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
"
An anthropologist finds their work has been plagiarised. The University Press claimed that while there had been plagiarism there had been no copyright infringement. +
A researcher in an urban ghetto is offered some stolen goods as a gift. Accepting or not accepting the goods has implications for the researcher's integration into the community she is studying. She accepts the stolen clothes but not the record player. +
A researcher used the help of a professional writer to write a research paper. Since she paid for the service, she did not plan to disclose the contribution after the first draft was finished. Her unwillingness to acknowledge the contribution made the company providing the service threaten her that the writer would not finish writing the paper. She changed her mind only when the editor of the journal where she had intended to submit her paper responded that even paid writing assistance should be acknowledged. +
'
This is a factual case. The journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) was started by ''Copernicus Publications'' in March 2013. After publishing a special issue on ''“Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”'' was published a series of concerns about the selection of referees (nepotism) were raised. This resulted in Copernicus Publications shutting down the journal. +
This factual case describes an instance of plagiarism by a peer reviewer. The peer reviewer had sent the unpublished manuscript to a colleague with whom he was writing a review. Portions of text from the manuscript under review ended up in the published review written by the peer reviewer and his colleague. The review was retracted, and the peer reviewer apologized. +
0
This case analysis uses a procedure advanced by Jack R. Fraenkel (1976) for the purpose of values education.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000061-QINU`"' Fraenkel (1932-2013) earned a PhD from Stanford University in 1966 and subsequently worked at San Francisco State University for more than 30 years. When he retired, he was Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000062-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000063-QINU`"' +
02 - The Seven Steps Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
The Seven Steps Method is a checklist developed to assist with ethical decision making. The method involves responding to the following seven “what” questions:
<br />
*What are the facts?
*What are the ethical issues?
*What are the alternatives?
*What are the stakeholders?
*What are the ethics of alternatives?
*What are the practical constraints?
*What is the action to take? (Werhane et al. 1990[[#%20ftn1|<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup>]])
These questions are designed to encourage a dialectical way of engaging with an ethical problem, so that (in cases where there is enough time) one can revise previous answers several times during the process. Various versions of this model are suggested for different professions. For instance, the Seven Step Method for ethical decision making in counselling (Miller and Davis 2016[[#%20ftn2|<sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup>]]) or management (Harold Fogelberg 2018[[#%20ftn3|<sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup>]]) are slightly different than the above model. Nevertheless, in principle, they all aim to help ethical decision making.
A more extensive version of this model is developed to address the ethical issues faced in scientific and academic contexts. In ''Ethics and the University'', Michael Davis adds several sub-questions to the original model and fine-tunes it for academic purposes (Davis 1999[[#%20ftn1|<sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup>]]). Being aware of the complexities of using moral theories for non-philosophers, his version of the model provides a framework for an orderly discussion of ethical issues using common sense.
----
[[#%20ftnref1|<sup>[1]</sup>]] Werhane, P., Bowie, N., Boatright, J., Velasquez, M. (1990), The Seven Step Method for Analyzing Ethical Situations [Online Material]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000010-QINU`"'
[[#%20ftnref2|<sup>[2]</sup>]] Miller, H. F., Davis, T. E. (2016). Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making. Published by: The Center for Counseling Practice, Policy, and Research. Retrieved February 26 2019, from '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000011-QINU`"'
[[#%20ftnref3|<sup>[3]</sup>]] Fogelberg, H. (2018, August 28). 7 Step model for ethical decision making [Web blog post]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000012-QINU`"'
[[#%20ftnref1|<sup>[4]</sup>]] Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge.
03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
In a collaborative effort, three clinical ethicists, a philosopher, Jonsen, a physician, Siegler, and a lawyer, Winslade, developed the ‘four quadrant approach’ (‘4QA’) for dealing with difficult cases in clinical settings.[[#%20ftn1|<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup>]] The process can be viewed as an “ethics workup,” similar to the “History and Physical” skills that all medical students come to use when learning how to “workup” a patient’s primary complaints.
The full procedure of the 4QA involves three stages and a list of distinctive steps:
#The first stage identifies and describes our initial perception of the case;
#The second involves the four quadrants (medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life, contextual features) and the identification of information relevant to a given quadrant;
#The third involves the application of case-based reasoning to identify and justify the best course of action.
----[[#%20ftnref1|<sup>[1]</sup>]] Jonsen A, Siegler M, Winslade W. Clinical ethics: a practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. Mc-Graw Hill, 6th edition, 2010.
[[#%20ftnref2|<sup>[2]</sup>]] http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) aims to combine reflection on concrete cases with procedures to foster moral learning. In MCD in health care settings, patients, family members and health care staff discuss a moral question. MCD can be regarded as a form of Clinical Ethics Support (CES) or REC assessment in health care and biomedical research, helping health care professionals to reflect on their actual ethical questions and reasoning, and to find answers in acute cases. MCD is about listening and asking the right questions, rather than convincing the other, and postponing one’s own judgements in the interests of being open to other viewpoints.
The validity and reliability of knowledge claims and moral judgments are constructed and examined within the practice itself. In the end, the reliability and validity of the judgments are determined in experience and in the practice of daily life. The MCD facilitator or the MCD participants can refer to existing theories and concepts, as well as existing normative frameworks (such as policies, laws, professional codes etc.). The point is, however, that ethical issues are not defined beforehand, but are derived from practice.
In MCD, the moral problem under consideration is always a concrete moral issue, experienced by one of the participants. This issue is presented as a case (for example, concerning a treatment decision with an individual patient). The case is analysed not by applying general moral concepts or principles but by investigating the values and norms of the stakeholders. In a MCD, different viewpoints are examined. The initial aim is not to decide which perspective or answer is right, but to ask open and critical questions in order to elaborate assumptions behind the perspective and find out how they are applicable to the case at hand.[[#%20ftn1|<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup>]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|<sup>[1]</sup>]] Stolper M, Molewijk B, Widdershoven G. Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. ''BMC Med Ethics'' 2016;17(1):45.
[http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/ REalistiC Decisions] is a case analysis method proposed by [https://uk.linkedin.com/in/hugh-davies-61029750 Hugh Davies] MB BS, Research Ethics Advisor for the Health Research Authority (‘HRA’) and former Consultant Paediatrician at Oxford University Hospitals.
Although intended to be a procedure for reviewing research ethics proposals, it is flexible enough to be used to analyse research integrity cases.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000018-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000019-QINU`"' +
This method was developed by Ferrer[[#%20ftn1|<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup>]] and applied by a group of investigators from Graduate Education in Research Ethics for Scientists and Engineers (GERESE) at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez campus (UPRM). The aim of the project was to integrate research ethics into the graduate curriculum in science and engineering[[#%20ftn2|<sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup>]].
----[[#%20ftnref1|<sup>[1]</sup>]] Ferrer, J.J. (2007), “Deber y Deliberación una Invitación a la Bioética” Cep, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico.
[[#%20ftnref2|<sup>[2]</sup>]] Valdes, D., & Jaramillo Giraldo, E., & Ferrer, J., & Frey, W. (2009, June), Case Analysis: A Tool for Teaching Research Ethics In Science And Engineering For Graduate Students Paper presented at 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000002-QINU`"' +
1
"10 Things for Curating Reproducible and FAIR Research" describes the key issues of curating reproducible and FAIR research (CURE-FAIR). It lists standards-based guidelines for ten practices, focusing primarily on research compendia produced by quantitative data-driven social science. +
3
This article introduces three whistle-blowers and describes their journey in blowing a whistle.
*First one is about Uri Simonsohn of University of Pennsylvania who calls himself a data-whisperer. Uri was the one who blew the whistle on two famous cases of data fabrication and data manipulation, namely those involving Dirk Smeesters and Lawrence Sanna.
*The second case is about Helen Hill of University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey who persisted for nearly 14 years to expose Anupam Bishayee's misconduct and repeatedly failed.
*The third person uses the pseudonym "Clare Francis" to flag suspicious cases of plagiarism or figure manipulation/duplication.
<br /> +
In this podcast, produced by Wiley, Brian Nosek gives three insights into what researchers and the research community can do to "close the gaps between research values and practice". +
A
This blog post is about the retraction of a 24-year-old paper that had plagiarised a 1975 article. At the time of retraction, the author held an executive position in the private education sector in Southern Africa. +
A researcher sought to include a figure from a textbook in his manuscript for a forthcoming submission. Their colleague recommended asking permission to reproduce the figure from the publisher of the book. The researcher emailed the publisher and permission was granted without any charge. +
A junior researcher published an article. A senior researcher of the organisation read the article and noticed the striking resemblance of the article topic with one of his accepted research projects, which was still in ongoing. They asked the junior researcher for their raw data. The junior researcher was unable to provide the data. Finally, they admitted to fabricating the data. +
A postgraduate medical student at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (Mashhad, Iran) complained to the vice chancellor of research that they had not been included in the authors list of an article, which used results from her thesis. The senior researcher involved in her thesis claimed that she has forgotten to include the student as an author. +
A researcher at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (Mashhad, Iran) included a senior researcher of another department in the authors list of their article. Although the senior researcher was not aware of their inclusion, he thanked the researcher upon receiving a copy of the published article. +
Upon acceptance of a manuscript prepared by a researcher, the editor-in-chief of the journal asked the researcher to add an article published in their journal to the reference list. The researcher agreed to the request. +
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. +
Retraction Watch presents the case of a researcher who failed to declare conflicts of interest in his research; he has also allegedly fabricated and falsified data on his research to reach certain conclusions. +
In this randomized study, authors measured Biostatistics and Research Ethics online course knowledge, compared to traditional on-site training of the same course. Online and on-site training formats led to marked and similar improvements of knowledge in Biostatistics and Research Ethics. +
A framework for assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: enhancing deliberation as a tool for bioethic +
This study offers a framework to a democratic deliberation (DD) project regarding surrogate consent for dementia research. The authors concluded that participants learned and used new information, were collaborative and satisfied with the study. The participants also provided societal policy recommendations with regard to surrogate consent. +
A guidebook for teaching selected responsible conduct of research topics to a culturally diverse trainee group +
The aim of this textbook from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia was to address the training needs of a large group of international postdocs regarding the RCR. The textbook contains a summary of different themes related to RCR, a script to facilitate small group discussions and teaching materials for topics regarding data management, intellectual property and research misconduct.
<br /> +
A meta-analysis of studies of publication misrepresentation by applicants to residency and fellowship programs +
This study evaluates percentages of applicants to residency and fellowship programs that have publication misrepresentation reported in the literature. Most misrepresentations regard listing nonexistent articles, errors in authorship order and non-authorship. The study shows that misrepresentation decreases when uniform inclusion criteria are applied. +
A proposal for a model of informed consent for the collection, storage and use of biological materials for research purposes +
This article suggests a model of informed consent intended for the collection, storage and use of biological materials in local biobanks for health research purposes. The model can serve as a useful guideline for the development of specific consent forms that can be used by researchers. +
A qualitative approach to Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training development: identification of metacognitive strategies +
This article discusses qualitative approach to RCR training development, based on a sensemaking model. It identifies nine metacognitive reasoning strategies for future development of RCR training. +
The authors of this study conducted a scoping review to explore the competency requirements for editors of biomedical journals. They informed that this was the first step to develop a set of core competences for editors of biomedical journals. +
The study described systematic efforts to develop instructional programs with regard to defining and planning learning needs and environment as well as evaluating learning. The focus of the study was on research ethics. It concluded that a systematic framework to develop instruction in research ethics needs to be applied. +
This study presents an overview of virtue ethics theory. It also identifies common ethical problems in community-based participatory research (CBPR). The authors discuss how virtues can be used as a guide in ethical research practice. +
<div>
In 2021, the UK's National AI Strategy recommended that UK Government’s official Public Sector Guidance on AI Ethics and Safety be transformed into a series of practice-based workbooks. The result is the [https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-projects/ai-ethics-and-governance-practice AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Programme]. This series of eight workbooks provides end-to-end guidance on how to apply principles of AI ethics and safety to the design, development, deployment, and maintenance of AI systems. It provides public sector organisations with a Process Based Governance (PBG) Framework designed to assist AI project teams in ensuring that the AI technologies they build, procure, or use are ethical, safe, and responsible.
This workbook explores how a context-based and society-centred approach to understanding AI Fairness can help project teams better identify, mitigate, and manage the many ways that unfair bias and discrimination can crop up across the AI project workflow.</div><div></div> +
In 2021, the UK's National AI Strategy recommended that UK Government’s official Public Sector Guidance on AI Ethics and Safety be transformed into a series of practice-based workbooks. The result is the AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Programme. This series of eight workbooks provides end-to-end guidance on how to apply principles of AI ethics and safety to the design, development, deployment, and maintenance of AI systems. It provides public sector organisations with a Process Based Governance (PBG) Framework designed to assist AI project teams in ensuring that the AI technologies they build, procure, or use are ethical, safe, and responsible.
This first workbook provides an introduction to the AI Ethics and Governance in Practice programme and provides an outline of the key components that make up AI systems. +
In 2021, the UK's National AI Strategy recommended that UK Government’s official Public Sector Guidance on AI Ethics and Safety be transformed into a series of practice-based workbooks. The result is the [https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-projects/ai-ethics-and-governance-practice AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Programme]. This series of eight workbooks provides end-to-end guidance on how to apply principles of AI ethics and safety to the design, development, deployment, and maintenance of AI systems. It provides public sector organisations with a Process Based Governance (PBG) Framework designed to assist AI project teams in ensuring that the AI technologies they build, procure, or use are ethical, safe, and responsible.
This workbook is the first in a pair that provides the concepts and tools needed to put AI Sustainability into practice. +
In 2021, the UK's National AI Strategy recommended that UK Government’s official Public Sector Guidance on AI Ethics and Safety be transformed into a series of practice-based workbooks. The result is the [https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-projects/ai-ethics-and-governance-practice AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Programme]. This series of eight workbooks provides end-to-end guidance on how to apply principles of AI ethics and safety to the design, development, deployment, and maintenance of AI systems. It provides public sector organisations with a Process Based Governance (PBG) Framework designed to assist AI project teams in ensuring that the AI technologies they build, procure, or use are ethical, safe, and responsible.
This workbook is part two of two workbooks on AI Sustainability in Practice. +
ALLEA has been a long-standing voice in the fields of research ethics and research integrity via its Permanent Working Group Science and Ethics, which has covered a wide-range of issues relating to ethics and integrity. The flagship publication of the group is the ''European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity,'' which was revised in 2017 and is regarded as one of the most comprehensive guides outlining how researchers should conduct their work. +
A complaint was made to the Executive Board at VU Amsterdam regarding a research report submitted by a researcher affiliated with the university but who produced the report in a personal capacity. Nevertheless, the report stated that the researcher carries out work with a VU Amsterdam research group. A subsequent petition was made to LOWI on the basis that the Executive Board had informed the complainants that it is not the university's responsibility to conduct an investigation or make statements about the research due to the fact that the assignment was issued to the author in a personal capacity. This is a factual anonymized case. +
This online tutorial provides an overview of the importance of academic integrity. Participants will have the opportunity to learn strategies of how to identify plagiarism, conduct academic research, and properly cite citations. +
Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition +
This study addresses perverse incentives and decreased funding as potential causes for unethical behavior. The authors conclude that academia and federal agencies should better support research and emphasize altruistic and ethical outcomes, not the output. +
This case presents four factual anonymised cases of misconduct practices occurring in PhD supervision. More specifically: a) engagement with regulatory processes (i.e., the case of deviation from the initially ethics-approved data collection procedures without informing the relevant regulatory body); b) problems of knowledge or understanding transfer (i.e., a misunderstanding between student and supervisor in relation to intellectual property); c) culturally specific issues in the PhD study (i.e., the writing of disjoined, sometimes plagiarised, paragraphs in the thesis of a student whose first language was not English); d) academic theft (i.e., a student discovered her ex-supervisor had published work containing a literature review very similar to her own). +
This handbook outlines important information you will need to know about correctly acknowledging your sources when you write a report, research paper, critical essay, or position paper. It provides guidelines for collaboration on assignments and writing code. The handbook also provides information about what constitutes violations of academic integrity and the consequences of committing such violations'"`UNIQ--ref-00000219-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000021A-QINU`"' +
This flyer contains a wealth of small pointers for writing a paper, conducting research and working with others. You’ll find advice to help you on your way, and handy hints'"`UNIQ--ref-00000218-QINU`"'. +
This study presents different challenges in medical research, such as the need to manage public expectations for new discoveries and maintain the public trust as well as consider the gap between research costs and funding sources. The authors examined these and other challenges and offered recommendations to medical schools and teaching hospitals on dealing with them. +
This article informs on the best research record-keeping practices developed as an adjunct to a research project on research ethics. These practices provide separate standards for individual researchers, research group leaders and departments or institutions and are offered as ethical and practical guidelines for researchers. +
Carrie Mediln is a researcher who took a teaching position without completing her doctorate. She is routinely addressed by students as "Doctor" and is often introduced as "Doctor" Medlin during academic events and public speaking opportunities. She never clarifies that she did not receive a PhD degree. The case study asks whether Medlin has a responsibility to clarify her credentials. +
This law, that covers various aspects of research, innovation and integrity, establishes the framework for the Danish Research and Innovation Policy Council and the Danish Independent Research Foundation is are independent bodies that promote research. +
Learn about the different ways in which a researcher can act with (and without) integrity! +
This is an online tutorial for administrative staff which contains modules in five instructional areas: conflict of interest, financial management, mentor-trainee responsibilities, collaborative research and data management. +
Although the Dutch Code of Ocnduct for Researchers has previously undergone minor revisions, there is a need for more substantial changes in view of recent developments in international codes. This document provides an analysis if the pre-existing guideline and suggests modifications. +
This is a fictional case on conflict of interest in biomedical research, including questions for discussion. +
This is the factual case of an agriculture research scientist whose several papers were retracted following accusation of fake reviews. +
Besides the German National Research Foundation (DFG), other prominent research organizations such as the Alliance of German Science Organisations have also created codes and guidelines that deal with specific topics. This document addresses the importance of good data management practices and the principles therein. +
An author realized a paper had plagiarized his thesis. It took the journal four years to retract it. +
This blog post describes a case where the bachelor's thesis of a Hungarian mathematics student is plagiarised and published in ''Scientific Reports'' — a Springer Nature title. +
This article describes a study of the two most popular plagiarism-detection software platforms - Turnitin and SafeAssign and reviews current literature focusing plagiarism-detection efficacy. The study results show that Turnitin had the highest success at plagiarism detection with an 82.4 percent detection rate. +
This article presents a model of medical ethics teaching at undergraduate level. This model allows students to discuss ethical problems in small groups. +
Case describing poorly planned research study. +
This is the hypothetical scenario about the research process which was poorly planned. +
This article describes a student activity that consists of the video instructions and analysis and interpretation of realistic data. The activity allows students to apply their knowledge of statistics and research methodology to real situations without conducting actual research. +
This is a free online course intended for inspectors from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) who conduct inspections of animal facilities for compliance with U.S. regulatory standards. The course is a field guide which presents animal facilities in a 360-degree panoramic image with some inspecting items and provides tips for inspecting them. +
This online training aims to help researchers in their research with animals. It contains three web modules. First one offers virtual tours of animal facility inspections. Second one deals with ethics and use of animals in research. Finally, third one provides information on the PHS Policy on human care and use of lab animals. +
Research Ethics Cases are a tool for discussing scientific integrity. Cases are designed to confront the readers with a specific problem that does not lend itself to easy answers'"`UNIQ--ref-000001FD-QINU`"'. +
On wrting a second ethnographic work about a village, the researcher went against the wishes of the villagers by not using their real names but acted in accordance with the Principles of Professional Responsibility of the American Anthropological Association. She made exceptions where she judged that using a real name would please the person. +
This fictional case is about an applied medical anthropologist who wrote a series of articles when she was working in an urban black community in the United States. She wrote her articles in an anonymous way so that individuals and/or the community would not be harmed. However, members of the community started a discussion because they were surprised that the name of the community health center and the name of the town were not given. +
Anticipate and Communicate. Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts +
These guidelines aim to help researchers in biomedicine and health. They provide recommendations applicable to the ethical management of incidental findings in general and those relevant in specific situations. +
This study addresses one of the approaches in ethics training, focused on the development of ethical decision-making skills. It proposes a new curriculum with focus on day-to-day social and professional practices that have ethical implications for the physical sciences and engineering. The training resulted in researchers' increased ethical decision-making in relation to data management, study conduct, professional and business practices. +
This study aimed to outline research findings from psychology and neuroscience that are important for moral decision making. It also considers how ethics educators can implement these findings in ethics courses. The research findings provide explanations regarding psychologists' ethical decision making. It also offers guidance on how educators can assist future psychologists cope with problems of ethical decision making. +
‘Uzmanlıklarını aktarmak’ ve başkalarını eğitmek için gereken becerileri edinebilmek ve her bir alıştırmanın amaç, içerik ve didaktiğini anlayabilmek için, eğitim alan kişilerin bu alıştırmaları uygulamaları gerekmektedir. Bu nedenle bu eğitimi alan kişilerin, birinci ve ikinci yüz yüze oturumlar arasında, yüz yüze eğitimin ilk kısmında öğrendikleri ve deneyimledikleri 5 alıştırmayı kolaylaştırıcı olarak yönetmeleri gerekmektedir (<u>[https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:36e82c9c-dc83-46cc-a043-df9d93f1801f Öz Beyan Yaklaşımı]</u>; <u>[https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:628b20aa-3ad4-41b8-919b-e45ad17b3d8f Münazara ve Diyalog]</u>; <u>[https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:35961b2d-6734-4bf9-a1d0-5893be9be3a5 Erdemler ve Normlar]</u>, <u>[https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:D1cde436-f9a2-41fa-8706-95ee6389f009 Orta yol]</u> ve İkilem oyunu). +
Eğitim verdiğiniz katılımcılar, birinci ve ikinci yüz yüze oturumlar arasında, yüz yüze eğitimin ilk kısmında öğrendikleri ve deneyimledikleri 5 alıştırmayı kolaylaştırıcı olarak yöneteceklerdir (<u>[https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:36e82c9c-dc83-46cc-a043-df9d93f1801f Öz Beyan Yaklaşımı]</u>; <u>[https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:628b20aa-3ad4-41b8-919b-e45ad17b3d8f Münazara ve Diyalog]</u>; <u>[https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:35961b2d-6734-4bf9-a1d0-5893be9be3a5 Erdemler ve Normlar]</u>, <u>[https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:D1cde436-f9a2-41fa-8706-95ee6389f009 Orta yol]</u> ve <u>İkilem oyunu</u>). Katılımcıların bu deneyimleri hakkında bilgi sahibi olmak ve son yüz yüze grup oturumunu hazırlamak için eğitmenlerin katılımcılardan <u>[https://www.dropbox.com/s/1fmppqv189jxlqj/Self%20reflection%20form.pdf?dl=0 özdüşünüm formlarını]</u> toplamaları ve analiz etmeleri gerekmektedir. Bu formlar, eğitimin son oturumunda hangi konuların üzerinde durulması ve hangi alıştırmalar için daha fazla pratik yapılması gerektiğini belirlemede eğitmenlere yardımcı olacaktır. +
Bu interaktif modülü alarak aşağıdaki konular hakkında bilgi sahibi olacaksınız:
*[https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf Araştırmalarda Dürüstlük Konusunda Avrupa Davranış Kodu (ECoC)]: Kodun içeriğini öğrenirken aynı zamanda kodda tanımlanan iyi uygulamalar ve ihlaller üzerine de fikir yürütecek ve yorumlamalarda bulunacaksınız.
*'''Sorumlu araştırma davranışı, kusurlu araştırma davranışı ve tartışmaya açık araştırma uygulamaları:''' sorumlu uygulamalar, kusurlu davranışlar ve gri alanlar arasındaki farklılıkları öğrenecek ve bunların ECoC içerisinde nasıl ele alındığına dair yorumlamalarda bulunacaksınız.
*'''Araştırma davranışını etkileyen çeşitli faktörler: '''Araştırmacı olarak kendi sorumluluklarınız üzerine ve 1) bireysel araştırmacılar, 2) araştırma kültürü ve 3) araştırma sistemi düzeyinde iyi araştırma davranışlarının ihlal edilmesine yol açan muhtemel sebeplere dair fikir yürütecek ve yorumlamalarda bulunacaksınız. +
In this study authors used statistical methods to compare data from two clinical trials - one with concerns of research misconduct and other with no such concerns. The results showed that data from the suspected clinical trial were fabricated. +
This is a factual case.<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000165-QINU`"' +
This article provides a review of education materials in responsible conduct of research in biomedical and life sciences. Authors split their findings in several categories: data acquisition, management, sharing and ownership; mentor and trainee relationship; publication practices and responsible authorship; peer review; collaborative science; research on humans; research on laboratory animals; research misconduct; and conflict of interest. Authors hope this review will help raise awareness for responsible conduct of research among biomedical and life scientists. +
Professor Dale Goodman is asked by a non-academic journal to review a book about prostitution, which lies within the scope of expertise, even if the book is not academic. He tries to write an honest assessment of the book's merits and submits it to the journal, which changes the review's title upon publication without informing Goodman. The researcher believes that the new title, "Prison Babes" is harmful and misrepresents the book, the review and the discussed phenomenon. The case asks about the appropriate course of action in such situations. +
The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia has various codes and policies on responsible research. The page contains an overview of the following codes and guidelines:
* The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research
* The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research
* The Australian Code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes
* The NHMRC Research Integrity and Misconduct Policy
* Factsheets on reporting research misconduct
* Information on the Australian Research Integrity Committee +
Australian Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research +
This guideline specifies the official procedures of investigating research misconduct (RM) in Australia. RM breaches, as defined in the guideline, occur on a spectrum, with RM being serious or repeated breaches of the Australian Code. +
The policy outlines requirements for institutions, and individuals engaged in Australian Research Council (ARC) business, to report to the ARC research integrity matters, and the action the ARC may take in response to reported breaches of the Code. It also describes how the ARC can refer concerns or complaints to research institutions, who, in accordance with the Code, are responsible for managing and investigating potential breaches of the Code. +
The Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (Osterreichische Agentur fur Wissenschaftliche Integritat - OeAWI) works to raise awareness of the standards of good scientific practice among scientists and researchers as well as the general public. It also contributes to ensuring that violations of the standards of good scientific practice are identified and remedied. The organisation works to strengthen the ethos of science and research, and advocates adherence to the code of conduct derived from that ethos. Its activities focus on investigating and preventing misconduct in research and scholarship, not on imposing sanctions for misconduct. Given that violations of the standards of good scientific practice are not necessarily also violations of applicable law, the OeAWI performs its duties as a complement to – but not in competition with – the legal system. Legislation relevant to science and research, the principles of research ethics and the standards of good scientific practice all contribute equally to ensuring a high degree of integrity in research and scholarship. +
This case described how the limited space in journals is not aligned with the increase in submissions. Due to publication pressure authors sometimes cut corners, which can lead to cases of misconduct.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000018D-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000018E-QINU`"' +
We received a letter from a third party, accusing author A of putting his/her name against an article, published in our journal, when the research itself belongs to author A's student.
Our journal is a fully English language publication and the accusing third party and author A are from a non-English speaking country, as is the student (assumedly). The accusing third party forwarded the student's research paper to the editor which is entirely written in another language but contained an English abstract.
The Editor contacted author A and the response received included an attached confirmation letter supposedly from his/her student stating that they had no involvement in the published work by author A and that their research is completely separate to the published paper by author A.
We have several concerns:
1. It is difficult for the editor to examine the abstract the third party sent to us against the published article by author A.
2. We do not know if the response letter emailed from author A, confirming no involvement in author A's paper, is genuinely from the student.
3. The accuser's identity or relation to the matter is unknown to us. Ideally the editor needs to contact the student directly but we need bona fide contact details of the student and we are not sure we would get it from the accuser or the accused author A. Google is also of little help as there are so many people with the name. +
Researchers everywhere are under increasing pressure to publish in high quality journals. The amount of space available in a journal such as ''Medical Education'' has not kept pace with the rise in submissions. Against a background of fierce competition, authors sometimes cut corners. This may lead to misconduct. This paper aims to explore the most common types of publication misconduct seen in the ''Medical Education'' editorial office, and to consider the reasons for this and the implications for researchers in the field. +
Authors couldn’t find a patient to give consent for case report. Then the patient found the report. +
This short text informs about a case of a 35-year-old woman with a mysterious mass that took 11 years to be diagnosed. Since the authors could not reach the patient to obtain her consent for publication, they removed any identifiable information and published the paper anyway. The patient eventually read the paper, recognized herself and asked for retraction. +
Although ICMJE clearly defines the role of authors through its [http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html sets of recommendations], authorship criteria are not always strictly followed. The recommendations get blurry and faded based on convenience, interpersonal conflicts, or become subjected to manipulation. Such is the case described in this scenario, where a young researcher has a dispute with his superior about a rightful co-authorship. A publication would propel his career, but it appears there is no room for discussion. +
A researcher is left feeling resentful after not having been made an author on a research paper even though the researcher provided the underlying idea for the project. +
This handout provides a broad conceptual subway map of the world of publication, to support the Authorship and Publication training provided by QUT Library and Office of Research Ethics and Integrity'"`UNIQ--ref-000001FB-QINU`"'. The map provides a framework to help explain and discuss the complex world of academic publication.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001FC-QINU`"' +
This article describes how the HF-ACTION investigators devised a system to address assignment of authorship on trial publications. The HF-ACTION Authorship and Publication (HAP) Scoring System was designed to increase dissemination, recognize investigator contributions to the trial and apply individual expertise in manuscript production. +
Authorship in scholarly manuscripts: practical considerations for resident and early career physicians +
This article addresses different issues regarding authorship in scholarly manuscripts. The authors suggest that residents and early career physicians need to be educated about authorship rules and problems as well as equitable resolutions. They also invite for considering alternative ways to credit authorship. +
This video is about determing authorship. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of working alone or in a team. Advices are giving about working in a team. +
These guidelines are intended for researchers or publishers with aim of helping them identify what they need to request permission to reproduce material created by others, including images and text quotations. +
This study examined a plagiarism detection system PAIRwise for instructors, researchers and students. It showed that PAIRwise can detect verbatim plagiarism efficiently. +
Avoiding Plagiarism, Self-plagiarism, and Other Questionable Writing Practices: A Guide to Ethical Writing +
This tool is intended for students and researchers to identify and prevent questionable research practices. It deals particularly with plagiarism and self plagiarism. +
This short text gives five tips to avoid bias in qualitative data analysis: 1. Use multiple people to code the data; 2. Have participants review your results; 3. Verify with more data sources; 4. Check for alternative explanations; 5. Review findings with peers. +
Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images +
This study provides 12 guidelines for digital image manipulation. The guidelines can be included into lab meetings and trainings of graduate students with aim of inciting discussion that could lead to the end of "data beautification". +
B
Beyond Bad Apples: Towards a Behavioural and Evidence-Based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Research Integrity in Europe +
Based on a news from Times of India (TOI), a study regarding the development of a new indigenous gene was completely fake. The gene that was stated is a new variety of Bt Cotton or Bt gene (BNla106 truncated cry1 AC). Hence, the project team responsible for the study claimed that they had already developed a new variety of Bt cotton seeds. However, experts found that the construct of Bt cotton has a Monsanto gene (Mon-531), which exemplifies that the cotton seeds was never altered or still it is the common seed. Moreover, the variety of BT cotton was already brought in the public in the year 2008 and the paper work of the UAS was published in the Current Science regardless of dubious claims that was later found out and thus, the published work was later on withdrawn (dated December 25, 2007). In 2012, the Monsanto gene was introduced by the media through a UAS staffer that it was indeed present and was never altered at all. Furthermore, it was found out through a 129-page report that a scope was contaminated due to the seeds being mass multiplied. +
An anthropologist working for two organisation has been asked to delay her (developed) funding application with one organisation in order to faciliatate the other +
In 1986, Thereza Imanishi-Kari co-authored a scientific paper on immunology with five other authors including Nobel laureate David Baltimore '"`UNIQ--ref-000001AE-QINU`"'. Margot O'Toole, who was a postdoc in Imanishi-Kari's laboratory and also acknowledged in the paper “for critical reading of the manuscript”, reported Imanishi-Kari for fabrication after discovering laboratory notebook pages with conflicting data. Baltimore refused to retract the paper and Imanishi-Kari dismisses O'Toole from the laboratory. After a series of published statements in Nature and a bitter debate within the biomedical community '"`UNIQ--ref-000001AF-QINU`"', Baltimore and three co-authors then retracted the paper. Baltimore publicly apologized for defense of fabricated data and not taking a whistle-blower's accusations seriously '"`UNIQ--ref-000001B0-QINU`"'. The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found Imanishi-Kari guilty for data fabrication and attempts of covering up those fabrications with additional frauds. However, the appeals panel of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ruled that the ORI had failed to prove misconduct by Imanishi-Kari and dismissed all charges against her '"`UNIQ--ref-000001B1-QINU`"'. This is a factual case.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001B2-QINU`"' +
A woman brushes off her most recent diagnosis, Huntington disease (HD), and resists her doctor’s recommendations to tell her family about the diagnosis. By not disclosing this information to her family, they would not know that they might want to get tested for HD. Prior to diagnosis, the woman and her family provided genetic samples to a research database to investigate a genetic disease unrelated to HD. Since the database project required written consent for using samples in future research, the doctor wonders if he can run tests for HD on the stored samples that would include the materials of the woman and her family. +
'''Becoming an Ethical Researcher''' is a badged open course run by the Open University on its OpenLearn platform. This runs for 11 months of the year and was launched on 1 October 2020. It is designed to take 6 weeks of study for 2 hours per week. +
The “Code of Ethics for Scientific Research in Belgium” establishes the major principles of ethically justified scientific practice in Belgium. As the code already dates from 2009, many consider it to be out of date. All Flemish universities no longer refer to it and have replaced it by the ALLEA code. +
The Austrian Higher Education Conference published a new Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethic. The guide for research integrity and ethics presented here is a compilation of standards for good research practice and principles of research ethics. +
The article addresses misunderstandings and disputes regarding authorship in multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary health research teams. The authors propose a five-step "best practice" that includes the distribution of contributorship and authorship for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research. They conclude that this procedure involves dialogue and the use of a contributorship taxonomy as well as a declaration explaining contributorship. +
The study aims to explore the role of institutional culture in promoting research integrity. Research participants provide useful insighta in fostering research integrity, especially with regard to relationships and power differences between individuals or groups. +
This article provides several examples of bias in history research with an emphasis on cultural bias. The author concludes that while personal bias can be avoided, cultural bias is not easy to detect or avoid. +
A female physicist is applying for a prestigious job at a top university that has a reputation for being conservative. During the interview the physicist is asked if she has a significant other who works in the same field. Should she answer the question? +
Factual cases of research on people without their approval. +
An introductory series by Marianne Talbot exploring bioethical theories and their philosophical foundations. These podcasts will explain key moral theories, common moral arguments, and some background logic'"`UNIQ--ref-00000217-QINU`"'. +
This is a factual case describing how an immunologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Luk Van Parijs, was found to be solely responsible for more than 11 incidents of data fabrication in grant applications and papers submitted between 1997 and 2004. '"`UNIQ--ref-000001EB-QINU`"'
Van Parijs avoided jail after several prominent scientists wrote letters begging for clemency on his behalf and was sentenced to home detention, community service and financial restitution.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001EC-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000001ED-QINU`"' +
<br />The Biomedical Alliance in Europe (BioMed Alliance) is a group of 34 European medical societies, with a total of more than 400,000 members, created in 2010 to unite researchers and healthcare professionals and address common issues at the European level. +
The Embassy of Good Science is a wiki platform developed in the EnTIRE project, which was granted in the EU Horizon 2020 programme four years ago. The platform and its relevance for Research Integrity (RI) in Europe and beyond were presented during the final conference of the project, which was held online on October 25th and 26th, 2021. '''This case scenario was submitted as a part of research integrity scenario competition that was held during the second day of the conference.''' +
This is a factual case that describes the reasons for the (potential) retraction of various articles. Most of these articles are retracted due to authorship issues, while others are potentially retracted due to data falsification. One of the articles is retracted because one of the co-authors was not aware of its publication, nor did he permit for the publication. +
This article discusses why faculty plagiarism and fraud happen in business organizations and among students. The authors offer advices to universities to help them develop ethical culture that would reduce the possibility of such research misconducts. Based on these recommendations, universities should create defined policies and standards, develop codes of conduct and guarantee training, among others. +
C
CHAllenges and innovative chaNGes in research Ethics Reviews (CHANGER) is a three-year Coordination and Support Action (CSA) project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon WIDERA programme aiming to promote changes in research ethics reviews by strengthening the capacities of researchers to incorporate ethical judgements in the project design and implementation, and by supporting capacity building of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) to address new challenges posed by new technologies and new research practices. +
These guidelines provide detailed guidance for research institutions, providing standards and best practices for institutions to implement to facilitate the conduct of good, ethical scientific research. +
This is a collection of case studies on publication ethics developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The collection is constantly updated with new cases which are submitted by COPE members. +
This COPE's guide provides basic principles regarding patient's consent for publishing medical case reports. It informs about what information needs to be collected and gives several examples of these forms. +
The COPE core practices are guidelines for all stakeholders involved in academic publishing. They replaced COPE’s previous code of conduct and may be used in addition to national codes of conduct. +
The flowcharts are designed to help editors follow COPE’s Core Practices and implement its advice when faced with cases of suspected misconduct and have been translated into a number of different languages'"`UNIQ--ref-000001FF-QINU`"'. +
These educational recourses provide recording of COPE seminars, webinars and COPE PPT presentations. They can serve as introduction regarding all research integrity issues related to publication ethics. +
Two authors wrote to an editorial committee to ask whether they could publish a paper anonymously. The authors work in a general practice, producing research that showed the health-related problems arising from the practice switching one of its contracts from one laboratory to another. The authors did not want to be perceived as assigning blame to any single party. The committee declined to publish the paper anonymously. This is a factual anonymized case. +
The Responsible Conduct of Research Framework describes policies and requirements related to applying for and managing funds from three Canadian Agencies (the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)). Requirements related to performing research, disseminating results, and the processes that institutions and agencies must follow in the event of an allegation of a breach of policy are also outlined.
<br /> +
This is a factual case discussing the Kennedy Krieger lead paint study, where a United States Court of Appeals condemned what it called a “non-therapeutic research programme” using children. The court ruled that a parent cannot consent to the participation of a child in “non-therapeutic” research in the state of Maryland . The case involves issues that had been given little attention by the courts, such as children’s participation in research, proxy consent, and the duties of medical researchers towards their participants. The analysis includes a discussion of the relevance of the “therapeutic” versus “non-therapeutic” importance and value of a study, as well as cost-benefit analysis, the design of research, and study aims. +
This statement, developed at the 7th World Conference on Research Integrity in Cape Town in May 2023, outlines 20 recommendations aimed at improving fairness and equity in research practices, from conception right through to implementation. +
This is a factual case about Carlo Croce, a famous cancer researcher who has been charged with data falsification and other scientific misconduct. +
This is a collection of fictional and real case studies in research ethics, including questions for discussion. The cases are presented in written or video format. Topics include research misconduct, data acquisition and management, reproducibility, safe laboratory practices and animal welfare. +
This resource is a database of ethics cases from different fields of science: natural sciences, life sciences, engineering, social sciences, and business. Each case study includes a short description of the case and a link to either a full text version of the case or to its location on a web site maintained by another organization. +
The resource includes brief videos illustrating research ethics issues arising in academic settings. The core areas included are: Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing and Ownership; Conflict of Interest and Commitment; Human Subjects; Animal Welfare; Research Misconduct; Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship; Mentor/Trainee Responsibilities; Peer Review; Collaborative Science. +
This case study from The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) describes the beginning of a collaboration between three researchers with different research backgrounds. Sharon, Ben, and Terra start drafting a grant proposal, but they are not sure how to handle logistic issues. With regard to that, they need to answer these questions:
* Who should submit the proposal, through which university?
* Do all three need to get IRB approval to work on the project?
* What will happen if their work has practical applications?
* How should they go about answering these questions?
* Are there other important questions that should be asked as well? +
The study described an interesting case of incidental finding. It regards a 38-year old patient who was found to have a large right ventricular aneurysm. +
Case-based ethics instruction: the influence of contextual and individual factors in case content on ethical decision-making +
In this study, authors explored case-based ethics instruction. They looked at the whether ethical decision making could be influenced by contextual and personal factors, which had been integrated into the case content. The cases were altered in such a way to provide a clear description of the social context of the case and indicate the goals of the fictional characters. One result of the study is that the social context was important to facilitate sensemaking, which resulted in greater ethical decision making. +
Different guidelines relating to the ethics of research involving human subjects interpret the different ethical considerations involved in research in different ways. Using the Emanuel framework allows us to respond to the discrepancies between different guidelines in a consistent way. +
Three cases are presented. Are these cases Research Misconduct, Questionable Research Practices or Responsible Conduct of Research? Participants are asked for their normative judgement, after which a discussion takes place. At the end of the case, it is explained what was decided in the real case.
The moderator asks the participants not only to make their normative judgement, but also to think about why. Which norms and values are at stake? On which norms and values did you base your judgement? Which values are in conflict and which are more important to you? +
This project aims to develop and foster transparency and reproducibility in the collection, analysis and dissemination of research data. Its two main objectives are to develop resources and support activities that promote open science practices and also to foster methodological innovations that increase the effectiveness of open science practices. +
This study aims to develop and validate a series of risk scores to identify fabricated data. The authors argue that these risk scores could become part of a series of tools that provide evidence-based central statistical monitoring. They conclude that this could improve the efficiency of trials and minimize the need for more expensive on-site monitoring. +
This fictional case is about an Associate Professor. She submitted a proposal which received a score too low to be funded. She is wondering what she should do now, because she is certain that her method will work. +
Archaeological heritage is any vestige of human activity, in any form of remains, that is associated with a great cultural load. This charter is aimed at the global management and protection of archaeological heritage, by targeting all the stakeholders involved in such discipline, from governments, researchers, to enterprises, and the general public. +
This checklist serves to researchers to examine whether their planned work could involve a higher than minimal risk or increased sensitivity. This is a part of the document Ethics in Social Science and Humanities provided by the European Commission in 2018. +
This blog post describes what led to the horrific death of a young chemist at UCLA because she was not wearing a lab coat. +
Child protection and confidentiality: Surveying children’s experiences of violence, abuse and neglect +
In 2008 the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) decided to set up a comprehensive UK-wide study of the prevalence and impact of violence towards children and young people at home, in school and in the community. The study was the first ever in the UK to ask children and young people directly about all forms of violence experienced during childhood and within the past year. A UK-wide household survey was conducted in 2009 with 6196 participants, of whom 2160 were parents/carers of children under 11 years, 2275 were children and young people aged 11 to 17 years and 1761 were young adults aged 18 to 24 years. See www.nspcc.org.uk/childstudy for further details. +
The guidance 'Opinions on Strengthening Research Integrity of Our Country' has been jointly developed by a number of Chinese ministries and organisations (Science and Technology, Education, Finance, Human Resources and Social Security, Health, General Armament Department of People's Liberation Army, Academy of Sciences, Academy of Engineering National Natural Science Foundation and the Association for Science and Technology) with the goal of strengthening research integrity and innovation. The 'opinions' are statements on five areas: 1) the Importance and Urgency of Strengthening Research Integrity Promotion; 2) Guidelines, Principles and Objectives of Research Integrity Promotion; 3) The Development of a Legal System and Norms Relevant to Research Integrity; 4) The Management Institutions Related to Research Integrity; 5) Research Integrity Education and the Professional Ethics of Science Practitioners; 6) Supervisory and Disciplinary Mechanisms, and Research Misconduct; 7) Organizational Work and Leadership, and an Environment Beneficial to Research Integrity. +
In 2009, the National Natural Science Foundation of China introduced standards of professional ethics and a code of conduct for its members, funders, and governors. The aim of this document is to ensure the fair and impartial distribution of resources to research programs. It includes concrete guidelines on review, confidentiality, project management and also guidelines for individual comportment, laying out professional duties and virtues (e.g. self-discipline and honesty) for members. +
In this article, I discuss calls for access to empirical data within controversies about climate science, as revealed and highlighted by the publication of the e-mail correspondence involving scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in 2009. (J.W. McAllister) +
Reports a procedural stage of a misconduct investigation that aims to clarify wheather researchers had a previous knowledge that their published data were potentially flawed. Under scrutiny is a research paper on whether the apparent rise in temperature readings in the late twentieth century could be an artefact of measurement sites that shifted from the countryside to cities, which are warmer. +
This article describes ethical issues regarding the Study 329. The Study wanted to determine the efficacy and safety of imipramine and paroxetine in the treatment of adolescents with major depression. However, it did not comply with the study protocol and ignored important safety problems, which led to some harmful effects. +
A graduate student discovers that the lab she once worked for plans to publish research in which she played an integral role; she argues for co-authorship. +
The Coalition for the Advancement of Research Assessment’s Working Group on ‘Ethics and Research Integrity Policy in Responsible Research Assessment for Data and Artificial Intelligence (CoARA-ERIP)’ addresses the need for the integration of research ethics and research integrity into digital research practices and the evaluation of scientific research engaging digital transformative tools and (eventually) evaluated by AI. The primary objectives of ERIP are to develop policy, methods, and tools that contribute to ethical and responsible research assessment practices in the context of data and artificial intelligence (AI). This includes establishing principles and standards for the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, as well as for AI and its eventual use the deployment of AI algorithms in research assessment processes. ERIP focuses on three area:<div>A. ‘Detection of AI-generated fake data or writing raises concerns’ [questions of research ethics and research integrity]</div><div>B. ‘Assessing data and AI research’ [how to value digital contributions to knowledge]</div><div>C. ‘The use of data and AI in research assessment’ [how to assess in this new digital research environment]</div>ERIP applies a trans-disciplinary approach across academic and other research institutions throughout Europe and globally. ERIP strives to be a platform that promotes equity in the European and global research community. It engages the full range of scientific research, including students and junior and senior researchers, across all types of research institutions and sectors.
ERIP brings European and global stakeholders together in an open dialogue among researchers, policymakers, funding agencies, and other actors to further the development and implementation of ethical research assessment policies for data and AI.
ERIP improves innovation in research evaluation policy and its implementation across universities and other research institutions regarding the engagement with data and AI methods and tools in scientific research. ERIP engages the cutting edge of transformative technologies and their impact on practices in scientific research, its contributions and communication.
Cochrane is an independent, non-profit organisation aiming to promote evidence-informed decision-making in healthcare, by gathering and summarizing the best and most relevant research in this field. The Cochrane-Library is a collection of high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence, that provides information for professionals and patients in order to enhance healthcare knowledge and decision making. The articles are translated into 14 languages and reviewed by consumers and patients, to ensure the content is easily understandable. The library is freely available and up do date contains over 7.500 articles. +
This document, available in Croatian, lays down the general principles of scientific integrity to be followed by all researchers. It also gives instances of dishonesty in science. +
The Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) is a publicly funded autonomous research body that focuses on scientific and technological advancement. In order to the socially relevant and acceptable, scientific endeavors need to conform to ethical good practice principles such as respecting human dignity, the autonomy of research, transparency and social responsibility. In their good practice code, the CSIC elaborates further on the principles of research, obligations of researchers, publication ethics, institutional framework and also include references to the supporting legal documents. +
Because of structural imperatives that overemphasize the good of efficiency (number of publications, h-index), researchers may feel it is not possible to do justice to principles and values related to research integrity (e.g. taking time in order to improve the quality of one publication, rather than publishing as much as possible). In such a situation, a researcher experiences cognitive dissonance and moral distress. The psychological notion of cognitive dissonance refers to the mental discomfort experienced by someone who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The ethical concept of moral distress denotes the experience of a person who knows what is the right thing to do, but is (or feels) unable to act accordingly. +
A group of three scientists fails to agree on the interpretation of their findings. One of the three decides to publish separately, the other two decide to wait for the first researcher's article to be published.
During the course of the project, the first researcher who is in the midst of the publication process, leaves the university. By accident, a fax from the publishing journal is sent to the old university, so the other two scientists discover where the first scientists intends to publish. They contact the journal, argue the first scientists interpretation is wrong and offer the journal their alternative view. +
Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project +
Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.
This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ collaborative working between academia and industry and the links with research integrity]'''.
It focuses on issues regarding:
*Conflicts of Interest between academia and industry;
*Data usage and data privacy;
*HARKing (Hypothesizing after the results are known);
*Preregistration of studies;
*Authorship criteria for academic publications;
*The duties of corresponding authors;
*Non-publication of results;
*Divergences in research integrity standards and processes between international collaborators.
It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative. +
The main goal of this online training is to encourage researchers for collaborative research. It examines benefits and problems that researchers can encounter when collaborating with their colleagues. Apart from the foundation text, the module presents two case studies that explore concrete issues of collaborative research, section with questions and answers as well as resources related to this topic. +
Collaborative working is "the act of two or more people or organizations working together for a particular purpose". '"`UNIQ--ref-0000004D-QINU`"' Collaborative working can cover formal or informal ways to work together. Formal collaborations include research projects under specified research grants, informal collaborations include, for example, networks or alliances.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000004E-QINU`"' Collaborations can be permanent or last for a certain time period. Important for succesfull research collaborations is having good underlying principles providing the basis for agreements of collaborations.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000004F-QINU`"' +
Columbia grad student faked data in study of socioeconomics and life experiences, says retraction notice +
This is a factual case of fake data and misleading conclusions in the field of socio-economics. +
These guidelines contain basic principles and standards for all peer-reviewers. They can be applied across disciplines. +
This document presents a guide for young researchers on the area of authorship, which many people agree is one of the more confused areas. It helps new researchers prevent and resolve authorship problems. In particular it provides:
*suggestions for good authorship practice that should reduce the incidence of such dilemmas,
*advice on what to do when authorship problems do arise, and
*a glossary of key concepts in authorship, with some reading lists and websites for those who wish to take this further.
<br /> +
This study provides information on feasibility and acceptability of a new approach to community consultation and public disclosure (CC/PD) for a large-scale Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trial by encouraging community members in designing and conducting the strategies. The authors argue that this approach has demonstrated a feasible CC/PD plan. +
Een online Community of Practice omgeving die specifiek is ingericht is samen met anderen te werken aan je onderzoeksvaardigheden. In de Communityomgeving kun je op elk gewenst moment (mede)studenten in een besloten online omgeving uitnodigen om samen te werken, te leren, te discussiëren en te delen.
<br /> +
This is a supplement to the Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development, by the US National Science Foundation. It begins with 'a brief overview of the central role of replication in the advancement of science, including definitions of key terminology for the purpose of establishing a common understanding of the concepts'. It also addresses 'the challenges and implications of planning and conducting reproducibility and replication studies within education'. +
A researcher informally acquires knowledge of unpublished research results that support her theory.
She is invited to conference at an institution where she hopes to work. Is she allowed to share the research results which are not her own? +
This study addresses the need to disclose potential conflict of interest regarding physician-industry relations in preclinical education. Authors consider that introducing the concept of disclosure to the first and second year medical students would improve transparency and lead to benefits in their training. +
Conflict of interests pertain to situations that involve a person or organization with multiple interests (personal, professional, financial…). Working towards one interest could involve conflict with others. Conflicts can be (1) financial or (2) non-financial.
1) Treating patients and working for a pharmaceutical company (or owning their shares) that produces medicine for the same group of patients is an example of financial conflict of interests. Be prescribing and promoting medicine that is produced by this pharmaceutical company, the treating doctor may receive some sort of direct financial comission or have the value of their shares increased.
2) Non-publication of negative results and zero relations and making biased hypotheses are among examples of non-financial conflict of interests.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000029F-QINU`"' Researchers who hide their negative results (to make their data clean or their results more noteworthy), or hypothesise in a manner to yield their prefered results could be seen as examples of non-financial conflict of interests.
It is important to note that conflict of interest includes the potential for conflict as well, and these should always be reported.
'"`UNIQ--references-000002A0-QINU`"' +
The Spanish Superior Research Council (CSIC), in addition to their general good conduct guidelines, have also made specific guidelines to deal with conflicts of interest. This document aims to increase awareness among researchers regarding actual and potential conflicts of interest, as well as to equip researchers and research institutions to address these conflicts. +
This is a factual case. +
Citizen science, according to the [https://www.ecsa.ngo/ European Citizen Science Association (ESCA)], is "an ‘umbrella’ term that describes a variety of ways in which the public participates in science. The main characteristics are that: (1) citizens are actively involved in research, in partnership or collaboration with scientists or professionals; and (2) there is a genuine outcome, such as new scientific knowledge, conservation action or policy change." +
This fictional case is about an infectious disease researcher who is conducting a survey with men who are HIV positive and sexually active with partners of both sexes. This research contains sensitive information and the community leaders of the research population are not pleased with its results. +
This research paper'"`UNIQ--ref-00000699-QINU`"' presents two hypothetical scenarios on how citizen's science can be prone to accusations of research integrity violations.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000069A-QINU`"' +
This is a website intended to be a learning tutorial regarding ethics and the use of animals in research. It consists of an essay with numerous links to other websites. +
Contentious problems in bioscience and biotechnology: a pilot study of an approach to ethics education +
This study presents problem-based learning approach in analyzing "fractious problems" in bioscience and biotechnology. US students from science, engineering, social sciences, humanities and medicine analyzed these problems and presented their results to policy-makers, stakeholders, experts and public. The study concluded that this approach could help in educating future bioscientists and bioengineers. +
J.D. Brighton conducted a research about the perception of police behaviour in a small community. The local police chief requested access to the data in order to have the results confirmed by another researcher. Brighton is worried that sharing data would violate the trust of his participants and make it impossible to continue the research done with them. Moreover, he is worried that some of the participants could be identified by the police. The case study asks whether Brighton should grant access to data. +
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine. An international tool to protect human dignity from abusive medical and biomedical innovations/technologies. The Convention is also known as the Oviedo Convention. +
Copy and paste: A slow university investigation into serious accusations of misconduct benefits no one +
This ''Nature'' article describes the case of a complaint about plagiarism, made by Bradley against George Mason University’s researchers. The article does not provide an answer as to whether the plagiarism claims are substantiated; instead, it focuses on the unnecessary long delays in the University’s internal investigations in dealing with the allegations. The delays appear to breach the university’s own timelines on misconduct investigations.
The article provides also an exploration of how such delays might have further adverse consequences; for example, they may provide possible loopholes in policy debating, or conversely, accumulate strain on those unfairly accused of wrong-doing. +
This factual case details a court's decision to uphold the prison sentence for a former researcher who was found guilty of scientific misconduct. The misconduct entailed the modification of HIV trial outcomes to make a drug look more effective. The attorney of the defendant appealed the decision, but the court decided to uphold the sentence. +
This text contains guidelines for journalists on how to report about science. For example, journalists should always put research in context, write about the whole research process and be careful when citing risk statistics. +
A student, a post-doc and a professor are working on a problem. They achieve good results in their research. When the student is finishing his master thesis, he discovers that the professor and his post-docs have published a paper on the experiment, that he designed an important part of. He is not given any credit in the paper. +
This blog presents the case of a criminology professor whose several publications were retracted or corrected. The retractions were initially requested by one of his co-authors. +
This case concerns the 2013 book publication of ‘’the Tyranny of the Weak’, published by a professor on the history of North Korea. In the book the author presents his historical research on how North Korea ‘survived’ the Cold War.
In 2014 another historian noticed several irregularities in the sources of the work of the professor and started investigating these irregularities. Many of these sources referred to archives, and were written in Russian, German, Chinese or Korean. The other historian decided to visit one of the archives in person to check the original sources. He states “[I checked] the collection there to reconstruct the original archival locations (…). This way it could be fully verified that the vast majority of the Russian archival citations from 1957-60 were invalid, because the cited files could not be found either in the Seoul collection or in the (essentially identical) Wilson Center collection.”
Upon this discovery, he also reached out to an archive in Berlin, where most sources could also not be located, or contained different information as suggested in the book. In addition, as the historian points out on Retractionwatch, several uncanny similarities appear to exist between "Tyranny of the Weak" and his own book on a similar topic.
The pofessor and book author, replied stating that “[t]he book was reviewed by two expert external reviewers before publication. In addition, before the book was published three years ago I shared the entire manuscript with one of the scholars who is currently critical of the book and is a renowned expert on the Russian sources on North Korea. At that time, this scholar did not find any problem with my use of sources, although he made a number of other comments which I incorporated in the final version of the book.” In 2015 the book earned 52 corrections in the new publication. +
Pavo Barišić says he won't step down after a parliamentary ethics committee found he copied another scholar's work. In a plagiarism scandal in Croatia, the country’s highest-level research ethics committee is clashing with its science minister — who says he won't step down after the committee found he had copied another scholar’s work. Scientists say the case raises questions about academic integrity at the top of a research system that is already riven with misconduct allegations. +
This fictional case is about the communication between a head of a lab, a research manager and a researcher. The researcher has a different cultural background, and interprets the communication differently. +
The Code of Ethics for CAS researchers (Articles I - V) includes framework principles of good conduct in science, seeking to support desirable moral standards in academic research. +
D
This resource is structured following the journey you will go through, from thinking of a research question to writing up and dealing with your dissertation after submission. Keep in mind that this resource has been designed to suit all students from the University, and so there may be sections that are more or less relevant to your specific discipline. Additionally, this is only a starting point to get you thinking about your dissertation +
Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) is a joint service of OAPEN, OpenEdition, CNRS and Aix-Marseille Université. It aims to help scholars and students discover academic books. The directory is open to all publishers of academic, peer reviewed books in Open Access. +
The Code aims to ensure credibility, integrity and thereby quality in Danish research through common principles and standards for responsible conduct of research. The Code is aimed at both public and private research institutions, including universities, the research council system, foundations and enterprises. It is a common framework meant to be implemented and developed across all research fields. +
In line with international and European efforts to expand the reach of Open Access, the Danish Ministry of Education and Research has also made Open Access a priority. While most Danish research institutions are already aware of and comply with this model, this strategy aims to streamline and co-ordinate the efforts of different stakeholders to maximize research impact and improve access. +
This is a hypothetical scenario of a junior researcher who discovers gaps between previously kept records of lab data and what has been published. The scenario poses the question of whether the student researcher should report these inconsistencies or not, and how should he proceed.
The American Society of Physics poses the following question and encourages critical discussion: 'Is this really a case of misconduct in handling data and record keeping? Or, is it the result of an honest mistake?' Several alternative scenarios of why such inconsistencies can occur are discussed. +
The revised European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity outlines a number of recommendations on "Data Practices and Management". These are:
" • Researchers, research institutions and organisations ensure appropriate stewardship and curation of all data and research materials, including unpublished ones, with secure preservation for a reasonable period.
• Researchers, research institutions and organisations ensure access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary, and where appropriate in line with the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable) for data management.
• Researchers, research institutions and organisations provide transparency about how to access or make use of their data and research materials.
• Researchers, research institutions and organisations acknowledge data as legitimate and citable products of research.
• Researchers, research institutions and organisations ensure that any contracts or agreements relating to research outputs include equitable and fair provision for the management of their use, ownership, and/or their protection under intellectual property rights."'"`UNIQ--ref-0000069C-QINU`"'
These recommendations emphasize the importance of good data management and stewardship, however they need to be further specified in individual country or disciplinary contexts. +
Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project +
Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.
This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063648#.X3cHCpNKjxQ data practices and data management and their links with research ethics and research integrity]'''.
It focuses on issues regarding:
*Data protection and consent;
*FAIR principles for data management and stewardship;
*Data copyright and data citation;
*Data for personal research use.
It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative. +
This toolkit is a collection of resources for working across jurisdictions regarding data privacy and security in the global pandemic such as COVID-19. It contains the practice notes, checklists, guides, documents, articles, blogs, etc. related to public health emergency and disaster preparedness topics. +
Professor Esser conducted a long study of Ethiopian immigrant women. It took her a long time to earn the trust of her participants and some of her notes are in Amharic. After she publishes her results, another researcher requests access to her notes. The case study asks whether Professor Esser should share the notes and how her relationship to the research subjects and the language in which the notes were written should influence her decision. +
Jose Coronado conducts a study which requires him to archive data for future reuse and which assumes that subjects might be re-interviewed in the future. He is worried that this might make less likely that his subjects will agree to take part. The case study asks how Coronado should discuss with his research subjects about the future of their data. +
A team led by Angela Beringer leads a long term research projects and publish a paper before they finish collecting all data for the project. A grad student involved in the project also publishes a dissertation on the basis of the data. Afterwards, a different researcher asks for access to the data relating to the published work as he wants to check their results and criticise their assumptions about the missing data. The case study asks whether Angela's team can withhold the data until they present their further analyis, and whether they can protect the integrity of their research by withholding data +
Professor Stillwell is asked by another researcher to share his data from a project on family ties about the homeless. Stillwell is worried that this would violate consent of participants (as they were not informed that their data could be reused) and could lead to their identification. The case study asks about the appropriate safeguards regarding the participants' consent. +
A graduate student finds out there is a significant gap in the data that her research group has published on. The data are unaccounted for in the lab-book. +
A paper was submitted to our journal. The managing editor was concerned about patient information in the paper and queried the authors. The authors responded that the data were collected from routine samples and so consent was never obtained. The patients were lost to follow-up, and there was no ethics committee approval as it involved the study of existing data, but they did discuss with the institutional review board who said it was exempt.
The cohort was 2500 patients, all with one syndrome, in one hospital. The paper contains two tables that display data from 12 patients: sex, age, presenting symptom, as well as laboratory parameters and outcome. +
An author submitted two manuscripts to our journal and the data were clearly fabricated, which was confirmed when we examined the original patient data files. The lead author admitted that they had only recruited a few patients and fabricated all of the remaining data and said that the co-authors had done this without their knowledge.
We reported this to the institution, who conducted an investigation. However, this investigation exonerated the lead author from misconduct, who went on to publish one of these manuscripts elsewhere and is still publishing suspicious manuscripts in other journals. +
This online training is designed for young researchers and students and is intended for self-pace learning. It provides information on data management, selection, collection, handling, analysis, publication and reporting as well as ownership. The aim of this module is to promote RCR. It does not provide any advices or recommendations on ethical and moral dilemmas that researchers can face in their work. +
The aim of this short checklist is to help researchers in managing and sharing their data. With the list of questions, you can easily identify and apply the best practices in the process of data planning, documenting, formating, storing, sharing as well as in confidentiality, ethics, consent and copyright issues. +
A journal received an enquiry from a reader stating that they had found some discrepancies in the spectra published in the electronic supporting information for a published paper. They suggested that the discrepancies would be consistent with the spectra being manually ‘cleaned’. If this were true, the characterisation and purity of the compounds reported in the paper would be called into question.
The editor checked the spectra in close detail and verified that the discrepancies that the reader had identified were a reasonable cause for concern. The editor also checked the author’s related papers in the journal and identified a total of four papers that were affected by similar discrepancies in the spectra. When the editor contacted the lead author to discuss the concerns, they explained that ‘cleaning’ spectra to remove impurity peaks was not a practice that was carried out by their research group, and they did not believe that it had occurred in this instance. However, the researcher who had carried out the analysis had now left the group and the original data files where no longer available.
As a comparison with the original data files could not be made, the journal approached an independent expert to obtain a second opinion on the evidence available in the published spectra. The expert confirmed that there was clear evidence that the spectra had been altered and that this could be consistent with an attempt to overestimate the yields for the reported reactions.
Following this, the journal contacted the director of the institute to request their assistance in determining whether the spectra had in fact been altered. The director consulted with the lead author and the head of their facility. They confirmed that it was not possible to locate the original data due to a limitation of their archival system. They stated that their internal review had not found any ‘intentional altering of the spectra’. They stated that on that basis, the papers should not be suspected and should be allowed to stand.
This recommendation runs contrary to the evidence that we believe can be seen in the spectra, but in the absence of the original data files it is difficult to make a conclusive judgement.
This study explored the issues of data sharing and dual-use practices. The authors concluded that it is important to support the openness and freedom of research and also to be cautious with regard to dual-use and aware of the obligation to share the data. +
In this exercise you discover the value of, and differences between, debate and dialogue. The exercise is based on the premise that dialogue and dialogical skills are indispensable for reflection and deliberation processes in general, and for research integrity in particular. Participants experience the different types of interaction and reflection produced by debate and dialogue. +
This exercise helps trainers to develop their own, and other's, dialogical skills. The exercise is based on the premise that dialogue and dialogical skills are indispensable for reflection and deliberation processes in general, and for research integrity in particular. In learning how to facilitate this exercise, you will be able to:
*Conduct a dialogue and know how to support/encourage the use of dialogue as a tool for reflection processes.
*Foster reflection in others by means of experiential learning;
The exercise can also be used as an ice-breaker before using more in-depth reflection tools or exercises. +
Watch this interactive video, which explains the difference between debate and dialogue! +
Die Übung hilft Trainer:innen, sich in ihrer Fähigkeit, Dialoge zu führen, zu entwickeln – und andere in dieser Entwicklung zu unterstützen. Die Übung basiert auf der Annahme, dass die Fähigkeit, einen Dialog und eine Debatte zu führen, unverzichtbar ist, für Reflexions- und Abwägungsprozesse im Allgemeinen sowie für Research Integrity-Themen im Besonderen. Indem du lernst, die Übung durchzuführen, wirst du dazu befähigt ...
* Einen Dialog zu führen und andere darin zu unterstützen/sie zu motivieren, den Dialog als Werkzeug für Reflexionprozesse zu nutzen
* Reflexionsprozesse in anderen zu fördern, in dem sie die Wirkung des Werkzeugs “Dialog” selbst erfahren
Diese Übung kann auch gut als Einstieg genutzt werden, um sich für komplexere Reflexionsprozesse und Übungen “aufzuwärmen”. +
In dieser Übung entdeckst du den Nutzen einer Debatte und eines Dialogs, und was der Unterschied dazwischen ist. Die Übung basiert auf der Annahme, dass die Fähigkeit, einen Dialog und eine Debatte zu führen, unverzichtbar ist, für Reflexions- und Abwägungsprozesse im Allgemeinen sowie für Research Integrity-Themen im Besonderen. Die Teilnehmenden erfahren, inwiefern eine Debatte und ein Dialog zu unterschiedlichen Formen der Interaktion und Reflexion führen. +
While many guidelines and regulations are in place prohibiting research misconduct by researchers, research participants can also fabricate or falsify their data or testimonies. A study by Devine et. al. conducted in 2013 researched whether research subjectes who had enrolled in multiple studies were prone to conceal or exaggerate personal information in order to qualify for inclusion criteria of a study.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000194-QINU`"' Three quarters of the research subjects were found to engage in some form of deception, such as having been enrolled in a previous study, concealing health symptoms or not reporting medication. One likely reason for participants' deception is the financial compensation for enrolling in a study.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000195-QINU`"' +
The Declaration of Geneva is a medical code of ethics that highlights the humanitarian character of the physicians' profession and the field of medicine. Although it was first established in 1948, a new version of the Declaration of Geneva was adopted by the World Medical Association (WMA) General Assembly on October 14, 2017, in Chicago. +
Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Developed by the World Medical Association in 1964, the Declaration of Helsinki is a fundamental document on biomedical research that works as a code of research ethics and provides principles to protect human subjects in biomedical research. +
The Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism is a guiding instrument for professionals, policymakers, health authorities, and societies to maximize the benefits of organ transplantation and to develop programs to prevent unethical activities like organ trafficking.<br /> +
This is a fictional case of a novice reviewer who, in writing her first book review, used her own substantive ideas but relied heavily on borrowing identical sentences and phrases from a professor’s published review. The professor whose review has been heavily plagiarised alerted the journal. +
İkinci (yüz yüze) grup oturumunda eğitmenler eğitimin genel bir özetini yapacak, katılımcıların alıştırmaları uygularken edindikleri deneyimler üzerine fikir yürütmelerini sağlayacak ve katılımcılar seçilmiş olan birkaç alıştırmayı tekrar uygularken onları denetleyeceklerdir. Bu oturum, eğitimi alan kişilerin:
1) Araştırma doğruluğuna erdem temelli yaklaşımı anlamalarını,
2) Alıştırmaların bir kısmını kolaylaştırıcı olarak tekrardan uygulamalarını,
3) Eğitimi, alıştırmaları kolaylaştırıcı olarak yönetmek hususunda kendilerine güvenerek tamamlamalarını,
4) Alıştırmaların spesifik hedeflerini ve bunların eğitimin genel hedeflerine yaptığı katkıları öğrenmelerini,
5) Eğitim materyallerini kendi çalışma ortamlarının gerekliliklerine göre uyarlamanın mümkün olduğunu fark etmelerini,
6) Böyle bir eğitimi organize ederken ilgili materyalleri ve desteği nerden ve nasıl bulabileceklerini öğrenmelerini sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. +
İkinci (yüz yüze) grup oturumunda katılımcılar son kez bir araya gelip eğitimin içeriği ve kolaylaştırıcı olarak alıştırmaları uygularken edindikleri deneyimler üzerine fikir yürüteceklerdir. Bu oturumda katılımcılar özellikle:
1) Araştırma doğruluğuna erdem temelli yaklaşıma ilişkin anlayışları ve insanların araştırmayla ilgili fikir ve eylemlerinde erdem etiği yaklaşımını nasıl etkin hale getirebilecekleri üzerine fikir yürüteceklerdir.
2) Alıştırmaların bir kısmını kolaylaştırıcı olarak tekrardan uygulayacak ve iki yüz yüze oturum arasında kafalarında oluşan şüphe ve sorular üzerinde duracaklardır.
3) Alıştırmaların spesifik hedeflerini ve bunların eğitimin genel hedeflerine yaptığı katkıları gözden geçirecek ve bu konuda fikir yürüteceklerdir.
4) Eğitim materyallerini kendi çalışma ortamlarının gerekliliklerine göre uyarlamanın mümkün olup olmadığı üzerine fikir yürüteceklerdir.
5) Böyle bir eğitimi organize ederken ilgili materyalleri ve desteği nerden ve nasıl bulabileceklerini öğreneceklerdir. +
Diese Übung basiert auf der Annahme, dass es nicht immer klar ist, wie Research Integrity in bestimmten Situationen gewährleitet werden kann, und dass es nicht immer offensichtlich ist, wie tugendhaftes Verhalten aussieht, wenn im Forschungsalltag Research Integrity gefährdet ist. +
Diese Übung ist inspiriert von der aristotelischen Philosophie. Sie hilft den Teilnehmenden, sich kritisch mit den Nuancen der praktischen Bedeutung abstrakter Research Integrity-Werte und Tugenden in ihrem Forschungsalltag auseinanderzusetzen. Die Übung basiert auf der Annahme, dass nicht immer klar ist, was Research Integrity in einer konkreten Situation bedeutet. Durch die Übung fördern Trainer:innen Reflexion über Werte, die mit Research Integrity zusammenhängen (wie z.B. Mut, Verantwortlichkeit, Ehrlichkeit). Die Teilnehmenden reflektieren, welche Werte und Tugenden mit Research Integrity in Verbindung gebracht werden und welche konkreten Verhaltensweisen daraus abgeleitet werden können. Tugendhaftes Verhalten wird oft als zwischen zwei Extremen liegend beschrieben. Diese Extreme gelten im Allgemeinen als Laster. Die Übung verschafft einen kritischen Blick auf die praktische, nuancierte Bedeutung der Werte in Zusammenhang mit Research Integrity im Forschungsalltag und hilft Teilnehmenden, tugendhafte (mithin gute und situativ angemessene) Verhaltensweisen zu identifizieren. +
Der SDA – Selbstauskunfts-Ansatz – ist eine Übung mit dem Ziel, in einem Workshop-Setting Reflexion über Research Integrity anzuregen. Dabei wird die Frage „Was ist das überhaupt, wenn etwas ''gut ''ist und wie könnten verschiedene Formen des Guten kategorisiert werden?“ als Ausgangspunkt benutzt. Mithilfe eines Selbstauskunfts-Arbeitsblattes werden Gedanken und intuitive Reaktionen der Teilnehmenden zum Konzept des Guten gesammelt. Diese Antworten sind für die Übung von besonderer Bedeutung. Auf dem Arbeitsblatt können die Gedanken der Teilnehmenden zum Thema ''des Guten ''sowie ihre Definition davon und ihre persönlichen Erfahrungen mit dem Thema festgehalten werden. +
Diese Übung soll zum Nachdenken über Research Integrity in einem Workshop-Setting anregen. Die Frage „Was ist ''gut ''and wie können verschiedene Arten des Guten kategorisiert werden?“ dient als Ausgangspunkt für die Übung. Das Herzstück der Übung ist die Diskussion darüber, auf welche unterschiedlichen Arten Forschung ''gut'' sein kann und auf der Reflexion des Konzepts des Guten in der Forschung. Die Übung ist inspiriert von einer etwas allgemeineren Methode, dem Selbstauskunfts-Ansatz (self declaration approach, SDA). Dieser Ansatz nutzt die individuellen Antworten der Teilnehmenden auf einem Selbstreflexionsbogen, um die Reflexion über ein spezifisches Research Integrity-Thema zu strukturieren. Das Besondere an diesem Ansatz ist, dass die Gedanken und Intuitionen der Teilnehmenden in die Diskussion integriert werden. Diese Methode ist flexibel anwendbar und auf verschiedene Research Integrity-Themen sowie unterschiedliche Zielgruppen anpassbar. +
The study discusses an engineering ethics course which was included at Shantou University (STU) in 2008, within a Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate (CDIO) curriculum in China. The course included three issues important for China: engineers' social obligations, intellectual property and engineering safety criteria. Although, as authors emphasized, the assessment of the course's impact on students has its limitations, this effort is perceived as a positive step to sustain the CDIO reform of STU. +
This study examined the design of online training modules in molecular biology education that were part of a "boot camp" for high school biology teachers in Hawaii. The aim of this educational program was to prepare science teachers to navigate successfully their students' activities to conduct medical research in laboratory. The participants, a group of 29 teachers, reported that these online materials were useful and valuable for their future work with students. +
This article describes an activity that uses informed consent procedure in order to help students understand the responsibilities of participants in research. This activity helps researchers link students' participation to their classroom experiences. +
As thinking and practice has grown around ethical research involving children, so too has the need to train and equip new researchers with relevant knowledge and the associated mindsets. However, developing a comprehensive training program on ethical research involving children can be a complex task. When I (Daniella Bendo) took up an Assistant Professor position at King’s University College (at Western University) Canada last year, I developed a third-year undergraduate unit entitled, ‘Researching Childhood (in Childhood and Social Institutions).’ The ERIC materials were invaluable in providing an established, rights-based framework for the course, as well as a wealth of material and resources to draw upon in the lectures and tutorials. In terms of assessment, I sought a way to draw the students’ learning together and ask them to demonstrate their theoretical and practical understanding of ethical issues in research involving children, in what was, otherwise, a theoretical unit. Based on the many real-life case studies on the ERIC website, I set students the assignment of developing their own hypothetical case study. Here, one of our students, Paige Sheridan, shares the approach she took with this assignment. The depth of her ethical understanding is evident in the reflexive detail of her case study and, while hypothetical, the five-step process she describes would likely be a useful tool to consider in research practice. +
International declarations such as the Hong Kong principles and the San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment (DORA) aim to foster research integrity among the global research community <sup>1, 2</sup>. At the European level, the European Code of Conduct (ECoC) is a research integrity document that aims to harmonize the research integrity standards across Europe <sup> 3</sup>. In addition, many individual European countries have developed their own national guidance detailing the principles and practices of research integrity and addressing instances of research misconduct. This theme page describes the development and value of these national research integrity codes in Europe. +
This study aimed to describe the development, testing and formative evaluation of nine role-play scenarios for teaching responsible conduct of research (RCR) to graduate students in science and engineering. Students reported that these role-play scenarios provided deeper understanding of the topic than a lecture or a case study. +
This study addresses the need for professional development opportunities for persons with research, clinical or administrative duties and also a shortage of evaluations of ethics programs and curricula. The authors surveyed hygiene, epidemiology and microbiology professionals who attended 7 ethics courses. The study showed that most attendees demonstrated increased knowledge in research and public health ethics, which affirmed the importance of such training activities. +
Dialogue is a vehicle for reaching understanding and learning from each other. Dialogue is to be distinguished from debate. Dialogue focuses on listening to the other and being open to the other’s perspective, whereas debate aims at convincing the other through argumentation. +
Digital Trespass: Ethical and Terms-of-Use Violations by Researchers Accessing Data From an Online Patient Community +
This article presents four cases regarding ethical and terms-of-use violations by researchers who carry out social media studies in an online patient research network. The authors offer potential strategies that can be adopted in order to avoid these violations. +
During the workshop, the guests are asked to reflect on their own experiences and practices, while discussing the cases presented, and to share views on how to promote and foster a culture of best scientific practices. The event is organised under the motto of a “dinner” event, where first there will be an Amuse for guests to know each other. Then, Starters will be served, where guests will be presented with three starters (cases) to choose and discuss one or the three. Four Main Courses (video-scenes) will be individually offered to guests to taste (watch) and share their opinions about them (food for thought discussion). And because “dessert goes to your heart and not to your belly”, this dinner could not have finished without a sweet moment of the day to enjoy (inspiring thoughts to end)!
[[File:Diner pensant video.png|center|frame|Here you can watch the introductory video: [https://youtu.be/Jb1mFJL1m2g Diner Pensant - Tasteful conversations to empower good practices in science]]]
This course was developed by Mariette vd Hoven, Miriam van Loon, Marijn Prakke, Paulo Gomes, Julio Berlido Santos and PJ Wall. +
Regarding a case in which a researcher at VU Amsterdam was alleged to have failed to disclose fully his conflicts of interest in publications, scientific advice and a research proposal, there was a disagreement between the institutional research integrity committee and The Netherlands Board on Research Integrity ('LOWI') concerning the application of the assessment framework that relates to conflicts of interests. According to the institutional research integrity committee, although failure to disclose relevant secondary interests is a case of negligence, it does not imply that the primary obligation to ensure reliable academic practice has been violated. This meant that the institutional research integrity committee determined that the behaviour of the researcher could not be reviewed under the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice. The LOWI disagreed with this interpretation. This is a factual anonymized case. +
The case describes a scenario where a young researcher, during his interview for a new much-desired career post and whilst in a subsequent post-interview informal chat, is ‘pushed’ towards sharing unpublished findings and/or details of his current research team’s work. +
Dr Donnelly wants to publish a paper on the basis of her research conducted for and funded by a private company. The company agrees, but asks not to be mentioned in the paper. The case study asks whether the researcher should agree to this condition. +
Professor O'Meare published a translation of a previously unknown manuscript, but it is later brought to her attention that her claims (presented in the introduction) about the historical circumstances surrounding the manuscript and its potential influence are likely untrue. The case study asks what Professor O'Meara should do in this situation. +
Three researchers put forth an equal amount of effort on a research project resulting in a dispute over who the primary author should be. +
A paper was given the chance for correction, following detection of errors in data coding and therefore in results. Such mistakes often mean that papers are retracted. This is a factual case. +
