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 /> +
