Difference between revisions of "Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70"
From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Education |Title=Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project |Is About=Members of The Embassy...") |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
| − | |Resource Type= | + | |Resource Type=Scenarios |
|Title=Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project | |Title=Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project | ||
|Is About=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. | |Is About=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:// | + | 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: | It focuses on issues regarding: | ||
| − | * Conflicts of Interest between academia and industry; | + | *Conflicts of Interest between academia and industry; |
| − | * Data usage and data privacy; | + | *Data usage and data privacy; |
| − | * HARKing (Hypothesizing after the results are known); | + | *HARKing (Hypothesizing after the results are known); |
| − | * Preregistration of studies; | + | *Preregistration of studies; |
| − | * Authorship criteria for academic publications; | + | *Authorship criteria for academic publications; |
| − | * The duties of corresponding authors; | + | *The duties of corresponding authors; |
| − | * Non-publication of results; | + | *Non-publication of results; |
| − | * Divergences in research integrity standards and processes between international collaborators. | + | *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. | 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. | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
5) Data Practices and Management | 5) Data Practices and Management | ||
| − | 6) [https:// | + | 6) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ '''Collaborative Working'''] |
7) Publication and Dissemination | 7) Publication and Dissemination | ||
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing | 8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing | ||
| − | |Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; Junior researchers; PhD students; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Universities; Industry; industry stakeholders; Principal investigators | + | |Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; Junior researchers; PhD students; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Universities; Industry; industry stakeholders; Principal investigators; Funders |
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices. | |Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
| − | |Has Link=https:// | + | |Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ |
}} | }} | ||
{{Related To | {{Related To | ||
| − | |Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a | + | |Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6 |
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:72c8ab8d-bbf8-4503-8b48-9de7eac37673;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:307c6cc0-20d5-432f-bc4a-51aff0c985fe;Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33;Theme:8704dd29-f972-45ca-993c-3e93f834dbfb;Theme:E14104ce-3608-4069-b297-f93b2d77b095;Theme:Dc1ed216-1d37-49a9-9725-2b34e90b3ede;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637;Theme:E0384a98-fbfd-4df9-9caa-3fe4afa95951;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db | |Related To Theme=Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:72c8ab8d-bbf8-4503-8b48-9de7eac37673;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:307c6cc0-20d5-432f-bc4a-51aff0c985fe;Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33;Theme:8704dd29-f972-45ca-993c-3e93f834dbfb;Theme:E14104ce-3608-4069-b297-f93b2d77b095;Theme:Dc1ed216-1d37-49a9-9725-2b34e90b3ede;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637;Theme:E0384a98-fbfd-4df9-9caa-3fe4afa95951;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db | ||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
Latest revision as of 15:21, 19 October 2021
ResourcesScenarios
Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
What is this about?
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 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.
Why is this important?
The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.
They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.
The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.
According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:
1) Research Environment
2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring
3) Research Procedures
4) Safeguards
5) Data Practices and Management
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and EditingFor whom is this important?
Academic staffAdministratorsDoctoral studentsPostdocsEarly career researchersEthics committee membersResearch Ethics CommitteesGraduate studentsJunior researchersPhD studentsProfessorsResearch Integrity OfficersResearchersSupervisorsUniversitiesIndustryindustry stakeholdersPrincipal investigatorsFunders
What are the best practices?
The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
