Why is this important? (Important Because)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A description to provide more focus to the theme/resource (max. 200 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
'
Open, transparent, and fair reviewer selection is challenging.
There is a problem of polarized research. '"`UNIQ--ref-000002C5-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000002C6-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000002C7-QINU`"' +
Peer reviewing is essential to maintaining the integrity of academic literature. Importantly, authors who submit a manuscript for peer review should be able to trust that their manuscripts will not be used for any purpose other than the peer review itself, unless they have given explicit permission for this. +
0
Fraenkel published a lot on research methodology, curriculum development and research in education. Guided by the work of Coombs and Meux'"`UNIQ--ref-00000064-QINU`"', Fraenkel (1976) advanced an interesting method to analyse value conflicts meant for teachers “[…] to help students determine for themselves what individuals caught in value dilemmas should do […]”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000065-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000066-QINU`"' +
03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
While this method has deep philosophical roots, what clinicians like about it is the ease with which it fits with how we normally think about tough medical cases.[[#%20ftn1|<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup>]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|<sup>[1]</sup>]] http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
Though MCD is primarily designed to examine clinical cases, given that many research ethics deliberations – e.g. the work of RECs when assessing research protocols – take place before the research in question, this methodology could be used to assess research ethics dilemmas as well. Also, an MCD can be undertaken by a single individual – for example, by considering ‘imaginary’ research ethics committees and other stakeholders as part of a ‘virtual’ deliberation. Since such imaginary and empathy-based techniques are considered to be important aspects of our ethical thinking – in thought experiments, for example – MCD might be a useful tool for such assessments. +
The method is founded on the idea that each member of a research ethics committee (‘REC’), research integrity office (‘RIO’) or institutional review board (‘IRB’) will deliberate based on their initial views and beliefs about a particular case.
The purpose is to move from individual opinions to the underlying reasons for those opinions in order turn ‘I think’ claims regarding a particular case into ‘We agree’ judgments.
[[File:REalistiC Decisions Case Analysis Diagram.png|thumb]]
This procedure is only part of the process of coming to decisions about individual cases. Although the procedure helps members of RECs, RIOs and IRBs to shape and share their deliberations, it cannot make the decision for them.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000001C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000001D-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000001E-QINU`"' +
This method is used as a conceptual tool to guide students though the moral deliberation process in a systematic way. +
1
Offers a framework for implementing effective curation workflows for achieving greater FAIR-ness and long-term usability of research data and code. Adoption of the guidelines for curating reproducible and FAIR research will improve the prospects for a reproducible scholarly record. +
3
It describes different strategies that may be used for whistle-blowing and highlights the fact that not every suspicion is always worthy of exposure. +
A
It shows that using plagiarism-detection software to check books and articles published in the past might result in the discovery of plagiarised items. +
Copyright violation is a common form of misconduct in countries that do not observe copyright law. +
Data fabrication is a serious act of misconduct, which usually goes unnoticed. +
This is a case of editorial misconduct with the main aim of increasing impact factor. +
The four central questions the researchers pose in the study are:
* "What are the alternatives to anonymization?"
* "What is anonymization, in the context of secondary use of qualitative data?"
* "How can researchers best anonymize qualitative data for secondary use?"
* "What is ''enough'' anonymization?" +
This document is a guide for regulatory compliance in ethnography. Ethnography is a pillar of social-scientific research, and it is important to provide stakeholders with guidelines on how ethnographic research complies with current regulations. As a result, this document can help stakeholders to create their own data regulation plans and instruct them on the ethical compliance of ethnographic research. +
Since technological advances are occurring at a fast pace, research is also being conducted through media such as the internet. Besides the technical aspects being relatively new, the ethical tensions underlying such research are also relatively unfamiliar. For instance, how does consent for internet research differ from the traditional informed consent? How do we ensure that data is shared in a fair way? How can the privacy of participants be protected?
This document delves into many ethical gray areas ad offers practical advice on navigating them. As such, it is of immense practical value to researchers in Norway and around the world. +
Scientific misconduct cases should be dealt with carefully, with appropriate protections in place for those that did not commit the misconduct. The 'side effects' of misconduct, including reputational damage, should be minimized or restored when a person or institute has been inaccurately accsued of misconduct. +
This case is one of several examples - presented in this blog site - on how sexual misconduct can violate the ECCRI's principles and good practices in work spaces of academia. +
This is a real case which might be useful for discussions on ghost authorship. +
The health of the participants should be the top priority in clinical trials, especially in FIM trials where drugs are tested that potentially pose a high risk to the health of the participants. The case discussed here shows that even when the trial is reviewed and approved by ethical boards, it can end disastrously for the trial participants. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to review the errors made and learn lessons from tragic cases such as the one discussed here. The overview presented by the current article may help us to do so.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001A9-QINU`"' +
A University of Liverpool investigation determined that a former researcher there fabricated his data +
Revealing, investigating, reporting, and following up fraud can be resource consuming. +
Reaching consensus on a commonly accepted definition of AI Fairness has long been a central challenge in AI ethics and governance. There is a broad spectrum of views across society on what the concept of fairness means and how it should best be put to practice.
We begin by exploring how, despite the plurality of understandings about the meaning of fairness, priorities of equality and non-discrimination have come to constitute the broadly accepted core of its application as a practical principle. We focus on how these priorities manifest in the form of equal protection from direct and indirect discrimination and from discriminatory harassment. These elements form ethical and legal criteria based upon which instances of unfair bias and discrimination can be identified and mitigated across the AI project workflow.
We then take a deeper dive into how the different contexts of the AI project lifecycle give rise to different fairness concerns. This allows us to identify several types of AI Fairness (Data Fairness, Application Fairness, Model Design and Development Fairness, Metric-Based Fairness, System Implementation Fairness, and Ecosystem Fairness) that form the basis of a multi-lens approach to bias identification, mitigation, and management. +
<div>AI systems may have transformative and long-term effects on individuals and society. To manage these impacts responsibly and direct the development of AI systems toward optimal public benefit, considerations of AI ethics and governance must be a first priority.</div><div></div> +
Sustainable AI projects are continuously responsive to the transformative effects as well as short-, medium-, and long-term impacts on individuals and society that the design, development, and deployment of AI technologies may have. Projects which centre AI Sustainability ensure that values-led, collaborative, and anticipatory reflection both guide the assessment of potential social and ethical impacts, and steer responsible innovation practices. +
The sustainability of AI systems depends on the capacity of project teams to proceed with a continuous sensitivity to their potential real-world impacts and transformative effects. Stakeholder Impact Assessments (SIAs) are governance mechanisms that enable this kind of responsiveness. They are tools that create a procedure for, and a means of documenting, the collaborative evaluation and reflective anticipation of the possible harms and benefits of AI innovation projects. SIAs are not one-off governance actions. They require project teams to pay continuous attention to the dynamic and changing character of AI production and use and to the shifting conditions of the real-world environments in which AI technologies are embedded. +
Ethics in science requires researchers to pay due attention to the effects on their subject group, including also animals, as well as to wider society and to minimise harmful effects on their research subjects. Therefore, ensuring that research ethics are abided by serves to put science on track to be trustworthy, reproducible and sustainable. In research ethics conflicts of values and interests between stakeholders are identified, analysed – and proposals for solution of such conflicts are described (in empirical research ethics), or are made and argued for (in normative research ethics). The stakeholders involve other researchers, users, research subjects, including animals, funding agencies as well as society at large, including future generations.
Research integrity touches on the ethos of science and is guided by the rules imposed on the research community by itself. As such, research integrity aims at providing a comprehensive framework for scientists as to how to carry out their work within accepted ethical frameworks as well as following good scientific practice. +
It consider whether research in a personal capacity falls within the scope of a university's complaints procedure. +
Research integrity issues have to be dealt with at an early stage of a researchers career. This tutorial is a useful and fun way to address this topic. +
These are thought provoking examples of roles and responsibilities in the PhD student-supervisor relationship. They are real examples that can be used for reflection for supervisors and students alike, as well as for teaching purposes. +
Research administrators have an important role in promoting research integrity and bringing solutions to problems and conflicts. For accomplishing this work, administrators need to have a set of skills and knowledge which are presented in this module. +
This is a useful resource for organizing a case discussion on conflicts of interest. +
Whilst some publishers allow or encourage suggestions for reviewers, one needs to be careful at how they go about this often controversial practice. Journals in general have a transparent policy and set of guidelines on peer-reviewing. Some publishing bodies offer comprehensive sections on peer-[https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/being-a-peer-reviewer reviewing] +
An author realized a paper had plagiarized his thesis. It took the journal four years to retract it. +
This case demonstrates that even famous journals might publish plagiarised material. It also shows that sometimes it might take years before a flawed article is retracted. +
Careful research planning helps to eliminate potential problems and increases the validity of the findings. +
By providing a focus for discussion, cases help staff involved in research to define or refine their own standards, to appreciate alternative approaches to identifying and resolving ethical problems, and to develop skills for dealing with hard problems on their own'"`UNIQ--ref-000001FE-QINU`"'. +
Anthropological conventions specify the use of pseudonyms in certain types of anthropological reporting, specifically if there is any chance that individuals or a community might be harmed. +
Bu online modül, eğitimde kullanılan kavramlara ilişkin temel açıklamalar sunmakta ve bu yolla, eğitim alan kişilerin eğitime ortak bir terminoloji ve bilgi birikimi ile başlamasını sağlamaktadır. +
Research integrity is increasingly considered a core instructional area. Proper education and training will contribute to the cultivation of responsible research culture while corresponding to the ethical, financial and legal requirements related to acceptance of funding. +
The Australian research community can benefit from the guidelines from the NHMRC. +
Australian Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research +
Having official procedures in place for investigating RM can ensure the processes are held in a fair and transparent manner. +
The purpose of this policy is to promote and support research integrity and safeguard confidence in the value of publicly funded research by:
- making transparent the ARC’s role in ensuring research integrity and addressing breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018) (the Code);
- establishing a framework to support the integrity of the ARC’s grant application, peer review, grant selection and research evaluation processes, funding decisions and research; and
- raising awareness of the importance of research integrity and the possible consequences for research institutions and individuals if appropriate standards are not maintained. +
The quality of research is a precious asset for every society. Social progress, economic value creation, social living conditions and fairness between generations in shaping the future would all be unimaginable without reliable scientific and scholarly knowledge. Ensuring the quality of that knowledge is the duty of scientists and researchers themselves. Because scientific research can be highly specialised and complex, and because there are various links between science and research, politics, the business world and other actors in society, self-governance in science and research can only be effective if it is codified and institutionalised. As an organisation established by Austria‘s research institutions themselves, the OeAWI makes an important contribution to effective self-governance in the Austrian science and research system. +
This paper aims to explore common types of publication misconduct in the editorial office in a specific journal, and considers several implications +
This scenario warrants serious consideration on employed practices regarding ghost authorship. Several consequences might arise from this malpractice. Early-career scientists are deterred from gaining research visibility and acquiring writing skills. In the long run, it generates a vicious circle of bringing up new generation academics that might repeat the same mistakes if they were to become group leaders. Aside from long-term consequences on the health of academia, another problem arises – the lack of adequate bodies, in certain settings, that could help address and resolve the given problem. Institutions that haven't done so already, should widely act upon continuous education about good research practice on all levels, as well as implementing research integrity offices. +
B
When an article is published, all authors are responsible for what is written in the paper. If the paper contains fabricated data, all the authors are deemed to be responsible. +
National ethics guidelines can stimulate good research practices by presenting guidance of what constitutes good scientific practice in a specific country. +
The position paper presented here takes this into consideration by addressing the responsibility of the researchers and the research institutions. In its examination of the general normative principles of the research process and through its recommendations on specific best practices, these guidelines for good research practice are intended to contribute to raising awareness of research integrity and research ethics in Austria and ensuring the freedom of researchers. +
Cases like these are unethical and should be prevented and/or investigated for misconduct. +
The case illustrates that coming clean promptly can be a good strategy for those who have committed scientific misconduct.
The case can spur awareness of early signs.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001EE-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000001EF-QINU`"' +
Via their code of conduct, BioMed Alliance aims to promote the best interests and values of their members, promote excellence in healthcare, research and innovation, and improve the well-being of all European citizens.<br /> +
The scenario focuses on a student whose years of hard work might go to waste because of her mentor's pride. When mentoring, one always must be aware of the fact that they bear a great responsibility. It’s not about the benefits that come with the ,,mentor” title, it’s about teaching your protégé, developing a healthy working relationship, helping and encouraging them every step of the way. '''While doing so, the integrity of the project, the mentee and the mentor must be preserved. ''' +
All authors listed on a manuscript or article should have permitted publication of the article. Otherwise, the paper will be retracted soon after publication and a lot of funding and hard work is wasted, as this case proves. The journal discussed here has measures in place to make sure that all authors have agreed to the publication, such as an agreement form that needs to be signed by all co-authors. However, the present case shows that this is not always effective and stresses the importance to remain vigilant even with these measures in place. In addition, the present case shows that it is in nobody’s interest to counterfeit the permission of one of the authors. +
C
The collection of cases is a useful recourse for teaching publication ethics and for discussing ethical dilemmas in the field. +
To prevent misconduct in academic publishing it is important to define the best practices and ethical standards. Therefore, these core practices dictate how to ethically handle potential cases of misconduct, as well as ways to minimize the chances that misconduct may occur in academic publishing. +
These resources give a clear overview about the major challenges regarding publication ethics. Challenges that all people (in)directly involved in the research are obliged to confront with. Publication pressure and other factors +
When it comes to authoring a research paper, the authors must be prepared to take responsibility for their findings, claims and arguments. The assumption is that the authors should disclose themselves in order to take ownership of their work. +
The analysis provides a strategy to help identify when something is amiss with a research proposal and prompts a much closer examination of such issues. +
This is a real case which can be discussed and analyzed as an example of scientific misconduct. +
This collection of cases is useful for organizing group discussions. +
The database includes a broad collection of cases. The cases can be searched by keyword, subject, or discipline. +
This case study can help researchers identify practical issues and challenges they might come across in collaborations. +
Case-based ethics instruction: the influence of contextual and individual factors in case content on ethical decision-making +
Cases can help making research ethics training more efficient. +
The current peer review system may not work positive for everybody. It is important how to react when your proposal as a researcher is rejected for funding without deception. +
A series of 9 articles provide a set of guidelines on a variety of topics related to archaeological heritage to ensure its protection and management. Among others, the charter focuses on protection policies, legislation and economy, surveys, investigation, maintenance and conservation, reconstruction and presentation, information, professional qualifications, and international cooperation. Besides, the charter has been endorsed by the European Association of Archaeologists in their Code of Practice. +
The case demonstrates supervisory responsibilities in relation to the health and safety of young researchers who are working in a laboratory. +
In an interview, the director of the National Natural Science Foundation of China states that the standards set in the document are relevant for the creation of a culture of fairness and honesty. He claims that this is crucial to preserve the public trust in research findings and set guidelines to create concrete policy for managing an increasing quantity of funds. +
The library provides accessible, credible information to support informed decision-making for professionals and patients. In the Internet age, people have much greater access to health information, but little way of knowing whether that information is accurate and unbiased. The initiative provides a tool to make evidence based decisions in order to improve health and healthcare from multiple perspectives. +
This document lays down prerequisites that need to be upheld by all researchers and research institutions that are supported by the CSIC. It is divided into 4 domains: principles of research, the researcher as a science professional, publications and communication and institutional framework. The legal bases for these good conduct practices are included in the Annex. +
In participating in the communal practice of science, we have to accept certain standards of excellence (related to values, like truth) and rules to follow (to give an accurate account of the authors’ contributions). Thus, we are likely to experience cognitive dissonance or moral distress, when confronted with conflicting imperatives (for instance the need to give an authorship to one’s superior, even if she did not contribute to the specific paper). Cognitive dissonance theory holds that when we experience cognitive or dissonance or moral distress, we tend to justify our behavior. The more often we engage in justifying our unethical behavior, the more we will perceive this unethical behavior as already justified and the more likely we are to engage in it again.
Although we will always be blind to our own ignorance to a certain degree, we can learn to recognize our self-justification strategies as indicators of our (evolving) vices. By recognizing why we engage in self-justification strategies and how they impact our decision-making, we can foster conditions for good research.
Virtue ethics emphasizes that we need to develop virtues in order to deal with imperatives that are detrimental to good research.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' According to MacIntyre, “virtues serve three functions: to enable individuals to achieve excellence in practice, to protect the practice from threat of corruption by goods of efficiency, and to be constitutive components of the good human life”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' So virtues can be seen as crucial to counter corruptive tendencies in the research system. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"'
Cultivating sensitivity for cognitive dissonance and moral distress is an important element of research integrity education.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"'It may support us in our attempts to find the right middle between being lenient and being too harsh on ourselves. What is the right middle depends on situational factors, as well as individual capabilities of the researcher. Knowing the right middle is not something that we can learn solely by understanding the underlying dynamics. It has to be learned in practice, over and over again. If we keep in sight the goods of excellence to achieve, we can be prepared not to be discouraged if we fail to assess a situation appropriately, but rather use any mistake we make as a means to fine-tune our cognitive strategies and moral behavior.
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000006-QINU`"'
Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project +
The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.
They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.
The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.
According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:
1) Research Environment
2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring
3) Research Procedures
4) Safeguards
5) Data Practices and Management
6) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ '''Collaborative Working''']
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing +
A lot of scientific work happens through collaboration. Yet, collaborations can also lead to conflict when there is lack of clarity about the roles of different collaborators, or when expectations are not met.
Collaborative work has become more important over the past few decades, partially due to the rise of interdisciplinary research. The number of co-authors on a paper is a potential indifcatar for the rise of collaborations, with the average number of co-authors on research papers for the PNAS rose from 3.9 in 1981 to 8.4 in 2001. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000050-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000051-QINU`"' +
Columbia grad student faked data in study of socioeconomics and life experiences, says retraction notice +
It is important to present examples of retractions due to misconduct in areas such as economics and social sciences. A recent review'"`UNIQ--ref-00000697-QINU`"' has found that ethics violations in social sciences and humanities are not as commonly encountered compared to medical and health sciences. +
Many people (both editors and investigators) feel that the misrepresentation of authorship is a form of research misconduct, and that honesty in reporting science should extend to authorship. They argue that, if scientists are dishonest about their relationship to their work, this undermines confidence in the reporting of the work itself. +
Hier een verantwoording voor ....we dit faciliteren +
Conflict of interests erodes objectivity of science and leads to corruption, and most certainly create a space for bias in decision making. Conflict of interest can happen in a variety of research areas and human activities, but when we take consequences into consideration, in some areas such as science and research it becomes especially important.'"`UNIQ--ref-000002A1-QINU`"' A recent review revealed that industry sponsored studies are more often in favour to the sponsors’ products compared with studies with other sources of funding.'"`UNIQ--ref-000002A2-QINU`"' Because of the effect it can potentially have on research, scientific journals require a separate declaration of conflict of interest when submitting scientific articles.'"`UNIQ--ref-000002A3-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000002A4-QINU`"' +
A variety of situations can lead to conflicts of interests within the CSIC, such as research-related collaborations and consultations, evaluations, training, publication, financial support provision and knowledge transfer activities. It is important for individual researchers and for research teams to be aware of these potential conflicts in order to avoid them. In addition, institutions should also have structures and systems in place to handle conflicts of interest. This document sets a framework for institutional measures. +
Currently, citizen science is becoming more and more important in different fields of science. For example, in natural sciences, it enables large-scale data collection by involving a vast number of individuals which would be challenging to achieve for traditional research methods within the same timeframe and resources. This training will guide you through the crucial elements of responsible citizen science, including protection of human research participants, plants, animals and ecosystems; rights of citizen scientists; conflicts of interest; quality of research outputs etc. By the end of this training, you will gain a deeper understanding of responsible open science and acquire the following skills and attitudes necessary for responsible practising of citizen science. +
When doing a research concerning a sensitive subject, it is important to think about the effect the results can have on the research population and to . +
It is unusual to encounter cases of ethics violations on citizen's science and similar disciplines. The author raises some interesting points for discussion. +
It provides a framework or a set of rules to protect human dignity and the bio-rights of individuals. It is an important benchmark in the protection of human rights related to biomedicine and technology. +
Copy and paste: A slow university investigation into serious accusations of misconduct benefits no one +
This factual case demonstrates that there may be a significant time lapse between the noticing and reporting of a case of plagiarism (or indeed, other research ethics violation) to the appropriate resolution of such cases.
The article discusses solutions on shortening the investigation time for allegations in Universities as well as ways to encourage universities sticking to their own misconduct enquiry timelines and policies. +
Scientific misconduct in drug trials, especially the modification of research outcomes, severely endangers the health of future patients who will be treated with the drug. In addition, it leads to the waste of research funds and diminishes public trust in science. Therefore, offences such as these must be punished. +
A recent review'"`UNIQ--ref-00000695-QINU`"' has found that published cases of research ethics violations in Social Sciences and Humanities disciplines constitute a very small percentage (4.3% and 1.3% respectively). It is important to flag examples of ethics misconduct in disciplines like Law. +
Accuracy in referencing is important for several reasons'"`UNIQ--ref-000001D9-QINU`"' such as avoiding improper appropriation of others ideas, allowing readers to further research certain topics which might be only briefly touched upon in the text, embedding the text in the relevant literature on the same topic and supporting ones claims on scientific evidence which has been peer reviewed by other researchers. Reflecting on this case, for instance in a classroom setting, can support the understanding good referencing practices and help in avoiding mistakes'"`UNIQ--ref-000001DA-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001DB-QINU`"' +
Cultural differences play an important role in the research environment. Not being aware of such differences can cause miscommunication and even be a cause of research misconduct. +
Education, research and innovation are basic pillars of the development of contemporary society. The trust in research rests on the trust in the integrity of researchers and the reliability of results of their scientific work. The outcome and interpretation of their research can be verified by the scientific community, but cannot be verified by the public for which the new knowledge is intended. Therefore, if science is to remain trustworthy, researchers must observe basic moral principles in their work, and must be people of integrity and honesty. +
D
Research and research-based education is of central and increasing importance in developing society’s knowledge base, increasing welfare and providing informed answers to local and global challenges. +
The strategy for open access focuses on two Open Access models: Golden and Green. While Golden Open Access is encouraged where possible, it should not be used when there is an added expenditure involved. The default Open Access model, therefore, should be Green Open Access.
This guideline also stresses that legislation is not the way to ensure Open Access to all research. Rather, co-operation and awareness are the main mechanisms to enable compliance. Open Access should also be implemented using means that do not compromise the quality of research, but only add to its value. +
The case demonstrates that: a) sometimes, what initially seems as a violation of research ethics procedures might be the result of a mistake, often more easily performed by researchers in their early careers; b) there may be a lack of clarity on how to deal with what might seem – but not necessarily proven – to be a case of research misconduct in a team.
This is a useful case for students as it provides some practical advice of who a student can raise such concerns with. It provides some ideas on how one can proceed in a manner that would protect all parties involved from potentially unnecessary tribulations. +
Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project +
The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.
They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.
The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.
According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:
1) Research Environment
2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring
3) Research Procedures
4) Safeguards
5) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063648#.X3cHCpNKjxQ '''Data Practices and Management''']
6) Collaborative Working
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
<br /> +
If you face a moral question, dilemma, or conflict, you should be able to make a well-considered choice. In order to consider choices or form an opinion you should be able to fully understand the context of the issue, what is at stake and for whom. To have a dialogue, an attitude of slowing down, postponing judgments and asking questions is required. By engaging with others in dialogue you focus on understanding the other and helping the other (and yourself) think critically about his/her way of acting. +
When facing a moral question, dilemma, or conflict, one should be able to make a well-considered choice. In order to consider choices or form an opinion one should be able to fully understand the context of the issue, what is at stake, and for whom. To have a dialogue, an attitude of slowing down, postponing judgments and asking questions is required. By engaging with others in dialogue you focus on understanding the other and helping the other (and yourself) think critically about his/her way of acting. +
Im Angesicht einer moralischen Frage, einem Dilemma oder einem Konflikt, sollte man in der Lage sein, eine wohlüberlegte Entscheidung zu treffen. Um Entscheidungsmöglichkeiten abzuwägen und sich eine Meinung zu bilden, ist es wichtig, den Kontext zu verstehen – welche Risiken die Situation birgt, und für wen das relevant ist. Zu diesem Zweck ist es hilfreich, einen ''Dialog ''zu führen und dabei mit Fragen die Perspektiven anderer zu erkunden, ohne dabei vorschnell zu urteilen. Mit anderen Personen in einen Dialog zu treten, trägt zum gegenseitigen Verständnis bei und hilft uns und den anderen, die jeweiligen Handlungsweisen des Gegenübers kritisch zu hinterfragen. +
Im Angesicht einer moralischen Frage, einem Dilemma oder einem Konflikt, sollte man in der Lage sein, eine wohlüberlegte Entscheidung zu treffen. Um Entscheidungsmöglichkeiten abzuwägen und sich eine Meinung zu bilden, ist es wichtig, den Kontext zu verstehen – welche Risiken die Situation birgt, und für wen das relevant ist. Zu diesem Zweck ist es hilfreich, einen ''Dialog ''zu führen und dabei mit Fragen die Perspektiven anderer zu erkunden, ohne dabei vorschnell zu urteilen. Mit anderen Personen in einen Dialog zu treten, trägt zum gegenseitigen Verständnis bei und hilft uns und den anderen, die jeweiligen Handlungsweisen des Gegenübers kritisch zu hinterfragen. +
Deception to enroll in clinical trials can be a risk "to both subject safetey and study integrity that researchers should actively minimize when methods of verifying self-reported health data exist". '"`UNIQ--ref-00000196-QINU`"' +
This declaration serves as an adaptation of the Hippocratic Oath to modern medicine. The declaration is a core document for medical ethics and, in many countries, it is even part of the medical profession code. The Biomedical Alliance in Europe and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology endorse the Declaration of Geneva in their codes of conduct and ethics, respectively. +
The Declaration of Helsinki is especially important to protect the well-being of human subjects involved in biomedical research. It serves as a call of duty for physicians, that need to safeguard the welfare of the human subjects. Different European societies, such as the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, and the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association, have endorsed the declaration in their code of ethics and conduct. +
Although organ transplantation saves and improves many lives, exploitative and unethical practices are common, provoking harm especially to the poor and vulnerable. The declaration provides guidance and principles to ensure that organ transplantation is a safe practice, based on values like human solidarity, and to prevent harmful practices. Among many medical societies, the Declaration of Istanbul is endorsed by the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association. +
The case delivers yet another example of the many formats that plagiarism can take (see also Loui, 2002)'"`UNIQ--ref-000004A9-QINU`"'. It is also a reminder of how easily and, often unintentional, breech of ethical guidelines can occur, especially by those less experienced in a field.
'"`UNIQ--references-000004AA-QINU`"' +
Liest man verschiedene Research Integrity Verhaltenskodizes oder Leitlinien zur guten wissenschaftlichen Praxis, fällt auf, dass von den Wissenschaftler:innen oft erwartet wird, dass sie bestimmte Pflichten kennen und bestimmte Werte und Tugenden vertreten, und dass sie von alleine wüssten, wie sie sich entsprechend zu verhalten hätten. Beispiele sind: “Ehrlichkeit”, “Zuverlässigkeit”, “Verantwortung” und “Rechenschaftspflicht”.
Doch wie sollte man sich verhalten, um dem Wert “Ehrlichkeit” in bestimmten Situationen gerecht zu werden? Kann ein:e Wissenschaftler:in zu ehrlich sein? Oder nicht ehrlich genug? Diese Übung fördert die gemeinsame und kritische moralische Überlegung darüber, was es bedeutet, sich bestimmten Werten und Tugenden entsprechend zu verhalten - vor allem in Situationen, die eine Herausforderung für die eigene oder allgemeine Research Integrity darstellen. +
