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 +
