LoginSign up

Search by property

From The Embassy of Good Science

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

Search by property

A list of all pages that have property "What are the best practices?" with value "<br /> '"`UNIQ--references-0000020A-QINU`"'". Since there have been only a few results, also nearby values are displayed.

Showing below up to 51 results starting with #1.

View (previous 100 | next 100) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

    

List of results

  • Salami publication  + (<br /> '"`UNIQ--references-00000288-QINU`"')
  • The INSPIRE project  + (<u>The INSPIRE Checklist</u> … <u>The INSPIRE Checklist</u></br></br>Part of the INSPIRE project was to develop a checklist to assess and classify initiatives that foster responsible research practices. Following a Delphi method including two online surveys and a workshop, a checklist was drafted, piloted and revised until consensus among the INSPIRE team was achieved. The result is an extensive yet practical checklist that can be used by many stakeholders and for multiple purposes. It is used for the taxonomy of the spectrum of initiatives on The Embassy of Good Science. The checklist can also be used by stakeholders to assess and improve their initiatives themselves, or by others who plan to implement an existing initiative, for example which they found in the spectrum on The Embassy!</br></br><u>The Webcrawler</u></br></br>To support and inspire stakeholders in research to implement initiatives to foster responsible research practices, one of the goals of the INSPIRE project was to make an inventory of such initiatives. A web crawler was one of the strategies used for the inventory. A list of keywords was compiled in both Dutch and English. These were used to search multiple search engines. The unique, safe and scannable URL’s were scanned for specific words or combinations of words on the web pages to indicate the potential relevance of the URL. The words and word combinations were originally based on the primary key words and words found in the INSPIRE checklist, and further improved by ‘learning on the job’. Based on the search words, their combinations, and the number of results on a URL, a prioritisation was made. The results were processed by manually checking the URL’s with the highest prioritisation.</br></br><u>Highlighted initiatives</u></br></br>So far we highlighted the following initiatives:</br></br>*"Met de billen bloot" (airing your dirty laundry) ([[Theme:A12b4bab-b331-46d1-93e0-dc9e9c5453cd]])</br>*Data stewardship at TU Delft ([[Theme:D44f7704-4e28-484c-a137-fbb2bb44836b]])</br>*Superb Supervision: integrity training for supervisors ([[Theme:73bfb9ec-b7f5-4a0a-a0b0-e460990b59cb]])</br>*A couple of initiatives on 'Computational reproducibility: safeguarding the backbone of science' ([[Theme:46e89570-c93b-41ca-9ac7-d78826bdfad8]]) including FAIR-software, TOP guidelines and the Software Preservation Network.</br>*A couple of initiatives contributing to 'Image Integrity' ([[Theme:20f32f16-72a1-46f0-b9a6-24fac05b0937]]) including guidelines, educational materials, InspectJ and an action set in Photoshop.<br />delines, educational materials, InspectJ and an action set in Photoshop.<br />)
  • Standards of authorship  + (===Difficulties=== Common practises on sta … ===Difficulties===</br>Common practises on standards of authorship vary between scientific disciplines, and between countries, making standardizing difficult. They also change over time. As the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences note: </br></br>''“Customs have changed over the past few decades; for example, the practice of granting “honorary” authorship to an eminent researcher – formerly not unusual – is no longer considered acceptable.”'''"`UNIQ--ref-00000118-QINU`"'</br></br>==='''European Code of Conduct '''===</br>''The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017)'' states the following:'"`UNIQ--ref-00000119-QINU`"' </br></br>*All authors are fully responsible for the content of a publication, unless otherwise specified</br>*All authors agree on the sequence of authorship, acknowledging that authorship itself is based on a significant contribution to the design of the research, relevant data collection, or the analysis or interpretation of the results</br>*Authors acknowledge important work and intellectual contributions of others, including collaborators, assistants, and funders, who have influenced the reported research in appropriate form, and cite related work correctly</br>*All authors disclose any conflicts of interest and financial or other types of support for the research or for the publication of its results</br></br>==='''COPE'''===</br></br>*Guideline: [https://publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf12_0.pdf How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers]</br>*Guideline: [https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standard_editors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf Responsible research publication: international standards for editors]</br>'"`UNIQ--references-0000011A-QINU`"'tors] '"`UNIQ--references-0000011A-QINU`"')
  • Improper data use (a bias distorting research results)  + (===Related tools=== By Jensen (2000) '"`UN … ===Related tools===</br>By Jensen (2000) '"`UNIQ--ref-00000258-QINU`"'</br></br>*New data and cross-validation</br>*Sidak, Bonferroni, and other adjustments</br>*Resampling and randomization techniques</br></br>By Glenn & Cormier (2015) '"`UNIQ--ref-00000259-QINU`"'</br></br>*Performing own reviews of the sources of data,</br>*Checking for retractions and corrections,</br>*Requiring full disclosure of methods,</br>*Acquiring original data and reanalyzing it,</br>*Avoiding secondary sources,</br>*Avoiding unreplicated studies or studies that are not concordant with related studies, and</br>*Checking for funding or investigator biases.</br></br>===Related cases===</br>Convenience, dichotomization, stratification, regression to the mean, impact of sample size, competing risks, immortal time and survivor bias, management of missing values . '"`UNIQ--ref-0000025A-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-0000025B-QINU`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-0000025C-QINU`"'B-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000025C-QINU`"')
  • Monitoring funding processes  + (==Bullying and harassment policies== Bully … ==Bullying and harassment policies==</br>Bullying and harassment policies allow RFOs to stimulate positive research cultures. Such policies can improve research culture, and their existence “sends a signal that certain ethical standards must be met by researchers and organizations in exchange for funding”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000226-QINU`"' The US based funder National Science Foundation (NSF) requires RPOs receiving funding to inform the NSF about sexual harassment.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000227-QINU`"' In addition, the Wellcome Trust has elaborate rules on what they expect from the organizations they fund (7):'"`UNIQ--ref-00000228-QINU`"'</br></br>1. The funded organization requires policies that set out:</br></br>*standards of behavior from staff</br>*the procedure for responding to complaints</br></br>2.  The funded organization should have an equivalent policy in place at sub-levels, where relevant.</br></br>3. The funded organization should investigate allegations of bullying and harassment in an impartial, fair and timely manner. It must:</br></br>*protect the rights of all employees involves</br>*take appropriate action.</br></br>4. The funded organization should contact the Wellcome Trust when an investigation has been opened.</br></br>5. The funded organization should contact the Wellcome Trust when the investigation has been completed.'"`UNIQ--references-00000229-QINU`"'leted.'"`UNIQ--references-00000229-QINU`"')
  • Funders  + (==Funders and research ethics== Reporting … ==Funders and research ethics==</br>Reporting standards and ethics regulations vary between funding organizations. The European Commission has developed an elaborate procedure for ensuring that funded projects satisfy ethical requirements. In order to complete one´s application for funding within Horizon 2020, one must fill out an extensive ethics self-assessment. All projects that qualify for funding are subject to an ethics review procedure. The outcome of the ethical committee can influence the requirements funders have for the study. If ethical issues are judged to be particularly severe or complex, certain monitoring procedures may be required, such as engaging an ethics advisor or an ethics board within the project.</br></br>The Missenden Code of Practice for Ethics and Accountability'"`UNIQ--ref-0000005B-QINU`"' was drawn up to promote ethical research in British universities in the face of growing pressure from industry and private funders. The Missenden code identifies eight difficulties that some universities have encountered through their collaborations with industry: i) Safeguarding Academic Freedom; ii) Tasking an ‘Ethics Committee’; iii) Defending the Academic’s Right to Publish; iv) Protecting Intellectual Property Rights; v) Meeting the Student Expectation; vi) Preparing for Controversy; vii) Managing the New Model University; viii) Sourcing Alternative Funding. The code addresses each one of the difficulties using case studies, and makes 14 suggestions to help universities respond to the development of commercial funding of university research. </br></br>==Funders and research integrity==</br>The current climate for research funding is highly competitive. Many high-quality grant applications are rejected. Research shows that ‘high ranked’ institutions in the US were 65% more likely to succesfully receive grants, and received 50% more awards.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000005C-QINU`"' At the same time, lower ranked institutions had a higher impact with the research they performed.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000005D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000005E-QINU`"' This finding may be indicative of funding bias. Moreoever, a highly competitive funding climate can feed perverse incentives. On the one hand, funders rely on assessment criteria, which include publication records and journal impact factors. As a result, researchers may strive to get as many papers published as possible without due care for the integrity of their research. On the other hand, researchers may feel the need to exagarate the expected impact of the proposed research or exagarate their skills and qualitifications. </br></br>Nontheless, RFO’s can implement policies fostering research integrity. For example, the Wellcome Trust in the UK provides a ‘transition support fund’ for PhD students. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000005F-QINU`"' The fund can be used after the completion of a PhD project, and the student can decide how they want to further their career by using the fund as they see fit. The fund can be used, for instance, to write another paper or to do an internship.</br></br>RFOs can also develop initiatives to combat perverse incentives. For instance, many funders have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, or DORA.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000060-QINU`"' The declaration’s aim is to reduce the use of journal impact factors in funding evaluations.  Instead, other indicators, such as altmetrics, should be used. Implementing DORA in reviewing grant proposals can mean evaluating a researcher by asking about their most important publication, the impact of their previous research, and their other qualifications besides publications. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000061-QINU`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000062-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000062-QINU`"')
  • Questionable research practices & research misbehaviors  + (==QRPs== According to research integrity e … ==QRPs==</br>According to research integrity experts who participated in a survey, '"`UNIQ--ref-00000239-QINU`"' there are a number of QRPs that occur frequently and have a high impact on science. In relation to study design, for instance, QRPs include presenting misleading information in a grant application or ignoring risks of unexpected findings or safety risks to study participants, workers or environment. Under data collection falls behaviour such as collecting more data when noticing that statistical significance is almost reached or keeping inadequate notes of the research process. in relation to reporting, examples of QRPs are hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing), concealing results that contradict earlier findings, or not publishing a study with negative results. Moreover, selective citing to enhance your own findings or pleasing editors and colleagues is reported to often occur. QRPs that fall under collaboration are demanding or accepting authorship for which you do not qualify and reviewing your own papers. In addition, the misbehaviour that is estimated to occur the most and have a high impact on truth is insufficiently supervising junior coworkers. The misbehaviour that occurs the most and has the highest impact on trust is using published ideas of others without referencing.</br></br>=='''Prevention'''==</br>A way to counter QRPs could be to create awareness about research integrity issues and alter the current reward system. Instead of rewarding the number of publications, alternative aspects that could be rewarded include a researcher's commitment to pre-registration, data sharing and open science.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-0000023A-QINU`"'ence. '"`UNIQ--references-0000023A-QINU`"')
  • Inappropriate authorship  + (A lot has been said about authorship. One … A lot has been said about authorship. One of the milestones in tackling authorship are the famous four criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. That means that those who fulfil the ICMJE criteria should be listed as authors (to avoid not giving credit when credit is due and to avoid ghost-writers), and authors should fulfil all of those criteria (to avoid guest and honorary authorship). Researchers who fulfil some, but not all four criteria should be acknowledged in the manuscript.</br></br>When submitting research manuscript, journals will often ask for the statement of authorship, signed by authors. That way, journals’ editors want to make sure all authors have been informed, and they can be held accountable if any problem arises.be held accountable if any problem arises.)
  • Computational reproducibility: safeguarding the backbone of science  + (A number of frameworks exist that can be u … A number of frameworks exist that can be used to advance sharing, (re)using and valuing software. A guideline originally created for data management, the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable), can similarly provide an infrastructure for software reproducibility.'"`UNIQ--ref-000002D9-QINU`"' To specify, ''interoperability'' means the ability of non-collaborating researchers to integrate and work with each other’s resources with minimal effort. A recent collaboration between the Netherlands eScience Center and DANS (Data Archiving and Networked Services), launched a website with a step-by-step route to create FAIR software: https://fair-software.nl/. </br></br>The TOP (Transparency and Openness Promotion) guidelines seek to establish a new shared standard of openness and citation, applying to both data and software.'"`UNIQ--ref-000002DA-QINU`"' In summary, the TOP guidelines consist of eight principles (citation standards, code -and material transparency amongst others) and provide ‘levels’ that reflect how strictly might be adopted by journals. Of course, this boils down to the efforts by the researchers. The Reproducibility Enhancement Principles (REP), part of TOP, addresses software specifically. For one, they highlight that software needs not ‘merely’ be shared, but also the workflow and details regarding the computational environment should be communicated. The guidelines are available at: https://cos.io/top/. In their discussion, Alnoamany and Borghi (2018) add that education should give researchers a basic understanding of software, to later guide them in this process. '"`UNIQ--ref-000002DB-QINU`"'(p18)</br></br>Lastly, mention-worthy is the Software Preservation Network (SPN), although not purely specific for research software. They seek to ensure long-term access to software .'"`UNIQ--ref-000002DC-QINU`"' Their five core activities are law & policy, training & education, metadata & standards, technological infrastructure and research-in-Practice. Furthermore, they have a number of running projects and a database of resources regarding the theme, all available at their website: https://www.softwarepreservationnetwork.org/.  </br>'"`UNIQ--references-000002DD-QINU`"'onnetwork.org/.   '"`UNIQ--references-000002DD-QINU`"')
  • Inaccurate representation of results in the media  + (A prominent example of the distortion of r … A prominent example of the distortion of research findings by the media relates to an article published in ''PLoS One'' in 2009 '"`UNIQ--ref-0000044F-QINU`"'. It presented a study that examined whether NHS hospitals in England have a higher mortality rate in the first week of August than in the last week of July, due to the fact that newly qualified doctors begin working in hospitals on the first Wednesday of August. The study used hospital admissions data from 2000 to 2008 for all emergency patients in the last week of July and the first week of August. Taking into account the year, patient gender, socio-economic deprivations and co-morbidity, the study showed that for patients admitted on the first Wednesday of August the odds of death were 6% higher in comparison to those admitted on the last Wednesday in July. Also, clinical patients on the first Wednesday of August had 8% higher odds of death than surgical patients. Even though the confidence intervals for these odds ratios included a value of 1, and researchers suggested that further studies were needed, the media distorted the study findings. Under a sensationalist headline, “Killing Season”, ''The Daily Mail'' reported that death rates are 8% higher in the said period because newly qualified doctors had started their jobs '"`UNIQ--ref-00000450-QINU`"'. It reported that the “number of mistakes are so notoriously high that day of the week” that this day should be called “Black Wednesday” '"`UNIQ--ref-00000451-QINU`"'. Other media outlets reprised the phrases “Killing season” '"`UNIQ--ref-00000452-QINU`"'. Some even said that it was “the worst day of the year to go to hospital” '"`UNIQ--ref-00000453-QINU`"'.</br></br>Sometimes researchers and reporters can, together, contribute to sensationalism and the exaggeration of research findings. One of the studies that caused a lot of uproar in 2015 was written by Tomasetti and Vogelstein, and published in ''Science'' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000454-QINU`"'. The media, along with some experts, including the authors, oversimplified the interpretation of the results, claiming that the vast majority of cancers are caused by random mutations or “bad luck” '"`UNIQ--ref-00000455-QINU`"'. However, experts and the media paid insufficient attention to the study design. It was an observational study, so no definitive or reliable inferences could be made regarding the cause and effect relationship; conclusions could only be based on the associations between different cancer-occurrence factors, which do not reliably support conclusions regarding direct causation.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000456-QINU`"'tion. '"`UNIQ--references-00000456-QINU`"')
  • Supervision  + (A review from 2010 defines three models of … A review from 2010 defines three models of supervision'"`UNIQ--ref-0000006E-QINU`"':</br></br>*a traditional model, a dyadic relationship between a supervisor and a student;</br>*a group supervision, in which there is a relationship between a student and a supervisor, as well as a student and other students, and</br>*a mixed model, which incorporates the two models and adds new technologies, such as online courses and teleconferences.</br></br>There is a guide for supervision of doctoral students in healthcare that defines the roles and requirements for a supervisor.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000006F-QINU`"' Some of those include clarifying the students’ purpose, understanding the student and their context, guiding them methodologically, intellectually and administratively, facilitating their communication and later on, introducing them to the scholarly community.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000070-QINU`"'nity. '"`UNIQ--references-00000070-QINU`"')
  • Journal Impact Factor based on the date of electronic publication  + (A study analyzed 61 neuroscience journals … A study analyzed 61 neuroscience journals from 2003 to 2011. The aim was to find out whether there was an increase in publication delay over one decade and whether this phenomenon can increase IFs. The study showed that while for most journals in 2003 the phenomenon of online-to-print lag did not exist, about 50% of the studied journals from 2011 had online-to-print lag greater than 3 months. The lag varied between journals ranging from 0 to 19 months.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000688-QINU`"' There was an increase of lags over one decade, which subsequently raised the journals IF. Moreover, the larger the online-to-print lag, the higher the increase of IF.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000689-QINU`"'</br></br>This is why some researchers suggested that the date of the online publication should be used to calculate the IF and not the date of the print publication.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000068A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000068B-QINU`"' In the fall of 2020 Clarivate Analytics announced that it would make this shift.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000068C-QINU`"' This change will help reduce ambiguity and contribute to more transparent calculation of citation metrics.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000068D-QINU`"' The 2021 release using 2020 data is planned to be the transition year and the full switch will begin in 2022 using 2021 publication data.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000068E-QINU`"'ication data.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000068E-QINU`"')
  • Gender bias  + (A working paper by [https://www.leru.org/f … A working paper by [https://www.leru.org/files/LERU-PPT_Bias-paper_Jadranka_Gvozdanovic_January_19_18.pdf LERU] sets out the following recommendations:'"`UNIQ--ref-000001A4-QINU`"'</br></br>#"Universities and other research institutions need to have regular '''monitoring''' in place to examine whether their organisational structures and processes are susceptible to a potentially biased access to resources that cannot be justified by the meritocratic principle. If so, they should develop and implement a plan to mitigate any identified bias. It is crucial that the university’s leadership commits to this plan, sees it through with appropriate encouragement, support and initiatives, throughout the organisation. Clear '''accountability''' should be assigned, with final responsibility for action resting with the President/Rector and the governing body.</br>#Universities and other research institutions should examine crucial areas of potential bias and define '''measures''' for countering bias. Progress needs to be monitored and, if necessary, measures re-examined and adjusted.</br>#Universities and other research institutions should gather expertise and organise '''gender bias training''' in various formats, including the possibility of anonymous training. There is no shortage of national and international resources which organisations can use.</br>#'''Recruitment''' and/or '''funding processes''' should be as open and transparent as possible and be genuinely merit-based. This includes measures such as briefing selection committees about bias pitfalls, deciding on clear selection criteria at the outset, letting '''external observers''' monitor the selection process and involving external evaluators.</br>#There should be close monitoring of potential '''bias in language''' used in recruitment processes.</br>#Universities should undertake action towards eliminating the '''pay gap''' and monitor progress, examining bias as a contributing factor to pay gap.</br>#Employees should be compensated for '''parental leave''', making sure the process is bias-free, for example by extending fixed-term positions or calculating the leave administratively as active service, yet exempt from publication expectations.</br>#Universities and other research institutions should monitor '''precarious contracts''' and '''part-time positions''' for any gender-based differences and correct any inequalities. Universities should examine conditions for part- time positions for professors and their gendered division.</br>#Universities and other research institutions should undertake '''positive action''' towards a proper representation of women in all leading positions, making sure that leadership and processes around leadership are free from bias."</br>'"`UNIQ--references-000001A5-QINU`"'ias." '"`UNIQ--references-000001A5-QINU`"')
  • A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Disputes in Authorship (2)  + (According to COPE, this is a clear case of … According to COPE, this is a clear case of guest or gift authorship. It is not recommended to add a researcher to the authors list of an article if he/she do not fulfil the requirements for authorship. If an editor finds out about an instance of gift authorship, COPE recommends the removal of the suspected gift author from the authorship list. For article submissions, it is strongly recommended that they include a statement of contributions agreed by all contributors. contributions agreed by all contributors.)
  • Mertonian norms  + (According to Merton: *''Communism'' (som … According to Merton: </br></br>*''Communism'' (sometimes referred to as communalism) addresses common ownership of scientific discoveries and the need for scientists to publicly share their discoveries. This could be seen as a precursor to modern initiatives such as open science;</br>*''Universalism'' is the idea that everyone can do science, regardless of race, nationality, gender or any other differences, and that everyone’s scientific claims should be scrutinized equally. In science, it’s all about your arguments, line of evidence and methodology, regardless of who you are;</br>*''Disinterestedness'' expresses the idea that scientists should work only for the benefit of science;</br>*''Organized scepticism'' expresses the idea that the acceptance of all scientific work should be conditional on assessments of its scientific contribution, objectivity and rigor. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000325-QINU`"'</br></br>These norms describe the ideal scientific community. In reality, however, the research climate falls short of this ideal. Scientific discoveries can often be found behind paywalls or remain unpublished. Research can sometimes be appraised and published on the basis of the authority and status of its authors. The culture of ‘publish or perish’ and the increased dependence on grants for success can sometimes obfuscate the value of scientific research.</br></br>These phenomena are described as counter-norms: secrecy, particularism, interestedness, dogmatism. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000326-QINU`"' Some have suggested employing originality and replication as additional norms. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000327-QINU`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000328-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000328-QINU`"')
  • Protecting Research Subjects  + (According to the Belmont[https://www.hhs.g … According to the Belmont[https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html]'"`UNIQ--ref-000004A7-QINU`"' report:</br></br>·        Respect</br></br>·        Beneficence</br></br>·        Justice</br></br><br /></br>'"`UNIQ--references-000004A8-QINU`"'lt;br /> '"`UNIQ--references-000004A8-QINU`"')
  • Importance of healthy lifestyle  + (According to the newest WHO (World Health … According to the newest WHO (World Health Organization) research [https://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2012/05/who-report-reveals-teenagers-do-not-get-a-fair-deal-on-health], teenagers do not get a fair deal when it comes to health. The survey gathered information from young students about their health and well-being, as well as their social situations and behavior. Adolescent health inequalities can lead to long-term inequalities in adulthood. Adolescence is unquestionably a critical period for mental health, particularly for girls. Predictably, family support is linked to a healthier lifestyle, including improved communication with parents, increased support from classmates, and a larger number of close friends. This has been found to lead to improved mental health. The report shows that addressing the social determinants of health inequalities in childhood and adolescence can enable young people to maximize their health and well-being, ensuring that these inequalities do not extend into adulthood, with all of the potential negative consequences for individuals and society. consequences for individuals and society.)
  • Intellectual property rights in research collaborations  + (According to their policy on IP rights, th … According to their policy on IP rights, the Dutch funder ZonMw states that when a contract is written, the IP rights derived from a project belong to the research performing institution. However, when the IP rights are not exploited adequately, ZonMw can interfere, in order to increase the impact of the research. Moreover, when considering public-private partnerships in funding, the research performing organization needs to have a strong judicial position. Therefore, research institutes are encouraged to seek legal expertise or request advice from ZonMw. This is to ensure that the IP is not exploited by other private, commericial and industrial institutions, as has happened in the past. </br></br>The European IPR Helpdesk has developed a fact sheet on IP management for Horizon 2020 projects.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000022F-QINU`"' The factsheet includes guidance on IP rights in a research proposal. It suggests the following:</br></br>*Proposals should describe how results will be protected from commercial and industrial exploitations</br>*Within multi-center research, the involved institutes need to organise ownership and access of rights and include the economic conditions of dividing the rights</br>*Proposals should state how joint ownership for expected jointly-owned results will be organized. For example, third-party licensing needs to be considered</br>*Proposals should consider the exploitation of research results (see Figure 1)</br>*Proposals should indicate the confidentiality measures that need to be put in place</br>*“When defining the management structure, applicants should consider the management of intellectual property rights. A committee for exploitation and intellectual property or a manager could be considered and even a consulting body of external experts from industry.”</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000230-QINU`"'try.” '"`UNIQ--references-00000230-QINU`"')
  • Journal Impact Factor  + (Advance data mining techniques can help identify impact factor manipulation. See [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-016-2144-6 this article].)
  • Recommendations of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK for Research Integrity Advisers and related background organisations1  + (Advisors' range of activities include: - Supporting the responsible conduct of research - Providing guidance on the handling of misconduct - Conducting preliminary ethical reviews)
  • Epistemic virtues  + (All European Academies (ALLEA) published a … All European Academies (ALLEA) published a revised and updated European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC), in which it emphasized the importance of addressing ethics and research integrity. The ECoC defines principles and practices of good research, and includes the virtues of reliability, honesty, respect and accountability. Usually philosophers consider honesty and the following characteristics to be epistemic virtues: attentiveness, benevolence (principle of charity), creativity, curiosity, discernment, humility, objectivity, parsimony, studiousness, understanding, warranty, and wisdom. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"')
  • The Unfortunate Experiment  + (Although adequeate checks and balances seem to have not been in place at the time when the experiment was being conducted, Dr. Green should have informed his patients about the unorthodox method he was using.)
  • Communicate results to the general public before a peer reviewed publication is available  + (Although it is evident that non-peer-revie … Although it is evident that non-peer-reviewed information has its pros and cons, it is not evident what the obligations of researchers are with regard to the dissemination of their research. The European Code of Conduct in Research Integrity, for instance, states that authors should be “…. honest in their communication to the general public and in traditional and social media.” <sup>13</sup> Thus, it does not explicitly forbid the pre-publication dissemination of results. In a public health emergency such as the ongoing pandemic, the situation is even more complex. The WHO Working Group on Ethics and COVID-19 states that “researchers generating information that has the potential to aid response efforts have an ethical obligation to share that information as soon as it is quality-controlled for release (e.g., peer-reviewed),” and that they should “…share this information without waiting for publication in scientific journals.” <sup>14</sup> These statements seem confusing, as it is unclear whether authors should wait until the manuscript is peer reviewed (which could be a long period) or circumvent this step. Here, the benefits of timely communication should be balanced against the potential risk of spreading inaccurate information, which can have lasting consequences.  </br></br>When unreviewed information is communicated, however, it should be clearly labelled as such. In line with the principles of honesty, accuracy and transparency recommended by the ECCRI, neither the findings nor the relevance of the research should be exaggerated or misrepresented.relevance of the research should be exaggerated or misrepresented.)
  • SCImago Journal Rankings  + (An article analyzed bibliometric indicator … An article analyzed bibliometric indicators for nuclear medicine journal. By comparison of Scopus and ISI scientists realised that seven nucelar medicine journals were indexed only on Scopus. By analysing these journals as they were part of ISI database potential IF of those journals was calculated and it put them in 11<sup>th</sup>, 14<sup>th</sup> i 15<sup>th</sup> place of nuclear medicine journal list. This result leads to conclusion that Scopus indexed journals shouldn't be overlooked when conducting quality assesment '"`UNIQ--ref-0000097F-QINU`"'. Another research among ISI and Scopus based on pediatric neurology journals showed that 3 journals were Scopus indexed only. Once again potential IF of three jorunals was calculated and it ranked them 12<sup>th</sup>, 13<sup>th</sup> and 14<sup>th</sup> among pediatric neurology journals. Self-citation doesn't affect SJR, but when it comes to IF self-citation has a great effect on it. When it comes to quality assesment of journal one should be aware of potential errors of IF and get familiar with new bibliometric indicators (such as ES, SJR) for best results '"`UNIQ--ref-00000980-QINU`"'.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000981-QINU`"' indicators (such as ES, SJR) for best results '"`UNIQ--ref-00000980-QINU`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-00000981-QINU`"')
  • Good Practice and Reporting Cases in Austria  + (Apart from its work on concrete inquiries, … Apart from its work on concrete inquiries, the Commission states that its aim is to play a critical role in further developing the guidelines governing good scientific practice. It sees the alignment of legal requirements with the principles of research integrity as a key task for the future. To that end, the Commission states that it will initiate a regular forum on "Good Scientific Practice and the Law".on "Good Scientific Practice and the Law".)
  • Initiative for Open Abstracts (I4OA)  + (Around 13 000 scholarly publishers, those … Around 13 000 scholarly publishers, those with both open access and subscription requirement, have already been submitting their bibliographic metadata and references to Crossref.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006AB-QINU`"' At the launch of I4OA in September 2020, 8.3% of journal articles with a Crossref DOI had their abstracts available in the repository.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006AC-QINU`"' Publishers such as [https://www.bmj.com/ BMJ], [https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/ The British Academy], [https://www.life-science-alliance.org/ Life Science Alliance], [https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open-abstracts-i4oa Oxford University Press], [https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/home SAGE], [https://f1000research.com/ F1000], [https://www.mdpi.com/ MDPI], and many others have already joined I40A or have accepted to join. Longer list of these publishers is available [https://i4oa.org/#:~:text=Publishers%20supporting%20I4OA here].text=Publishers%20supporting%20I4OA here].)
  • To Accept or Not to Accept  + (As Anne Pybern (a member of the Committee … As Anne Pybern (a member of the Committee on Ethics) notes, such scenario requires carefully considered and flexible responses so that we do not end up serving the various existing rules instead of using these rules to service the ethical needs of humanity accordingly.the ethical needs of humanity accordingly.)
  • Can a scientific paper be published anonymously?  + (As an author, assuming responsibility and being accountable for one's work requires the disclosure of one's identity.)
  • Clarifying the aims of a research study  + (Asking participants questions about the st … Asking participants questions about the study and what they expect from it can reveal gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed. Taking time to ensure a realistic understanding of the study aims and outcomes is essential for the informed consent process and helps prevent participants dropping out.d helps prevent participants dropping out.)
  • Not asking permission from contributors for the wording of the acknowledgement  + (Asking permission and consent for acknowledging persons and for the wording of the acknowledgement.)
  • Scandalous behaviour at Medical University of Innsbruck  + (Authors highlight the role that organisations such as the US Office of Research Integrity or the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty can play in streamlining the process of dealing with cases of misconduct.)
  • Nine pitfalls of research misconduct  + (Avoid the following pitfalls (behavioral a … Avoid the following pitfalls (behavioral aspect with an example): (a) Temptation - “Getting my name on this article would look really good on my CV”, (b) Rationalization - “It’s only a few data points, and those runs were flawed anyway”, (c) Ambition - “The better the story we can tell, the better a journal we can go for”, (d) Group and authority pressure - “The PI’s instructions don’t exactly match the protocol approved by the ethics review board, but she is the senior researcher”, (e) Entitlement - “I’ve worked so hard on this, and I know this works, and I need to get this publication”, (f) Deception - “I’m sure it would have turned out this way (if I had done it)”, (g) Incrementalism - “It’s only a single data point I’m excluding, and just this once”, (h) Embarrassment - “I don’t want to look foolish for not knowing how to do this”, (i) Stupid systems, “It counts more if we divide this manuscript into three submissions instead of just one”.to three submissions instead of just one”.)
  • How I Was Nearly Duped into 'Authoring' a Fake Paper  + (Based on the provided information in the case, this can be seen as examplary conduct that shows how a virtuous researcher deals with problematic situations.)
  • Collaboration In Research  + (Before the research commences, all researc … Before the research commences, all researchers must be in agreement on a number of components. First of all, they should agree on what they are aiming for and the goals of their research as well as what is expected from them and their part of the research. Moreover, they should also plan for ways of meeting and communicating and how they will handle any cases of conflict. Also, all researchers should put forward any virtues that they wish to be followed, in order to ensure that everyone is respected and protected. </br></br></br>Researchers should be aware of differences in research practice and should try to reach consensus in the design of their research and how they will be implementing it. All researchers should take responsibility for their part of the work and hold themselves accountable for it. Also, one must communicate and seek advice in case of any difficulties in their work as after all, the purpose of a collaboration is to work together and help each other. It could also be beneficial for researchers to review one another’s work besides their own. </br></br></br>Finally, before any work is submitted, all researchers should give their consent and make sure that there was no breach of research integrity. Also, all collaborators should be given credit for all the parts that they contributed towards.l the parts that they contributed towards.)
  • Unfair reviewing  + (Being a reviewer comes with the responsibi … Being a reviewer comes with the responsibility of fairly reviewing others. One way to promote fair processes is ''transparent ''peer review. For example, Nature, BMC and EMBO now publish peer review and editorial comments after a manuscript has been accepted for publishing, when both reviewers and authors agree on this.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000372-QINU`"' In the words of Nature: “in adopting transparent peer review, we are taking a step towards supporting increased openness, accountability and trust in the publishing process.”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000373-QINU`"' Transparent peer reviewing is an example initiative to encourage fair reviewing and to appreciate the contribution of reviewers. Moreover, having a bullying and harassment policy in place sends a signal that bullying, including unfair reviewing, is inappropriate,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000374-QINU`"' thereby promoting good behaviour of scientists. Lastly, conflicts of interest should always be disclosed when professional or personal interests collide with the review process</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000375-QINU`"'ocess '"`UNIQ--references-00000375-QINU`"')
  • Publishers - COPE guidelines  + (COPE has guidelines on many different topi … COPE has guidelines on many different topics, for different target stakeholders, including those for [https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduc editors] and [https://publicationethics.org/system/files/Code_of_conduct_for_publishers_Mar11.pdf publishers]. In addition, there are ten core practices formulated by cope, ranging from allegations of misconduct to ethical oversight to data and reproducibility. For all ten practices and explanations, see the [https://publicationethics.org/core-practices COPE core practices].s.org/core-practices COPE core practices].)
  • COPE Cases  + (COPE provides collection of [https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines guidelines] on publication ethics.)
  • A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Data Fabrication  + (COPE recommends the retraction of articles … COPE recommends the retraction of articles that contain fabricated data and a reporting made to the appropriate institutional misconduct body. Universities and research centres should be very sensitive to this important issue by reprimanding or dismissing researchers involved in fabrication.ssing researchers involved in fabrication.)
  • CRISPR twins – an unethical practice  + (CRISPR technology is supposed to be used t … CRISPR technology is supposed to be used to help individuals with major life-threatening diseases.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000962-QINU`"' Recently, a new device was developed and introduced in the Phase I study in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus, which contains a medium of beta cells developed from pluripotent stem cells.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000963-QINU`"' Other potential areas of use of this technology would be gene therapy in cancer treatment or personalized genetic medicine.reatment or personalized genetic medicine.)
  • Case-based ethics instruction: the influence of contextual and individual factors in case content on ethical decision-making  + (Cases must include a rich and realistic description of the social context.)
  • Ethical issues in qualitative research  + (Clear protocols should be followed from pl … Clear protocols should be followed from planning through reporting. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) aims to improve the transparency of all aspects of qualitative research by providing clear standards for reporting qualitative research [https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/fulltext/2014/09000/Standards_for_Reporting_Qualitative_Research__A.21.aspx]. These standards assist authors during manuscript preparation, editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript for potential publication, and readers when critically appraising, applying, and synthesizing study findings.applying, and synthesizing study findings.)
  • Be grossly unfair to your collaborators  + (Concern for research collaborators and tho … Concern for research collaborators and those involved in research forms an important tenet of the ECoC. <sup>4</sup> In the spirit of respect and collegiality, it is essential that decisions regarding benefits and burdens be made after sufficient deliberation with the different teams. </br></br>According to the ECoC, all involved partners should agree in advance on important aspects of the research, such as the goals and outcomes. <sup>4</sup> The attribution of credits (such as authorships) also form important benefits, and should be decided in consultation with all collaborators. The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations <sup>5</sup> states that all involved partners should reach an agreement at the outset, and later as needed, as to how the outcomes of the research, research data and authorship and publication responsibilities will be handled. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) also offers best practice guidelines on how to handle authorship disputes, should they arise. <sup>6</sup>idelines on how to handle authorship disputes, should they arise. <sup>6</sup>)
  • Fake peer-reviewing  + (Considering fake review, there are several … Considering fake review, there are several strategies journals can implement to overcome the challenges. A first strategy is not accepting the requests of peer reviewers from the authors. The reviewers are chosen by the journal editors, and ensure there are no ‘fake reviewers’. However, many journals cannot find (enough) peer reviewers, and granting the request can be time saving for journals.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000381-QINU`"' At times, journals need to rely on the requests of authors to find peer reviewers at all. </br></br>A second strategy is implementing an easy system that verifies reviewers. One online platform created to facilitate verification is Publons.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000382-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000383-QINU`"' Here, journal editors can do background checks on the reviewers, and easily check their contributions in the field. In addition, reviewers get recognition for their reviews, even if these are anonymous. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000384-QINU`"'</br></br><br /></br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000385-QINU`"'lt;br /> '"`UNIQ--references-00000385-QINU`"')
  • ENERI Classroom  + (Core parts of the learning pathways are ba … Core parts of the learning pathways are based on case studies because experience has shown that they are particularly suitable to promote knowledge and foster skills conducive to acting ethically and with integrity in research. More specifically, the case studies allow learners to reflect on what they have learned and to apply newly acquired skills to concrete examples. Moreover, learners can assess their knowledge by answering a set of questions and obtaining feedback on their responses via email. Thus, the ENERI Classroom is an interactive and responsive learning platform. </br></br>The cases in the resources section on the Embassy as well as the educational scenarios developed by the EnTIRE project that are available in the educational resources section can complement the ENERI Classroom by adding further issues of interest and/or elaborating existing ones.interest and/or elaborating existing ones.)
  • Data protection in a global pandemic (COVID-19)  + (Data Protection Authorities in the EU and … Data Protection Authorities in the EU and the EDPB have emphasized that data protection rules cannot override the measures implemented to fight against the pandemic.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004FC-QINU`"' According to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), “the processing of special categories of personal data may be necessary for reasons of public interest in the areas of public health without consent of the data subject” and “such processing should be subject to suitable and specific measures so as to protect the rights and freedoms of natural persons”.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004FD-QINU`"' However, “such processing of data concerning health for reasons of public interest should not result in personal data being processed for other purposes by third parties such as employers or insurance and banking companies”.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004FE-QINU`"' </br></br>In April 2020 the EDPB has released [https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_202003_healthdatascientificresearchcovid19_en.pdf Guidelines 03/2020 on the processing of data concerning health for the purpose of scientific research in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak]. The guidelines stated that both consent of the data subject and GDPR can provide legal basis for data processing concerning health in the COVID-19 pandemic.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004FF-QINU`"' Apart from that, the EU and the national legislator of each Member State can enact specific laws with regard to that.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000500-QINU`"' Sensitive data such as health data (i.e. data related to the physical or mental health of a person) must have higher protection because processing them could have negative impacts for data subjects.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000501-QINU`"' The guidelines emphasized that principles of transparency, data minimization and storage limitation as well as integrity and confidentiality should be respected.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000502-QINU`"'</br></br>These guidelines, however, will keep developing further and in more detail as guidance for the processing of health data for the purpose of scientific research is part of the annual work plan of the EDPB.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000503-QINU`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000504-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000504-QINU`"')
  • Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology (NESH, Norway)  + (Detailed best practices relating to: - Respect for individuals -Respect for groups and institutions - Interacting with the research community -Performing commissioned research -Good dissemination practices)
  • Self-plagiarism  + (Different fields take different stances in … Different fields take different stances in regard to self-plagiarism. For example, legal research has a lot more tolerance for reuse of one's work than biomedical science. In 1969, the scientific journal the “New England Journal of Medicine” announced they would no longer publish already published work. This is called Ingelfinger rule and became a norm for high quality scientific journals. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000291-QINU`"'Because of the rise of preprint servers (such as arXiv), journals now tend to loosen that policy. Secondary publications are a different issue, as they clearly state that work has been previously published. They are produced with a goal of reaching a bigger (and sometimes different) audience, often through translations to different languages.</br></br>Keep in mind that a lot of scientific journals use computer software to check if your text is similar to anything already published. The majority of software works through screening available online databases for similarities. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000292-QINU`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000293-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000293-QINU`"')
  • Editorial conflicts of interest  + (Different journals have different rules co … Different journals have different rules concerning editorial conflicts of interest. Some journals have no requirements, while others have strict rules (3). The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) states that journal editors cannot participate in editorial decisions regarding submitted articles if they have a COI. The same rules apply to editorial staff and guest editors. Editorial staff must not use information gained through working with manuscripts for private gain. Editors should also regularly publish disclosure statements about potential conflicts of interests related to their own commitments and those of their journal staff. For more information, click [http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html <u>here</u>].</br></br>The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provided a case of an editor who submitted a manuscript to their own journal. This can often happen when the choice of journals is limited due to the highly specialised nature of the particular subject matter. In such cases, a well-documented and transparent process is necessary to minimise potential bias in the review process. This is usually done by requiring another associate editor to guide the peer review process. One could also have the manuscript anonymized (which is often impossible in a very narrow fields) and publish supplemental material to ensure transparent reporting of the peer review process.sure transparent reporting of the peer review process.)
  • Peer review  + (Different publishers have a different set … Different publishers have a different set of rules for reporting research and conducting peer review so it is always recommended to familiarize yourself with any specific guidelines which are available on each journal’s webpage. Before you can accept an invitation to review, it is necessary to consider does your area of expertise match the topic of the proposed article as well as your potential conflict of interest. A successful peer review usually contains a clear answer on the question should the proposed article be accepted, rejected, or revised. It also contains a list of any major and/or minor issues, their location within the article as well as explanations and suggestions to the author(s). There are some freely available resources which can help with peer review process such as COPE's ethical guidelines for peer reviewers '"`UNIQ--ref-000000FF-QINU`"', Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist '"`UNIQ--ref-00000100-QINU`"' and the Handbook on Best Practices for Peer Review '"`UNIQ--ref-00000101-QINU`"', published by the Association of American University Presses.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000102-QINU`"'sses. '"`UNIQ--references-00000102-QINU`"')
  • Science policy  + (Different types of scientific policy may b … Different types of scientific policy may be adopted. Sometimes investment in basic research is preferred. In these cases the expectation is that some kind of breakthrough will result in a vast array of new technologies which will then be commercialized and pay back the investments. Other times the focus may be on technology development, and more support for engineering than basic science. The most extreme examples of such science policies are the Manhattan project'"`UNIQ--ref-00000137-QINU`"' and the Space projects pursued by the US and the Soviet Union in the second half of the 20th century.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000138-QINU`"'tury. '"`UNIQ--references-00000138-QINU`"')
Retrieved from "https://embassy.science:443/wiki/Special:SearchByProperty/:Has-20Best-20Practice/-3Cbr-20-2F-3E-0A%27%22%60UNIQ-2D-2Dreferences-2D0000020A-2DQINU%60%22%27"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
More information

Your platform for research integrity and ethics

Privacy statementTerms of serviceTake down policyContact
Let us keep you posted

Twitter Logo Dark.svg

The EnTIRE and VIRT2UE projects have received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research programme under grant agreements N 741782 and N 787580.

5.1.6