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`"'
