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`"' +
It shows that it is not only peer-reviewed journal publications that should accurately uphold norms of academic integrity, but the communication of other forms of research (e.g. journalism) should also remain accurate and factual. +
K
This poster is an example of an uncomplicated, low-cost, and easy to disseminate initiative to stress the importance of research integrity and emphasize the importance of good supervision as a cornerstone of research practice. Moreover, the poster reminds all types of supervisors (principal investigator, research coordinator, academic advisor, mentor) to their responsibilities as such. +
L
It highlights the importance of institutional practices on research oversight and integrity that could serve as safeguards against research misconduct and other ethics failures. +
The main role of the Controller's office is to foster and encourage research integrity and adherence to research ethics in all research and academic institutions. This includes encouraging institutions to adhere to standards, studying current ethical guidelines, investigating cases of misconduct and promoting collaboration. Thus, it is an important landmark in encouraging academic integrity in the scientific community in Lithuania. +
Not only does this document describe in detail the definitions and organizational requirements of all scientific educational and research institutions, it also explains basic underlying principles such as academic freedom, openness, accountability to society and personal responsibility. Since it is legally binding, it is important that all those involved in research are aware of these tenets. +
This resource is helpful for researchers interested in knowing their legal liability, the range of actors who may pursue legal action against them, and specific areas of practice where they may face lawsuits. It may also be helpful for researchers' legal representation as a way to begin familiarizing themselves with case law.'"`UNIQ--references-00000170-QINU`"' +
In addition to the law of 2009, this legislation aims to improve the quality of education and research and to promote innovation through various means, such as establishing integrated centers for business and science, creating a center for quality assessment in education and research, appointing ombudspersons for academic ethics and evaluating higher educational institutions. +
PhD students learn how to do research from principal investigators (PIs). However, science often progresses very rapidly, and not all PIs are always aware of the most recent developments and new perspectives. To remedy this problem, the course provides early career researchers with tools for self-learning that help them to navigate competently and confidently through scientific fields characterized by rapid progress and change. +
Cross-boundary collaboration (between disciplines, countries, institutions) is becoming more common to address scientific problems and societal challenges that are difficult to answer from one discipline or setting. It is important to understand the types of problems that can arise during such collaborations. +
M
The case shows the extent of adverse consequences for researchers, patients and research institutes when proper ethical guidelines and practices are not followed. +
Presented by the American Sociological Association, this is an interesting case for research and academic professionals in every field. It poses some thought provoking questions as to one’s ethical obligations towards fulfilling the roles that come with one’s post.
It also gives a glimpse of how competing responsibilities may allow a fall in performance and how academic institutions and their employees can work together towards coming to mutual understanding and agreement on how to promote high standards and improvement. +
This is an interesting case for several reasons. Firstly, it shows that allegations of misconduct are not restricted to individual researchers and their institutions but also to journal editors and publishers; although such cases have so far been less frequently encountered, they are now becoming increasingly common.
Secondly, the specific allegations may appear more difficult to investigate and/or prove as misconduct. One of these two journals, in this specific case, maintain that there was no intention to inflate the impact factor and any excessive self-citation was due to a 'niche' area where no many other journals publish on the topic.
The case is also interesting and can stimulate discussions as to what is a good balance between broad and specialized referencing. +
Besides national research integrity guidelines, University-level guidelines are also crucial in ensuring good research practices. To help staff and students adhere to these practices, this guideline enumerates the principles of good research and what constitutes research misconduct. +
The DMP is created in the planning phase of a research project, and outlines how the (prospective) researcher will create, maintain, protect and store data in an ethical and secure manner, both during and after the project. Thus, it is important to be aware of the standards for good data management. The University also provides links to data management support staff who could optimize researchers' DMPs. +
Since the institution handles large amounts of data on a routine basis, it is important for staff and students to be aware of data protection principles and laws. To ensure compliance to national and international standards, the Manchester University provides detailed guidance to its members who handle personal data. +
The creation of Intellectual Property entails important legal procedures that pertain to ownership, property rights, revenue generation and sharing and dissemination of scholarly work. This guideline details these legal and ethical aspects, as well as provides information on the supporting offices and infrastructure at the university. +
As also described in the article, the incidence of scientific misconduct seems to be increasing.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001AC-QINU`"' However, not all scientific misconduct is deliberate, but may also result from insufficient training or a lack of knowledge. The overview and recommendations described in this article may aid in the prevention of such accidental scientific misconduct. Moreover, this resource can also help to uncover more intentional forms of scientific misconduct. It is noted in the article that many cases of scientific misconduct are reported by the thoughtful readers of scientific articles. This article may assist readers and other members of the scientific community in the recognition of the various forms of scientific misconduct. Hopefully, it also convinces them of the importance of reporting these cases. +
Adhering to ethical standards is fundamental to ensure a successful outcome for the medical technology industry, the safe and effective use of medical technology, and the advancement of medical technologies. Besides, this code is endorsed by the Biomedical Alliance in Europe in their Code of Conduct. +
Medical curriculum prepares medical students for their future profession by teaching them the facts and rules of medicine as well as other aspects of medical profession, such as professional behavior and ethics. +
Robert Merton developed his norms as a way to describe what constitutes the ethos of modern science. Since then, research has shown that various practice-based problems still occur, such as research misconduct, falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and questionable research practices. Scientists are still aiming for improvement, and Mertonian norms are still very much relevant. +
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. +
This case demonstrates that it sometimes can be difficult to distinguish scientific misconduct from scientific errors. It shows that the definition of misconduct can be interpreted in different ways and it shows the importance of education of scientist to prevent ‘unintentional scientific misconduct’ and improve research integrity. +
Data fabrication in clinical trials endangers the health of both current participants and future patients that will be treated with the drug if it is ‘proven’ efficacious. In addition, data fabrication lowers public trust in science. Moreover, data fabrication and stealing of funding money for personal use may lead to the waste of precious research funding budgets on unscientific research. +
Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day actions and decisions. This might lead them to consider other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own, when faced with day to day moral dilemma. Moreover, the modified version of the RDG helps participants to reflect on their preferred course of action in light of the principles and practices presented in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. +
Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas with others in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day decisions and actions. That might lead them to consider and understand other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own in the light of RI values and the principles outlined in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity when faced a specific moral dilemma. +
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. For instance, 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-00000206-QINU`"' .'"`UNIQ--references-00000207-QINU`"' +
Research integrity can involve a situation of moral conflict. This means that two courses of action are possible, which exclude one another. If one goes for one action, the alternative cannot be realized. Moreover, one has to choose between both actions; a third option, such as not making a choice, is not possible. An example is the choice between adding a person as an author to an article or not. There is no third option: either the person is made author, or not.
A moral conflict implies two conflicting values. In the case of authorship, these values might be gratitude (for a – albeit small - contribution) versus righteousness (acting in line with the authorship guidelines). Sometimes, moral conflicts can be resolved because one of the values clearly overrides the other. Thus, from a research integrity perspective, authorship requirements are more important than gratitude. In order to do justice to the value of gratitude, the person can be mentioned in an acknowledgement.
However, there are examples of situations in research where conflicts can be irresolvable, because the person who has to choose feels the obligation to do justice to two incompatible values. In such cases, one is confronted with a moral dilemma .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000035-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000036-QINU`"' A moral dilemma is a conflict situation in which the choice one makes causes a moral harm, which cannot be restlessly repaired. Take the example of how to respond when a fellow researcher needs help, but refuses your assistance. In light of the value of care, you should at least try to convince them that support is needed. On the other hand, the value of autonomy might indicate that you should not impose yourself upon them. Whatever you decide to do, you do harm to one of the two values involved. If you choose to try and get them to accept support, they might feel being treated as an incompetent researcher. If you choose to let go, they might get in serious difficulty with their research.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000037-QINU`"'
Manuscript processing and peer reviewing timelines may vary among journals. Waiting for a journal’s decision of acceptance (or, otherwise) of a manuscript can be frustrating for authors. However, as this case shows, advancing one’s career is not a sufficient justification for multiple submissions and breaching a journal’s guidelines. The case provides some food for thought as to why practices of multiple submissions may challenge research ethics. +
Ahlaki bir soru, ikilem ya da çatışma durumunda kişi, iyi düşünülmüş bir seçim yapabiliyor olmalıdır. Seçenekler üzerine düşünmek ya da bir fikir oluşturabilmek için ise sorunun bağlamını ve neyin kimin için risk altında olduğunu tam olarak anlayabilmelidir. Diyalog içerisindeyken kişinin tutumunun yavaşlama, hemen yargılamada bulunmama ve soru sorma üzerine şekillenmesi gerekir. Bu nedenle diyalog içerisindeyken katılımcılar, karşılarındaki kişiyi anlamaya odaklanmak ve onu (ve kendilerini) kendi davranış şekli ve bunun altında yatan sebepler üzerine düşünmeye yönlendirmek durumunda kalırlar. +
Ahlaki bir soru, ikilem ya da çatışma durumunda kişi, iyi düşünülmüş bir seçim yapabiliyor olmalıdır. Seçenekler üzerine düşünmek ya da bir fikir oluşturabilmek için ise sorunun bağlamını ve neyin kimin için risk altında olduğunu tam olarak anlayabilmelidir. Diyalog içerisindeyken kişinin tutumunun yavaşlama, hemen yargılamada bulunmama ve soru sorma üzerine şekillenmesi gerekir. Bu nedenle diyalog içerisindeyken katılımcılar, karşılarındaki kişiyi anlamaya odaklanmak ve onu (ve kendilerini) kendi davranış şekli ve bunun altında yatan sebepler üzerine düşünmeye yönlendirmek durumunda kalırlar. +
Ahlaki bir soru, ikilem ya da çatışma durumunda kişi, iyi düşünülmüş bir seçim yapabiliyor olmalıdır. Seçenekler üzerine düşünmek ya da bir fikir oluşturabilmek için ise sorunun bağlamını ve neyin kimin için risk altında olduğunu tam olarak anlayabilmelidir. Diyalog içerisindeyken kişinin tutumunun yavaşlama, hemen yargılamada bulunmama ve soru sorma üzerine şekillenmesi gerekir. Bu nedenle diyalog içerisindeyken katılımcılar, karşılarındaki kişiyi anlamaya odaklanmak ve onu (ve kendilerini) kendi davranış şekli ve bunun altında yatan sebepler üzerine düşünmeye yönlendirmek durumunda kalırlar. +
Ahlaki bir soru, ikilem ya da çatışma ile karşılaştığınızda iyi düşünülmüş bir seçim yapabiliyor olmanız gerekir. Seçenekler üzerine düşünmek ya da bir fikir oluşturabilmek için ise sorunun bağlamını ve neyin kimin için risk altında olduğunu tam olarak anlayabilmelisiniz. Diyalog içerisindeyken tutumunuz yavaşlama, hemen hüküm vermeme ve soru sorma üzerine şekillenmelidir. Başkalarıyla ahlaki bir soru, ikilem ya da çatışma üzerinde diyaloğa girdiğinizde, karşınızdaki kişiyi anlamaya odaklanmak ve onu (ve kendinizi) kendi davranış şekli ve bunun altında yatan sebepler üzerine düşünmeye yönlendirmek durumunda kalırsınız. +
N
The Nagoya Protocol outlines the conditions for access to genetic resources and promotes the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of these resources. +
There is an increasing emphasis on managing and sharing research data. This guide will help researchers learn more about the various aspects of research data management and sharing. It will also guide NTU researchers in meeting the university as well as funders’ requirements.
Research data is an important component of research. It has evidentiary value which is essential to ascertaining the integrity of research. Good stewardship of research data can bring many benefits to the researchers as well as their institutions. The success of your research project depends on how well you manage your data throughout the lifecycle of your research. +
The code is relevant for all researchers in the Netherlands as it is the central national guiding document on research integrity. +
The Dutch Code of Conduct for Research Integrity describes the institutional duties of care, including creating a working environment that promotes and safeguards good research practices. The periodic research evaluation assesses whether the institution fulfills this duty sufficiently. +
By recognizing these pitfalls and responding appropriately can save a career and strengthen science. +
The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees developed these general guidelines as a gateway document to research ethics. Further specification is expected for discipline specific research. Indeed, the Committees have developed additional guidelines for medical and health research, science and technology, and social sciences, humanities, law and theology'"`UNIQ--ref-0000014E-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000014F-QINU`"' +
It shows that some researchers might successfully hide their conflicting interests for years without funding agencies and journals realising that. +
O
These infographics can be used by RCR instructors and Research Integrity Officers (RIOs) to help educate the community on research integrity topics. ORI encourages the sharing and distribution of these resources with colleagues. +
The blog brings up the question of how equivalent are punishments for seemingly similar ethics violations among different researchers and how these are decided upon. +
Safeguards are usually thought of an ethics issue that mainly concerns the research participants rather than the researchers themselves. In this case, this notion is challenged and both the researcher and the researched are susceptible to safeguarding issues. Also, this is a good case for discussions on research methods courses on ethnography or with ethnographic elements. +
Reviews often serve as an important source of evidence in informing policy and practice. This factual case is a very interesting starting point for debate (universities, students, researchers, policy makers) on how to approach reviews and conclusions based on research that has been, for various reasons, retracted. +
The university that considered the complaint did not consider the matter to fall within the scope of a violation of research integrity nor did it consider the guidelines for responsible conduct of research to cover internet comments made by an employee during their spare time.
According to the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity ('TENK'), the internet comments put the limits of its guidelines for responsible conduct of research to the test. It deemed that the lecturer in technology had showed irresponsible behaviour by inappropriately hampering the work of another researcher. However, this was not enough to consider the act as a violation of research integrity. +
Problem-based learning can be a helpful educational tool to learn about complex issues. Additionally, the book uses case scenarios to make the course interactive, stimulate discussion and have a low threshold to engage in conversations about the topics at hand.
<br />
== Chapters ==
# The ethical basis of RCRH
# Research in humans
# Ethics and study design
# Conflicts of interest (COI)
# Monitoring research
# International clinical research
# Genetics and stem cell research
# Malfeasance and misconduct +
The CAS assumes the responsibility of uploading electronic versions of research output on a digital repository, and ensures that it is made available to the public. Publication embargoes that are contractually required by journals will be respected. Different forms of research output such as articles, teaching material, book chapters and presentations are covered by this policy. +
Fake peer-reviewing allows researchers to circumvent the scientific journal review system that is in place to ensure the quality of the publication. Serious consequences may follow if this quality control step is skipped. For instance, the meta-analysis, in this case, claims the opposite of the widely considered beliefs about the treatment in question. If clinicians base their treatments based on such a meta-analysis, substantial harm to patients could be done. Therefore, it is important to recognize certain red flags for fake peer reviews in the peer review system. '"`UNIQ--ref-000001A6-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000001A7-QINU`"' +
This training program aims to train trainers to conduct a virtue-based research integrity training. It is composed of online and offline components which are designed to allow for flexibility. The program aims to (further) develop knowledge about relevant concepts of research integrity and to promote the development of didactical skills necessary to foster reflection about motivations to engage in good research practices among trainers in training. The program aims to: 1) promote the development of didactical skills necessary to foster virtue-based reflection about motivations to engage in good research practices among trainees and 2) support and reflect on the adoption of didactical approaches suitable for their work context. Trainers are encouraged to adapt materials in order to make them more suitable for the context in which they will offer their training. This supports contextualised teaching across different countries and disciplines and promotes the internalisation of the practices and principles of the ECoC. +
AD’ye ilişkin çeşitli davranış kodları ya da kılavuzlarda, araştırmacıların “dürüstlük”, “güvenilirlik”, “sorumluluk” ve “hesap verebilirlik” gibi belirli erdemleri haiz olması ve bu erdemlere uygun biçimde davranması beklenmektedir.<sup>[1]</sup> Bu erdemler, araştırmacılara, araştırma doğruluğu ile ilgili ahlaki sorunlarla karşılaştıklarında doğruluk içinde hareket etmeleri konusunda rehberlik etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Peki, mesela “dürüstlük” erdeminin hakkını en iyi verecek davranış nedir? Dahası, bir araştırmacının gereğinden fazla dürüst olması ya da çok az dürüst olması diye bir şey mümkün müdür? Dürüstlük örneği üzerinden gidilecek olursa: belirli bir kişi için belirli bir bağlamda, dürüst olmanın doğru yolu nedir?
Bu alıştırmanın amacı, bir eğitmen olarak sizi, katılımcılarınızın erdemli davranış sergilemenin ne anlama geldiğine ilişkin eleştirel ve müşterek bir sorgulama yürütmesine yardımcı olabilmeniz için eğitmektir. +
AD’ye ilişkin çeşitli davranış kodları ya da kılavuzlara göre, araştırmacıların “dürüstlük”, “güvenilirlik”, “sorumluluk” ve “hesap verebilirlik” gibi belirli erdemleri haiz olması ve bu erdemlere uygun biçimde davranması beklenmektedir. Peki, mesela “dürüstlük” erdeminin hakkını verecek davranış nedir? Benim bir araştırmacı olarak gereğinden fazla dürüst olmam ya da çok az dürüst olmam diye bir şey mümkün müdür? Bu alıştırmanın amacı, araştırma doğruluğu ile ilgili çetrefilli bir durumda erdemli davranış sergilemenin ne anlama geldiğine ilişkin eleştirel ve müşterek bir sorgulamayı teşvik etmektir. +
It shows that some researchers are willing to conduct unethical parts of their research in countries where regulations are less stringent. +
P
Research integrity education, especially on the undergraduate and secondary school level, is not yet widely embedded. The map intends to help curriculum designers and educators to learn about possibilities to integrate topics related to research integrity into study programs and courses. +
Opportunities to educate about research integrity are not limited to classrooms. Informal learning paths matter, too, and are are hitherto underutilized resource to foster a culture of research integrity. The Path2Integrity campaign contributes to filling this gap by enabling educational institutions to make research integrity visible in the everyday life of pupils, students and researchers. +
The Handbooks for Teachers and Trainers help educators navigate the learnings cards created by the Path2Integrity project. Focusing mostly on pedagogy and didactics, they provide examples of various good practices and ways to integrate learning units on research integrity into existing as well as new curricula. Thus, the handbooks accompany the Path2Integrity train-the-trainer program (to be launched in summer 2021) in the quest to facilitate effective teaching and learning of research integrity from the secondary school level to the early career researcher level.
Together with similar initiatives like the INTEGRITY project and the European Network for Academic Integrity (ENAI), Path2Integrity is committed to promote research integrity education already at the secondary school and undergraduate level in an attempt to integrate research integrity education throughout the entire qualification cycle, and to thereby foster trust in science. Enabling already pupils and undergraduate students to recognize what reliable and trustworthy research is and why it is crucially important not only for academia but also for society, is a skill likely to gain ever more momentum in knowledge-based societies and economies where research results and innovations permeate many aspects of life.
Thus, educators need competences and resources that support them in teaching research integrity (as well as related subjects like academic integrity and ethics of research) effectively. +
Education is a pillar to foster a culture of research integrity. The Path2Integrity learning cards facilitate learner-centered instruction of core principles and values of research integrity, and thus contribute to promoting trustworthy and reliable research. +
Research integrity education is crucial to develop a culture of research integrity. The learning cards support educators in developing learner-centered courses that help students recognize and embrace values, principles and norms of research integrity.
Because important facets of research integrity can already be learned on the secondary school and undergraduate level, the Path2Integrity learning materials not only address graduate students and young researchers, but also undergraduates and secondary school students. Thus, the learning cards, especially the s-series and the citizen education series, also serve a bridging function between research integrity and academic integrity.
To emphasize the importance of research integrity to society, the citizen education learning cards approach research integrity topics from the perspective of citizens rather than from the perspective of (prospective) researchers. In that way, they emphasize that research integrity, in societies permeated by research and innovation, matters far beyond what outside academic circles otherwise all too often might be thought of as a somewhat detached ivory tower. This also reflects how closely research integrity is related to the wider responsible research and innovation agenda. +
In a scientific journal, the editor is responsible for the quality of published research. Of course, an editor cannot possibly know everything about all areas of research. They must, therefore, seek help from other experts to assess the quality of research. They rely on their knowledge and experience to identify possible weaknesses in research. '"`UNIQ--ref-000000FD-QINU`"' For authors, the peer review process provides thoughtful comments to help them improve their manuscript. Peer review is important in scientific publishing, but also in reviewing project proposals or, sometimes, conference abstracts.
'"`UNIQ--references-000000FE-QINU`"' +
The article may be used as a case study in the context of research integrity training. +
In order to prevent miscommunications such as different expectations, a thorough document with clear agreements on the collaboration and responsibility of the PhD researcher and the supervisor is important. For example it prevents early fall out, and contributes to an uncomplicated doctoral process and qualitative scientific output. +
This case shows an example of how the research organisations could address research misconduct cases and how journals address these cases. +
It shows a case of misconduct against a high-profile politician. It also shows that researchers' early publications might be scrutinised later on. +
The researcher plagiarised text, plagiarised three figures showing results of an immunofluorescence assay, a phosphorimage, and northern blot analysis and falsified the data as results of experiments on Plasmodium bergheii, instead of P. falciparum as reported in a subproject of the PHS grant application. In addition, the researcher fabricated portions of an e-mail from his postdoctoral student that he presented to the HSPH inquiry committee purportedly to falsely implicate the student in the submission of the plagiarised materials for the grant application. +
The case discusses several possible instances of plagiarism:
1. Plagiarizing journal articles;
2. Reproducing and taking credit for figures presented in another researcher's articles;
3. Reproducing figures from a co-authored article;
4. Plagiarizing PowerPoint presentations;
5. Copy-and-pasting sections of a PhD thesis produced by another student.
It shows that plagiarism comes in different forms and does not just pertain to copy-and-pasting text. +
Some important topics addressed by the HRK recommendations are:
- Good scientific practices: https://www.hrk.de/resolutions-publications/resolutions/beschluss/detail/good-scientific-practice-at-german-higher-education-institutions/
- Stating affiliations in publications: https://www.hrk.de/resolutions-publications/resolutions/beschluss/detail/recommendation-on-guidelines-for-stating-affiliations-in-publications/
- Quality of doctoral education, including project initiation, selection, supervision: https://www.hrk.de/resolutions-publications/resolutions/beschluss/detail/key-points-on-quality-assurance-in-doctoral-education-with-an-external-employment-contract/
- External quality assurance: https://www.hrk.de/resolutions-publications/resolutions/beschluss/detail/common-guidelines-on-external-quality-assurance-at-universities/
- Examination procedures: https://www.hrk.de/resolutions-publications/resolutions/beschluss/detail/quality-assurance-in-doctoral-examination-procedures/
- Information competency in the digital age: https://www.hrk.de/resolutions-publications/resolutions/beschluss/detail/higher-education-institutions-in-a-digital-age-rethinking-information-competency-redirecting-proc/
<br /> +
Ethical values, standards of research integrity and good practices in research highlight the ethical and social responsibility of scientists. Scientists must be aware of their particular responsibility to society and to the whole of humanity. +
Polish Ministry of Science and Information Society Technologies' Good Scientific Research Practice Recommendations +
This guideline emphasized the role of research institutions in fostering research integrity, since they are in a position to detect misconduct at an early stage. For institutions and administrators, it describes the extent of responsibilities towards researchers, especially early career researchers. +
Researchers operating in Poland have a responsibility to read and understand the code prior to embarking on research operations. More broadly, the code is applicable to individuals and institutions interested in 1) how to train others in practices and cultures of research integrity, 2) how to implement enforcement mechanisms and sanctions, both through restrictions to funding and through re-training of individuals. +
Both the mentors and the mentees need to be aware of what is expected in their collaboration and professional relationship. Research performing institutions should ensure that they devote more attention to training of both the mentees and mentors about what mentoring means and how to build it for successful outcome of research mentoring. +
This position paper gives an overview of the components of RRI, the current RRI scenario in Austria, previous approaches used to strengthen responsible innovation and future directions and goals. Importantly, the platform provides recommendations to promote research integrity in universities and among funding organizations (Section "ethics", pages 28-32). The role of governance in ensuring responsible innovation is also discussed. +
While some feel that statutory regulation of scientific research is necessary, this is not the current norm in the UK (and in most other countries). Moreover, to regulate the diverse research performing organizations and various lines of research under a single statutory framework would be impractical. Therefore, it falls upon the institutional authorities and employers to ensure research integrity in most cases. Hence, it is important that they are aware, not only of their responsibilities but also of the existing structures of research governance. +
It shows what can be achieved with post-publication peer-review. Furthermore, it shows what can go wrong when contributors who are responsible for important aspects of publications change institutions and country of residence. +
It shows that academic and industrial research partners might have different priorities that do not always match. +
Because of the lengthy duration of peer review process and subsequent delay in publication, preprint servers are useful tools for researchers to post full draft of their research papers and immediately get the feedback from their colleagues.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005E3-QINU`"' The articles can be posted at no charge'"`UNIQ--ref-000005E4-QINU`"' and authors have the possibility to submit revised versions to the server at any time.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005E5-QINU`"' Most of the articles are given a digital object identifier (DOI) so they can be cited.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005E6-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000005E7-QINU`"' Readers can also upload their comments, which can result in productive discussions.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005E8-QINU`"'
This way of sharing research results and communication among researchers has its pros and cons.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005E9-QINU`"' The most obvious benefit would be higher speed of publication, from 7 days to 2-4 mouths'"`UNIQ--ref-000005EA-QINU`"' and evidence of authors’ productivity and accomplishment.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005EB-QINU`"' This would justify financial funds, especially in those disciplines with strong competition for development and limited funding.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005EC-QINU`"' The use of preprint servers would also foster open science, increase visibility and lead to fast feedback and recommendations for improvement in quality.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005ED-QINU`"' Furthermore, it could result in some new collaborations.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005EE-QINU`"' On the other hand, researchers need to consider that not all journals will accept manuscripts that have been submitted to a preprint server.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005EF-QINU`"' Researchers also might “rush out data prematurely” in order to get credit for their work, which could result in posting low quality and irreproducible data.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F0-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000005F1-QINU`"' +
It shows that important tasks should not be delegated. +
It shows a clear case of self-plagiarism where both the plagiarised and plagiarising manuscripts were published in the same journal. +
Social research, especially ethnographic, may be less accurate when it comes to predictions of precise methodological steps, possible scenarios encountered and directions of findings. As noted previously, ethnographic research may often be less understood by ethics committees who may carry some degree of ‘biomedical bias’, threatening both the research’s methodology and its direction'"`UNIQ--ref-000004A4-QINU`"'.
This is an interesting case for discussion amongst all those working in ethnographic research (i.e., students, supervisors, researchers) or dealing with it (i.e., ethic committee members and administrators). It is also a useful resource for teaching ethnographic research methods.
Finally, the case further reminds us that protecting human research subjects from harm and at the same time promoting their best interests may sometimes become a seemingly contradictory affair.
'"`UNIQ--references-000004A5-QINU`"' +
In relation to human research, The Belmont report lays down three basic ethical principles which are aimed at protecting research subjects. '"`UNIQ--ref-000004E7-QINU`"'The three ethical principles are:
#'''Respect for persons''' includes acknowledging the autonomy of individuals and protecting those with diminished autonomy. The principle respect for persons is protected in the form of informed consent.
#'''Beneficence''' is understood as minimizing harm and maximizing possible benefits. Systematically assessing the risks and benefits of a research project is needed to ensure the harms are minimized and the benefits of the study are maximized.
#'''Justice''' concerns who receives the benefits of a research study and who carries the cost. Fair procedures to select subjects is one important way to ensure justice in a study.
For animal research, guiding principles are to replace, reduce, and refine their use in research - referred to as 3R principles.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004E8-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000004E9-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-000004EA-QINU`"' +
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:
# +
It is important to realise that not only researchers, but also students can falsify data. +
The Institutional Review Board acknowledges that in order for it to come to decisions regarding issues concerning disclosure of identifiable health information, informed consent, principles of beneficence and maleficence, coercion of research subjects and the intrusiveness of surveys, it must be able to discern those activities that are research-based from those that are practice-based.
The case indicates that disclosure of identifiable health information for the purposes of public health practice does not require informed consent. However, in the case of public health research, a waiver of consent is required from an IRB.
The case also demonstrates that, for situations where information would be used for both practice and research, the demands for consent fall either under the research provisions or the public health provisions, as appropriate. +
Although it is nearly impossible to define 'good academic publishing', scientific gatekeeping must always be pursued'"`UNIQ--ref-0000049E-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000049F-QINU`"' +
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) Collaborative Working
7) [https://zenodo.org/record/4062216#.X3YCVZNKhjU '''Publication and Dissemination''']
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing +
There are several quick messages emerging here. An underlying implicit message is that even with the best intentions in mind, one may be in danger of unwillingly performing ethics misconduct.
Second, when unsure, once can ask for clarification of the best research ethics practices from the relevant institutions (in this case, COPE).
Third, the primary aim of this requested publication of cases is to inform future medical practice, and therefore, and provide an educational resource for trainees and practicing doctors. In answering, COPE provides ideas of ways to deal with this dilemma; several issues are considered in terms of privacy, stakes to be protected and legalities.
Finally, different countries might have different regulations, guidelines and practices for ethics in research, as well as different legal environments and systems when patient safety concerns are involved. +
Q
Qualitative studies increasingly form the foundation for quantitative research, intervention studies by generating hypotheses as well as further investigating and understanding quantitative data (1). Those researches answer the hows and whys instead of how many or how much thus exploring and providing deeper insights into real-world problems by gathering participants' experiences, perceptions, and behavior. While qualitative and quantitative approaches are different, they are not necessarily opposites, and the results can be complementary. +
Besides explaining the principles of quality enhancements, this guideline also deals with evaluations and reviews at different levels: institutional, discipline-wide and national. It also details the procedures to deal with complaints, investigations and appeals. +
Besides explaining the principles of quality enhancements, this guideline also deals with evaluations and reviews at different levels: institutional, discipline-wide and national. It also details the procedures to deal with complaints, investigations and appeals. +
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. +
Integrity in analysis and reporting of results is important to fully understand your data. Misbehaviors related to analysis and reporting include:
#Report on data driven hypotheses without disclosure [‘HARKing’ ‐ Hypothesizing After Results are Known ‐ typically with a view to make results appear more spectacular (‘Chrysalis effect’)]
#Delete data before performing data analysis without disclosure
#Selectively delete data, modify data or add fabricated data after performing initial data‐analyses [in other words: falsification or fabrication of data]
#Perform data‐analyses not stated in the study protocol without disclosure [or in predefined data‐analysis plan – also called ‘Significance chasing’, ‘P-hacking’, ‘data dredging’, ‘fishing expedition’ or explorative subgroup analyses]
#Report an incorrect downwardly rounded p‐value [e.g. by reporting a p value of .054 as being less than .05]
#Not report all study protocol‐stipulated results [in the aggregate of all published reports on the study at issue]
#Not publish a valid ‘negative’ study [in a form that is publicly available or accessible behind a paywall (article, report, website etc.)]
#Report an unexpected finding as having been hypothesized from the start
#Conceal results that contradict your earlier findings or convictions
#Not report clearly relevant details of study methods
#Not report replication problems
#Selectively cite to enhance your own findings or convictions
#Selectively cite to please editors, reviewers or colleagues
#Selectively cite or cite your own work to improve citation metrics [e.g. Impact Factor, H‐index]
#Let your convictions influence the conclusions substantially
#Insufficiently report study flaws and limitations
#Spread study results over more papers than needed [‘salami slicing’]
#Duplicate publication without disclosure
#Re‐use of previously published data without disclosure [which may lead to double counting in meta‐analyses]
#Modify the results or conclusions of a study due to pressure of a sponsor [commercial or not‐for‐profit funder of the study]
#Failure to disclose a sponsor of the study
#Failure to disclose a relevant financial or intellectual conflict of interest [in publications, when reviewing grant proposals, or evaluating persons or institutions]
#Handle existing conflicts of interest inadequately
#Communicate results to the general public before a peer reviewed publication is available
#Deliberately communicate findings inaccurately in the media or during presentations
#Make no clear distinction between personal views and professional comments (List from Bouter et al 2016'"`UNIQ--ref-00000587-QINU`"')
'"`UNIQ--references-00000588-QINU`"'
Good collaboration is not just about building networks and beneficial relationships, it also entails taking responsibility for research conduct, treating colleagues and collaborators with respect, and giving collaborators full credit for their work. Misbehaviors related to collaborations identifiedby research integrity experts include:
# Take no full responsibility for the integrity of the research project and its reports
# Refuse to share data with bona fide colleagues
# Turn a blind eye to putative breaches of research integrity by others
# Refuse to respond to an allegation of a breach of research integrity
# Use unpublished ideas or phrases of others without their permission [e.g. from reviewing manuscripts or grant applications, or from conference presentations ‐ this is one of the forms plagiarism can take]
# Use published ideas or phrases of others without referencing [this is one of the forms plagiarism can take]
# Re‐use parts of your own publications without referencing [‘self‐plagiarism’]
# Unfairly review papers, grant applications or colleagues applying for promotion
# Review your own papers
# Demand, accept or offer substantial gifts for doing a favor [e.g. authorship, promotion, access to data, favorable review or recommendation]
# Insufficiently supervise or mentor junior coworkers
# Be grossly unfair to your collaborators [e.g. in terms of a just balance of benefits and burdens, including giving those who deserve the opportunity to qualify as author]
# Add an author who doesn’t qualify for authorship [‘honorary or gift authorship’]
# Demand or accept an authorship for which you don’t qualify [‘honorary or gift authorship’]
# Omit a contributor who deserves authorship [‘ghost authorship’]
# Not acknowledge contributors who do not qualify for authorship
# Not ask permission from contributors for the wording of the acknowledgement
# Not share reviewers’ comments with all co‐authors
# Submit or resubmit a paper or grant application without consent from all authors
The importance of the data collection phase cannot be overemphasized. For research results to be trustworthy, the underlying data needs to be of a high quality. ‘Misbehaviors’ related to data collection identified by research integrity experts'"`UNIQ--ref-00000581-QINU`"' include:
#Collect more data after noticing that the results are almost statistically significant [unless specified in a predefined adequate plan for interim analysis – also called ‘peeking’]
#Fabricate data*
#Stop data collection earlier than planned because the results are already statistically significant [unless predefined stopping rules are implemented appropriately ‐ also called ‘peeking’]
#Not adhere to pertinent laws and regulations [including the laws and regulations for human and animal studies, safety regulations, good clinical practice, good laboratory practice etc.]
#Inadequately handle or store data or (bio)materials [including archiving for an appropriate period]
#Keep inadequate notes of the research process [with (digital) lab journals or its equivalent in other types of research]
#Ignore basic principles of quality assurance (From Bouter et al 2016'"`UNIQ--ref-00000582-QINU`"').
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000583-QINU`"'Included in a separate misconduct section in The Embassy categorisation.'"`UNIQ--references-00000584-QINU`"' +
An appropriate, transparent, and meticulous study design is the foundation on which to build trustworthy, high quality research. Questionable practices related to study design include:
1. Propose study questions which are clearly irrelevant [including questions that have already been or could be answered adequately by a systematic review of the literature]
2. Choose a clearly inadequate research design or using evidently unsuitable measurement instrument [which will not lead to a valid, reproducible and efficient answer to the main study question, taking into account the state‐of‐the‐art in the field at issue]
3. Present grossly misleading information in a grant application
4. Write no or a clearly inadequate research protocol [in which essential details are lacking]
5. Ignore substantial safety risks of the study to participants, workers or environment
6. Ignore substantial risks of the expected findings for society or environment
7. Importantly change the research design during the study without disclosure [or – if applicable‐ without permission of sponsor, Institutional Review Board or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee]
8. Give insufficient attention to the equipment, skills or expertise which are essential to perform the study (From Bouter et al 2016'"`UNIQ--ref-0000057F-QINU`"').
'"`UNIQ--references-00000580-QINU`"' +
It can be difficult for researchers to know what to do if they suspect misconduct but do not have concrete evidence. The extreme hierarchies present in scientific departments and labs can exacerbate the problem for junior researchers. +
R
<div>
These guidelines are important as open science is now considered as standard in the practice of science in the research and innovation programs of the European Commission. To quote the EC, " Open science is a policy priority for the European Commission and the standard method of working under its research and innovation funding programmes as it improves the quality, efficiency and responsiveness of research."
'''Reference:'''
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-science_en</div><div></div> +
It shows the adverse effects of strict mentoring. +
The present case shows that plagiarism is not only committed by researchers, but also by publishers. Such plagiarism may not only harm the original authors of the articles by not attributing them for their work, but also the original publishers. It is important to recognize journals that do steal the work of others as fast as possible, so they cannot make many victims. This case may help to recognize such journals. +
Within SINAPSE, you will be able to indicate that you are a trained VIRT2UE trainer, enabling other members of the community to identify you as a potential trainer for research integrity courses. The European Commission also uses SINAPSE to identify experts for policy and research purposes. +
The Handbook might be of help answering to questions related to how to deal with misconduct cases.
How should research misconduct be defined and how will it differ from unacceptable research practices? How should allegations be handled? What if an allegation involves several institutions and/or researchers in different countries? Why is it important to have a formal research integrity system in each European country to deal with research misconduct and is there any best model? Where should countries with no RI structures start? Should responsibility be local or national? What about openness and transparency versus confidentiality when dealing with possible misconduct cases?
<br /> +
Replication is of great importance to science, because science aims to discover laws of nature. Since such laws are permanent, experiments on which they are based should be infinitely replicable'"`UNIQ--ref-00000394-QINU`"'. This concept is highly important to medicine. Being able to replicate, for example, an epidemiologic study to determine health effects of certain risk factors could build up existing scientific evidence and impact decision making that might affect the public health'"`UNIQ--ref-00000395-QINU`"'. Replicability also represents a direct public interest since science is significantly funded by public resources. If a study cannot be replicated, the money invested in it is wasted. It is estimated that annual costs of non-replicable preclinical research are approximately US$28 billion'"`UNIQ--ref-00000396-QINU`"'.
Replication can be divided into direct and conceptual'"`UNIQ--ref-00000397-QINU`"'. Direct replication is an exact replication of an experiment and it ensures that the phenomenon is reproducible; however, it does not guarantee that the theory behind the phenomenon is true. Therefore, confirming the same results with a different methodology or a different experimental system adds more credibility to the proposed theory or model'"`UNIQ--ref-00000398-QINU`"'. Nevertheless, we cannot expect that every experiment can be replicated down to the last detail, especially in psychology and medicine. We can always expect to see random deviation in the results and conclusions when conducting an independent experiment'"`UNIQ--ref-00000399-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000039A-QINU`"' +
Some scholars argue that replicability is possible at least in the fields of humanities which are empirical, such as history, archeology, linguistics, literature, art and theology. In other words, they are based on “the collection of data”.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B7-QINU`"' One of the most common arguments that refute this idea is that study objects in the humanities are usually “unique phenomena”, for example certain historical events.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B8-QINU`"' Therefore, it is not clear ''how'' a study should be replicated.
Scholars advocating for replicability in the humanities provide a counterargument: although subjects studied in the humanities are unique, they still have “multiple instances”. For example, French Revolution was as a unique event, however, a researcher can study it several times and each time generate new data (in artifacts, literary accounts and paintings) which enables repetition of a particular method (studying a text) and discovering new things about that unique event.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B9-QINU`"'
Majority of scholars who refute the idea of replication in the humanities maintain that replication might be possible in some, but it is not possible in all fields of humanities. because the main reason for this is that the research issues and questions often rely on interpretation.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005BA-QINU`"' Further intra-disciplinary and interdisciplinary debates regarding this topic should be encouraged.
'"`UNIQ--references-000005BB-QINU`"' +
To ensure that unfavorable practices are stopped and in order to foster a culture of integrity, it is essential that these are reported. In addition, anonymous reporting ensures that the identity of the whistleblower is protected. On the other hand, the person(s) named in the reoprt also have rights to confidentiality and a fair investigation; these are alos addressed in this guideline. +
These videos should be viewed as a starting point for discussions about best practices for designing experiments and how to relate them to the research environment. +
Sharing and responsibly managing data produced or re-used in a research project is required by funders and publishers, and supports open scholarship. The outcomes of good RDM are that the rights of data subjects/owners are protected and that data is archived towards the end of research so that it remains available for validation of results, and potentially for future re-use. Together with Open Access publishing and other Open things such as Open Source software, managing and providing access to your research data contributes to the modern goal of Open Research/Scholarship/ Science. +
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) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063597#.X3cFmpNKjxQ '''Research Environment''']
2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring
3) Research Procedures
4) Safeguards
5) Data Practices and Management
6) Collaborative Working
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing +
For all activities funded by the European Union, ethics is an integral part of research from beginning to end, and ethical compliance is seen as pivotal to achieve real research excellence. It is only by getting the ethics right that research excellence can be achieved. +
There are no comprehensive statistics on the extent of research misconduct in China — and few ministries, agencies or universities make cases public. Surveys and anecdotal evidence, however, reveal a deep-rooted problem, and suggest that students are learning unethical behaviour alongside their science. +
In order to support and foster excellent research, the FWF expects researchers to adhere to the highest ethical standards. This requires a good understanding of the fundamentals of research ethics and research integrity, for which the guidelines of the Austrian Higher Education Conference (created in 2020) are used as a standard. Further, grant applicants need to be able to foresee and weigh the potential benefits, risks and ethical implications of their own research, as advised by the good practice recommendations of the OeAWI. The ethical implications of research involving animals receives added attention. The number and type of research misconduct cases in Austria from 2008 to 2020 are also listed. +
This research strives to understand more clearly what constitutes appropriate scholarly behavior. That is important, since research integrity decisions depend on human effort. Part of the research is to find out on what decision makers base their findings (e.g., guidelines or standards) and whether they consider grey zone issues. If so, which grey zones, and are they appropriate? Automating misconduct detection requires clear definitions. +
Research integrity is at the core of the research endeavour. It is the basis for researchers’ trust in each other and in the research record and, equally importantly, society’s trust in research. There are many reasons to take research integrity seriously including research excellence and an unsullied research record; continuing societal support for public investment in research; avoiding harmful impacts and research waste etc.
Science Europe Working Group on Research Integrity (2015), Seven Reasons to Care about Research Integrity: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000021F-QINU`"'
<br /> +
Research Integrity (RI) is an integral part of researchers' everyday work. Besides papers and books this podcast series provide a new and motivating way to talk and learn about the topic. +
The type of research misconduct presented here, although not frequently encountered, is not unique.
The case is significant for several reasons. First, it suggests that a research ethics body may not always have descriptions and labels to cover every single possible type of potential research misconduct.
Second, it is worth keeping in mind that more junior researchers may hesitate to put a complaint about their seniors’ behaviour, or generally, question and challenge ‘authority’.
Third, the case shows that consequences for such type of behaviour can be very costly for everyone directly or indirectly involved: perpetrators, their colleagues, the scientific research society and the wider society in general. The costs can be personal in terms or reputation and career consequences as well as wider in terms of public trust and monetary costs. +
Conflicts of interest may lead to the introduction of biases in research studies. This is especially the case when the product or drugs under investigation are produced by a company, as this may lead to corruption. Recent research shows that more favourable results are obtained for company-sponsored than non-company-sponsored studies.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001D0-QINU`"' Therefore, it is important for researchers to declare all potential conflicts of interest. Undeclared conflicts of interests, such as in the present case, may cast considerable doubt on the objectivity of the researchers.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001D1-QINU`"' +
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) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063611#.X3cGAJNKjxQ Research Procedures]
4) Safeguards
5) Data Practices and Management
6) Collaborative Working
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing +
Research culture encompasses the behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes and norms of our research communities. It influences researchers’ career paths and determines the way that research is conducted and communicated. +
Research communities can be the science system as a whole, institutions or research labs. In these places a different reseach cultures might reign. Nontheless, research culture has an impact on the science system as a whole. The impact encompasses research integrity, diversity and inclusion, career paths, collaborations, the reward system, communication and more. Creating and maintaining a good research culture is invaluable for good science.
<br /> +
This kind of research fraud can cause a disease outbreak and cost the lives of children. +
The report argues that research integrity is vital because it creates trust, and trust is at the heart of the research process. Researchers must be able to trust each other's work, and "they must also be trusted by society since they provide scientific expertise that may impact people's lives". As the report's conclusions highlight, "research integrity has the potential to increase the quality of research in the European research ecosystem, thereby increasing its overall effectiveness and impact into the future". The inclusion by Science Europe members of research integrity amongst their core priorities shows their commitment to addressing the challenge. +
Research metrics are used to evaluate the popularity, impact and importance of individual scientists, articles and journals, as well as the performance of employees and projects. The logic behind such an approach is that cited items are perceived to have a bigger impact on science and are, therefore, of greater value. Consequently, research metrics can be employed as a basis of staff promotion and funding distribution. Bibliometrics are also used in research, when analyzing relationships between researchers, and when assessing the impact of research projects and grants. +
The proper conduct and reporting of research is fundamental to the scientific method and the integrity of the research record. Research misconduct however distorts the knowledge base. The practices of falsification, fabrication and plagiarism are widely agreed to constitute misconduct and are intentional deceptions. The Office of Research Integrity defines research misconduct as follows:
Research misconduct is ‘fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.'
*<u>Fabrication</u> is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
*<u>Falsification</u> is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
*<u>Plagiarism</u> is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
*Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.’
Falsification, fabrication and plagiarism, however, are relatively rare '"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"'. In contrast, other behaviors, ranging from unintentional ‘sloppy' science to conscious minor breaches of research integrity are more frequent and possibly more damaging to science. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000000B-QINU`"' +
In their NIH grant application, the researcher falsely claimed that a figure represented preliminary results of their independent experiments, which differed from the source of the figure and the prior research in the field. +
It shows that academic institutions have a responsibility towards the publications of those who are/were affiliated with them. In this case, King's college shows exemplary stewardship. +
Scientific fraud is not only about presenting false data, but also about not 'cherry picking' i.e. selecting certain data points to confirm or suport a specific hypothesis or make a result appear more spectacular. +
Ethical approval for scientific research is extremely important. Otherwise, the health of research participants may be harmed. Similarly, performing biomedical research without being properly trained to do so may have serious consequences for both the health of research participants as well as the quality of the research. Therefore, lying about such approval and one’s credentials are serious offences and should be punished severely. +
It shows that research in some disciplines might take years to be published. Researchers should respect their colleagues and be patient. +
With cases of scientific misconduct such as these, it is important that details about the investigation are given. As mentioned by scientists commenting on the case, the refusal to communicate the details of the case at hand may discredit the entire research field of the scientist under investigation by instigating rumors. In addition, denying to openly share the details of the investigation renders all findings of the accused scientist unusable, as scientist cannot distinguish the reliable outcomes from the untrustworthy ones. Thus, details should be disclosed to prevent the unnecessary loss of precious research funding and to preserve the reputation of the research field and the investigation itself. +
The ORI found that the physician had engaged in research misconduct in five publications by including large amounts of text and an illustration that they had plagiarised from publications supported by 10 NIH grant awards. +
This resolution sets a vision for the future of research and innovation in Slovenia. Among other aspects, it encourages more accountability and responsibility in public-domain research organizations, to ensure better self-regulation in research. +
Writing research papers and reviewing manuscripts and grants are essential activities in the scientific process. But authors and peer reviewers constantly face ethical issues for which they need to be prepared. This course module has a list of learning objectives. It helps to recognize the importance of the responsible authorship and identify the role of an author in writing an academic paper in the sciences and the arts. Characterizes the role of a peer reviewer in assessing a paper or grant application. Supports the examination of the major ethical issues surrounding publication and peer review. Help students to understand some of the ways to deal with controversies or conflicts that might arise in authorship or peer review. Introduces resources about publication and peer review and makes us reflect on the way one handles the role of author, editor, or peer reviewer. +
The report serves as a guide to basic values that govern the conduct of research and the communication of research results and recommends specific actions that should be used to ensure and maintain the integrity of research. It forges an international consensus on responsible conduct in the global research enterprise. +
As a leading research institute in Austria, the IST aims to contribute excellent basic sciences research to advance social and technological progress. Therefore, it is essential that all scholarly inquiry is performed in a reliable, reproducible and ethical way. By explicitly asking all researchers and staff to adhere to good scientific practices, they set the tone for integrity and transparency in research. This webpage is also useful for researchers looking for more information, as it provides links to the OeAWI guidelines and details of research ethics officers. +
The resource is important to give an overview of all RI-related problems concerning collaboration in biomedical sciences +
Mentoring is important as it has traditionally been a successful way for research development of individuals, as well as research institutions and systems.
Although mentoring is an old concept (Mentor and Telemachus in The Odyssey), it is a difficult concept. It is should not be confused with other types of professional research relationship, such as teaching, tutoring, coaching, advising, counselling, supervising, sponsoring, role-modelling, preceptoring, peer support.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000549-QINU`"'
Mentoring is a complex phenomenon,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000054A-QINU`"' which integrates different functions, as mentors help their mentees to acquire, synthesize and integrate new knowledge and skills, as well as develop professionally and personally. It is an intense, personal as well as professional relationship with high commitment over a long period of time. It is reciprocal but asymmetrical, as the primary goal is the professional growth and development of a mentee.
We do not have solid evidence that mentorship work. A systematic review of mentoring in academic medicine'"`UNIQ--ref-0000054B-QINU`"' showed that it is perceived as very important bur there is little evidence that it is actually successful. This is similar for many other disciplines and types of mentoring.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000054C-QINU`"'
There are different ethical issues in mentoring, related to the individuals involved in the mentoring relationship but also related to the hosting organization.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000054D-QINU`"' Issues for mentees include lack of motivation and poor collaboration, and laps in professionalism, failure to acknowledge mentee’s contribution, lack of commitment and collaboration. Ethics burdens to a mentoring relationship may be the power imbalance, misalignment of goals, poor communication, competition, gender or cultural bias, and personality conflicts. Organizations where mentorship happen are also responsible for ethics problems generated by mentoring: they may not have adequate recruitment procedures, oversight, assessment and recognition of good mentorship, lack of clear guidelines, and lack of administrative support, such as protected time for mentoring.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000054E-QINU`"'
For research ethics committees and research integrity offices, this case report demonstrates the value of ensuring that case details are reported accurately, transparently and in significant detail, particularly when appeals are made by defendants regarding previous rulings.
In terms of the specific practices of scientific dishonesty, the case demonstrates that:
#Reusing biopsy material in order to support the conclusions of subsequent studies is a serious breach of good scientific practice if and when readers are not informed that an article is based on the results of previous studies;
#Reusing biopsy material in order to support the conclusions of subsequent studies undermines the validity of these studies when the different studies are based on different population sizes and different methodologies;
#Using the same images to represent different proteins is an instance of image manipulation even when the colours have been changed and the images rotated. +
Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: 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) Collaborative Working
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063746#.X3cXC5NKjxQ '''Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing''']
<br /> +
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. +
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. +
S
SOPs4RI - Guidelines for research institutions on community building for a positive research culture +
Ensuring that researchers work in an environment that is collaborative, positive, inclusive, and enriching is a starting point to enable responsible research practices and 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. +
Upholding a diverse and inclusive environment is key to allowing researchers, research staff, and research students to feel safe and to feel part of their research community.
Research institutions can help foster research integrity and responsible research practices by providing researchers with healthy, collaborative, positive, inclusive, and enriching work environments. +
Research institutions, supervisors, and mentors have an important role when it comes to research integrity. Responsible supervision and mentorship is necessary to ensure responsible socialization of supervisees into research, as well as to foster responsible research practices. Supervisors and mentors can benefit from support from their research institutions in providing responsible supervision and mentorship. This guideline presents a set of recommendations to research institutions on improving their institutional supervision structures and giving support to supervisors in developing their supervision skills. The guideline consists of recommendations on improving institutional support structures for supervisors, providing supervisors with necessary knowledge, training and support, and rewarding supervision in the evaluation and assessment of researchers. The guideline provides information relevant for research officers, trainers, managers, and coordinators, as well as deans, rectors and other institutional leaders +
This guideline presents a set of recommendations to research institutions on the guidance and resources to give to research leaders, in order to support them in building and leading an effective research group.
Leaders of research teams are responsible for a multitude of roles, including administration, management, allocation of financial resources and lab infrastructure, mentoring and guiding or inspiring young scientists to achieve their full potential. Research leaders can benefit from support from their research institutions to achieve their full potential as responsible leaders. This guideline presents a set of recommendations to research institutions on the guidance and resources to give to research leaders, in order to support them in building and leading an effective research group. The guideline consists of recommendations on improving institutional support structures for leaders, providing leaders with necessary guidance, knowledge, training and support, and rewarding responsible leadership in the evaluation and assessment of researchers. The guideline provides information relevant for research officers, trainers, managers, and coordinators, as well as deans, rectors and other institutional leaders. +
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research funders on defining and preventing unjustified interferences from funders, political and commercial actors +
Independence and the avoidance of unjustifiable interference are key considerations to address in creating a Research Integrity Promotion Plan for research funders. Independence and transparency in the research and funding process are ultimately about the integrity and trustworthiness of research outputs and are, therefore, vital for the research funder to uphold and protect. This guideline provides key recommendations to guide and empower research funders as they work to develop or enhance their own governance frameworks and Research Integrity Promotion Plans. The guideline concerns unjustifiable interferences, by which we mean any financial, professional, or other interests of any stakeholder involved, that might negatively influence a decision or be affected by the outcome of a decision. The recommendations in this guideline concern what measures research funding organizations can take to define unjustified interferences, ensuring transparency and integrity in their procedures, and preventing unjustified interferences by funders themselves, political, and commercial actors. The guideline was designed to provide inspiration and best practice examples on areas that may be considered when setting up Research Integrity Promotion Plans. The guideline should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet users’ specific needs. +
The guidelines on monitoring of funded projects address research funding organizations with the aim to give them general recommendations on how to monitor the execution of research grants with regards to scientific, research integrity and financial aspects. Most research funding organizations already have policies on monitoring funded projects; however, these guidelines can serve as inspiration to help research funders develop internal guidelines about the entire monitoring process, as well as external guidelines to inform beneficiaries of funders’ expectations towards them. The monitoring process can help research funders and governmental institutions to think about the structural problems that make compliance difficult for the beneficiaries. These guidelines were designed to provide inspiration and best practice examples on areas that may be considered when setting up Research Integrity Promotion Plans. The guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as tools that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet users’ specific needs. +
These guidelines address research funding organizations with the aim to give them general recommendations on how to responsibly select and evaluate proposals. They address how to tackle research integrity, methodological, and diversity and inclusion considerations during the funding proposal selection and evaluation process. While research funders already have established procedures for selecting and evaluating proposals, these guidelines can serve as inspiration to help research funders develop internal procedures that specifically address research integrity and quality considerations in their selection and evaluation process. The guidelines can also help funders develop external guidelines to inform beneficiaries of their expectations towards them. Consideration of research integrity and quality in funders’ grant selection and evaluation process plays a crucial role in incentivizing responsible research, and thereby fostering research integrity. These guidelines were designed to provide inspiration and best practice examples on areas that may be considered when setting up Research Integrity Promotion Plans. The guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as tools that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet users’ specific needs. +
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on Responsible Supervision and Leadership - Supervision requirements & guidelines +
Research institutions, supervisors, and mentors have an important role when it comes to research integrity. Responsible supervision and mentorship is necessary to ensure responsible socialization of supervisees into research, as well as to foster responsible research practices. Supervisors and mentors can benefit from support from their research institutions in providing responsible supervision and mentorship. This guideline presents a set of recommendations to research institutions on improving their institutional supervision structures and giving support to supervisors in developing their supervision skills. The guideline consists of recommendations on improving institutional support structures for supervisors, providing supervisors with necessary knowledge, training and support, and rewarding supervision in the evaluation and assessment of researchers. The guideline provides information relevant for research officers, trainers, managers, and coordinators, as well as deans, rectors and other institutional leaders +
Education is needed to raise awareness about research integrity and provide researchers with the required tools to promote responsible research practices. Training is an important aspect of research integrity education, but continuous research integrity education also requires informal approaches. These include teaching and learning about research integrity through responsible supervision, socialization in a responsible research environment, as well as learning by doing. +
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on the research integrity education of bachelor, master and PhD students +
Education and training are needed to raise awareness about research integrity and provide researchers with the required tools to promote responsible research practices.
Research integrity education offered to bachelor, master and PhD students ensures that students learn about responsible research practices at the start of their research trajectory. +
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on the research integrity education of institutional research integrity stakeholders +
Education and training are needed to raise awareness about research integrity and provide stakeholders with the required tools to promote responsible research practices.
Not only researchers, but also other research integrity stakeholder can benefit from research integrity education. Research integrity education can equip various research integrity stakeholders to adequately support researchers in engaging in responsible research practices. +
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on the research integrity education of post-doctorate and senior researchers +
Education and training are needed to raise awareness about research integrity and provide researchers with the required tools to promote responsible research practices.
Research integrity education offered to post-doctorate and senior researchers ensures awareness about research integrity among researchers across seniority levels, and helps researchers to stay up to date with the latest developments. +
Research institutions, supervisors, and mentors have an important role when it comes to research integrity. Responsible supervision and mentorship is necessary to ensure responsible socialization of supervisees into research, as well as to foster responsible research practices. The relationship between students and supervisors requires respect, openness, and accountability from both sides. PhD students, in particular, need support from their research institutions in engaging in this relationship. This guideline presents a set of recommendations for research institutions on informing and empowering PhD students regarding their rights, roles and responsibilities. The guideline provides information relevant for research officers, trainers, managers, and coordinators, as well as deans, rectors and other institutional leaders. +
*This course offers researchers an especialised training to improve their skills as supervisors.
*This training can improve academic leadership and empowerment of supervisors.
*Supervisors have an important role in teaching RCR to their supervisees.
+
This article and the discussed case highlight the importance of a concise and comprehensive definition of research misconduct in order to assure a proper handling of respective accusations. The case described may be seen exemplary of the implications a definition of research misconduct may have. +
Safeguards, Data-sharing and the Disclosure of Sensitive Results: 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) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063633#.X3cGu5NKjxQ '''Safeguards''']
5) Data Practices and Management
6) Collaborative Working
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing +
This editorial highlights that the lack of an official national body responsible for addressing issues of scientific misconduct contributes to an inefficient and disorganised workflow in dealing with cases of misconduct. +
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-000001C9-QINU`"' +
There is no evidence that psychology is more vulnerable to fraud than the biomedical sciences, and most frauds are detected through information from whistleblowers with inside information. On the basis of this analysis, the authors suggest a number of strategies that might reduce the risk of scientific fraud. +
Scientific Misconduct at an Elite Medical Institute: The Role of Competing Institutional Logics and Fragmented Control +
As noted in this case study, the incidence of scientific misconduct is on the rise.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000180-QINU`"' This case study describes some of the factors that contribute to a working climate in which scientific misconduct is possible. Firstly, the case study shows that the commercial mindset at the management level of a research institute may lead to the silencing of whistle-blowers and the sustainment of scientific misconduct. Secondly, the lack of well-organized regulation, both in the case of the research institute and the editorial board of the journals, also contributes to a working culture in which misconduct can take place. Finally, the case study highlights the important role that the media played in the reveal of the scientific misconduct in this case. Furthermore, this case also graphically describes the consequences that scientific misconduct may have for the health of the patients and research subjects. <br />'"`UNIQ--references-00000181-QINU`"' +
Increased competition in science can make it tempting to let personal interests prevail above the interests of science. This booklet is intended to encourage discussion of various issues so as to contribute to deliberate, responsible decision-making. The key question is always how one should act correctly from the point of view of science and responsibly from the point of view of ethics when designing, carrying out, and reporting on scientific research. +
The article shows that fraud in clinical trials can happen in many forms and at various levels. Although the fraudulent actions sometimes may seem trivial, they can have a large impact. Cheating in a clinical trial may not only endanger the health of the patients participating in the study but also that of future patients.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000171-QINU`"' As pointed out by the article, these malpractices in clinical trails may be more frequent than some scientific leaders are willing to publicly admit. Therefore, clinical trail data should be reviewed via a central statistical review by independent committees or algorithms designed for this purpose.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000172-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000173-QINU`"' +
It nicely shows the self-correcting feature of science. In his 1978 paper, Gould accused Morton (a 19th-century intellectual) of racial bias and misconduct. However, Gould himself is later found to have selected his data in a biased manner. +
The study of research integrity in research can quickly become a rote process without knowing what goodness in research consists in. This exercise is meant to aid reflection on the basics of what we mean by a “good research” anyway. +
The study of research integrity can quickly become a rote process without knowing what goodness in research consists in. Knowing what goodness is and what a good research is are good foundations for the study of research integrity. This reflection brings focus on the very reason why we uphold integrity in research. +
The institutions associated with the two editors deemed the allegation to be unfounded because the person presented in the publication had been anonymised. Responding to the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity ('TENK'), the institutions stated that the matter did not fall within the scope of guidelines for responsible conduct of research.
By contrast, TENK stated that the editors were responsible for the content of the publication, the allegation was serious and the complainant had solid grounds for the validity of the allegation. Accordingly, TENK demanded that the institutions concerned initiate investigations into the matter in accordance with the guidelines for responsible conduct of research. +
Another factual anonymised case added to this illuminating collection of plagiarism types which was inspired by cases that an academic member of University encountered in his role as a research integrity officer.
This particular case highlights the fact that writing of a background section also constitutes intellectual effort (reviewing of available literature and synthesis towards an argument) and should therefore acknowledged and referenced appropriately.
It also provides another example of the possible outcomes of investigation of plagiarism allegations. +
This case is another reminder of the many different formats plagiarism can take. It also demonstrates that not every single case that appears to be plagiarism is actually a research misconduct practice.
The case explores the fine lines among practices such as ‘quoting oneself’, ‘duplicate submission/publication’, ‘plagiarism’, ‘deviation from accepted practices’, ‘reprints’, and when such practices are acceptable or not. +
This factual anonymised case shows that plagiarism can come in more than one formats. The case adds to the real-world examples of plagiarism scenarios that research integrity officers may encounter.
Examples are useful for recognizing, highlight, and avoiding plagiary. +
The case demonstrates one of the many different ways that plagiarism can occur. Furthermore, it shows that it is not always straight forward to investigate and resolve an enquiry of alleged plagiarism; this may be particularly challenging when dealing with institutions (whether research, academic or publishing) in different countries, as they may have different understandings of plagiarism, possibly different norms of intellectual property and/or different ethics guidelines & practices. +
Financial conflict of interests (COI) are prevalent in the contemporary research environments. COI could cause muliple harms, corrode public trust and decrease the reliabilty of scientific knowledge. It is important for researchers to raise awarness on COI, increase transparency and learn how to manage potential conflict of interests in research settings. +
The practice of simultaneous submission is considered a violation of medical publishing ethics and is frowned upon for several reasons'"`UNIQ--ref-00000184-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000185-QINU`"' +
National codes can serve as guiding documents in countries to uphold the highest standards of research integrity and research ethics. +
In a knowledge society in which scientific research, technological development and innovation are essential assets for progress and sustainable economic growth, scientific integrity is of particular relevance as a value that underlies and ensures good research practice. A commitment to high‐quality science requires integrity and accountability in the performance of research – attitudes that constitute the primary basis for the advancement o f knowledge, and for trust in and consolidation of the scientifi c heritage. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000157-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000158-QINU`"' +
When outsourcing clinical trials from the West to countries with an upcoming economy, such as India, we must remain cautious whether the same ethical standards are used as with a regular clinical trial. However, we should not judge this process on account of single cases or merely on media coverage. This study may give insight into the different perspectives of the stakeholders in the process of outsourcing clinical trials. Moreover, the study raises the question of whether it is morally defensible to conduct clinical trials in countries whose population probably does not benefit from the drug under investigation. The declaration of Helsinki articulates that “medical research involving a disadvantaged or vulnerable population or community is only justified if the research is responsive to the health needs and priorities of this population or community”, suggesting that these clinical trials are not justifiable.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001E0-QINU`"' Therefore, as the author of the study suggests, more research into this topic is needed to determine the ethical implications of the outsourcing of clinical trials from the West to developing countries. <br />
'"`UNIQ--references-000001E1-QINU`"' +
The HASL has the overall responsibility to encourage and direct scientific advancement in Hungary. It does so by studying both national and international trends in research, developing research partnerships and networks and regulating the granting of scientific qualifications. These roles are set out in detail, as well as the funding mechanisms and appointment of members. +
Through this guideline, the Swedish Research Council mobilizes its aims to achieve gender equality in research. Not only is the quality of research is benefited when both genders are able to participate to the fullest extent, but it is also a matter of justice in resource allocation. It also refers to the national legislation pertaining to gender equality. Departing from these, it provides concrete steps to maintain and improve gender equality. +
The Swedish Research Council comprises active members of the research community. Thus, the situation may arise, during the evaluation of grant proposals, where evaluators may be closely linked to the applicant or applying institution or the research project, and therefore cannot make an impartial decision. Thus, it is important to be aware of and declare such conflicts in order to avoid them. This document provides guidelines on identifying, preventing, managing and addressing such situations. +
The practice of research involves balancing different needs. On the one hand, there is a need for knowledge and innovation which drives research. On the other hand, this must be weighed against the potential harms to research participants and to society at large. Thus, while performing research, it is important to have an understanding of not only the technical aspects, but also the underlying moral tensions, values and principles. These principles underlie various activities such as grant applications, conducting research, collaborations, publishing, mentoring other researchers and committee work. In addition, the document also discusses what constitutes research misconduct and how to prevent it. +
Many kinds of authorship related disputes exist, from clear breaches of integrity such as omission of authorship to gray areas such as disagreements on the order of attribution. In light of the rapid rise in the number of publications, such conflicts are also on the rise. Many such gray areas have not been previously addressed - neither by ethical guidelines nor by legislation. This guideline builds on an analysis of previous authorship related guidance and sets forth newer recommendations concerning authorship criteria, disputes and their management. +
Recognizing that the scientific landscape has undergone rapid changes in the last decade, and that scientific integrity is more essential than ever, the Swiss Academy of Arts and Sciences have revised their earlier code of conduct published in 2008. The current guideline takes into account newer challenges in research integrity, with regards to technological advancements, broader collaborations and public-private partnerships. +
T
The rapid development of the field of bioethics warrants a novel educational approach to teaching bioethics. The partners of the project believe "that bioethical values and critical thinking are crucial elements, now more than ever, of the development of a democratic, pluralistic, ecologically aware and open society." +
The case, brought by Retraction Watch, is important as it signifies that all stages of research are important, and editors and publishers are nonetheless part of it. +
This article presents short cases about publication ethics that can be used in training sessions and to teach research ethics and integrity to researchers. +
Although the detrimental consequences of scientific misconduct on a community-wide level are well known, the aftermath on a more personal level is only sparsely described. As this case shows, the careers of supervisors, co-workers and students may be seriously damaged by the deeds of the perpetrator. This could potentially affect the willingness of aspiring scientists to report scientific misconduct. In addition, the present case carefully sketches the problematic situation of potential whistle-blowers. On the one hand, graduate students, post-docs, and other lab personnel are obliged to inform the authorities of potential scientific misconduct by their principal investigator. On the other hand, blowing the whistle may cause them to lose their jobs. A better understanding of the factors influencing these decisions and the personal consequences of scientific misconduct may aid us in creating a scientific community that is safer for whistle-blowers and conducts more honest science. <br />
'"`UNIQ--references-0000017A-QINU`"' +
The practice of covert research in sociology has been a long subject of debate. It has received much criticism due to the deception of research subjects, among other objections.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001C2-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000001C3-QINU`"' Nonetheless, covert research methods may also have beneficial effects, as outlined in the present case. This may be especially true in the fields of sociology and social sciences, where it is important not to disturb the behavioral and cultural patterns under study. It is important to take both the beneficial effects and ethical objections into consideration when determining the justifiability of covert research practice. The present case may aid in the identification of beneficial consequences, while it may also help to prepare sociologists for the problems they may encounter during a covert study. <br />
'"`UNIQ--references-000001C4-QINU`"' +
The project highlights that all those involved in the practice of scientific research play a role in shaping its culture, and therefore all should take responsibility for building a culture conducive to high quality, ethical and valuable research. +
Support for research can be organized at various levels. With the establishment of policy-level bodies that guide and stimulate research, the Danish Government hopes to encourage innovation and collaboration on a higher level. +
From the principles underlying integrity in research to the planning, management and dissemination if results, this document provides good practice guidelines for every step of research. It is important for staff and researchers to be aware of these university policies that support good research practices. +
It shows that some researchers might use ethical reasoning (e.g. protecting subjects' confidentiality) to fabricate data and results. +
Reporting guidelines are essential in disseminating research results and supporting best research practices. Using guidelines will lead to more complete papers, increasing the quality of papers at the same time. There are several ethical advances related to using guidelines, such as fairly using resources, minimizing risk of harm and maximizing benefit of research '"`UNIQ--ref-00000213-QINU`"'. As a result this might lead to a reduce in research waste. The aim of a reporting guideline is to ensure that, for instance, readers understand the text, research can be replicated by other researchers, that the research can be included in a systematic review or that it can aid doctors in making clinical decisions. A reporting guideline should include at least a clear list of what should appear in a paper and how that list was developed '"`UNIQ--ref-00000214-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000215-QINU`"' +
The ETHNA System. A Guide to the Ethical Governance of RRI in Innovation and Research in Research Performing Organisations and Research Funding Organisations. +
Organisations involved in Research and Innovation (R&I) are encouraged to consider the consequences of their activities and incorporate society’s expectations into their work so that they can develop in a sustainable and effective way.
An ethical governance system for research and innovation helps organisations to achieve these aims. +
To promote research integrity, it is important that one completely grasps the concept of research integrity and that one can explain it. Various explications and definitions of research integrity have been offered over the years. However, none of these explications did fully meet the four criteria for a sufficient explication, as outlined by Rudolf Carnap.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001E6-QINU`"' Therefore, this article comes up with an explication of research integrity that fully adheres to these principles and enables more people to understand research integrity. This explication may be used to test, explain, and increase the epistemic integrity of future scientific research.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001E7-QINU`"' +
While the Embassy of Good Science is focused on research ethics and integrity, it is interesting for those reflecting about scientific integrity to understand how other organisations construct their ethics codes. +
Historically, participants in genetic studies predominantly had European ancestry. To better understand how different groups have different medical challenges, it is important to chart the genomes of ethnic groups worldwide. Yet, the way in which this is done poses ethical challenges. '"`UNIQ--ref-000001CA-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000001CB-QINU`"' +
Studies that are financed by the pharmaceutical industry may be subject to a conflict of interest of the company. Routine contacts of the pharmaceutical company and the scientists may cause the scientist to perceive the unethical behaviour as normal. Adopting this new ‘social organization approach’, rather than analysing the individual characters, may give insight into how these company-scientist interactions can lead to unethical behaviour. Therefore, this case may potentially help us to prevent future unethical behaviour in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored studies.<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-000001E4-QINU`"' +
The rights of research subjects should be protected in all cases. One of the central principles in healthcare is to provide the best treatment possible. However, as stated in the article, sometimes a public health measure can be so expensive that one cannot reasonably expect taxpayers to carry its financial burden. Accordingly, it can be useful to have less expensive, but also less efficacious public health interventions. Nonetheless, the usage of such a less expensive measure may only be justified in certain situations. The ethical framework outlined in this article may help to decide when it is justified to study and use such less effective public health measures. <br />
'"`UNIQ--references-000001BF-QINU`"' +
The code provides a framework concerning emerging challenges and technological developments. The European Commission and all EU-funded research projects take the code as a core reference, that serves as a model for research organisations across Europe. Besides, it has been endorsed by the European Association of Social Psychology, in their Diversity and Scientific Integrity Statement. +
The 2017 revised edition of the Code addresses emerging challenges emanating from technological developments, open science, citizen science and social media, among other areas. The European Commission recognises the Code as the reference document for research integrity for all EU-funded research projects and as a model for organisations and researchers across Europe. It has been endorsed by the European Association of Social Psychology, in their Diversity and Scientific Integrity Statement. +
The European Code positions itself as the basis for ensuring research integrity, underpinning local, national and discipline specific codes of conduct. The 2023 edition of the code emphasises the objectivity and impartiality of science as key to maintaining research integrity and trust in scientific institutions, but at the same time emphasises the importance of diversity of viewpoints in research as key to achieving these standards. +
Bioethics and law are two matters very much controversial between states since they are related to the core beliefs of each state. Therefore, the ECHRBmed serves as a unifying point, providing basic and general principles. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology endorses the ECHRBmed in their Code of Ethics. +
Having strong guidelines for the conduct of good clinical practice is important for conducting medical research with integrity, and in such a way that the privacy and autonomy of patients and subjects is respected. +
The current article suggests that text recycling may lead to an unfair advantage in our current scientific working environment, which values the number of publications of an individual researcher and awards grants and funding accordingly. In this system, scientists that engage in text recycling are rewarded more for their work than scientists that do not recycle their texts. Although some argue that text recycling cannot be classified as scientific misconduct, there are now policies and guidelines that contain regulations on text recycling.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001B6-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000001B7-QINU`"' The research discussed here shows that the incidence of problematic text recycling is considerable and higher than other forms of scientific misconduct, such as plagiarism and fabrication. In addition, it gives insight into its possible causes and the influence of policy and journal editors on this practice. Therefore, developing better policies might help to prevent problematic text recycling.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001B8-QINU`"' +
The Finnish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and Procedures for Handling Alleged Violations of Research Integrity in Finland +
The changes made to the Finnish code of conduct show a move to a more international understanding of what constitutes research integrity and good research practice. +
In the context of competitive grant allotments based on the novelty and merit of research ideas, breaches of scientific integrity at the proposal stage are of high importance. Specifically, plagiarism in research proposals could result in unfairly allocated or even duplicate funding. This results in the inefficient usage of research funds, and it is therefore essential that funding organizations identify and handle such breaches at effectively an early stage. This guideline document provides guidance on how to identify and address plagiarised proposals. +
This document, in addition to making references to laws and principles, includes sections on most practical issues encountered in research such as research planning and management, data generation and protection, work relations, supervision of students, contracts, intellectual property and preventing misconduct. As such, it is a valuable handbook to all those practicing research in France. +
This guideline describes the roles of three stakeholders: funders, those who evaluate proposals and those who carry out research- in ensuring adherence to RI standards. +
This document identifies makes recommendations concerning the following areas: enabling academic integrity, publication process, dealing with disputes, evaluations and assessment and responsibilities of various stakeholders. +
Besides ethical principles, it is important that researchers be aware of national laws such as those of copyright. This influences authorship especially in the case of joint authorship. +
"For knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous, and transparent at all stages of design, execution, and reporting. Assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor, and transparency." +
Interesting read to start a discussion, e.g. as preparation to an exercise or training session or a discussion meeting. +
You learn to see and understand different topics of responsible research through the eyes of different stakeholders in research. +
Regulatory oversight, ethical requirements and institutional safeguards are often viewed by the scientific community as merely decelerating scientific progress and causing delays in the application of treatments. The Hwang’s case represents how unimpeded progress works in contemporary science. Thus, the case might shed light on the often neglected benefits of “the social control of science”. +
The Manchester University's Code of Practice for Investigating Concerns about the Conduct of Research +
Research misconduct can be detrimental to the University and to the scientific community at large. Therefore, allegations of misconduct are to be taken seriously, while simultaneously preserving the confidentiality of the complainants and respondents. Thus, it is essential that goof frameworks and policies exist to identify, screen and investigate misconduct, and to possibly undertake disciplinary action. +
According to various research integrity codes of conduct or guidelines, researchers are expected to possess and to behave according to specific virtues or principles by being: ‘honest’, ‘reliable’, ‘responsible’ and ‘accountable’<sup>1</sup>. These are intended to guide researchers to act with integrity when they are confronted with moral issues in research practice. But how should a person behave to uphold the virtue of ‘honesty’ in specific situations? Can a researcher be too honest? Or not honest enough? Following the example of honesty, what is, for a specific person in a specific context, the right way to be honest?
This exercise aims to train you, as a trainer, to foster a critical and joint moral inquiry among the trainees into what it means to demonstrate virtuous behaviors. +
According to various research integrity codes of conduct or guidelines, researchers are expected to possess and to behave according to specific principles or virtues such as: ‘honesty’, ‘reliability’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003C-QINU`"'. But how should a person behave to uphold the virtue of ‘honesty’ in specific situations? Can a researcher be too honest? Or not honest enough? This exercise aims to foster a critical and joint moral inquiry into what it means to demonstrate virtuous behavior in a challenging research integrity situation.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000003D-QINU`"' +
Under this law, the definitions and procedures for the identification and handling of research misconduct are uniform within the country; thus, there it little room for ambiguity or differences of practice among institutions. It also states clearly the extent of responsibilities of Danish research institutions and those of the Danish Committee on Research Misconduct. +
This document proposes changes in seven areas of the Research Ethics Act:
- Statutory stipulation of the research ethics responsibility of research institutions
-Changes to the system for processing research ethics cases
- Institutions' reasoned opinions in research ethics cases
- Changes in the Commission's composition and mandate
- A clarification of the Research Ethics Act's definition of scientific misconduct
- Deferred public access during the processing of ethical issues at an institution
- The institutions' prerogative to preserve the anonymity of the reporter +
The Nuremberg Code has both historical and ethical importance. Although it does not cary the force of law, it is the first international document which advocated voluntary participation and informed consent. +
Publication of clinical trial results is important, especially if the drug under investigation is potentially harmful to the patients. If the pharmaceutical company tries to force the researcher to do otherwise, the institution should intervene and try to support its employee, even if this means that the institution receives no funding from the company. Similarly, the local bioethical community should offer support as well. The example at hand shows the potential consequences if this is not the case: the integrity of the research may be endangered, along with the health of both the patients and researchers. <br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000169-QINU`"' +
This is a case for discussion on stem cell research ethics, presented with a number of stimulating questions, by the Office of Biotechnology at Iowa State University. It reinforces the notion that where no clear legislation on stem cell research is in force, decisions as to whose stakes to protect and how, may become ethical dilemma disputes and legal battles. +
Carrying out socio-economic research in a professional and ethical manner involves balancing a number of different principles which often lie in tension with each other. This code is based on a recognition that it is the responsibility of individual researchers to make the often difficult professional decisions that establish this balance, and that it is the responsibility of their employers, professional associations and research funders to support them in making these decisions. +
Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas with others in a fun way makes participants gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day decisions and actions. That might lead them to consider and understand other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own in the light of ethics and research integrity values and principles. +
Common research ethics principles (Belmont 1978) that should be upheld are'"`UNIQ--ref-0000017D-QINU`"' :
'''Respect for persons''': individuals are autonomous agents and those with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.
'''Beneficence''': researchers should (1) do no harm and (2) increase potential benefits and decrease possible adverse events or harm. Participants must be aware of the risks and burdens of research.
'''Justice''': requires equal treatment and fairness for all people.
In the case in question, a failure to adequately inform research participants or coercing people to join research violated these principles.'"`UNIQ--references-0000017E-QINU`"' +
It represented the first international effort to develop a global code of conduct on research integrity. An additional purpose was to challenge governments and research institutions worldwide to think about these issues and develop their own guidelines or codes of conduct. +
The Swiss National Science Foundation and National Research Council's Regulations on scientific misconduct +
This document gives a concise overview of what constitutes scientific misconduct with regard to grant applications, the prerequisites for misconduct proceedings, and the proceedings themselves. It elaborates on the duties of the research institution in case misconduct proceedings need to be initiated, and specifies when the SNCF will step in. +
It is important for environmental and occupational medicine professionals and their societies to consider how to adequately respond to these threats. Examples include the adoption of a code of ethics by professional organisations that requires openness from public health professionals, and the establishment of an independent, intermediate funding scheme to ensure research funding for public health does not come directly from the industry to the researcher'"`UNIQ--ref-0000016D-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-0000016E-QINU`"' +
It discusses the responsibilities of researchers as clinician and a researcher. Furthermore, it provides a brief historical analysis of the development of research policies regarding ethical reviews in New Zealand.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000193-QINU`"' +
Since the University of Iceland is the largest higher education institution in the country, and as Iceland has no national code of ethics for researchers, this document is of importance to all researchers, students and staff. +
Students and supervisors have important obligations to each other. For instance, both should contribute towards maintaining open communication and meeting regularly, and ensure that confidential information is not disclosed. Supervisors, being in a position of greater responsibility, should also ensure that they are impartial, refrain from close personal contact and guide students who face personal challenges.
In case of difficult relationships, this web page also provides details of ombudspersons. +
Ghost-writing and misrepresentation of negative clinical trail results as more positive ones may lead to harm for patients that are treated with the drug studied in the clinical trail. Moreover, these practices may diminish the public trust in science and undermine our current scientific system, as they may cast considerable doubt on the reliability of scientific publications. Furthermore, it shows that the current scientific environment is unsafe for whistle-blowers. This is detrimental as it is another obstacle for whistle-blowers to come forward with their story and may cause future whistle-blowers to remain silent. However, the present case clearly shows that we desperately need whistle-blowers in our scientific community. +
When it is decided that no further fertility treatments will be pursued, couples are facing the challenging decision regarding the disposition of their frozen embryos, also known as “embryo disposal decision” (EDD) '"`UNIQ--ref-00000967-QINU`"'. Essentially, at the end of the storage period, which varies amongst different countries and institutions, couples have 4 outcomes to choose from: to continue storage by paying an additional cost, to discard, or to donate embryos to research or to another couple. There is also the complex matter of “abandoned embryos” that refers to the cases where the couple cannot be reached and/or fails to provide the clinic with a decision pertaining to the embryos’ fate'"`UNIQ--ref-00000968-QINU`"', so the embryologists become their custodians and guardians, which raises ethical questions, as well as bureaucratic challenges. To avoid such complications, some have advocated the use of a “properly prepared legal document, i.e., a pre-freeze agreement,”'"`UNIQ--ref-00000969-QINU`"'. There are numerous studies describing patients’ views on the disposal procedure of their excess embryos. Some couples perceive them as barely, more than a group of cells, or a tissue, while others consider them as their unborn children'"`UNIQ--ref-0000096A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000096B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000096C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000096D-QINU`"'. In a model of patients’ decision-making processes for the fate of frozen embryos, developed by Takahashi et al.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000096E-QINU`"', this burden was expressed as “Mottainai,” a prevalent, culturally embedded moral standard in Japan. “Mottai” is a Buddhist term that refers to the intrinsic dignity or sacredness of a material entity. “Nai” is negation'"`UNIQ--ref-0000096F-QINU`"'. Therefore, “Mottainai” is an expression of sadness and guilt over the disrespectful and wasteful treatment of valuable entities'"`UNIQ--ref-00000970-QINU`"'. +
It shows the limits of academic freedom, and provides a factual case that could be used to explain where freedom ends and disrespect starts. +
"The portfolio provides the selection committee with a broad view and arguments to promote or hire someone that may not have the perfect ‘excellent’ scientific profile in bibliometric terms, but someone who is excellent because of qualities� that may be harder to quantify, but can very well be talked about, evaluated and judged." +
Sometimes plagiarism involving copying sections from one's PhD may be more difficult to detect, especially if these sections have been translated to another language. +
Although there is much legislation and debate about science, its distinction from non-science is blurred. The article concludes that science is treated specially by moral philosophy, as cases of scientific misconduct are treated differently than cases of misbehaviour in other fields. Therefore, moral philosophy may play an interesting role in distinguishing non-science from science and may have consequences for the legislation on scientific research and the handling of cases of misconduct. Accordingly, it would be interesting to examine the exact role of moral philosophy in the distinction between science and non-science. Although definitively answering this question is beyond the scope of this article, asking this may be an important step towards a conclusion on this subject. <br />
'"`UNIQ--references-000001B4-QINU`"' +
Sharing research results with the world is key to the progress of your discipline and career but with so many publications. However, not all researchers receive the same level of training and support in how to choose a trustworthy journal or publisher to submit their work to. How can you be sure you can trust a particular journal? ''Think. Check. Submit.'' provides an easy-to-use checklist that researchers can refer to when they are investigating whether a journal or publisher can be trusted. +
Although a fictional scenario, the case shows that there are not always straightforward answers in dealing with issues that may challenge the values, rights and rules of different cultural or ethnic groups. +
This outlines a common dilemma for many researchers in regions without access to medical resources. +
High quality mentorship is an enabler of RI. This is because mentorship provides to postgraduate students the guidance needed to conduct reliable research. +
The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with 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) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063900#.X3dC2pNKhjU '''Training, Supervision and Mentoring''']
3) Research Procedures
4) Safeguards
5) Data Practices and Management
6) Collaborative Working
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing +
This initiative contributes to the fostering of open science from a perspective of journals, from a relatively new viewpoint. The initiative contributes to more transparency of editorial policies and support editors with suggestions on potential editorial improvements. +
It raises questions about the definition of fabrication and its difference with bad science, and whether journal editors should/could take into account the mental state of authors who submit articles.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001E9-QINU`"' +
U
This article may be used as a source of case studies in the context of research integrity training. +
The article may be used as a case study in the context of research integrity training. +
It highlights that using pseudonyms affects the reliability of claims and could result in the erosion of trust in academic publications. +
It provides a national framework for research integrity in the UK. +
A commitment to good research conduct lies at the heart of an effective research system. High standards of research integrity underpin the quality and reliability of the research outcomes generated and of decisions made in the light of those outcomes. +
Each case study is accompanied by some suggested points for discussion. These are intended as a starting point for debate and reflection, drawing on the major themes of the case study. Certain approaches are proposed but discussion of the cases may well suggest others – there is often no single ‘right’ answer +
The principles in the code might serve as milestones for organizations to help them attain the funding and regulatory requirements. Besides, the code guarantees that important issues are considered and is endorsed by the European Association of Social Anthropologists. +
This document highlights some of the key ethical and regulatory issues in internet research, such as personal data protection, maintaining confidentiality and what constitutes informed consent. While it does not aim to be prescriptive, it intend to encourage further debate and exploration of these challenging areas. +
Good publications practices constitute an important part of research integrity, since dissemination through scientific publications is one of the main goals of research. In case research output is seriously flawed, it is necessary that this is acknowledges and retracted as transparently as possible. This document provides practical guidance on when and how to do so. +
Although it is acknowledged that good authorship practices are crucial for research, wide variations exist in authorship conventions across disciplines and institutions. It is essentials that researchers, especially those undertaking interdisciplinary projects, are aware of these differences in order to avoid authorship disputes at a later stage. +
