What is this about? (Is About)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A short summary providing some details about the theme/resource (max. 75 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
A
A researcher submitted a manuscript to two journals simultaneously. The decision of the editorial boards of both journals was to accept the article with minor revisions. The researcher emailed the editor in-chief of one of the journals and withdrew her submission. The article was published in the other journal. +
A researcher submitted a manuscript to a journal. After a couple of months of not hearing from the editorial board, they re-submitted the manuscript to another journal. A day after re-submission, they received an email from the first journal that their article was going to be accepted after minor revisions. They withdrew the re-submission from the second journal. +
A researcher had previously published an article in his native language. They prepared another article in English and submitted it to another journal. The manuscript was accepted for publication. However, the editor in-chief of the English journal managed to find out about the first article and asked the author to clarify the issue. The researcher asked for permission from the first journal to publish the article in English in another journal. Permission was granted. The article was published in English. +
This case study describes how secondary qualitative data can be used and how the data can be anonymized. One issue arising from anonymisation of qualitative data is losing important contextual information. Ethical, practical and theoretical questions emerge when delving into the issue of anonymization of qualitative data for secondary use. In addition, the study describes some strengths and weaknesses of anonymization policies.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001C0-QINU`"' +
This is a resource for various stakeholders (scholars, funders, regulators, and ethics board) who are interested in how research in ethnography complies with the current requirements on data protection (GDPR) and open science. +
Renowned psychologist Dan Ariely literally wrote the book on dishonesty. Now some are questioning whether the scientist himself is being dishonest. A landmark study that endorsed a simple way to curb cheating is going to be retracted nearly a decade later after a group of scientists found that it relied on faked data. According to the 2012 paper, when people signed an honesty declaration at the beginning of a form, rather than the end, they were less likely to lie. A seemingly cheap and effective method to fight fraud, it was [https://www.fastcompany.com/3068506/lemonade-is-using-behavioral-science-to-onboard-customers-and-keep-them-honest adopted] by at least one insurance company, [http://38r8om2xjhhl25mw24492dir.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BIT_FraudErrorDebt_accessible.pdf tested] by [https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/2016%20Social%20and%20Behavioral%20Sciences%20Team%20Annual%20Report.pdf government] [http://38r8om2xjhhl25mw24492dir.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BIT_FraudErrorDebt_accessible.pdf agencies] around the world, and taught to corporate executives. It made a splash among academics, who cited it in their own research more than 400 times. +
This guideline, published by the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH), is meant to supplement the Ethical guidelines for research in the social sciences, humanities, law and theology (alo published by NESH. It is important because it pertains specifically to internet research, the use of which is growing in the social sciences and humanities. +
This guidebook is intended for teaching specific topics on responsible conduct of research (RCR) to a trainee group with different cultural backgrounds. The aim is to address the training needs of the large group of international postdocs. Materials presented in this guidebook could also serve as model content for RCR instruction of international trainees. +
In 2014 in a stemcell research institute in Japan a research misconduct case came to light. The case was excessively covered by the media, with the media not only portraying the accused scientists as perpetrators, but criticizing the entire research centre. One of the members of the research centre committed suicide, causing upheaval in the Japanese research scene. As the case describes, the damage of the scientific misonconduct reaches far beyond the misconduct itself. +
A supervisor writes an unsolicited and critical recommendation letter behind the back of his postdoc researcher who had not informed him of his application. The letter sketches a negative picture of the applicant. +
A case study appearing in a blog site that posts on sexual misconduct in higher education. Sexual demands, bullying, coercion, harassment and a long list of similar behaviours are less frequently reported as misconduct in research ethics; but do these behaviours comply with the ECCRI'"`UNIQ--ref-0000052E-QINU`"''s principle of respect for colleagues? or, with the good research practices of safeguards and collaborative working?
'"`UNIQ--references-0000052F-QINU`"' +
This is a factual anonymized case about a person who worked as a medical writer for almost 11 years. During this time she has written a variety of texts including the occasional ghostwritten article. In the article she describes her experience, motivation and her views about the problem of fraud in authorship. +
A New Challenge to Research Ethics: Patients-Led Research (PLR) and the Role of Internet Based Social Networks +
This article addresses a new model of clinical research - Participants-Led Research (PLR). It also identifies ethical, legal and social issues as well as relevant concepts that may help solve them. +
Using the theme of Charles Dickens' "Christmas Carol," this amusing Norwegian video with English subtitles presents consequences of plagiarism. +
This is a factual anonymised case focused on the practice of Gift Authorship. +
This factual case details a so-called ‘First-in-man’ (FIM) clinical trial that seriously harmed the six participants who received the drug under investigation. The report discusses the consequences of the disastrous trial for later FIM trials. The article considers the scientific consequences, such as the procedure to determine the acceptable dose of the drug, and reviews the ethical dimensions of FIM trials, like potential monetary compensation for the risks the participants take.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001A8-QINU`"' +
This short guide explains the basic concepts regarding digital humanities and the role of academic institutions in this matter. It also describes the skills and competences needed for doing digital humanities work as well as learning outcomes for digital humanities. +
This study examines the status of Ph.D. communication education in research ethics. The findings show that no Ph.D. communication program has a course specifically dedicated to communication research ethics. +
A University of Liverpool investigation determined that a former researcher there fabricated his data +
In 2017 a promising young liver specialist, was found to have fabricated spectroscopic findings. Several retractions followed the investigation.'"`UNIQ--ref-000002F5-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000002F6-QINU`"' +
This study provides information on evaluation of the citations related to publications by trainees in the Fogarty International Center's International Research Ethics Education and Curriculum Development program. The authors analyzed 328 papers published between 2004 and 2008. The results show that the number of citations per paper is 3, 12.6% of papers were cited more than 10 times and the h-index is 22. +
