the review process at all. Subsequently, the committee states whether they agree or disagree with this decision. Moreover, to ensure impartiality, individual reviewers do not get to see each other’s scores. After the review process has concluded, the reviewers assess whether the process has raised new insights into COIs. In the worst case scenario, if the process has been influenced by a reviewer’s COI, the whole review process is redone.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000221-QINU`"' +
When research is sponsored by industry stakeholders this should be declared as a conflict of interest. Moreover, in a systematic scoping review Cullerton, Adams, Forouhi, Francis & White identified themes for good collaboration with industry stakeholders (specifically in the food industry).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000307-QINU`"' In [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6767600/figure/obr12851-fig-0003/ this flowchart] the auhtors describe several steps and actions sthat can be taken to ensure good collaboration between researchers and industry stakeholders.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000308-QINU`"' +
According to their policy on IP rights, the Dutch funder ZonMw states that when a contract is written, the IP rights derived from a project belong to the research performing institution. However, when the IP rights are not exploited adequately, ZonMw can interfere, in order to increase the impact of the research. Moreover, when considering public-private partnerships in funding, the research performing organization needs to have a strong judicial position. Therefore, research institutes are encouraged to seek legal expertise or request advice from ZonMw. This is to ensure that the IP is not exploited by other private, commericial and industrial institutions, as has happened in the past.
The European IPR Helpdesk has developed a fact sheet on IP management for Horizon 2020 projects.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000022F-QINU`"' The factsheet includes guidance on IP rights in a research proposal. It suggests the following:
*Proposals should describe how results will be protected from commercial and industrial exploitations
*Within multi-center research, the involved institutes need to organise ownership and access of rights and include the economic conditions of dividing the rights
*Proposals should state how joint ownership for expected jointly-owned results will be organized. For example, third-party licensing needs to be considered
*Proposals should consider the exploitation of research results (see Figure 1)
*Proposals should indicate the confidentiality measures that need to be put in place
*“When defining the management structure, applicants should consider the management of intellectual property rights. A committee for exploitation and intellectual property or a manager could be considered and even a consulting body of external experts from industry.”
'"`UNIQ--references-00000230-QINU`"' +
==Bullying and harassment policies==
Bullying and harassment policies allow RFOs to stimulate positive research cultures. Such policies can improve research culture, and their existence “sends a signal that certain ethical standards must be met by researchers and organizations in exchange for funding”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000226-QINU`"' The US based funder National Science Foundation (NSF) requires RPOs receiving funding to inform the NSF about sexual harassment.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000227-QINU`"' In addition, the Wellcome Trust has elaborate rules on what they expect from the organizations they fund (7):'"`UNIQ--ref-00000228-QINU`"'
1. The funded organization requires policies that set out:
*standards of behavior from staff
*the procedure for responding to complaints
2. The funded organization should have an equivalent policy in place at sub-levels, where relevant.
3. The funded organization should investigate allegations of bullying and harassment in an impartial, fair and timely manner. It must:
*protect the rights of all employees involves
*take appropriate action.
4. The funded organization should contact the Wellcome Trust when an investigation has been opened.
5. The funded organization should contact the Wellcome Trust when the investigation has been completed.'"`UNIQ--references-00000229-QINU`"' +
Managing people, projects, and budgets, as well as setting workplace procedures that foster efficiency, safety ethics, and high staff morale, are all issues that come with running a laboratory. Lab safety and ethics are two of the most important components of running a lab, yet they are often overlooked in favor of more fundamental lab management skills. It is critical to work hard to build a laboratory culture that prioritizes safety. +
To manage conflict of interests, which is inevitable and must always be declared, it is important to maximize transparency in industry-funded research. Some of the proposed approaches include a carefully constructed advisory board with specific responsibilities as well as strict guidelines to protect research quality.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000956-QINU`"' It is important to fully disclose financial, personal, and professional interests. Oversight by an independent third party is recommended as well as pre-registration of the study. The role of commercial partners must be defined and the relationship has to be continuously monitored. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000957-QINU`"' The scientific community has improved recently in regards to some of the key indicators of research reproducibility and transparency. This includes information on funding, conflict of interests statements, and an increase in protocol and data sharing. There is also a growing number of fully available texts, although the majority of texts are still not fully available. Nevertheless, confusion about research transparency still exists, and even though there has been some improvement, the scientific community is far from perfect in terms of research transparency and reproducibility.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000958-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000959-QINU`"' +
The best practices is the first step in the targeting the right population of the patients that will be included in research. Also, it is important to give them the informed consent at the beginning of the research, before any procedure. +
'''How it works''' The session takes place annually in Alzheimer Center Amsterdam. All researchers are obliged to attend. Some preparation from the senior researchers in advance of the session is expected: they are asked to share an example of ‘sloppy science’ or a research integrity dilemma drawn from their personal experience. The session starts with a short introduction and is opened by the head of research. Senior researchers share their stories first, to show that issues happen to everybody, and it’s okay to talk about it. This is key to create an environment where it feels safe to speak about issues. Hearing about the issues and mistakes from the seniors stimulates junior researchers to talk more openly about the obstacles they have encountered in their research projects. The goal is not to discuss all issues during these particular sessions, but rather to keep researchers from feeling afraid or embarrassed to discuss issues during everyday research practice all year round. The session ends with educating the junior researchers about who they can talk to during the year if issues arise, as well as sharing the contact info of the hospital ombudsman.
'''Evaluation''' Whereas there has not yet been an empirical evaluation of the initiative, so far, the responses from researchers are very positive. The experience is that issues within the center are discussed timely. Researchers tend to speak first to people in their close working environment, whom they trust. Since the ‘Billen Bloot’ meetings are embedded in weekly scientific sessions, are costless, take place in the center itself and are mandatory to attend, the feasibility of the ‘Billen Bloot’ sessions is very high. This feasibility allows for a smooth implementation and therefore, it makes it a very attractive initiative.
The success of the formula in Alzheimer Center Amsterdam can partly be explained by the already open environment. It is possible that if this initiative is implemented in a less open work environment, it may be harder to make it a success.
'''What’s next?''' The ‘Billen Bloot’ sessions were initiated within the scope of the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam. However, in the last two years the initiative has been copied by other departments and institutions. Finally, researchers of Alzheimer Center Amsterdam have given presentations on the initiative to share the idea with others.
A number of frameworks exist that can be used to advance sharing, (re)using and valuing software. A guideline originally created for data management, the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable), can similarly provide an infrastructure for software reproducibility.'"`UNIQ--ref-000002D9-QINU`"' To specify, ''interoperability'' means the ability of non-collaborating researchers to integrate and work with each other’s resources with minimal effort. A recent collaboration between the Netherlands eScience Center and DANS (Data Archiving and Networked Services), launched a website with a step-by-step route to create FAIR software: https://fair-software.nl/.
The TOP (Transparency and Openness Promotion) guidelines seek to establish a new shared standard of openness and citation, applying to both data and software.'"`UNIQ--ref-000002DA-QINU`"' In summary, the TOP guidelines consist of eight principles (citation standards, code -and material transparency amongst others) and provide ‘levels’ that reflect how strictly might be adopted by journals. Of course, this boils down to the efforts by the researchers. The Reproducibility Enhancement Principles (REP), part of TOP, addresses software specifically. For one, they highlight that software needs not ‘merely’ be shared, but also the workflow and details regarding the computational environment should be communicated. The guidelines are available at: https://cos.io/top/. In their discussion, Alnoamany and Borghi (2018) add that education should give researchers a basic understanding of software, to later guide them in this process. '"`UNIQ--ref-000002DB-QINU`"'(p18)
Lastly, mention-worthy is the Software Preservation Network (SPN), although not purely specific for research software. They seek to ensure long-term access to software .'"`UNIQ--ref-000002DC-QINU`"' Their five core activities are law & policy, training & education, metadata & standards, technological infrastructure and research-in-Practice. Furthermore, they have a number of running projects and a database of resources regarding the theme, all available at their website: https://www.softwarepreservationnetwork.org/.
'"`UNIQ--references-000002DD-QINU`"'
'''The data stewards'''
All the data stewards at TU Delft have a different background. They are either familiar with the faculty by having a research background as a PHD-candidate/Postdoc or by using similar methodologies. A coordinator assures good communication and oversight between data stewards and research teams at the TU Delft. In this way, data stewards function as a ‘gear’ amongst different research support service teams.
The task of data stewardship has extended from only consultation for data management plans to a wide scale of diverse tasks. These tasks include, for instance, implementation of research data policy, training (workshops), information sessions, creating pilots and course education materials. All these things rely on the data stewards’ ability to translate data management literature studies into concrete actions. Sometimes, a ten minutes talk is enough and other times it requires continuous support during a research project. When more assistance is necessary, data stewards support each other via meetings or chat platforms.
'''Evaluation'''
According to Yan Wang, the current data steward at the architecture and building faculty, Data Stewardship has become popular at the university. The role of data steward has proven to be very diffuse. For instance, the data stewards realized that everything about data management is also connected to research ethics. Yan Wang believes that during the pilot, a relationship started to develop in which researchers came to the data stewards for all sorts of things.
Of course, every faculty has a different work environment. Yan Wang believes that data stewardship in the science and engineering faculties is slightly more formal than in the social faculties, possibly due to the faculties’ different extent. There are annual surveys on the awareness of data management per faculties, perhaps indicating how the role of data stewards differs amongst the faculties. These findings are to be found in a [https://openworking.wordpress.com/data-stewardship/ blog] post, which is regularly updated by the university.
In the United States, the Office for Research Integrity (ORI) is developing policies, procedures, and regulations related to the responsible conduct of research and research misconduct. Moreover, ORI develops activities and programs aimed to promote research integrity and foster good research practices.
In Europe, the [https://lari.lu/ Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity] and [https://oeawi.at/en/ Austrian Agency for Research Integrity] are good examples of institutions providing all kind of resources for the promotion of research integrity. These organizations have developed guidelines and recommendations that are implemented by research institutions in their countries. Moreover, they offer training and workshops for researchers in different stages of their career and deal with cases of research misconduct. +
This kind of semiformal meeting is very supportive, not only for PhD candidates, but for all members of research teams.
Sometimes, team members are coming from different institutions and this is the best way for them to get to know each other better. In this way they would improve their communication which will become much easier and of better quality. +
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 Commission funded VIRT2UE project has designed a set of practical tools for recognizing and dealing with RI dilemmas in practice. One of these tools is the so called ‘Virtues, Values and Norms in Perspective’ exercise. In this exercise, inspired by a [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5236068/ virtue ethics approach to RI education], '"`UNIQ--ref-0000009C-QINU`"' participants are asked to reflect on a concrete dilemma experienced by one of the participants. By engaging in a dialogue, trainees are asked to put themselves in the shoes of the people involved in the case at stake and reflect on which values would be important for each of them. Then they are asked to reflect on which virtues are required to deal with the dilemma at stake: are they in conflict with each other? How are they related to salient norms? Which virtue is the most important in this situation? What is needed (concretely) to act in accordance with that virtue?
This exercise aims at fostering reflection in oneself by means of understanding the concepts of virtues/values and norms and their relationship with practice.
Another initiative is the [https://www.eur.nl/sites/corporate/files/24708_integriteitsspel_interactief_2016.pdf Rotterdam Dilemma Game], '"`UNIQ--ref-0000009D-QINU`"' which focuses less on virtue ethics but nonetheless provides structure to discuss RI dilemmas.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000009E-QINU`"' +
To address the issues stated above, the REWARD campaign offers five set of recommendations. First, research priorities need to be selected. This means that prior to engaging in any experimentation or observation, a systematic review of literature should be done, funders should make their criteria for funding transparent, and research funders should develop sources of information about ongoing research.
Second, the REWARD campaign supports rigor in research design, conduct and analysis. This includes improving protocols and making them public, engaging professional staff and non-conflicted stakeholders, as well as rewarding quality and reproducibility of the research, rather than novelty.
Third, research waste can be reduced through research regulation and management. It emphasizes the important role and influence of research regulators who, along with policy makers, should collaborate with researchers, patients and health professionals. Their cooperation should simplify and coordinate laws and regulations that control or guide research. Furthermore, researchers should be able to improve the efficiency of their research using high quality designs that reduce inefficiencies of recruitment, retention, data monitoring, and data sharing. Finally, the integration of research findings in daily clinical practice should be promoted.
Fourth, all information on research methods and findings should be accessible. Academic institutions and funders should reward research that is publicly available and disseminated. REWARD recommends the standardization of protocols and data sharing, as well as the release of complete study reports. Finally, journals, funders, sponsors, research ethics committees, regulators and legislators should support and enforce study registration and availability of complete information regarding research.
Fifth, research reports should be complete and usable. With that aim, the REWARD campaign suggests that the focus of research regulations and rewards should be to encourage complete research reporting. To facilitate this, there is a need for good reporting infrastructure. Authors, editors and reviewers should be trained about reporting guidelines, publication ethics, and research integrity. Funders should support and monitor training.
Researchers should be up-to-date in their field of interest and, when they notice a retraction of an article that they have previously cited, correct the article. The easiest way to be regularly updated on retractions is by following Retraction Watch and their database '"`UNIQ--ref-000004CB-QINU`"'. Zotero citation manager has established a partnership with Retraction Watch and has implemented retraction notifications that pop-up when an article from the users’ database has been retracted. Hopefully other citation managers will follow this practice.
An initiative to stimulate this kind of behavior could result in more corrected articles. In practice, taking into account the number of articles that are published every day, it is hard to expect an individual to notice everything. The ideal practice would be that the journal which has retracted the article, notifies authors which have cited the retracted article. However, that is hard to be expected, especially for older articles. Alternately, authors of the retracted article could inform all the authors who have cited their article. This may be expected from authors whose article is retracted due to unintentional mistake and have initiated the retraction, but it might be illusory to expect this from authors who have committed fabrication, plagiarism, or similar misconduct.
'"`UNIQ--references-000004CC-QINU`"' +
According to the newest WHO (World Health Organization) research [https://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2012/05/who-report-reveals-teenagers-do-not-get-a-fair-deal-on-health], teenagers do not get a fair deal when it comes to health. The survey gathered information from young students about their health and well-being, as well as their social situations and behavior. Adolescent health inequalities can lead to long-term inequalities in adulthood. Adolescence is unquestionably a critical period for mental health, particularly for girls. Predictably, family support is linked to a healthier lifestyle, including improved communication with parents, increased support from classmates, and a larger number of close friends. This has been found to lead to improved mental health. The report shows that addressing the social determinants of health inequalities in childhood and adolescence can enable young people to maximize their health and well-being, ensuring that these inequalities do not extend into adulthood, with all of the potential negative consequences for individuals and society. +
What should we do, then, if we experience imposter syndrome? There might not be a single -effective strategy to minimize it. Yet, new evidence indicates that reframing might be effective. One option is to introduce the idea of imposter syndrome to graduate students. By doing this, you might highlight the idea that imposter syndrome is a natural emotion and let go of the shame that goes along with it. Students may be able to adopt a growth mindset toward their sense of belonging by reframing their experience and using guided reflection exercises to facilitate discussion and support of this experience [5].
References:
# Villwock JA, Sobin LB, Koester LA, Harris TM. Impostor syndrome and burnout among American medical students: a pilot study. Int J Med Educ. 2016; 7: 364-9.
# Sakulku J, Alexander J. The impostor phenomenon. J Behav Sci. 2011; 6 (1): 75-97.
# Sverdlik A, CHall N, McAlpine L. PhD imposter syndrome: Exploring antecedents, consequences, and implications for doctoral well-being. Int J Dr Stud. 2020; 15: 737-58.
# Kernan W, Bogart J, Wheat ME. Health-related barriers to learning among graduate students. Health Educ. 2011; 111 (5): 425-45.
# Morgenstern BZ, Beck Dallaghan G. Should medical educators help learners reframe imposterism? Teach Learn Med. 2021; 33 (4): 445-52.
Lauren A. Mason. +
The presence of a dilemma’s indicates that there is no universal hierarchy of values. A guideline or algorithm cannot simply resolve the dilemma'"`UNIQ--ref-000006B7-QINU`"'. But, a dilemma (‘tragedy’) can be the start of reflection and improvement. Depending on the severity of the situation and the impact of your choice, consider the following:
*Informal discussion with peers
*Consult your supervisor or mentor
*Check a code of conduct or guideline
*Consult a confidentiality advisor
*Discuss it with ‘neutral outsiders’, friends or family
*Analyse the dilemma in more detail, e.g. by [[Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd|moral case deliberation]]
*Is there a rearrangement of practices that can remove the tragedy (Hegel’s question)?
'"`UNIQ--references-000006B8-QINU`"' +
The COMET initiative focuses on developing standardised sets of outcomes that represent a minimum that should be measured and reported in studies with different study designs. Core outcomes included in sets must be relevant for patients and healthcare providers.
The COMET Initiative has a database open to all researchers planning to conduct a study with an 'advanced search' option to find core outcome sets appropriate for their studies'"`UNIQ--ref-0000095C-QINU`"'. +
The EQIPD quality system is currently applied at research labs within the IMI consortium and a group of interested labs. EQIPD made all the developed resources available to the public. Currently, this includes a preprint publication describing the EQIPD system in greater detail on the Open Science Framework [https://osf.io/ng32b/ here]. Additionally, a wiki page, [https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/EQIPD_Quality_System the EQIPD toolbox], is available providing information developed by the consortium and a broader stakeholder group. +
