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. +
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”.
Diese Leitlinien sollen Wissenschaftler:innen darin anleiten, sich integer zu verhalten, wenn sie in ihrem Forschungsalltag mit moralischen Fragen konfrontiert werden.
Doch wie sollte eine Person sich verhalten, um dem Wert “Ehrlichkeit” in einer konkreten Situation gerecht zu werden? Kann ein:e Wissenschaftler:in zu ehrlich sein? Oder nicht ehrlich genug? Was ist, am Beispiel von “Ehrlichkeit”, genau das richtige Maß an Ehrlichkeit für die spezifische Person in dem spezifischen Kontext?
Diese Übung soll Trainer:innen darin schulen, einen gemeinsamen kritischen moralischen Reflexionsprozess bei den Teilnehmenden zu fördern, um ihnen erfahrbar zu machen, was es heißt, werte-orientiertes Verhalten zu zeigen. +
Research Integrity-Übungen können zum oberflächlichen Auswendiglernen verleiten, ohne dass hinterfragt wird, was gute Forschung überhaupt ausmacht. Zu wissen, was ''gut'' in diesem Zusammenhang bedeutet und was gute Forschung ist, ist ein wichtiges Fundament für die Entwicklung und Übung von Research Integrity. Diese Reflexion lenkt die Aufmerksamkeit auf die zugrundeliegende Motivation, aufgrund derer wir uns mit der Integrität in der Forschung beschäftigen. +
Diskussionen über oder Übungen zu Research Integrity laufen Gefahr, zum Auswendiglernen zu verleiten und ihre Wirkung zu verlieren, wenn nicht hinterfragt wird, was gute Forschung überhaupt ausmacht. Diese Übung soll helfen, über die Grundlagen dessen nachzudenken, was wir unter ''guter Forschung'' verstehen. +
Research integrity and research misconduct are of immense interest to stakeholders both within and outside the scientific community. Integrity in research not only enables good quality research, supports effective collaborations and delivers benefits to the public, but also safeguards the trust of the public in the research community. Research misconduct, on the other hand, can diminish trust in science, affect the quality of research results and misspend public funds. To prevent this, it is crucial that researchers receive guidance on research integrity.
National documents are important in laying down specific norms that are to be followed. For instance, the Estonian document provides considerations to be taken into account during different stages of the research, such as planning, conduct and publication <sup>4</sup>. In the Danish and Swiss guidelines, the procedures to address a suspected breach of integrity are described in detail <sup>5, 6</sup>. The Swiss document, in addition, also provides the legal background and implications of misconduct <sup>6</sup>.
Whilst there is a value for countries to have their own RI code or statement, challenges can arise when there are divergences both among national documents and between national level documents and the ECoC regarding the guiding values of research integrity and what constitutes research misconduct. These divergences are important to map and define, for two broad reasons: firstly, it could mean that in cases of research misconduct in international collaborations, responses to misconduct may vary, depending on the national norms, and secondly, these divergences go against the harmonizing effect envisaged in the ECoC, and could affect the overall coherence of research integrity guidance <sup>4</sup>. These considerations are of importance not only to policy makers, but also to research institutions and researchers in general. +
Research integrity issues often require thorough consideration, as it is not always simple to apply rules and to know what is the right action given a code of conduct. A dialogue can help to find ways to deal with such issues. A dialogue can take place within the research team, or in a group aiming at reflection on research integrity issues.
The idea of dialogue is not only being nice and friendly. The aim is to come to a better view of the situation, gaining knowledge and understanding. This requires that one seriously investigates the relevance of the perspective of the other. Being open to the perspective of the other does not mean simply giving up one’s own point of view, but being prepared to learn from the other’s point of view. By exchanging perspectives, dialogue can result in a fusion of horizons.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000027-QINU`"'
It is important to distinguish dialogue from debate. In a nutshell, the most relevant differences are the following :'"`UNIQ--ref-00000028-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000029-QINU`"'
*Dialogue focuses on learning from differences; debate focuses on finding the one right answer
*Dialogue focuses on understanding the other; debate focuses on convincing the other
*Dialogue focuses on listening and questioning; debate focuses on speaking and arguing
*Dialogue focuses on looking for strengths in the position of the other; debate focuses on looking for weaknesses in the position of the other
*Dialogue focuses on exploring and considering; debate focuses on attacking and defending
*Dialogue focuses on thinking slow; debate focuses on thinking fast
*Dialogue focuses on reflection and learning; debate focuses on concluding and deciding
'"`UNIQ--references-0000002A-QINU`"' +
It demonstrates the tensions that can arise between institutional research integrity committees and national research integrity bodies in the application of the standards governing conflicts of interests. Different interpretations of these standards can lead to diverging opinions regarding whether research misconduct has been committed. +
This fictional case is a firm reminder of the plurality of types of conflicts of interest one can come across in their research life. The case is presented alongside questions that provide a starting point for reflection on the dilemmas faced by researchers in relation to their contractual responsibilities as well as moral obligations when working in a team. +
An interesting example of a case, signifying that not all retractions are due to conscious manipulation of data/results by the papers' authors. +
Peer review is an important process to detect the flaws of to-be-published papers. This step of the publication process needs to be performed in order to increase the quality of scientific papers. When peer review is 'sloppy', or even allegedely fake, the quality will likely be low, and erroneous papers can be published.
<br /> +
Authors do not always set on purposely to deceive in all ethics violations allegations. For example, double submission may be in order to increase one's list of publications but it can also derive by luck of communication between authors (especially when in different countries/institutions) which may lead to such 'misshapen'. +
Many researchers work in environments that stimulate responsible behavior. However, scholarly environments are also complex and full of competition. Competition can stimulate people to work hard, but may also have downsides. What is an optimal research environment? What working conditions are detrimental to good research practices? Fostering responsible research and preventing questionable practices is important. However, the causes behind the variability in engagement in responsible and questionable practices and research misconduct are largely unknown. Once known, strategies to enhance responsible research practices while reducing questionable practices can be developed and evaluated. The NSRI attempts to play an important role in solving this. Watch this two-minute [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYvsa-1d_wQ video] on why research integrity matters to every one of us in society.
To optimally address all 40,000 academic researchers in The Netherlands, a survey instrument was the most fitting choice for this project. While it has its drawbacks, especially when studying a complex topic such as research integrity, the primary goal of this survey was to get concrete estimates of RRP, QRPs, and their associated factors for these practices across disciplines. Balancing time to answer such a survey, while protecting the privacy and the target sample size of about 40,000 researchers, a survey tool was most appropriate.
This does not exclude us from exploring themes that will arise from the survey results through more detailed focus group discussions at the next stage of this project.
The Dutch National Survey on Research Integrity (NSRI) is unique in a number of ways:
* It aims to provide valid disciplinary field-specific estimates on the occurrence of responsible research practices and questionable research practices across the biomedical sciences, the humanities, natural sciences and engineering, and the social and behavioral sciences.
*It targets the entire population of academic researchers in The Netherlands.
*The survey employs a technique known as the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvcaziHteAI Randomized Response (RR)] which has shown to elicit more honest answers around sensitive topics.
* It examines a broad range of factors that may impact scholars engagement in responsible research practices and questionable research practices.
'''How is the privacy of participants joining the NSRI guaranteed?'''
Given the sensitivity of the topic, NSRI has paid very close attention to fully ensuring the protection of the identity of the participants and their research institutions. Our privacy protection measures include:
#No personal identifying data except disciplinary field and academic rank (PhD, A/Prof, Full Prof) were collected in the survey
#The use of the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvcaziHteAI&feature=emb_logo Randomized Response] (RR) technique for the two most sensitive questions. RR which has been proven in research on doping and social security fraud to reduce the effect of social desirability and thereby elicit a greater sense of trust with respondents. It does so by creating a probabilistic rather than direct association between the answers of respondents and the sensitive question (see also [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124104268664 Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research- Thirty-Five Years of Validation. Sociological Methods & Research 2005; 33 (3): 319-348)]
#All data was collected by a trusted third party, [https://www.kantar.com/public/ Kantar Public] so the research team never directly received any personal data.
#IP addresses were not collected. The research team only received anonymized data by disciplinary field and academic rank.
Because of these measures, no data was analysed or published that can be traced to individual participants or specific research institutions.
You can access the NSRI’s publications [https://community.embassy.science/c/nsri/97 here].
To find out more about the NSRI, visit our FAQ page [https://community.embassy.science/t/nsri-faqs/358 here].
This factual case shows the magnitude of the penalties that can be issued on some confirmed cases of research ethics violations . +
This case raises the question of when does one act with integrity in research? And where does one’s responsibility lie when it comes to research violations performed by others?
It is also a firm reminder of the different power dynamics and positions held in an institution when it comes to reporting misconduct or, as in this case, whistleblowing. +
E
High-quality training of members and staff is an important prerequisite for ensuring that RIOs, RECs and related bodies can perform their tasks competently and thereby help strengthen the science-society nexus and promote ethical research conduct. However, training materials addressing the specific needs of RIOs, RECs and related bodies are scarce and often not openly accessible. The ENERI Classroom helps filling this gap and thus adds an educational component to ongoing initiatives to continuously improve the research integrity and research ethics systems across Europe. +
New and emerging technologies as well as the globalization of research and the rise of multi-center studies, to name just a few, have brought numerous challenges in terms of research ethics and research integrity. Based to a large extent on the [[Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434|ENERI Research Ethics and Research Integrity Manual]], the Decision Tree guides researchers as well as members of RECs and RIOs through several of these challenges and provides them with tools to conduct research ethically and with integrity. More specifically, the Decision Tree includes summaries of and links to laws, guidelines, codes and other pertinent references. In this way, it covers the international, European and national levels, all of which researchers, RECs and RIOs usually need to consider.
The ENERI Decision Tree is based on three premises:
1) Good researchers should reflect on and respond to ethical issues and challenges before, during and after conducting their research.
2) RECs should help researchers in doing good research.
3) RIOs should assist researchers in monitoring their research.
The information in the Decision Tree is structured around the following topics:
'''Responsibility in research'''
*Research as a social practice
*The legal framework of research
'''Planning of the research'''
*Cross-national and international multi central research
*Responsibility in authorship
*Research with human participants: general provisions
*Research with animals
*Research in biotechnology
*Research in engineering, AI and robotics
*Research in biotechnology for agricultural and food purposes (outside of the biomedical sector)
*Research on human remains
*Study design and objectives, avoiding bias
*The role of funders
*Research with personal data
'''The actual research process'''
*Research with humans in biomedical research
*Research with human tissues/cells
*Research with embryonic stem cells, embryos, fetal tissues
*Research with samples and data taken from human biobanks
*Research with human participants in psychology
*Research with human participants - qualitative research
*Research with human beings in implementing technology/devices
*Research on the environment
*Minimal disturbance to the integrity of nature
*Monitoring animal welfare
*Making uncertainties and value assumptions explicit
*Dealing adequately with big data and complexity
'''Quality assurance and dissemination'''
*Sharing results in the scientific community, with the public and with stakeholders
*Mechanisms for quality assurance
*Were the methods and tools adequate for the claimed result? ''(under development)''
*Publication as public knowledge ''(under development)''
*Open science or restricted access ''(under development)''
*Stakeholder consultations ''(under development)''
'''Applications and monitoring'''
*Dual use and misuse
*Evaluation of success and failure ''(under development)''
*Consultation with beneficiaries and stakeholders ''(under development)''
*Assess necessity of retractions ''(under development)''
*Re-start the research afresh ''(under development)''
Each topic is a self-contained unit so that users can easily find tailored information to specific questions without having to read the whole Decision Tree. Like the ENERI Manual on Research Ethics and Research Integrity, the Decision Tree is a living document and will thus be updated periodically to account for new developments in research ethics and research integrity processes and policies.
ENERI is a project that aims to improve the exchange between experts in the fields of research ethics and research integrity. The manual offers guidance for both fields. It is a living resource, inviting engagement rather than consumption. It contains no technical or technocratic instruction, but rather seeks to instill deliberation around issues of research ethics and research integrity. +
The ultimate goal of science is to seek truth at the realm of material things. Because of that, science itself cannot be practiced without somehow tapping into the field of epistemology. Ideally, researchers should be attentive, careful, thorough, impartial, open, willing to exchange ideas and aware of their own fallibility. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' These traits could serve as a preventative measure for research misconduct and other, various practices that are detrimental to science.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
Program dahilinde üzerinde durulacak temel kavramlara ilişkin ortak bir anlayışa sahip olabilmek adına katılımcıların yüz yüze eğitime geçmeden önce bu online dersi tamamlaması oldukça önemlidir. +
Araştırmacılar için önemli olan ahlaki nitelikler ve bu ahlaki niteliklerin eylemleri nasıl yönlendirebileceği üzerine fikir yürütmek, araştırmacıların iyi bilim yapmadaki kişisel saiklerinin ne olduğunu anlamaları açısından önemlidir. +
Araştırmacılar sıklıkla araştırma doğruluğunu riske atacak ikilem ve sorularla karşı karşıya kalmaktadırlar. Bu durumlarda araştırmacılardan kendileri için neyin önemli olduğuna ve bir yandan doğruluğu koruyup mesleki davranış kodlarına saygılı bir biçimde davranırken diğer yandan nasıl değerlerine yakın kalabileceklerine karar vermeleri beklenir. Araştırmacılar için hangi ahlaki niteliklerin önemli olduğu ve bu ahlaki niteliklerin eylemleri nasıl yönlendirebileceği üzerine fikir yürütmek, araştırmacıların iyi bilim yapmadaki kişisel saiklerinin ne olduğunu anlamalarına yardımcı olabilir. +
The Code of Conduct for Research Integrity is meant to complement the Code of Ethics of Estonian Scientists adopted in 2002. The new document is needed because the development of research has brought forth new themes and perspectives not reflected in the code of ethics, and added new points for consideration. The current document also places greater emphasis on the activities of research institutions, separately pointing out the responsibility of researchers and research institutions, which helps to emphasise that responsibility for ethical research lies with everyone who is active in research. Researchers alone cannot ensure research integrity. So that researchers could behave ethically, the necessary conditions have to be created at the level of the organisation and the system. The Code of Conduct for Research Integrity has been created as a framework document which provides guidelines to all Estonian research institutions and the researchers working there. The task of the research institution is to elaborate detailed procedural rules which help to increase awareness in the organisation about the principles of research integrity, to monitor the research environment and, if necessary, to interfere and to deal with the cases of misconduct. To ensure as equal treatment of members of different research institutions as possible, research institutions cooperate closely in drafting procedural rules and regulations.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000153-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000154-QINU`"' +
The importance of the guideline is twofold: firstly, it aims to stimulate scientists and researchers to reflect ethically on their activities, paying special attention to the social impact of their research. Secondly, it serves to provide citizens (who indirectly fund scientific research) with an assurance of the ethical quality and social responsibility of scientific research. Besides publicly funded research, research within the context of industry and corporate organizations is also covered by this code. +
Anthropologists are increasingly confronted with complex situations involving, among other things, conflicts of interest, value choices, dilemmas, obligations, and competing duties. As a result, the Association of Social Anthropologists of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth (ASA) provides a practical framework in the form of ethical principles to assist them in such situations. +
Ethical Issues in Developing Pharmacogenetic Research Partnerships With American Indigenous Communities +
It shows two specific cases of having informed consent about further use of research samples are taken for granted. It also provides a brief overview of the legal procedure that affected communities can follow in The United States, and possible rulling of the courte in these cases. +
Psychology is commited to improve the condition of individuals and society. To do so, standards and principles are needed to encourage ethical behaviour in psychology professional practice. +
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: +
Ethics Framework and Guidelines for Participatory Processes in the Activities of Research Funding Organizations +
<div>RFOs play a fundamental role in the opening up of research to broader audiences, and are crucial in determining research agendas at a local, national and international level. As such, it is a good thing that RFOs want to involve more (and broader) groups in participation - but involving these groups in an ethical way raises new issues and questions. These guidelines exist as a tool for safeguarding the ethics, effectiveness and justification of stakeholder participation.</div><div></div> +
The complex and important topic of ethics that is crucial for researchers' everyday work is broken down to short videos. Those can be used to educate yourself or for training. Because everybody has different opinions, perspectives and experiences, talking about ethics and defining key terms is important. +
Discipline specific guidance can aid researchers in the area of SSH to conduct research ethically and with integrity. +
Research ethics often find applications in fields of medicine that involve the duration and meaning of life, such as procreation. On the other hand, ethics missed applications to aging as long as it is considered a natural process. Today, we know that many scientists do not see it in this way and it is known that human intervention can change ageing course and, consequently, the impact on the life of the entire humanity. +
The number of vaccine development trials that take place in low and lower-middle income countries increases.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001BB-QINU`"' With this increase in vaccine trials, the risk of exploitation of the local communities also rises. It is important to avoid exploitation and respect the right of autonomy of the research subjects. Therefore, identification of the important ethical issues and the human rights at stake is needed. In this manner, the analysis presented in the current case may be the first step towards policies and regulations that protect the rights of inhabitants of low and lower-middle income countries where vaccine trials take place.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001BC-QINU`"' +
This code of conduct lays out the ways in which those affiliated with the EAACI should behave in order to support the broader goals of the society. +
This code of conduct outlines standards of conduct for members of the EAA to follow in fulfilling their responsibilities, both to the community and to their professional colleagues. +
This code of conduct outlines standards of conduct for fieldwork training for archaeologists in Europe. +
European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) Principles of Conduct for Archaeologists involved in Contract Archaeological Work +
This code of conduct outlines standards of conduct for archaeologists involved in contract work in Europe. +
Via their code of conduct, the EASP outlines the policies that apply to those participating in EASP activities, particularly with regards to professionalism and non-discrimination. +
This code of conduct lays out ethical standards for the behaviour of those affiliated with the EAS, and astronomers in Europe more generally. +
In four different parts, the charter highlights universal and inalienable rights of individuals, the rights of patients, the rights of active citizenship and promotes guidelines for their implementation. This charter requires the engagement of a variety of stakeholders like health care professionals, governments, administrative bodies, etc. +
Adopted in 2012, this code of conduct outline general principles of scientific research and clinical practice for those who participate in the activities of the ECNP. +
Time invested in ethical self-assessment will improve the quality and rigour of the research methods and ensure the research proposal adhears to ethical standards. +
Protecting vulnerable research subjects is fundamental to perform research ethically. +
This code of conduct explicitly defines appropriate conduct for members and affiliates of the ECPR. +
47 Member States of the Council of Europe have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. Besides, any violation of the ECHR can be taken to the European Court of Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights has been endorsed by several European societies like the European Federation of Psychologists' Associations and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. +
The ECFS Patient Registry collects demographic and clinical data from consenting people with cystic fibrosis in Europe. The information is used to deepen our understanding of cystic fibrosis, improve standards of care, and to facilitate public health planning. This code of conduct details the ways in which the registry should be used. +
This meta code of conduct provides guidance for the content of the ethical codes of the EFPA's member associations, and details the ethical principles that member associations should adhere to. +
This model code of conduct reflects the shared understanding of the values of the EFPA's member organizations, and seeks to provide principles and guidelines by which individual psychologists and organizations can inform the practice of psychology and enhance professional competence. +
This code of conduct aims to promote ethical integrity and an inclusive, constructive and positive approach to science by outlining the expected and required behaviour of members and participants of EGU activities. +
This code of conduct outlines the reposnsibilities of mathematicians, as well as all who are concerned with the publication, dissemination, and assessment of mathematical research in Europe. +
European Meteorological Society (EMS) Code of Practice for communicating knowledge on climate change to the public +
Via their code of conduct, the EMS provides guidelines for individuals of the meteorological community in Europe on how to communicate honestly and reliably with the general public, including the media, on issues of meteorology and in particular on complex or controversial issues such as climate change. +
European Network of Research Integrity Offices Recommendations for the Investigation of Research Misconduct +
While the European Code of Conduct is focused on research integrity (RI) in a broader sense, this ENRIO Handbook aims to offer further specifics on section 3.2 of the Code “Dealing with Violations and Allegations of Misconduct”. The Handbook consists of detailed practical recommendations on how to deal with research misconduct and other unacceptable practices.
On the European level, research integrity is much more on the agenda compared to 10-15 years ago. This leaves room for soft harmonization which is one of the main purposes of this Handbook. +
This code of conduct details the core ethical standards that apply to professionals from industry, the academic world, research centres and authorities in the field of nuclear science. +
European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) Standards of Conduct +
These Standards of conduct details the ethical expectations that apply to all members of the association. +
European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research (ESOMAR) International Code on Market, Opinion and Social Research and Data Analytics +
Their code of conduct, which is co-owned by the International Chamber of Commerce, champions good research and the adherence to profesional standards. +
Everything We Know About Facebook's Secret Mood Manipulation Experiment. It was probably legal. But was it ethical? +
This is a thought provoking case that provides some philosophical questions on what is legal and ethical. Issues around informed consent, the role of the IRB and the funding of the study are also discussed. +
F
FAIR data is more transparent and reproducible, which is why it is an important aspect of research integrity. +
In this specific context, false results mislead not only health care staff and medical researchers, but also the parents of premature babies. +
Pharmaceutical companies and drug manufactures "fund such studies hoping to show that their drugs cause fewer side effects or are more effective than competing products."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000186-QINU`"' Rules and regulations related to studying existing drugs need to be adapted to showcase transparency and to ensure results - positive or negative- are published. +
This code of conduct lays out general principles that those pariticipating in EPHAR activities must abide by. +
Federation of European Toxicologists and European Societies of Toxicology (Eurotox) Code of Ethics +
Via their code of conduct, Eurotox provides guidelines for the professional conduct of its members. +
Teaching students and researchers about rules and norms in research is one thing, but empowering them to deal with moral dilemmas in research practice is a challenge. Fictional narratives can be very useful in exploring the tough choices scientists have to make. +
Results from clinical trials are being used in daily clinical practice. Hence it is important that the results are correct and reliable. +
Finnish Guidance on the Responsible Conduct of Research and Procedures for Handling Allegations of Misconduct +
The Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK), which is appointed by the Ministry of Education and Culture in Finland (Decree 1347/1991), was established to promote the responsible conduct of research, to prevent research misconduct, to promote discussion and to spread information on research integrity in Finland and to monitor international developments in the field of research integrity. The Advisory Board makes proposals and issues statements concerning research integrity.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000015F-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000160-QINU`"' +
As the authors of the guideline describe: "The ultimate responsibility for the quality of the dissertation rests with its author, but it is the supervisor´s duty to ensure that the doctoral student is familiar with the obligations and ethical practices related to a research process." (pg. 4)'"`UNIQ--ref-0000021B-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000021C-QINU`"' +
Good authorship practices are part and parcel of the responsible conduct of research. This means that all researchers should be aware of the important principles of authorship, such as who is eligible to be an author, taking responsibility for the content and preventing disputes. This document is therefore of practical value to all PhD students, researchers and supporters of research. +
Finnish TJNK Guideline on Bold Communication, Responsible Influence. Science Communication Recommendations +
Science and research are necessary for social advancement; thus, it is in society's interest to share research results with everyone in the community. While being bold and visible, it must also be explained in an understandable, unbiased and unexaggerated way. This guide provides information on how to strike the necessary balance and communicate successfully. +
This editorial provides information about possible consequences of research misconduct in various medical disciplines in the UK. +
Plagiarism is a scientific misconduct which consists in using others or one's owns previously published ideas without properly citing the original publication and author '"`UNIQ--ref-0000021D-QINU`"'. Plagiarism can be easily avoided by using one's own words and by citing the original source when paraphrasing someone else's words or ideas. In spite of this, plagiarism remains an issue. This resource provides simple rules which support the process of proper referencing thereby helping in reducing the risk of plagiarism.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000021E-QINU`"' +
The provided vignettes show the complexity of ethical issues in the field of speech and language research. +
This is important because it can make the difference in sharing important knowledge or not. +
The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support – or distort – practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge. +
It shows that researchers who have been involved in fraudulent practices could have been involved in more controversies, and a full analysis of their publication record could reveal additional irregularities. +
Many issues of misconduct arise because collaborators have not agreed at the outset on the policies and practices to which the collaborative partners should adhere. +
The ANR charter serves as the guiding document for everyone who carries out activities on behalf of ANR. Compliance to the duties and principles is required by ANR. +
In the knowledge and innovation society marked by acceleration in the construction and transmission of knowledge and by international competitiveness, public higher education and research institutions and universities are in a privileged position to address current and future challenges. They are responsible for the production, transmission and utilization of knowledge and contribute to the implementation of a qualified expertise in public decision making processes. However, the application of this major responsibility implies consolidating trust relationship between research and society.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000015B-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000015C-QINU`"' +
This case highlights the importance of involving diverse actors in misconduct investigations. The article explains that it was considered important to represent a broad spectrum of health sciences on the committee because decisions on honesty/dishonesty due to their inherently inexact and judgmental nature must reflect the general culture of the research environment.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000176-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000177-QINU`"' +
Financial support for research is often obtained from intramural (e.g. from university funds) or extramural (e.g. from funding agencies) sources. Funders have some responsibility for ensuring that the research they fund is conducted in accordance with relevant laws and good research practices. However, funders’ oversight and reporting standards differ greatly.
Collaborations, particularly those related to funding, also have the potential to influence the ways in which research questions are defined and the results presented. A particular concern involves collaborations between academia and industry-sponsors. Studies have shown that industry-sponsored research tends to favor the sponsor.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000059-QINU`"' Therefore, funders need to be transparant about their aims, researchers should declare the source of funding, academic autonomy must be ensured, and researchers must be aware that funders can potentially influence research.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000005A-QINU`"' +
G
A scientific publication should always contain one’s own original work, unless clearly stated otherwise. If this is not the case, it would be very difficult to distinguish work that is deliberately plagiarized from original work. Plagiarism allows individuals to claim reward for the work of the original authors. Therefore, these practices should be punished and penalized. +
The DFG considers it highly important to safeguard good scientific practice as an essential prerequisite for research and as the core task of self-regulation in research. +
This Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings counters ethics dumping by:
• Providing guidance across all research disciplines
• Presenting clear, short statements in simple language to achieve the highest possible accessibility
• Focusing on research collaborations that entail considerable imbalances of power, resources and knowledge
• Using a new framework based on the values of fairness, respect, care and honesty
• Offering a wide range of learning materials and affiliated information to support the Code, and
• Complementing the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity through a particular focus on research in resource-poor settings.
Those applying the Code oppose double standards in research and support long-term equitable research relationships between partners in lower-income and high-income settings based on fairness, respect, care and honesty +
Every detail of a publication should be right, including who are the legitimate authors and what are their affiliations. +
Research integrity and research fairness have gained considerable momentum in the past decade and have direct implications for global health epidemiology. Existing good epidemiological practice guidelines developed by national epidemiological associations lack international legitimacy and are not tailored to the idiosyncrasies of global health. Existing guidelines for fair and equitable partnerships in global health are not specific to epidemiology. Comprehensive guidelines which tackle both integrity and fairness are needed to provide practical support to epidemiologists navigating the complex global health landscape.
The BRIDGE guidelines are for all people involved in the commissioning, conduct and appraisal of global health research.
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-0000018A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000018B-QINU`"' +
By making its annual report publicly available, the Commission demonstrates the transparency of its reporting processes and its commitment to accountability in matters involving public inquiries, complaints and investigations. Moreover, it provides the public the opportunity to see the ways in which the Commission responds to queries and manages its investigations. +
By making its annual report publicly available, the Board demonstrates the transparency of its reporting processes and investigation procedures as well as its commitment to accountability in matters involving allegations, investigations and requests for statements. Moreover, it provides the public the opportunity to see the ways in which the Board responds to statement requests and manages its investigations. +
By making its annual report publicly available, the SNSF Commission on Scientific Integrity and the Plagiarism Control Group demonstrates the transparency of their reporting processes and investigation procedures, as well as their commitment to accountability in matters involving plagiarism and complaints regarding scientific misconduct. +
This document contains principles relating to both authorship and editorial reviews. Besides explaining the underlying principles such as impartiality, confidentiality and honesty, it also provides practical guidance on how to conduct reviews, communicating acceptance and rejection, paper retractions and withdrawals, etc. It also sets down principles for acknowledging authors and contributors. +
This resource can be used to let students reflect on what plagiarism is, how it affects their writing, and what good and bad writing practices are. The 10 scenarios can lead to discussion among the students, and let students reflect on themselves and past and future writing assignments. +
Ghostwriting and guest authorship give an unfair advantage to guest authors over researchers who do not take part in such practices by awarding guest authors with publications despite not having contributed to the work done. In addition, the practice of guest authorship may seriously damage public trust in science and may also cast considerable doubt on the independence of researchers involved in drug trials. However, incorrect accusations of guest authorship, and scientific misconduct in general, harm the reputation of innocent researchers. Therefore, it is important to openly discuss accusations of guest authorship made in publications, as is done in the present case. <br />
'"`UNIQ--references-0000019E-QINU`"' +
Openly and clearly a dishonest research practice, the case provides a good indication that research integrity practices are still continuously violated even in the 'clear daylight'. +
The report is a guidance document for research integrity and ethics practionners in academia. It identifies the key themes that lead to good practices and essential principles for an effective and successful approach to training. The report focuses on a hands-on approach with a checklist to help create an effective ethics and research integrity training programme and provides links to relevant resources that help build that training. +
In the period of a pandemic, pragmatic actions are required to ensure the integrity of research. This document provides simplified measures to ensure, integrity, safety, and the rights of those involved in research trials during the ongoing health crisis. However, this document is only valid in the EU/EEA as long as the COVID-19 outbreak is not over. The Guidance on the Management of Clinical Trials during the COVID-19 Pandemic has been endorsed by the European Association for Hemophilia & Allied Disorders, in their report: Reducing bureaucracy in clinical trials: now is the time!. +
As described in [[Mental Health in Academia]], creating more dialogue about the topic is highly important. This guide is developed to assist opening up about stress. +
From an individual researcher's perspective, this document gives a useful outline of ethically questionable actions at different stages of research, such as applying for grants, collection of data, collaborations and publication. From an institutional perspective, the guideline provides a detailed roadmap on how to address breaches in scientific integrity, from the guiding principles to the practical aspects. +
These guidelines are essential for all researchers, especially those involved in interdisciplinary scientific projects. It covers both the underlying values of good research and good practices. +
Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology (NESH, Norway) +
While the guidelines of the Norwegian Research Ethics Committees is the main national document, the NESH document provides an in-depth description of the ethical and legal bases of research, and the different domains where good practices are applicable. As opposed to the NREC guidelines, the NESH guidelines provide more practical norms that align with the values of research integrity. +
Ensuring that researchers are competent and versatile in their work will help them perform research of higher quality and enable them to build the skills necessary to deal with dilemmas and career uncertainty.
Research institutions can help foster research integrity and responsible research practices by providing researchers with healthy, collaborative, positive, inclusive, and enriching work environments. +
Publication pressure and competition can create an unhealthy research environment in which researchers might feel tempted to deviate from research integrity.
Research institutions can help foster research integrity and responsible research practices by providing researchers with healthy, collaborative, positive, inclusive, and enriching work environments. +
H
Scientific dishonesty and misconduct in medical research may be detrimental in various ways, e.g. it may endanger the research subject’s well-being and the public trust in science. The severity and consequences of scientific misconduct depend on the form in which it takes place. Nonetheless, research shows that there is still a substantial number of researchers that have admitted to dishonest behaviour.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000166-QINU`"' Accordingly, prevention and punishment of both small and large instances of scientific dishonesty and misconduct are of utmost importance to ensure research integrity. The best institutions to issue these measures are independent committees that are free from personal and commercial biases. The present case may give insight into possible complications in the establishment of such committees, such as the definition of scientific misconduct. Therefore, it may aid in the formation and enhancement of systems to prevent scientific dishonesty and misconduct.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000167-QINU`"' +
Appropriately handling sexual harassment cases is extremely important. In addition, repercussions need to be taken when the accused is found guilty, and the victim(s) need to be protected, both personally and professionally. +
It shows the limitations of policies about financial conflict of interests and how discrepencies between national and institutional policies could contribute to confusion. It also shows what consequences may follow from a lack of transparency about the received funds. +
Scientific fraud can also be commited by persons who you would expect to commit fraud. +
Using herbicide resistant rice may seem beneficial at first but it is important to consider the consequences of the use of it. In this case six questions are posed which can be used to analyse the (bio)ethics and use of herbicide resistant crops. +
To prevent future research misconduct and unethical behaviour it is important to understand which factors make it possible for such practices to take place. In addition and as noted in the article, it is important to do justice not only to the victims of research misconduct but to all those involved, especially when the accused are deceased. When examining past cases of research misconduct it is important to keep in mind the ethical standards at the time the research was conducted, rather than applying our current ethical frameworks to the case. The analysis presented in this article contributes to our understanding of the various aspects of retrospective assessment of research misconduct cases. +
It highlights the ethical challenges of designing and conducting genetics research, telling a real life story where research results start to live their life of their own, and how results might be used in unintended ways. Research could be misconstrued or wielded to advance harmful agendas. The story presents a broader and more systematic view of how scientists should think about their research beyond simply following existing legal requirements. +
This case clearly demonstrates how researchers could be drawn into questionable practices involving commercial parties, and provides best practices for dealing with these situations. Professor Aspenberg is not embarrased to admit that he was nearly commiting a questionable practice and speaks out so that others would not repeat his mistake.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000178-QINU`"' +
Working in the laboratory can be challenging. Like in every other collective you are stuck with people that you like and do not like, colleagues that work and that are slacking, deadlines are always pressing down, equipment is damaged and you must stay professional.
A new study emphasizes the importance of encouraging positive workplace social relationships, particularly male-female friendships'"`UNIQ--ref-00000947-QINU`"'. Thus, this theme helps us to induce all the virtues that one researcher must have to live a productive and fulfilled professional life.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000948-QINU`"' +
The authors of this blog provide an analysis that raises several interesting points. These concern not only the ethics violations by the researcher but also the response from a number of bodies, not least the doctor's institution, the ORI (Office of Research Integrity) and the Office for Human Research Protection. +
The rapid advancement of medicine, biology and technology raises numerous questions and issues that can affect the protection of human rights and human dignity. This course addresses these important issues from a legal perspective. The HELP Online Training can be used as a training material by health and law students, staff of national human rights institutions (Ombudsperson Offices), Human Rights defenders, civil society organisations, and others.
The course is freely available after simple registration. It is also possible to chose to follow only part of the course. You might for instance find the first three modules on general principles, consent and the protection of health related data particularly relevant.
==Course characteristics==
The course consists of 8 modules:
#Introduction
#Free and informed consent
#Medical confidentiality and protection of health related data
#Protection of the embryo and procreation
#End of life
#Genetic testing
#Biomedical research
#Transplantation of human organs and tissues +
The guidelines offer both a justification of a code of scientific research ethics (because of the deep need for transparency, accountability, and honesty in scientific research), and concrete practices for researchers to follow. It also offers best practices for committees tasked with investigating ethics violations in the research community. +
I
ICH’s mission has been embodied in its Articles of Association as follows:
* To make recommendations towards achieving greater harmonisation in the interpretation and application of technical guidelines and requirements for pharmaceutical product registration and the maintenance of such registrations;
* To maintain a forum for a constructive dialogue on scientific issues between regulatory authorities and the pharmaceutical industry on the harmonisation of the technical requirements for pharmaceutical products;
* To contribute to the protection of public health in the interest of patients from an international perspective;
* To monitor and update harmonised technical requirements leading to a greater mutual acceptance of research and development data;
* To avoid divergent future requirements through harmonisation of selected topics needed as a result of therapeutic advances and the development of new technologies for the production of medicinal products;
* To facilitate the adoption of new or improved technical research and development approaches which update or replace current practices;
* To encourage the adequate implementation and integration of common standards through the dissemination of, the communication of information about and coordination of training on, harmonised guidelines and their use;
* And to develop policy for the ICH Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Terminology (MedDRA) whilst ensuring the scientific and technical maintenance, development and dissemination of MedDRA as a standardised dictionary which facilitates the sharing of regulatory information internationally for medicinal products used by humans. +
It is used for the taxonomy of the spectrum of initiatives that soon will be made available at The Embassy of Good Science. The checklist can also be used by stakeholders to assess and improve their initiatives themselves, or by others who plan to implement an existing initiative, for example which they found in the spectrum on The Embassy! +
As other courses designed by The INTEGRITY Project, this course is vitally important as current approaches to teaching research ethics and integrity are seen by many as insufficient to deal with the complex and changing world of research and its impacts. +
The extent of image manipulation in science is greater than previously perceived, with approximately 4% of the published papers containing some form of image duplication (Bik et al, 2016). This highlights a need for comprehensive training of editors and scientists on recognizing image manipulations.
'''References'''
Bik EM, Casadevall A, Fang FC. The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications. mBio. 2016 Jun 7;7(3):e00809-16. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00809-16. PMID: 27273827; PMCID: PMC4941872. +
This is a factual story that highlights how new image meta-analysis methods could help to find contaminated scientific literature. +
Image manipulation is just another form of fabrication or falsification. As such, it has to be considered as much as a form of misconduct. Raising awareness about this practice within the scientific community, especially among young researchers, is an important preventive measure. +
Academic journals, similarly to academic institutions and individual researchers, strive for recognition, esteem and resources. This case is important because it provides an explanation of how, despite the similarities of these two incidents (in both case A & B, the journals dramatically improved their JIF as a result of a single published article), there were two very different outcomes (in case A, the journal was revoked for the following year, whilst in case B, there were no adverse consequences for the journal). To quote the paper’s stated importance of the case, these two incidents indicate the ‘possible flaws in the citation indexes and the review process’ (p.100-1)'"`UNIQ--ref-000001EA-QINU`"'.
The paper discusses individuals’ and institutions’ motivations for publishing but also the dangers of the pressures to publish. Furthermore, it considers the value, but also the flaws, of the citation index systems. Finally, it provides some examples of good editorial practices and recommendations for responding to such flaws.
----<br />
----<br /> +
David Goodstein, professor of physics, presents this case with an interesting discussion of several points, including some common 'danger factors' usually present in cases of research misconduct and lessons to be learnt. +
It shows that seniority does not necessarily indicate reliability. +
The outcome of such research affects the lives of many patiens who use the SSRI's. +
It shows that even when there is a protocol for trials involving human subjects, experiments can go terribly wrong. +
Research institutions, supervisors, and mentors have an important role when it comes to research integrity. Responsible supervision and leadership is necessary to ensure responsible socialization of supervisees into research, engage leaders into research integrity as well as to foster responsible research practices. Supervisors, mentors and leaders can benefit from support from their research institutions in providing responsible supervision and leadership. This guideline presents a set of recommendations to research institutions on improving their institutional supervision structures and giving support to PhD-students and supervisors in developing their supervision skills and give institutions more tools to value responsible leadership. This infographic consists of recommendations on improving institutional support structures for PhD students, supervisors, and leaders. The infographic gives an overview of the key recommendations. The guidelines provide information relevant for research officers, trainers, managers, and coordinators, as well as deans, rectors and other institutional leaders +
Education and training are needed to raise awareness about research integrity and provide stakeholders with the required tools to promote responsible research practices. +
Scientific research with participation of human beings should be done ethically. Recruiting procedures of the subjects, research oversight, adequate clinical care, and informed consent are of particular importance. +
The glossary is useful for clarifying meaning of terms and concepts in the context of research integrity. +
Integrity Games - a research based learning platform on academic integrity aimed at undergraduate university students +
Integrity Games is developed for academic integrity training for university students – primarily students on year 1-3 of their education. It is most likely relevant for more advanced students as well.
The general aim of Integrity Games is to develop knowledge and begin developing academic integrity, by engaging students in reflections of realistic <dfn data-id="23" tabindex="0">dilemmas</dfn> involving academic integrity. The cases cover three general topics central to academic integrity:
# Citation practice, including avoiding <dfn data-id="16" tabindex="0">plagiarism</dfn> and <dfn data-id="21" tabindex="0">self-plagiarism</dfn>
# Collaboration and getting help on individual assignments
# Collecting, analyzing and reporting data
The tool contains one or more cases under each topic presenting the student with <dfn data-id="23" tabindex="0">dilemmas</dfn> and common grey area issues in an engaging and thought-provoking way.
While examples of severe <dfn data-id="14" tabindex="0">misconduct</dfn> – such as <dfn data-id="16" tabindex="0">plagiarism</dfn> and <dfn data-id="4" tabindex="0">fabrication</dfn> of data – are included in the cases, the main focus is on the grey area issues where research shows that students are most often in doubt about the appropriate course of action.
For each of the above mentioned topics, Integrity Games aims to contribute to the development of the knowledge and skills listed below.
Items marked with * are considered the primary aims and the games’ efficacy towards these aims has been tested in a randomized controlled experiment.
* Knowledge of the core values and principles of academic integrity and how they are applied*
* Knowledge of common grey zones and the reasons why they are “grey”*
* Knowledge of what is strictly forbidden
* Skills in identifying academic integrity aspects of a given situation
* Skills in identifying actions that are in accordance with each of the core principles of academic interity
* Competences in weighing actions according to multiple values, principles, and groups*
* Competences in assessing the interplay between the ethically good practice and epistemically good in concrete cases.
In addition, the tool aims to contribute to the following motivational aims:
* Motivation to develop further AI knowledge skills and competences (positive nudging)*
* Acceptance of core values and principles under academic and research integrity
<br />
Many of the academic integrity issues students face – such as freeriding in group work or handling deviating data - are not covered by the local disciplinary rules, and even if they are, the interpretation of the rules may be context dependent.
Navigating grey zones therefore requires attention to context and reflection on the broader aims of higher education.
Integrity Games encourages this through engaging and realistic cases drawn from a major study on the integrity issues commonly faced by undergraduate students in Europe. +
These videos are important to foster reflection and discussion about research integrity principles. +
Conflicts of interest, especially when not disclosed, are one of the core challenges to research integrity. +
The ICMJE recommendations guide best practice and ethical standards for conducting research, editing reports, publication standards and authorship criteria. +
The establishment of ethical standards and practices in biomedical research involving human subjects is important for avoiding unnecessary harm, and for making sure that research conducted in this area is done so safely and ethically. +
It is crucial for participants to complete the online modules in advance of the face-to-face training in order to acquire a shared understanding of the program’s core concepts. +
It is crucial for participants to complete the online course in advance of the face-to-face training in order to acquire a shared understanding of the program’s core concepts. +
It is essential that all researchers understand the basic concepts of good scientific practice from a practical point of view - how they way they do their research can affect their results. +
This series of eLearning modules provide a basic understanding of the concepts used in the training to ensure that trainees start with a common terminology and knowledge. +
It is crucial for participants to complete the eLearning modules in advance of the face-to-face training in order to acquire a shared understanding of the program’s core concepts. +
Supervision, mentoring, and role-modeling have a strong influence on research work environments. If a research environment is not open or is unsafe, researchers are less likely to raise concerns or admit mistakes. Therefore, contributing to an open, safe and responsible research environment is important to reduce problems such as poor mental health, drop-outs, fraudulent practices, discrimination, and harassment. For this reason, responsible and good supervision, and mentoring might be seen as duties of care to reduce and signal problems. +
Supervision, mentoring, and role-modeling have a strong influence on research work environments. If a research environment is not open or is unsafe, researchers are less likely to raise concerns or admit mistakes. Therefore, contributing to an open, safe and responsible research environment is important to reduce problems such as poor mental health, drop-outs, fraudulent practices, discrimination, and harassment. For this reason, responsible and good supervision, and mentoring might be seen as duties of care to reduce and signal problems. +
The focus of this instruction is on the philosophical justification of human subjects research, the main ethical guidance documents and on the history of human subject research. We will look at international ethical guidance documents for medical research involving human beings, like the WMA’s ''Declaration of Helsinki'', we become familiar with the seven-principle framework of Emanuel et al. for ethically evaluating human subjects research, we learn to apply the ethical principles in concrete cases, but also to reflect on these principles, we learn to reflect on the Tuskegee Syphilis Study from an historical perspective, and look into the Willowbrook Hepatitis Studies. +
Irish National Forum on Research Integrity's Guidelines for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research +
While the Irish National Policy Statement on Research Integrity lays down the principles of research, good research practices and also the principles underlying response to research misconduct, this guideline gives more detailed advice to carry out a formal investigation. For instance, it lays out guidelines for the investigative panel composition, the review procedure, and how to maintain confidentiality. +
Irish National Forum on Research Integrity's Position Paper on Research Integrity & Research Ethics +
The definitions of research integrity and research ethics vary across sources. This is of practical importance, as it affects the extent to which RECs should be involved in investigating breaches of research integrity. This document shed light on this issue by discussing the different international and European definitions of RI and RE. Finally, based on the OECD code of practice for research, it concludes that RECs shoul dnot take full responsibility for research misconduct handling. +
Irish National Forum on Research Integrity's Position Paper on Research Integrity Officer Role & Reporting +
This document is important for RIOs and research institutions, as it describes the extent and limits of the RIO's responsibilities. +
The Irish Universities Association and its member institutions have long been committed to the highest standards of research conduct and integrity, and individual institutions have procedures in place to underpin this. Similar commitments to upholding integrity have been made by IoTI and its members, and by DIT and other organisations. However, the transparency of policy and practice will be enhanced by publication of a national statement which clarifies policy and sets out agreed good practice in promoting and ensuring research integrity. This commitment is shared by the universities, IoTI, DIT, Teagasc, RCSI and the main Irish research funding agencies;in particular, the Health Research Board, Science Foundation Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, the Higher Education Authority and the Royal Irish Academy. +
Irish Universities Quality Board's Good Practice for Institutional Research in Irish Higher Education +
Good institutional management and policy are essential for high-quality research. To foster better co-operation and standardization of research policy among the seven Irish universities, the Irish Universities Quality Board sets detailed guidelines for management of every step of the research process, from planning to results. +
Professor Smith is described by his colleagues as "a very good scientist" but nontheless, he has recycled text from his previous work without acknowledgement. +
It gives the correct perspective for looking at research that is not reproducible. If we set aside the deliberate maniplation of research data, irreproducibility can stem from sloppy planning or conducting of research or from an honest mistake that has been prodiced by the mere complexity of an experiment. In other words, reliable research needs extremely cautious and honest researchers. +
This document describes the research integrity framework for National Research Center institutes. +
This Web page provides an overview of the guidelines and position Papers of the CNR which address specific areas, such as:
- Code of Ethics and Deontology for Scientific Activity in the field of Cultural Heritage
- Increasing Risks of Predatory Publishing: Recommendations for Researchers
- Incidental Findings in scientific research: Criteria and Recommendations for -Omics Sciences
- Informed Consent in Scientific Research: Ethical Toolkit
- Ethical Charter on Social Sciences and Humanities Research
-Child Protection Policy and Code of Conduct. +
There is an interesting discussion about definitions of research misconduct, responsibilities of different bodies and suggestions for ways forward. +
J
The most usual outcome of investigations concerning data falsification is the retraction of a paper[[:File:///D:/ENTIRE/cases/Case description/Description of cases draft1.docx#%20ftn1|[1]]]. The present case presents an unusual example of a conviction given to an individual researcher for scientific research misconduct, and the first case of this type in the UK.
Falsification of data in pharmaceutical research might have a number of serious negative consequences such as compromising the safety of drug trials with humans and, potentially, presenting a danger to public health. Moreover, it can undermine the public’s trust to the outcomes of such trials and to scientific research in general.
----[[:File:///D:/ENTIRE/cases/Case description/Description of cases draft1.docx#%20ftnref1|[1]]] [[Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd#cite%20note-1|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd#cite_note-1]] +
Participants of clinical trials must be well informed of the risks they are taking by participating in the trial, especially when the treatment under investigation is a non-therapeutic intervention. In these cases, the benefits should outweigh the risks, which was not true in the tragedy described here: adverse effects were reported in previous cases, whilst no efficacy of the gene therapy was observed in humans. As noted in the article, the trial most likely progressed regardless of these risks due to the principal investigator's conflicts of interest and faults by the responsible regulatory institutions. Therefore, this case is a prime example of how conflicts of interest may seriously harm the health of patients and trial participants. To prevent unnecessary deaths in the future, it is important to keep these stories in our collective memory and learn lessons from them. The detailed account presented here may help us do just that. +
This is yet one more of several [[Springer Nature ‘continuing to investigate the concerns raised’ about paper linking obesity and lying|cases]] of a study that has been retracted following concerns that its conclusions might cause damage to certain minority groups. Questions on whether certain conclusion from research on animals can be transferable (without strong evidence) to human are also raised. Finally, whilst in supporting an argument researchers need to carefully choose the literature as appropriate, '''citing selectively to enhance own findings'''"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000692-QINU`"'' (ECCRI, 2017: 6)'"`UNIQ--ref-00000693-QINU`"' is considered as unacceptable practice.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000694-QINU`"' +
