Search by property

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.

List of results

Declaration of Helsinki + ( '"`UNIQ--references-0000020A-QINU`"')

Salami publication + ( '"`UNIQ--references-00000288-QINU`"')
The INSPIRE project + (The INSPIRE Checklist … The INSPIRE ChecklistPart 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!The WebcrawlerTo 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.Highlighted initiativesSo far we highlighted the following initiatives:*"Met de billen bloot" (airing your dirty laundry) ([[Theme:A12b4bab-b331-46d1-93e0-dc9e9c5453cd]])*Data stewardship at TU Delft ([[Theme:D44f7704-4e28-484c-a137-fbb2bb44836b]])*Superb Supervision: integrity training for supervisors ([[Theme:73bfb9ec-b7f5-4a0a-a0b0-e460990b59cb]])*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.*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. delines, educational materials, InspectJ and an action set in Photoshop. )
Standards of authorship + (===Difficulties=== Common practises on sta … ===Difficulties===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: ''“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`"'==='''European Code of Conduct '''===''The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017)'' states the following:'"`UNIQ--ref-00000119-QINU`"' *All authors are fully responsible for the content of a publication, unless otherwise specified*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*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*All authors disclose any conflicts of interest and financial or other types of support for the research or for the publication of its results==='''COPE'''===*Guideline: [https://publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf12_0.pdf How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers]*Guideline: [https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standard_editors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf Responsible research publication: international standards for editors]'"`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===By Jensen (2000) '"`UNIQ--ref-00000258-QINU`"'*New data and cross-validation*Sidak, Bonferroni, and other adjustments*Resampling and randomization techniquesBy Glenn & Cormier (2015) '"`UNIQ--ref-00000259-QINU`"'*Performing own reviews of the sources of data,*Checking for retractions and corrections,*Requiring full disclosure of methods,*Acquiring original data and reanalyzing it,*Avoiding secondary sources,*Avoiding unreplicated studies or studies that are not concordant with related studies, and*Checking for funding or investigator biases.===Related cases===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`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000025C-QINU`"'B-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000025C-QINU`"')
Monitoring funding processes + (==Bullying and harassment policies== Bully … ==Bullying and harassment policies==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`"'1. The funded organization requires policies that set out:*standards of behavior from staff*the procedure for responding to complaints2. The funded organization should have an equivalent policy in place at sub-levels, where relevant.3. The funded organization should investigate allegations of bullying and harassment in an impartial, fair and timely manner. It must:*protect the rights of all employees involves*take appropriate action.4. The funded organization should contact the Wellcome Trust when an investigation has been opened.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==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.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. ==Funders and research integrity==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. 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.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`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000062-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000062-QINU`"')
Questionable research practices & research misbehaviors + (==QRPs== According to research integrity e … ==QRPs==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.=='''Prevention'''==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.'"`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.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/. 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)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/. '"`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`"'.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.'"`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`"':*a traditional model, a dyadic relationship between a supervisor and a student;*a group supervision, in which there is a relationship between a student and a supervisor, as well as a student and other students, and*a mixed model, which incorporates the two models and adds new technologies, such as online courses and teleconferences.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.'"`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`"'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`"'#"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.#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.#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.#'''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.#There should be close monitoring of potential '''bias in language''' used in recruitment processes.#Universities should undertake action towards eliminating the '''pay gap''' and monitor progress, examining bias as a contributing factor to pay gap.#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.#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.#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."'"`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: *''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;*''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;*''Disinterestedness'' expresses the idea that scientists should work only for the benefit of science;*''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`"'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.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`"''"`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:· Respect· Beneficence· Justice '"`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. 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:*Proposals should describe how results will be protected from commercial and industrial exploitations*Within multi-center research, the involved institutes need to organise ownership and access of rights and include the economic conditions of dividing the rights*Proposals should state how joint ownership for expected jointly-owned results will be organized. For example, third-party licensing needs to be considered*Proposals should consider the exploitation of research results (see Figure 1)*Proposals should indicate the confidentiality measures that need to be put in place*“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.”'"`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`"''"`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.” 13 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.” 14 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. 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 11th, 14th i 15th 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 12th, 13th and 14th 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`"'.'"`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. 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. 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'"`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. 4 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. According to the ECoC, all involved partners should agree in advance on important aspects of the research, such as the goals and outcomes. 4 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 5 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. 6idelines on how to handle authorship disputes, should they arise. 6)
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. 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`"' '"`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. 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`"' 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`"'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`"''"`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.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`"''"`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 here].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.'"`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.'"`UNIQ--references-00000138-QINU`"'tury. '"`UNIQ--references-00000138-QINU`"')
How to select trustworthy repositories + (Digital Curation Centre (DCC) has issued a … Digital Curation Centre (DCC) has issued a checklist containing relevant questions for researchers concerning criteria for their selection of repositories. However, it has emphasised that while it provides “a shortcut through relevant policies and standards”, it does not guarantee that these repositories comply with specific standards or funders’ policies. Therefore, this guide provides a framework to help researchers with what can be a somewhat difficult decision. By going through these questions, researchers should be able to make a well informed decision on whether their repositories are suited for their data. They should also always check funder and journal policies for compliance.The checklist contains five questions to consider when looking for repositories:-Is a repository of your choice reputed? -Will it take the data you want to deposit?-Will it be safe legally?-Will it sustain the data value?-Will it support analysis and tract data usage?'"`UNIQ--ref-00000921-QINU`"'This guide also contains information on where researchers can find repository registries, such as Re3data and Biosharing.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000922-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000923-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000923-QINU`"')
European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity (ENERI) + (Drawing on existing networks like the Euro … Drawing on existing networks like the European Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC)(2)'"`UNIQ--ref-00000085-QINU`"' and the European Network of Research Integrity Offices (ENRIO),'"`UNIQ--ref-00000086-QINU`"' ENERI has established an operable platform connecting RE and RI experts. The platform complements The Embassy by focusing mainly on interlinking experts and institutional representatives, whereas The Embassy addresses the entire community of researchers.In order to facilitate the building of a vibrant community, ENERI has created an expert database'"`UNIQ--ref-00000087-QINU`"' that, along with the ENERI Handbook,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000088-QINU`"' forms the main building block of the network. While the database simplifies building strong network ties among community members, the handbook serves as a basis for discussing novel challenges and disseminating best practices. In contrast to most other manuals, the ENERI handbook has been construed as a living document seeking to constantly evolve by incorporating network members' expertise. As the database seeks to facilitate network growth, the handbook aims to expand the stock of expert knowledge.Both the database and the handbook not only transcend the boundary between RE and RI, but also bridge divides between different academic disciplines. Whereas ethical review relies on an elaborate infrastructure in the medical sciences in most countries, similar infrastructures are often still lacking in other disciplines. ENERI is based on the premise that research ethics and integrity concern all academic disciplines, including the humanities and social sciences. Many of the challenges researchers in various disciplines typically face as well as examples of good practice are outlined in the handbook.==Other information==ENERI is a pan-European network receiving funding receiving funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 710184'"`UNIQ--references-00000089-QINU`"'10184 '"`UNIQ--references-00000089-QINU`"')
Research ethics committee members' skills + (ENERI has recently published an insightful … ENERI has recently published an insightful policy brief on what makes a research ethics and research integrity expert. Based on a participatory research design culminating in a series of consensus conferences with 50 stakeholders from various positions within or close to academia, ENERI has found the following skills to be particularly useful for REC members:'''Hard skills'''*comprehensive knowledge of relevant guidelines, regulations, and laws*experience with ethical assessments or academic qualifications in relevant disciplines, like philosophy or law*research experience*legal expertise*analytical skills*the ability to think critically'''Soft skills'''*Communicative skills*interpersonal skills*attention to detail*the ability to manage and resolve conflicts*the ability to work collaboratively'''Process skills'''*administrative and management skills*decision-making skills*the ability to transform abstract theoretical ideas into practical recommendations'''Emotional skills'''*open mindedness*independence*awareness of social norms and the likely consequences of breaching them*personal commitmentAccording to ENERI, RE experts individually inevitably need hard skills, but do not necessarily have to possess all soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills. However, all soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills should be present on the institutional level in RECs which, therefore, should have a diverse membership with complementary skills.The role of the chair role is particularly crucial. The chair needs to have broad soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills to guarantee that all represented perspectives are included in assessment, review, and advice procedures. Hence, chairpersons need more skills than ordinary board members due to the pivotal position they occupy in organizing inclusive deliberations.upy in organizing inclusive deliberations.)
Affiliations + (Each institution should have its official, … Each institution should have its official, long and shortened affiliations for the institution in general, as well as its departments in specific. Every author should list affiliations for all institutions they're connected to, regardless of which institution funds the research.s of which institution funds the research.)
Traver paper: The Unique Case of a Published Delusion + (Editors need to publish a retraction notice and specifically clarify the unreliability of results, without making a reference to the mental state of the author.)
Publication bias (positive results) + (Everybody who ever performed research prob … Everybody who ever performed research probably experienced the sadness of getting a p value bigger than 0.05. Instead of critically looking at the data and results in the light of present knowledge and trying to figure out the impact of results, the hypothesis usually gets abandoned and another set of experiments gets initiated. There is some effort to change the existing practice. A new course in editorial policy for publication, which is considering only the methodological rigor, and not the direction of results, was set by PLOS some 20 years ago. Another praise worthy initiative is Journal of Negative Results which also considers methodological rigor as the only criteria for the publication of a manuscript.teria for the publication of a manuscript.)
Grading the quality of evidence in clinical practice guidelines + (Experts in their respective fields and org … Experts in their respective fields and organizations who are in charge of creating clinical practice guidelines should be aware of discrepancies that may arise if the grading system is not well defined. Ratings of quality of evidence should be transparent and based on detailed and clear criteria, so it can be used by clinicians and patients. However, it can't be expected of clinicians or patients to comprehend a variety of grading systems. A simple, transparent grading of the recommendation, such as the GRADE system, is an example of a good solution. It's the system that provides their users to assess the judgments behind recommendations regarding health care.nd recommendations regarding health care.)
Disclosing Conflicts of Interest in Scientific Advice + (Failures to disclose conflicts of interests should be investigated on the basis of institutional codes of conduct for research integrity.)
Feedback of findings in genome-wide association studies + (Feeding back results from genomic studies … Feeding back results from genomic studies is complicated because GWA is a research tool and is not designed for clinical diagnosis. In addition, most of the discoveries of whole genome methods identify genetic variants that explain very little in disease risk or quantitative trait variance. Feeding back raw data, would however, be completely misleading and not widely understandable. Providing participants with information about the general findings of research, such as publications based on the research, is an uncontroversial and welcome practice.s an uncontroversial and welcome practice.)
Authorship Deserved, Not Earned: Research Ethics and Research Integrity Scenario + (Following [http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) recommendations])
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form + (Following should be disclosed: *Funding received from government, commercial, private foundation, etc. for conducting the research *Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. *Intellectual Property )
A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Disputes in Authorship (1) + (For COPE in matters relating to the addition or omission of an author, a request should be sent to the publishing journal. The journal will ask for the permission of all authors with corrections made following their consent.)
The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science + (For department leaders: ask your coworkers to read the executive summary, and organize a meeting to talk about it and what role the department and the individuals in that department could play to address the issue.)
Retractions: correcting the scientific literature + (For example, the U.S. National Library of … For example, the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which produces PubMed, the largest bibliographical database in health research, describes different types of procedures for amendments to the [http://wayback.archive-it.org/org-350/20180312141525/https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/errata.html published scientific record]. Retraction of an article involves publishing a retraction notice that explains the reasons for retraction and who is making the retraction. This notice links to the retracted article, which is clearly marked in the indexing database.The current list of all retractions in PubMed, regardless of the cause (error or misconduct) is available [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=retracted+publication+%5Bpt%5D here].Some journals want to differentiate between retractions due to misconduct and those that are due to an error that makes a research conclusion wrong, but can be corrected. Such corrections have been termed “retraction with republication” or “retraction with replacement” by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). This type of retraction is used when a serious error makes published results unreliable, but it was judged that the error was not intentional and the corrections are possible. Such retraction and replacement should be accompanied by full explanation, including a clear presentation of the extent of changes that were made.The problem may occur when the retracted and replaced articles keep the same pagination and bibliographic identifiers (such as DOI – digital object identifier). Some bibliographical databases may not recognize this as a proper correction of literature. Databases usually require that the original and corrected/replaced publication are kept as separated publication items, with added notice that links them. Different understanding of how a retracted publication can be replaced with a corrected publication has caused differences in indexing of such publications in bibliographical databases, creating confusion for the users of published research articles.A relevant tool to detect retracted papers and keep up to date on retraction scandals is Retraction Watch. Retraction watch is both a blog and a database of an estimated 17,000 retracted papers. The blog regularly updates on papers and authors that are retracted/about to be retracted. The database, found [http://retractiondatabase.org/ here], is a tool to find out whether a paper has been retracted. Journals, authors and reasons for retractions are given in the search results.tractions are given in the search results.)
Research collaboration + (For successful collaboration it is necessa … For successful collaboration it is necessary to '"`UNIQ--ref-00000565-QINU`"':*''Address mutual expectations''. Each team member may have different expectations about their contribution and the recognition they will receive. If you discuss these expectations openly, it will be easier for each team member to contribute effectively to the project.*''Clearly divide and define who is responsible for what task.'' Similar to expectations, a clear division of labor makes each team member's role in the project clear. This facilitates conversations about authorship.*''Determine authorship.'' In a collaborative effort, it may appear that each person has a clear role. However, this assumption can lead to confusion and disagreement about initial authorship. Agree on authorship at the beginning of the project.*''Communicate frequently.'' Ensure open communication with the team. If you do not have a clear timeline or research goals, it can be easy to lose sight of each other.*''Access to data''. Not all parties may have access to all data. A clear conversation at the beginning of the project is necessary to determine who will have access to what information.*Collaboration in research also means ''a shared responsibility for the integrity of the research.'''"`UNIQ--references-00000566-QINU`"'ch.'' '"`UNIQ--references-00000566-QINU`"')
Internet Research Ethics + (From the end of the 1990s some research in … From the end of the 1990s some research institutions and journals began to establish and develop rules and guidelines for research in online setting. In 1999 the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued a report [https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/report2.pdf Ethical and Legal Aspects of Human Subjects Research on the Internet] which emphasized the importance of using informed consent with disclosure of the risks and benefits of the research to the human subject. To this day, the AAAS report is considered “a benchmark” reference for the Internet research ethics .'"`UNIQ--ref-0000059A-QINU`"'In the past few years, organizations such as [https://aoir.org/ethics/ The Association of Internet Researchers], [https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018-online The British Educational Research Association], [https://www.bps.org.uk/sites/www.bps.org.uk/files/Policy/Policy%20-%20Files/Ethics%20Guidelines%20for%20Internet-mediated%20Research%20(2017).pdf The British Psychological Society] and [https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/guidelines/social-sciences-humanities-law-and-theology/a-guide-to-internet-research-ethics/ The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees], have also released guidelines with aim of providing frameworks for researchers facing ethical challenges in online research. While most of them stress the necessity of informed consent, some highlight obstacles and difficulties in obtaining it. For example, when children and other vulnerable groups are involved in research, the consent must be obtained from their parent or guardian. Also, children might pretend to be their parents, which would make the consent invalid.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000059B-QINU`"' Researchers working with children online must respect also the [https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)] and when collecting children’s personal data, they must clarify how they intend to use the information. Another important issue is securing participants’ anonymity. Although complete anonymity may be difficult to ensure, guidelines recommend removal of all identifying data prior to publication and, where an individual is identifiable, require explicit consent before publication.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000059C-QINU`"' The British Sociological Association in [https://www.britsoc.co.uk/media/24834/j000208_researching_online_forums_-cs1-_v3.pdf Researching Online Forums] case-study recommends that when collecting data from online forums, all names and any identifying information should be removed, which includes URLs or “links” to forum websites.Social media data might contain copyrighted material. In such cases researcher should obtain the copyright holder’s consent.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000059D-QINU`"' If researcher is planning to publish the materials, they should request consent from all people who appear in photographs, audio or video. Same applies to publication of direct quotes that have not previously been published.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000059E-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000059F-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000059F-QINU`"')
SOPs4RI Guidelines - Supervision requirements & guidelines + (Given the broad diversity that exists amon … Given the broad diversity that exists among research institutions, it is possible that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.Furthermore, several best practices are highlighted in the guidelines itself. are highlighted in the guidelines itself.)
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on Responsible Supervision and Leadership - Supervision requirements & guidelines + (Given the broad diversity that exists amon … Given the broad diversity that exists among research institutions, it is possible that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.Furthermore, several best practices are highlighted in the guidelines itself. are highlighted in the guidelines itself.)
SOPs4RI Guidelines - Building and leading an effective team + (Given the broad diversity that exists amon … Given the broad diversity that exists among research institutions, it is possible that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.Furthermore, several best practices are highlighted in the guidelines itself. are highlighted in the guidelines itself.)
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on the research integrity education of institutional research integrity stakeholders + (Given the broad diversity that exists amon … Given the broad diversity that exists among research institutions, it is possible that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.pted to meet institutions’ specific needs.)
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on the research integrity education of bachelor, master and PhD students + (Given the broad diversity that exists amon … Given the broad diversity that exists among research institutions, it is possible that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.pted to meet institutions’ specific needs.)
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on the research integrity education of post-doctorate and senior researchers + (Given the broad diversity that exists amon … Given the broad diversity that exists among research institutions, it is possible that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.pted to meet institutions’ specific needs.)
SOPs4RI - Guidelines for research institutions on diversity and inclusion + (Given the broad diversity that exists amon … Given the broad diversity that exists among research institutions, it is possi- ble that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guideline should not be seen as a ‘one- size-fits-all’, but rather as a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.pted to meet institutions’ specific needs.)
SOPs4RI - Guidelines for research institutions on community building for a positive research culture + (Given the broad diversity that exists amon … Given the broad diversity that exists among research institutions, it is possible that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as tools that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.pted to meet institutions’ specific needs.)
Guidelines for research institutions on adequate education and skills training + (Given the broad diversity that exists amon … Given the broad diversity that exists among research institutions, it is possible that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as tools that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.pted to meet institutions’ specific needs.)
Guidelines for research institutions on managing competition and publication pressure + (Given the broad diversity that exists amon … Given the broad diversity that exists among research institutions, it is possible that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as tools that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.pted to meet institutions’ specific needs.)
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on continuous research integrity education + (Given the broad diversity that exists amon … Given the broad diversity that exists among research institutions, it is possible that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.pted to meet institutions’ specific needs.)
SOPs4RI Guidelines on Supervision - PhD guidelines + (Given the broad diversity that exists amon … Given the broad diversity that exists among research institutions, it is possible that some recommendations are not applicable in all research settings. For this reason, the guidelines should not be seen as a ‘one-size-fits-all’, but rather as a tool that can be used flexibly and adapted to meet institutions’ specific needs.Furthermore, several best practices are highlighted in the guidelines itselfs are highlighted in the guidelines itself)
The influence of pharmaceutical company on drug availability + (Good organization between the pharmaceutical companies, CRO and clinics where the research takes place.)
Reusing Biopsy Material in New Publications, Image Manipulation and Fraudulent Research Protocols + (Good scientific practice involves researc … Good scientific practice involves researchers providing explicit information on the origin of their test material in a way that is clear to readers of the paper. All authors of a scientific article have responsibility for its overall content, including reading the final manuscript carefully before submitting it to a journal.refully before submitting it to a journal.)
Research Integrity & Research Ethics: Guidelines of the Austrian Science Funds + (Good scientific practices (general) - Good practices in grant applications - Ethics in research involving animals)
High Integration of Research Monographs in the European Open Science (HIRMEOS) + (HIRMEOS integrates five publishing platfor … HIRMEOS integrates five publishing platforms:-[https://books.openedition.org/ OpenEdition Books], the OpenEdition platform dedicated to open access books. It is run by the Center for Open Electronic Publishing (Cléo) in France. The platform disseminates more than 2700 open access books from 51 publishers from the SSH fields. -[https://www.oapen.org/ OAPEN Library], a service run by OAPEN Foundation in Netherlands. It contains 2600 freely accessible academic books, mostly in the SSH disciplines. The platform collaborates with 120 publishers and provides services for publishers, libraries and research funders for deposit, quality assurance, dissemination as well as digital preservation. -[https://epublishing.ekt.gr/ ΕΚΤ ePublishing], the ePublishing platform of the National Documentation Centre in Greece. It offers advanced e-infrastructures and related services to institutional publishers in Greece such as universities, research centers, scholarly societies and memory institutions, with aim of publishing peer-reviewed journals, proceedings and monographs in the SSH disciplines. -[https://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/en/publishing-open-access/goettingen-university-press/ Göttingen University Press], the publishing house of Göttingen University in Germany which has published scholarly texts by researchers affiliated with the university since 2003. It supports the principles of open access, meaning it provides online content for users free of costs and limitations. All digital publications of Göttingen University Press are available for the public use permanently. -[https://www.ubiquitypress.com/ Ubiquity Press], an open access publisher of peer-reviewed academic journals, books and data affordable for everyone. This publisher collaborates with RUA - an open source application developed by Ubiquity Press and designed to assist with the stages of the publishing monographs process: optional proposal, submission, internal review, peer review, copy editing, production and publication.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000052B-QINU`"' One of the HIRMEOS objectives is to enrich these five digital publishing infrastructures with more functionalities and features to facilitate their further integration into the European Science Open Cloud.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000052C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000052D-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000052D-QINU`"')
Polarized research + (Holm and Ploug suggest that researchers sh … Holm and Ploug suggest that researchers should address the following two questions:#If the results of your current (well planned and well conducted) project point in the opposite direction of the results of your previous research on this topic, would your first reaction be to reanalyse the data and reconsider your methods, or to reconsider your previous conclusions?#If your findings were the exact same as the opposing researchers in this field of research, would your policy recommendations be any different from the recommendations of the opposing group? '"`UNIQ--ref-0000027B-QINU`"'Four questions about polarized research:*'''Why does polarized research exist?''' Because researchers have different perspectives and interests.*'''Is polarized research fraud?''' No, because it is based on valid scientific methods.*'''How does polarized research occur?''' Researchers may use different definitions, indexes, end-points, models, statistical methods, interpretations etc making their results come out very differently.*'''How can we avoid polarized research?''' One suggestion is to force authors to declare “polarized conflict of interest” when submitting papers. Another is to make editors and publishers check for polarized conflicts of interest.'"`UNIQ--references-0000027C-QINU`"'rest. '"`UNIQ--references-0000027C-QINU`"')
Perverse incentives + (How to reform the incentive structure of s … How to reform the incentive structure of science is a subject of ongoing research and debate. See, e.g.,*Bornmann, L., & Williams, R. (2017). Can the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers? A large-scale empirical study based on ResearcherID data. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 788–799. doi:[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.001 10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.001]*Krimsky, S. (2004). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? Rowman & Littlefield.*Sandström, U., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2018). Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 365–384. doi:[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.007 10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.007]g/10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.007 10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.007])
Non-reporting of negative findings + (If a study’s methodology is valid, it is i … If a study’s methodology is valid, it is important to publish all of the results, including negative ones. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors stated that researchers should publish negative data in order to prevent publication bias and potential waste of time and money because of duplication. World Health Organization, in 2005, called for publication of previous non-reported negative findings. The Committee on Publication Ethics, in their guidelines, state that journals should not refuse to publish negative findings. Some journals are dedicated to publication of null results only, such as the Journal of Negative Results, in the field of ecology and evolutionary biology. BioMed Central’s Journal of Negative results in BioMedicine ceased to publish in 2017.In order to assess publication bias when conducting a meta-analysis, researchers use a funnel plot. A funnel-plot is a type of scatter-plot, in which both treatment effect and study precision are shown. If the data is not symmetrical, there is a high chance of either publication bias or small-study effect. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000266-QINU`"' This is especially important when doing a meta-analysis of clinical trials, as such results often end up being used as the strongest evidence in making of clinical practice guidelines.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000267-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000268-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000268-QINU`"')
Prospective registration of clinical trials + (In 2004, the International Committee of Me … In 2004, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) announced that clinical trials beginning after July 1, 2005, would be under a new trial registration policy. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000093-QINU`"' To be published in member journals, the trials would have to be registered in an approved trial registry prior to the enrollment of the first participant. Since 2005, ICMJE has reiterated that registering a prospective study should be a condition of publication and after the announcement, several journals endorsed this policy. The registration must occur prior to enrollment of the first study participant in a trial registry that meets the quality criteria developed by WHO. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000094-QINU`"' However, the adherence for this requirement remains low by both researchers and journal editors and, unfortunately, not all clinical trials are registered before they start.Recent findings suggest that among the reasons that lead to the low adherence to the new requirement by the researchers are: lack of awareness of the criteria; misunderstandings regarding the definition of clinical trial by ICMJE; and difficulties for registration. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000095-QINU`"' On the part of journal editors, the main reason is that not all journals are equally committed to meeting the registration requirements, strengths, and limitations of the study. The Committee on Publication Ethics suggested that “it is probably best to judge each paper on a case by case basis.”'"`UNIQ--references-00000096-QINU`"'sis.” '"`UNIQ--references-00000096-QINU`"')
Connecting researchers through ORCID + (In 2012, ORCID launched their Registry as … In 2012, ORCID launched their Registry as a result of which researchers could be assigned unique identifiers, a 16-character code compiled of numbers 0-9, and thus distinguish themselves from other researchers. In 2019, there are more than 7 million ORCID accounts'"`UNIQ--ref-0000032E-QINU`"' registered to individual researchers, universities, scientific publishers and commercial companies. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000032F-QINU`"' Increasingly, funding organisations are requiring that their applicants provide their ORCID identifier. '"`UNIQ--references-00000330-QINU`"'ier. '"`UNIQ--references-00000330-QINU`"')
Research with children + (In a 2007 study, Einarsdóttir collected da … In a 2007 study, Einarsdóttir collected data in several ways:'''''Group and individual interviews combined with observation'''''Interviews were primarily used, which together with observations are the most common method used in research with children. They can be group or individual. The emphasis here is on talking to the child, that is providing an opportunity to be heard. Group interviews involve mostly preschool children who are used to being together in groups, and through interacting with other children they learn and form their attitudes towards the environment. '''''Using props'''''Some researchers suggest the use of props such as toys, paper and crayons, clay, or sand. Children’s drawings can also provide insight into the view and experience of young children. The advantage is providing non-verbal expression, and children are active and creative as they draw. The disadvantages are the possible imitation of other children's drawings or simply the child does not like to draw. Many authors recommend the use of photographs taken by children as a method of data collection. Photographing combined with touring increases the power of children because data collection is directly in their hands. Photography gives children the opportunity to express their views in different ways, inviting them to combine visual and verbal language. In addition, in the above-mentioned study, disposable cameras were given to the children. They were told that they could take photos of what they want and what they consider important in kindergarten, and after developing the photos, the teachers sat down with the children individually and talked to them about what was in the photos and why they were taken. '''''Modified surveys'''''Surveys are not a common method for research with children primarily because of their age. However, there is the possibility of constructing a questionnaire in the form of a child-friendly game. This may include paper forms of different colors that contain questions that the children in the game answer. This allows data to be collected during everyday children’s activities rather than in a fictional context.vities rather than in a fictional context.)
Posing irrelevant research questions + (In a series of the Lancet on research wast … In a series of the Lancet on research waste, '"`UNIQ--ref-00000310-QINU`"' the following steps were suggested for setting research priorities and diminishing research waste (as cited from pg. 158): #Include objectives in research groups’ strategic plans and define the stakeholders whose opinions and priorities will be considered#Draw on an existing summary of previous priority-setting exercises in the specialty before undertaking own exercise#Use available methodological reviews of research priority setting as guidance about how to meet priority-setting objectives#Ensure that the priority-setting team has the necessary data, information about context, and skill set for their exercise#Pilot, assess, revise, and update the priority-setting exercise at intervals#Participate in discussions within the community of interest to share findings and experiences”'"`UNIQ--references-00000311-QINU`"'nces” '"`UNIQ--references-00000311-QINU`"')
Preprint servers + (In areas such as physics, mathematics and … In areas such as physics, mathematics and economy, preprint servers have been in use for almost 30 years.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F2-QINU`"' In 1991 a centralized automated repository, the arXiv preprint server, was the pioneer in this method of dissemination of research results. It played an important role in physics, astronomy and mathematics, and later was implemented into other research areas.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F3-QINU`"' Significant number of journals has adopted this practice of posting their manuscripts on preprint servers. About 46% of the 2,566 publishers indexed in SHERPA RoMEO support preprint servers.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F4-QINU`"' The Lancet, for example, posts articles to preprint severs from Social Science Research Network (SSRN).'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F5-QINU`"'Preprint servers can be journal (Netprints), non-journal (arXiv), mixed (ResearchGate), subject repositories (Social Sciences Research Network) as well as national and regional servers (Chinese Preprint Server Online).'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F6-QINU`"' They can be supported by con-commercial and non-editorial organizations as well. For example, the Welcome Trust in UK has its own preprint server.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F7-QINU`"' Research institutions and funding organizations also can have preprint servers. One of the examples is UK’s Medical Research Council (MRC) that includes the manuscripts posted on preprint servers in biomedical research grant applications.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F8-QINU`"'Some of the most popular preprint servers are:-[https://www.biorxiv.org/ BioRxiv] (a preprint repository for the biological sciences);-[https://arxiv.org/ arXiv] (an open access archive operated by Cornell University, containing 1,774,607 articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science and economics);-[https://thewinnower.com/ the Winnower] (an open access online publishing platform that offers an open post-publication peer review);-[https://psyarxiv.com/ PsyArXiv] (a preprint server for the field of psychology, launched in 2016 by Cornell University);-[http://www.prepubmed.org/ PrePubMed] (a platform that indexes preprints from PeerJ Preprints, Figshare, bioRxiv, and F1000Research)'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F9-QINU`"';-[https://www.medrxiv.org/ medRxiv] (the first preprint server for medicine, launched in 2019 by Yale and BMJ).'"`UNIQ--ref-000005FA-QINU`"'Longer list of preprint repositories can be found [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zYOy6bcydDZ9G56FKmDzg_pexTarVsJR5hH0KiQGt_I/edit#gid=1494155948 here] and [https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers here]. Although there are some preprint servers for medicine, shortcomings of this practice have to be considered. Medical research findings are often discussed by the media and public, so the media release of an unreviewed work can be harmful.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005FB-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000005FC-QINU`"' Preprints in medicine also raise ethical questions regarding research with humans, therefore the confidentiality of participants should be protected.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005FD-QINU`"' Nevertheless, in this time of COVID-19 pandemic preprint servers showed to be a useful tool because of the accelerated dissemination of research results. This is important especially regarding treatments and vaccines.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005FE-QINU`"' From the early stages of the pandemic to the mid October, more than 19,000 preprints were produced.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005FF-QINU`"' We also have to consider that peer reviewed articles published in journals can present low-quality work. One of the examples is article about a Russian vaccine, published in the Lancet,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000600-QINU`"' which instigated objections and an open letter to the authors and the Lancet editor. The objections addressed data presented in the article and called for full availability of the original data in order to evaluate the study and enable reproduction of the research findings.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000601-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000602-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000603-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000603-QINU`"')
Conflict of interest in peer review + (In its guidelines for editors, Elsevier st … In its guidelines for editors, Elsevier states a number of possible situations which are considered to be a conflict of interest. Some of these are: co-authoring or working in the same department with some of the authors in the last three years, being a supervisor or supervisee of the author, having a personal relationship with the author, and having a direct financial interest or other professional benefit from the review. Another example is when you are asked to review a research submitted from a competing research team (Elsevier guidelines for conflict of interest in peer review provided in the tools section). Your own research experience and ambition may influence the way you see other teams’ work.To handle this issue, not much can be done. If we would prevent everyone with potential conflict of interest to do a peer review, the quality of peer review would drop. Many researchers with knowledge and expertise can have a personal or professional connection with the authors, especially in a small and niche research area. Another option is blinding the reviewers, so that they do not know the names of the authors. Research has shown that reviewers often recognize the authors even when blinded, and blinding doesn’t mask the products or medicines used in research.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000023F-QINU`"' However, any researcher asked to do a review should decline to do so if they have a COI. Clearly defined journal policies on this matter should also be put in place.'"`UNIQ--references-00000240-QINU`"'lace. '"`UNIQ--references-00000240-QINU`"')
Initiatives promoting research integrity + (In the United States, the Office for Resea … In the United States, the Office for Research Integrity (ORI) is developing policies, procedures, and regulations related to the responsible conduct of research and research misconduct. Moreover, ORI develops activities and programs aimed to promote research integrity and foster good research practices.In Europe, the [https://lari.lu/ Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity] and [https://oeawi.at/en/ Austrian Agency for Research Integrity] are good examples of institutions providing all kind of resources for the promotion of research integrity. These organizations have developed guidelines and recommendations that are implemented by research institutions in their countries. Moreover, they offer training and workshops for researchers in different stages of their career and deal with cases of research misconduct.nd deal with cases of research misconduct.)
Empathy in History Research and Education + (In the late 1990s, a large cross-national … In the late 1990s, a large cross-national survey was conducted with aim of exploring young people’s opinions of their history education in Europe. They had to put themselves into the shoes of a young man or woman from the 15th century being forced into marriage and were given six options: -Refuse because it is inhuman, immoral and illegitimate to force someone to marry without real love;-Obey because good economy is more important for a family than passionate love between wife and husband;-Run away to a nunnery or a monastery because religious life is worth more than worldly life;-Consent because nearly all young people have married in accordance with their parents’ decisions;-Resist because it is the natural right of any individual to marry for love;-Obey because rebellion against the parents’ will is a rebellion against the law of God.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004DD-QINU`"'Respondents’ answers mostly showed their preference for rebellion “in the name of love and natural rights” and difficulties in accepting reasons for obedience (tradition, paternal power, economic reasons) common for 15th century mentality.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004DE-QINU`"' Most students were not able to put themselves in the shoes of young people that lived in the 15th century because the question presented to them was out of their time and context. If we expect from students to apply empathy, they should have more knowledge about the 15th century society and some insights into mentality of the people living in that time. Many students projected their own contemporary opinions, feelings and stereotypes to the 15th century young people.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004DF-QINU`"'Since empathy is something that can be learned and exercised,'"`UNIQ--ref-000004E0-QINU`"' contemporary history curriculums use it as one of the tools for “historical understanding”.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004E1-QINU`"' Several strategies that can be applied in history classroom to develop empathy among students are role-playing, structured debate, narrative-writing concerning issues historical figures confront,'"`UNIQ--ref-000004E2-QINU`"' history simulations, pro-and-con lists, examining films, novels and documentaries that provide “vicarious experiences”'"`UNIQ--ref-000004E3-QINU`"' and visits to historical sites.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004E4-QINU`"' These strategies can be applied particularly when some issue concerns a group or a nation unpopular with some or all students, or when an issue involves discrimination against a certain group.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004E5-QINU`"' It can also help understanding different cultures and improve communication and relations in multicultural societies.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004E6-QINU`"'tures and improve communication and relations in multicultural societies.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004E6-QINU`"')
Cognitive dissonance and moral distress + (In their virtue-based model of ethical dec … In their virtue-based model of ethical decision-making, Crossan et al. outline how a virtue-based orientation may be a means of resilience for individuals who are trying to navigate between high situational pressures and demands for ethical behavior.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"'Medeiros et al. give an overview of cognitive biases prevalent among university staff.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"' Mecca et al. give valuable insights on the efficacy of a training intervention based on the finding of Medeiros et al.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"'Cassam recently introduced an account on how epistemic vices may influence unethical decision-making.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"' Moreover, he gives an overview on how these vices may be corrected (see chapter 8 “Self-improvement“, p. 167-187).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000000E-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000000E-QINU`"')
Teaching sensitive and controversial issues in divided societies + (In these situations, history teachers are … In these situations, history teachers are mediators between different and sometimes conflicting collective memories.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005AC-QINU`"' Teaching topics such as the civil war in Northern Ireland, where everyday life reminds its population about their divisions due to past and present conflicts is particularly difficult for history teachers who teach in that area.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005AD-QINU`"' According to recent findings, many teachers feel uncertain and underprepared when teaching controversial and sensitive issues because of the fear of the emotional reaction in the classroom, perception of pressures from school, parents, local community or state or even because of their own beliefs and identities.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005AE-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000005AF-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-000005B0-QINU`"'This is why some European universities offer courses on teaching controversial and sensitive issues in history education with aim of preparing future teachers for these challenges.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B1-QINU`"' Providing students with balanced academic approach of these issues'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B2-QINU`"' is necessary to help them understand that almost every historical topic is open to different interpretations,'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B3-QINU`"' particularly when teaching these issues in societies with opposite narratives. That is an opportunity for a multi-perspective approach,'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B4-QINU`"' but also for developing students’ ability to deal with controversial issues and debating with people who do not share their opinion.Main strategies teachers can use when dealing with these issues in the classroom are:-distancing strategy (when an issue is highly sensitive in the community where the teacher is teaching or when the class is polarized. This strategy proposes examining analogies and parallels or going back further in time to trail the history of the issue that is being discussed). -compensatory strategy (when students are expressing attitudes based on ignorance, when the minority is being bullied or discriminated against by the majority or when there is consensus in the class in favor of one particular interpretation. In these cases, teachers can play the devil’s advocate, highlight contradictions in students’ responses or demythologize popular beliefs). -empathetic strategy (when the issue involves a group or nation which is unpopular with the students, when the issue involves latent discrimination against some group or where the issue is distant from the students’ own lives. Teachers can use several methods, such as role reversals, for-and-against lists, role play and simulations and also vicarious experience through examining films, novels or documentaries). -exploratory strategies (when the issue is not clearly defined or where the teacher’s aim is also to use the issue as a tool to develop analytical skills. In such conditions, students can explore people’s diaries and memoirs or conduct oral history).'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B5-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-000005B6-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000005B6-QINU`"')
AI Ethics and Governance in Practice: An Introduction + (In this workbook, we introduce fundamental … In this workbook, we introduce fundamental concepts of AI, responsible research and innovation, and AI ethics and governance, such as the SSAFE-D Principles – which stands for Sustainability, Safety, Accountability, Fairness, Explainability, and Data-Stewardship. The SSAFE-D Principles are a set of ethical principles that serve as starting points for reflection and deliberation about possible harms and benefits associated with data-driven technologies. associated with data-driven technologies.)
Confidentiality + (Informed consent is an explicit agreement between the researcher and the subject, where the researcher promises not to reveal the identity or the personal data of the subject.)
(re)submitting without consent of all authors + (Institutions and journals need to have cle … Institutions and journals need to have clear guidelines on publication and authorship in place. Guidelines should involve a section about gaining consent from all authors before submitting a manuscript or grant proposal. The Forum from COPE suggests that journals should send acknowledgements to all listed authors, not just the corresponding author, upon receiving a manuscript.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000038A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000038B-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000038B-QINU`"')
Hostile peer review + (It is difficult to cope with negative crit … It is difficult to cope with negative criticism, especially when it’s hostile in nature. Always keep in mind that any reviewer is a person, just like you.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000251-QINU`"' Maybe they were burdened with work, maybe they had a bad day at the office. It is nothing personal, and can happen to anybody. Think of anything useful that you can take from such a review. Maybe there is advice hidden under that unnecessary criticism? Speak with your superior, talk to your mentor. If you both consider that the review is insulting, consider raising that topic with the editor.'"`UNIQ--references-00000252-QINU`"'itor. '"`UNIQ--references-00000252-QINU`"')
Selling Out? Making Deals with Other Institutions + (It shows that researchers' responsibilities towards their projects and collected data extends beyond the duration of their employement in a particular research institute.)
P-value hacking + (It’s difficult to address the issue of P-v … It’s difficult to address the issue of P-value hacking, especially since there aren’t many incentives to replicate research. However, some steps can be taken in order to prevent it. Cross-validation, or out-of-sample testing is a statistical method used to create two sets of data. The first set of data is then used for statistical analysis, to develop new models or hypotheses, and the other, independent set is then used to verify them.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000275-QINU`"' A number of statistical analyses is also available to check for p-value hacking, such as Bonferonni correction, Scheffé's method and false discovery rate. A lot of journals will now ask for raw data to be published, or shift their way of work to registered report format. That is a publication process in which journals accept the publications based on theoretical justification and methodology only, without looking at results. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000276-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000277-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000277-QINU`"')
SSH research as part of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research + (Knowledge produced by the SSH does not rec … Knowledge produced by the SSH does not receive enough attention from policy-makers and other research communities.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000650-QINU`"' These disciplines are often not involved in formulating the research questions that identify the interdisciplinary projects from the beginning; they are only included in specific work packages and activities.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000651-QINU`"' Some argue that one of the reasons for that is that research programs do not consider differences between STEM and SSH disciplines which reflects negatively on efficiency, since SSH “have a more complex relationship to truth, power and knowledge than their siblings from the sciences”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000652-QINU`"' Also, SSH are still concentrated on disciplinary research'"`UNIQ--ref-00000653-QINU`"' and their objectives are mainly local.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000654-QINU`"' With regards to that, there have been ongoing discussions that try to come up with a solution for successful integration of SSH in interdisciplinary research.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000655-QINU`"' Representatives of some European SSH institutions presented a strategy to embed SSH in interdisciplinary research.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000656-QINU`"' This resulted in publication of the [http://horizons.mruni.eu/vilnius-declaration-horizons-for-social-sciences-and-humanities/ Vilnius Declaration] which articulated main principles for integration of SSH in one of the major funding programs, the European Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Horizon 2020.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000657-QINU`"' The Declaration stated that the SSH knowledge and methodologies can lead to new ways of dealing with societal problems. It also presented conditions for the successful integration of the SSH into H2020, for example, through recognising the knowledge diversity, encouraging interdisciplinary training and research as well as connecting social values and research evaluation.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000658-QINU`"'Although SSH have been part of Horizon 2020 through some programs, their impact has been inconsistent.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000659-QINU`"' Social sciences are not included in almost 75% of interdisciplinary projects, while humanities are engaged in about one third of the SSH-flagged topics, which shows that humanities are not included in 90% of Horizon 2020.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000065A-QINU`"' This led to a new [https://www.h2020.cz/files/svobodova/SSH-position-FP9.pdf declaration] in 2018, adopted by several European universities, which suggested five concrete actions: creating an SSH Platform to facilitate the collaboration, encouraging researchers to consider academic and societal impact when drafting proposals, recognising that all disciplines can contribute to an “inclusive and prosperous Europe”, investing in SSH research and innovation and also introducing target budget for SSH spending, which is set at 10% of the civil research budget for 9th EU Framework Programme for Research & Innovation.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000065B-QINU`"' Regardless of the efforts, the integration of the SSH in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research has been moving at a slow pace. There is still a lot of work to do for the SSH to be recognized as important as other disciplines'"`UNIQ--ref-0000065C-QINU`"' and to reach their potential. It has been argued that maximizing their participation in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary projects will require new platforms and tools.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000065D-QINU`"'tforms and tools.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000065D-QINU`"')
The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct + (Leiden university also made a MOOC with th … Leiden university also made a MOOC with this movie: https://www.coursera.org/learn/scientist. Read more on the university website https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2018/01/mooc-on-the-dilemmas-of-scienceThis movie is also included in the collection of fiction movies for RCR education (NRIN). See www.nrin.nl/ri-collection/library/videos/on-being-a-scientist-movie-2016/ry/videos/on-being-a-scientist-movie-2016/)
Predatory publishing + (Lists of predatory publishers (blacklists) … Lists of predatory publishers (blacklists) as well as lists of high quality open access publishers (whitelists) are of great value to researchers and decision makers.===Blacklists===The University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall developed a list of potential predatory journals in 2008, which has been since taken offline because of certain flaws in the methodology.*[https://beallslist.weebly.com/ Beall's list]*[https://www2.cabells.com/blacklist Cabells' lists]*[https://predatoryjournals.com/ Stop Predatory Journals]===Whitelists===*[https://doaj.org/ Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)]===Choosing a journal===Stefan Eriksson and Gert Helgesson have identified 25 signs of predatory publishing, '"`UNIQ--ref-000001F6-QINU`"' and argue that more points on the list that apply to the journal at hand, the more skeptical you should be."#The publisher is not a member of any recognized professional organization committed to best publishing practices (like COPE or EASE)#The journal is not indexed in well-established electronic databases (like MEDLINE or Web of Science)#The publisher claims to be a "leading publisher" even though it just got started#The journal and the publisher are unfamiliar to you and all your colleagues#The papers of the journal are of poor research quality, and may not be academic at all (for instance allowing for obvious pseudo-science)#There are fundamental errors in the titles and abstracts, or frequent and repeated typographical or factual errors throughout the published papers#The journal website is not professional#The journal website does not present an editorial board or gives insufficient detail on names and affiliations#The journal website does not reveal the journal's editorial office location or uses an incorrect address#The publishing schedule is not clearly stated#The journal title claims a national affiliation that does not match its location (such as "American Journal of ..." while being located on another continent) or includes "International" in its title while having a single-country editorial board#The journal mimics another journal title or the website of said journal#The journal provides an impact factor in spite of the fact that the journal is new (which means that the impact cannot yet be calculated)#The journal claims an unrealistically high impact based on spurious alternative impact factors (such as 7 for a bioethics journal, which is far beyond the top notation)#The journal website posts non-related or non-academic advertisements#The publisher of the journal has released an overwhelmingly large suite of new journals at one occasion or during a very short period of time#The editor in chief of the journal is editor in chief also for other journals with widely different focus#The journal includes articles (very far) outside its stated scope#The journal sends you an unsolicited invitation to submit an article for publication, while making it blatantly clear that the editor has absolutely no idea about your field of expertise#Emails from the journal editor are written in poor language, include exaggerated flattering (everyone is a leading profile in the field), and make contradictory claims (such as "You have to respond within 48 h" while later on saying "You may submit your manuscript whenever you find convenient")#The journal charges a submission or handling fee, instead of a publication fee (which means that you have to pay even if the paper is not accepted for publication)#The types of submission/publication fees and what they amount to are not clearly stated on the journal's website#The journal gives unrealistic promises regarding the speed of the peer review process (hinting that the journal's peer review process is minimal or non-existent)—or boasts an equally unrealistic track-record#The journal does not describe copyright agreements clearly or demands the copyright of the paper while claiming to be an open access journal#The journal displays no strategies for how to handle misconduct, conflicts of interest, or secure the archiving of articles when no longer in operationA number of other initiatives have also put together criteria for journal selection:*[https://thinkchecksubmit.org/ Guideline to choose the right journal for research] -*[https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/beinformed Be iNFORMEd: Checklist] - A checklist to assess the quality of a journal or publisher==Other information==[http://www.wame.org/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) statement on predatory publishing][https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2019.1646535 The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), European Medical Writers Association (EMWA), and International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) Joint Position Statement on Predatory Publishing] [http://www.icmje.org/news-and-editorials/fake_predatory_pseudo_journals_dec17.html ICMJE document on predatory publishing] '"`UNIQ--references-000001F7-QINU`"'lt;br /> '"`UNIQ--references-000001F7-QINU`"')
The ethics of managing a laboratory or research group + (Managing people, projects, and budgets, as … Managing people, projects, and budgets, as well as setting workplace procedures that foster efficiency, safety ethics, and high staff morale, are all issues that come with running a laboratory. Lab safety and ethics are two of the most important components of running a lab, yet they are often overlooked in favor of more fundamental lab management skills. It is critical to work hard to build a laboratory culture that prioritizes safety.aboratory culture that prioritizes safety.)
Open access Publication in the European Research Area for Social Sciences and Humanities (OPERAS) + (OPERAS offers several services that are cu … OPERAS offers several services that are currently at different stages of development:-[https://www.operas-eu.org/services/certification-service-doab/ Certification service], based on the Directory of Open Access Books ([https://www.doabooks.org/ DOAB]). It provides an international list of SSH open access publications that meet minimal quality criteria regarding peer-reviewing and licensing.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005DD-QINU`"' -[https://www.operas-eu.org/services/metrics-service/ Metrics service], developed by one of the OPERAS projects HIRMEOS. This service aims to collect the usage and impact metrics related to Open Access monographs from different sources and enable their access, display and analysis.-[https://www.operas-eu.org/services/publishing-service-portal-psp/ Publishing service portal], designed to provide users with a single access to the publishing and scholarly communication services of OPERAS members.-[https://www.operas-eu.org/services/discovery-service-triple/ Discovery service], based on the existing French ISIDORE platform which will enable European researchers in SSH to discover open resources such as data, publications and other materials important to their research that are currently dispersed across local repositories. This service will also enable discovery of these sources in different languages.-[https://www.operas-eu.org/services/research-for-society/ Research for Society], designed to be an interactive platform that would link SSH researchers with society on the [https://hypotheses.org/ hypotheses.org], the largest academic platform in the world with more than 2000 blogs. This service will facilitate collaboration between researchers and socioeconomic actors on research projects.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005DE-QINU`"'OPERAS will offer also some [https://www.operas-eu.org/services/future-services/ Future Services], such as a platform to support translation, a single access point to book reviews, a support service to publishing tools, etc.'"`UNIQ--references-000005DF-QINU`"' etc. '"`UNIQ--references-000005DF-QINU`"')
Inappropriate study design + (Observational studies, such as cohort or c … Observational studies, such as cohort or case – control studies, are sometimes overinterpreted in terms of cause-effect relationship. Correlation between a factor and an outcome does not necessarily mean causation. When it comes to experimental studies, sometimes randomization is not possible due to ethical reasons which should be taken in account when interpreting results of such studies. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000025F-QINU`"' Sometimes outcome measures do not correspond completely to questions asked in the study i.e. they are only indirectly connected.All of this is usually addressed in research methodology classes. When planning, doing and reporting research, you can always rely on appropriate EQUATOR reporting guidelines to make sure you have everything accounted for.'"`UNIQ--references-00000260-QINU`"' for. '"`UNIQ--references-00000260-QINU`"')
Research metrics + (On an individual level, the most important … On an individual level, the most important research metrics are the H-index and the i-10 index. The H-index, also known as Hirsch index, is an author level metric that shows how many articles have been cited a certain number of times. For example, a h-index of 10 shows that the author has 10 articles, each cited at least 10 times.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000011F-QINU`"' The i-10 index shows the number of articles an author has published with at least 10 citations.On a journal level, the impact factor shows an average number of citations per article in two consecutive years.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000120-QINU`"' Other famous journal metric systems are Eigenfactor and the SCImago Journal Rankings.It is important to note that every metric system has its flaws. As a result, they should not be the only criterion when determining the quality and performance of a particular researcher, article, journal or research project.'"`UNIQ--references-00000121-QINU`"'ject. '"`UNIQ--references-00000121-QINU`"')
A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Multiple Submissions (1) + (On submission of an article, authors are u … On submission of an article, authors are usually asked to mention whether their submission is under review elsewhere. Duplicate submission is a form of research misconduct. However, if a journal does not review a manuscript in an appropriate amount of time, authors can withdraw their manuscript. However, the editor-in-chief should be informed beforehand and a record of all correspondence maintained by the corresponding author. Authors should never submit a manuscript to another journal before appropriate withdrawal of the manuscript or notice of a rejection.f the manuscript or notice of a rejection.)
A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Multiple Submissions (2) + (On submission of an article, authors are u … On submission of an article, authors are usually asked to mention whether their submission is under review elsewhere. Duplicate submission is a form of research misconduct. However, if a journal does not review a manuscript in an appropriate amount of time, authors can withdraw their manuscript. However, the editor-in-chief should be informed beforehand and a record of all correspondence maintained by the corresponding author. Authors should never submit a manuscript to another journal before appropriate withdrawal of the manuscript or notice of a rejection.f the manuscript or notice of a rejection.)
Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing) + (On the systemic level, HARKing can be prev … On the systemic level, HARKing can be prevented by changing researcher assessment and promoting the preregistration of studies, ideally in a form involving reviewed preregistration with guaranteed publication if the accepted protocol is followed. Individual researchers should make post hoc hypotheses transparent and thereby avoid deceiving readers to reap the benefits from exploratory studies without misrepresenting them as following a hypothetico-deductive model.s following a hypothetico-deductive model.)
Open peer review - transparent way of gatekeeping science + (One example of adaption of open peer revie … One example of adaption of open peer review policies in seen in BMC series journals. BMC begun with open peer review in 1999, and since then has promoted the benefits of peer review and developed different variations and options in peer review system. On top of that, they have decided to move beyond “prescription” of peer review patterns and instructions, and have started publishing a journal called Research Integrity and Peer Review, whose main focus is on research on peer review. Recently, the very same journal has published an article on guidelines for the implementation of open peer review, with a checklist aimed at making the implementation of peer review easier. This was developed mostly for editors, but for those who are still unfamiliar with open peer review, there are plenty of long (e.g. FOSTER course on open peer review) and short'"`UNIQ--ref-000000F7-QINU`"' educational materials.'"`UNIQ--references-000000F8-QINU`"'ials. '"`UNIQ--references-000000F8-QINU`"')
Digital humanities + (One of the best examples of the applicatio … One of the best examples of the application of digital tools within the humanities is the collaborative, interdisciplinary research project [http://republicofletters.stanford.edu/index.html Mapping the Republic of Letters], developed by Stanford University in 2010 and funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The aim of the project is to map the 17th and 18th century correspondence of prominent and influential intellectuals in the Age of Enlightenment '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E2-QINU`"'. The “Republic of Letters” was a self-proclaimed community of scholars that exchanged their ideas via handwritten letters across Europe and the Americas. The researchers on the project used metadata to produce maps, charts and other visual tools '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E3-QINU`"'. These modern visualization tools provide a greater understanding of distribution of the letters over hundreds of years and help identify geographic “hot-spots” in the archive '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E4-QINU`"'. They shed light on, for example, Voltaire’s correspondence, which consists of about 15.000 letters. The visualization of the letter exchanges on a map shows the places where Voltaire traveled and reveals patterns in his writing at specific times and in specific places '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E5-QINU`"'. These maps of correspondence raise new questions and facilitate new interpretations of the letters and related documents '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E6-QINU`"'. The project also provides a basis for further research not only concerning the Republic of letters, but also in related topics. The use of digital tools in the humanities has seen the formation of organizations that foster research in the digital humanities. One of them is the European Association for Digital Humanities (EADH), established in 1973 under the name of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E7-QINU`"'. This organization is one of the constituent organizations in the Alliance of Digital Humanities (ADHO), formed in 2005, which supports and promotes digital research and education in all the arts and humanities disciplines '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E8-QINU`"'. In addition, numerous universities now offer undergraduate and graduate courses and programs in the digital humanities '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E9-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-000003EA-QINU`"'"`UNIQ--ref-000003E9-QINU`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-000003EA-QINU`"')
Forensic Statistics to detect Data Fabrication + (One of the techniques for detecting the fa … One of the techniques for detecting the fabrication of numbers is to check the “rightmost digits” of the collected data. The “rightmost digit” is the digit that a number ends in. It is considered to be “the most random digit of a number,” which means that that the numbers that make up a data set should be uniformly distributed as in a lottery '"`UNIQ--ref-00000430-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000431-QINU`"'. Since the rightmost digits in each study should be unpredictable, the appearance of any patterns is a reason to suspect data fabrication'"`UNIQ--ref-00000432-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000433-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000434-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000435-QINU`"'. Research conducted by Mosimann et al. in 1995 showed that most people cannot generate random numbers when fabricating data, which makes it possible to detect potentially fabricated data '"`UNIQ--ref-00000436-QINU`"'. They also developed a program called the “chi-square test for uniformity of the digit distributions”, which measures the production of random digits '"`UNIQ--ref-00000437-QINU`"'. If the distribution of numbers is not uniform, the numbers are falsified '"`UNIQ--ref-00000438-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000439-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000043A-QINU`"'. There are other methods that can be used to detect the fabrication of rightmost digits. For example, some journals have adopted a policy of statistical review for all papers containing numerical data '"`UNIQ--ref-0000043B-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-0000043C-QINU`"'. In addition, published graph data can be compared with “raw” notebook or computer data to determine whether the numbers have been reported correctly '"`UNIQ--ref-0000043D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000043E-QINU`"'. Authors should present the raw data that supports their findings, while journals, universities and granting agencies should promote this practice '"`UNIQ--ref-0000043F-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000440-QINU`"'. Some argue that the use of statistical methods will significantly reduce fabrication of numerical data '"`UNIQ--ref-00000441-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-00000442-QINU`"'U`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-00000442-QINU`"')
Spin of research results + (Open data practices can help increase tran … Open data practices can help increase transparency, allowing other researchers and interested parties to undertake their own analyses.A technique to identify and classify spin in RCT reports has been developed by Boutron et al,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000029A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000029B-QINU`"' focusing on RCTs reporting statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes because the interpretation of these results is more likely to be subject to prior beliefs of effectiveness, leading to potential bias in reporting. Similar approaches are available to systematically assess the explicit presentation of nonsignificant results in trial reports in various subspecialties, such as described by Lockyer et al, and Turrentine. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000029C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000029D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000029E-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000029E-QINU`"')
Fostering Integrity in Research + (Part Three (pages 161-224): Fostering Inte … Part Three (pages 161-224): Fostering Integrity in ResearchChapter 9 (page 163): [https://www.nap.edu/read/21896/chapter/1#content-toc_pz15-2 Identifying and Promoting Best Practices for Research Integrity]Chapter 10 (page 195): [https://www.nap.edu/read/21896/chapter/1#content-toc_pz15-3 Education for the Responsible Conduct of Research]n for the Responsible Conduct of Research])
Authorship criteria + (Practice guidelines are diverse and vary a … Practice guidelines are diverse and vary according to the scientific field. Rather than rules, professional bodies provide guidelines or recommendations and most guidelines leave some room for interpretation.===='''Medicine'''====The best-known authorship guideline comes from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The ICMJE recommends that an author should meet all four of the following criteria: '"`UNIQ--ref-000000E5-QINU`"'‘‘Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work,’’'"`UNIQ--ref-000000E6-QINU`"'’’Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content,’’ '"`UNIQ--ref-000000E7-QINU`"' ‘‘Final approval of the version to be published,’’ and '"`UNIQ--ref-000000E8-QINU`"'‘‘Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved’’. The committee further designates that in addition to excluding a scholar who has not met all four criteria, any scholar who meets all four should be included as an author. Following the authorship criteria, the ICMJE expressly describes contributions that should be included as an acknowledgment, and not authorship (i.e., funding, supervision, writing assistance, technical or language editing, proofreading). '"`UNIQ--ref-000000E9-QINU`"'===='''Science'''====The Council of Science Editors describes authors as “individuals identified by the research group to have made substantial contributions to the reported work and agree to be accountable for these contributions. In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which of their co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, an author should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. All authors should review and approve the final manuscript.”'"`UNIQ--ref-000000EA-QINU`"'===='''Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics'''====Guidelines in the physical and mathematical sciences offer somewhat less precise definitions, such as this from the American Physical Society: “Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the research study. All those who have made significant contributions should be offered the opportunity to be listed as authors. Other individuals who have contributed to the study should be acknowledged, but not identified as authors.”'"`UNIQ--ref-000000EB-QINU`"'===='''Sociology'''====The American Sociological Association includes the following in its Code of Ethics: “(a) Sociologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed. (b) Sociologists ensure that principal authorship and other publication credits are based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. In claiming or determining the ordering of authorship, sociologists seek to reflect accurately the contributions of main participants in the research and writing process. (c) A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored publication that substantially derives from the student’s dissertation or thesis.” '"`UNIQ--ref-000000EC-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-000000ED-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000000ED-QINU`"')
Questionable Research Practices in Study Design + (Pre-registration of study protocols enhances the transparency of the research process and lends credibility to results.)
Ethics of ageing + (Recent advances in research allow for a mo … Recent advances in research allow for a more defined view of the ethical issues surrounding the treatment of aging. Today we know that the senescence of the organism is a pathological process with a great variety of pathological consequences in old age (which causes or aggravates cardiovascular disease, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases and many others). It has also been shown that in laboratory animals it is possible to slow down aging, prolong healthy adulthood and reduce the age incidence of a broad spectrum of aging-related diseases. This is accompanied by an overall extension of the life span, sometimes to a great extent. Ethics discussions in this area argue how the treatment of aging can have detrimental consequences on society as a whole.Anyway, given the developments in research in the treatment of diseases linked to aging, it would be useful to define how these interventions must be applied without ethically compromising the meaning of existence as a society, devaluing life by extending its duration'"`UNIQ--ref-000004CE-QINU`"' . In conclusion, decelerated aging leads to conflicting decisions. The health benefits force us to pursue it, despite the change in some ethical aspects of human society will be inevitable.pects of human society will be inevitable.)
Moral conflict and moral dilemma + (Reflection on moral conflicts, and especia … Reflection on moral conflicts, and especially on moral dilemmas, is an important element of responsible research practice. Take for example Phase I trials that involve novel therapies for patients (so-called First-In-Human (FIH) Trials). '"`UNIQ--ref-00000038-QINU`"' These trials involve a high degree of uncertainty in intervention development and possible outcomes. Although this step, hopefully, in turn, will make a Phase-III clinical trial in compliance with the basic epistemological and ethical requirement of therapeutic trials possible, it is a fact that so far no widely accepted standards for judgments of uncertainty, safety, and value of FIH trials have yet been formulated. Consequently, no selection of patients to be included in such trials can be said to be fully satisfactory, i.e. without the possibility of moral failure. Through acknowledging the possible existence of irresolvable moral conflicts in research, researchers will learn modesty, and thereby also protect themselves from being infected by the vice of ''hybris''.Reflection on moral dilemmas can be fostered by organizing Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). '"`UNIQ--ref-00000039-QINU`"' In MCD, a morally troublesome situation is investigated by a group, guided by a facilitator. During the investigation, the conflicting values in the situation are examined in dialogue. This enables participants to become aware of, and reflect on the moral conflict involved. MCD specifically focuses on moral conflicts that cannot be restlessly solved, that is on moral dilemmas. The aim is to investigate different values of stakeholders in practice, and become aware that in making a choice, certain values will be harmed. This may result in the awareness that, although a choice is unavoidable, one should be open to the negative consequences of and take responsibility for them.'"`UNIQ--references-0000003A-QINU`"'them. '"`UNIQ--references-0000003A-QINU`"')
Insufficiently reported study flaws and limitations + (Regardless of the importance and necessity … Regardless of the importance and necessity to fully report study limitations, in practice researchers still need to be encouraged to report their limitations and to describe them properly and thoroughly. The following example demonstrates that scientists in medicine do not fully discuss and present limitations of their research '"`UNIQ--ref-00000463-QINU`"'. A study was conducted on 400 articles published in 2005 in journals with the highest number of citations, among them two open-access journals. Full-texts of these articles were electronically searched, looking for words ‘limitation’, ‘caveat’ or ‘caution’. The results showed that only 67 articles (17%) used at least one of the mentioned words when presenting their own research. Furthermore, only four articles (1%) used the word ‘limitation’ in their abstract, while not one article mentioned limitations of their research that had impact on the conclusions '"`UNIQ--ref-00000464-QINU`"'.Researchers do not present their study limitations because perhaps they do not fully understand the significance, outcomes and implications of these limitations to the study results. Maybe they think that probability for publication of their work would be higher by not addressing them '"`UNIQ--ref-00000465-QINU`"'. Journals also bear great responsibility in this matter because of the word limits that prevent authors from reporting and thoroughly describing their limitations '"`UNIQ--ref-00000466-QINU`"'. When researchers do mention their study limitations, they usually provide only a list, they do not fully describe them '"`UNIQ--ref-00000467-QINU`"'. There are several things researchers and journals can do to responsibly report study flaws and limitations. When describing them, researchers should clearly classify the type of limitation so that readers could interpret the research findings correctly '"`UNIQ--ref-00000468-QINU`"'. They should not only describe the limitations, but also explain their implications. Assessing impact of limitations on conclusions of the research and its validity is also very important and can help to avoid bias. Researchers should explain why they did not take some alternative approaches or maybe provide some alternative explanations of their findings. Finally, researchers should describe efforts taken to mitigate the implications of study limitations '"`UNIQ--ref-00000469-QINU`"'. Journals, on the other hand, should encourage authors to present their study limitations and provide them with some guidelines '"`UNIQ--ref-0000046A-QINU`"'. Reporting study flaws and limitations should enter the everyday research practice. The only way to deal with such uncertainties is to present data, methodology, limitations and study deficiencies transparently so that decision makers can be fully aware of quality and potential errors in inference.'"`UNIQ--references-0000046B-QINU`"'ence. '"`UNIQ--references-0000046B-QINU`"')
A Data Governance Framework for Ethnography + (Regulatory compliance Data archiving and management)
A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Copyright Violation + (Reproducing any part of an article or book … Reproducing any part of an article or book (figure, table, etc) definitely requires permission from the copyright holder. The copyright holder is usually the publisher since authors tend to transfer the copyright to the publisher upon submission of their manuscripts.sher upon submission of their manuscripts.)
Research Integrity Advisors + (Research integrity advisors are experience … Research integrity advisors are experienced researchers with in-depth knowledge of research integrity and research ethics. They are appointed by the university to serve the complex role of dealing with all sort of questions related to research integrity practices, procedures, and issues.For example, in Australia, universities have established research integrity advisors’ teams to assist researchers and research students in conducting research with integrity and advise them on questions that may arise during the research process. If you are not sure who to talk with, the universities web pages contain lists of RIAs and guidance on when to approach to an advisor. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000097-QINU`"' At Melbourne University, RIAs also have a responsibility to report alleged cases of research misconduct to authorized bodies. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000098-QINU`"'In Europe, for example, in Denmark, some Danish research institutions (e.g., Aarhus University) have special advisors for supporting the good scientific practice. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000099-QINU`"' Moreover, LARI (Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity) provides research ethics consultations to researchers of all levels. While LARI advisors are not officially called RI advisors, they still have a similar role. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000009A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000009B-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000009B-QINU`"')
Conflicts with Community Leaders + (Researchers can consult the following guid … Researchers can consult the following guidelines on collaboration with communities:* Kate Chatfield et al. (2018) Research with, not about, communities - Ethical guidance towards empowerment in collaborative research, a report for the TRUST project. http://trust-project.eu/* Figueiredo Nascimento, S., Cuccillato, E., Schade, S., Guimarães Pereira, A. (2016) Citizen Engagement in Science and Policy-Making. doi:10.2788/40563 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/sites/jrccties/files/mc10_rio_sio-lopez_mobility_reading.pdfes/mc10_rio_sio-lopez_mobility_reading.pdf)
Ethical issues of involving children with disabilities in research + (Researchers must always consider mitigatio … Researchers must always consider mitigation strategies to overcome challenges that occur when it comes to involving children with disabilities in research and to do it in an ethical and respectful way. For meaningful participation, the individual capacities of each child involved must be considered at all stages of the research cycle, to ensure that processes are suitable for the diverse competencies, knowledge, interests, access, needs and contexts of all children involved.eds and contexts of all children involved.)
Secondary corrections + (Researchers should be up-to-date in their … Researchers should be up-to-date in their field of interest and, when they notice a retraction of an article that they have previously cited, correct the article. The easiest way to be regularly updated on retractions is by following Retraction Watch and their database '"`UNIQ--ref-000004CB-QINU`"'. Zotero citation manager has established a partnership with Retraction Watch and has implemented retraction notifications that pop-up when an article from the users’ database has been retracted. Hopefully other citation managers will follow this practice.An initiative to stimulate this kind of behavior could result in more corrected articles. In practice, taking into account the number of articles that are published every day, it is hard to expect an individual to notice everything. The ideal practice would be that the journal which has retracted the article, notifies authors which have cited the retracted article. However, that is hard to be expected, especially for older articles. Alternately, authors of the retracted article could inform all the authors who have cited their article. This may be expected from authors whose article is retracted due to unintentional mistake and have initiated the retraction, but it might be illusory to expect this from authors who have committed fabrication, plagiarism, or similar misconduct.'"`UNIQ--references-000004CC-QINU`"'duct. '"`UNIQ--references-000004CC-QINU`"')
The impact of the GDPR on scientific data + (Researchers that work with personal data c … Researchers that work with personal data can consult the GDPR online [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679 here]. In 2020 the European Data Protection Supervisor issued [https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/20-01-06_opinion_research_en.pdf A Preliminary Opinion on data protection and scientific research].You should also be able to contact your local Data Protection Officer or study supervisor for more information on handling personal data.ore information on handling personal data.)
Deception by Research Participants + (Resnik et al (2015) list four measures res … Resnik et al (2015) list four measures researchers can take to address deception by research subjects. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000197-QINU`"'# Researchers can verify information by letting participants undergo physical exams and laboratory tests.# Research subjects can be excluded from the study when deception is uncovered.# Studies can consider rewarding research subjects when they provide accurate self-reported information. # Researchers can require subjects to be registered in a clinical trial particpant registry.d in a clinical trial particpant registry.)
The qualification portfolio (UMC Utrecht): from output to impact + (See also: http://www.nature.com/news/fewer-numbers-better-science-1.20858)
Research ethics committees + (Several documents and declarations have be … Several documents and declarations have been developed in relation to ethical research committees. The European Network of Research Ethics Committees - EUREC is a network that brings together existing national Research Ethics Committees, networks or comparable initiatives on the level of European Union. RECs can be established for each academic institution and/or universities. In the United States, Institutional Review boards (IRBs) exist in both academic and state institutions.t in both academic and state institutions.)
Peer Review in the Social Sciences and Humanities + (Shortcomings in the current system have le … Shortcomings in the current system have led to discussions in the SSH community with the aim of addressing the challenges and implementing some changes. In February 2020, the European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (ENRESSH) provided a report, an “[https://enressh.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Hoffman-Holowiecki-Holm-Ochsner-Overview-of-Peer-Review-Practices-in-the-SSH.pdf Overview of Peer Review Practices in the SSH]” '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F3-QINU`"'. The report stressed that, in contrast to STEM, SSH disciplines are more heterogeneous in their publication outputs. This makes it difficult to define and evaluate research methodologies, which, subsequently, leads to a lack of consensus when it comes to the criteria for assessing the quality of research outputs '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F4-QINU`"'. The report states that copying the evaluation models that exist for STEM disciplines is not the best response '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F5-QINU`"'. However, some argue that certain practices, such as open peer review, could apply to SSH. The advantages of open peer review are that it would speed up the publication process and enable dialogue between authors and readers '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F6-QINU`"'.In order to speed up the review process, the report offers other suggestions, including, limiting the length of manuscripts, limiting the number of publications per researcher or institution and recruiting more reviewers '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F7-QINU`"'. In addition, the SSH community could learn from new peer review models in STEM subjects, and seek to apply them if possible '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F8-QINU`"'. Although SSH disciplines are heterogeneous, there is a call for general standards and principles for peer review '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F9-QINU`"', in order to ensure “timeliness, transparency and verifiability” '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FA-QINU`"'. Even though the SSH tend to be slower to respond to calls for change when compared with STEM disciplines, some journals and platforms have been adapting to recent developments in peer review systems, including 1) Kairos, which adopted a three-stage review process '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FB-QINU`"', 2) Palgrave Macmillian, which has trialed open peer review trial '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FC-QINU`"' and open publishing '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FD-QINU`"', and 3) Wellcome Open Research, which provides post-publication peer review '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FE-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-000003FF-QINU`"'U`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-000003FF-QINU`"')
AllTrials campaign + (Since 2008, the American Food and Drug Adm … Since 2008, the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required that results of all trials have to be posted within one year of their completion. This legislation, like others, does not work retroactively, which means that every treatment tested before 2008 does not have to have published results. Also, since the legislation came into action, no studies have been fined for noncompliance, and research has shown that 80% of clinical trials do not comply.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000082-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000083-QINU`"' Major clinical trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov, eudraCT), have independent trials trackers, led by Data Lab from Oxford University. They collect a list of trials that have ended and whether or not they published their results. The Data Lab also collaborated with Goldacre on Open Trials. Its aim is to collect everything related to clinical trials in one place, including their registration, data, reports, publications and researchers.'"`UNIQ--references-00000084-QINU`"'hers. '"`UNIQ--references-00000084-QINU`"')
Vulnerable and non-competent subjects in clinical trials + (Since World War II, a lot has been said ab … Since World War II, a lot has been said about human experimentation, and vulnerable groups in particular. Many different reports and guidelines have been developed and should be consulted when thinking about involving vulnerable and non-competent individuals. Start with the Declaration of Helsinki and don’t forget to check the appropriate regulations of your own country and institution.tions of your own country and institution.)
The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice + (Six principles: Honesty and scrupulousness, Reliability, Verifiability, Impartiality, Independence and Responsibility)
Sharing and preserving data in repositories + (Some journals, such as Nature, require dep … Some journals, such as Nature, require depositing data to data repositories as part of the manuscript submission process. This is one of the prerequisites for publication.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000917-QINU`"' Nature has set out certain criteria for data repositories. They should:-provide long-term preservation of data (at least 5 years after publication)-be supported by a research community or institution-provide deposited datasets with stable and persistent identifiers-allow open access-provide terms of data use-facilitate for anonymous reviewers to access data under embargo.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000918-QINU`"' The journal also offers a list of repositories across research areas for researchers who are not certain where to deposit their data:-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=Generalist%20repositories-,Biological%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Biological sciences]-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=Generalist%20repositories-,Biological%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Health sciences]-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRshaing%20entry-,Chemistry%20and%20Chemical%20biology,-%E2%A4%B4 Chemistry and Chemical biology]-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRsharing%20entry-,Earth%2C%20Environmental%20and%20Space%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Earth, Environmental and Space sciences]-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRsharing%20entry-,Physics,-%E2%A4%B4 Physics]-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20re3data%20entry-,Materials%20science,-%E2%A4%B4 Material science]-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRsharing%20entry-,Social%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Social sciences]-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20re3data%20entry-,Generalist%20repositories,-%E2%A4%B4 Generalist repositories].'"`UNIQ--ref-00000919-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000091A-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000091A-QINU`"')
Replicability + (Some of the most common examples of replic … Some of the most common examples of replication failures come from drug discovery and development. Usually drugs are developed in several stages, beginning with cells and animal studies and ultimately advancing to human trials. Failures in both conceptual and direct replication are frequent in this branch of science. Conceptual failure, for example, can occur when testing a drug that has promising action in animals for the first time in humans'"`UNIQ--ref-0000039B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000039C-QINU`"', whereas a direct replication failure might occur when testing the same drug on a similar group of people'"`UNIQ--ref-0000039D-QINU`"'. Since successful replications enhance public trust in science and medicine, the increasing number of non-replicable studies in various disciplines, mainly psychology, have resulted in what has been described as a “replication crisis” and raised serious concerns'"`UNIQ--ref-0000039E-QINU`"'. A study conducted by a team of 270 scientists at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville showed that only 35 of 100 studies published in one of the prominent psychology journals in 2008 could be replicated'"`UNIQ--ref-0000039F-QINU`"'. Some argue however that there is no such thing as a “replication crisis”; moreover, sometimes the “non-replicability” could be helpful to science'"`UNIQ--ref-000003A0-QINU`"'.If replication fails, it does not necessarily mean that the original result of the experiment which is being replicated is false. It indicates some unknown factors are different in the replication experiment vs. the original experiment and an attempt should be made to investigate these '"`UNIQ--ref-000003A1-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000003A2-QINU`"'. If such factors are found (either of a technical or knowledge domain specific nature) they can substantially improve the understanding of the phenomena being studied.In the last few years, leading scientific institutions in the United States have taken some steps to improve replicability. In 2014, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided training modules for postdoctoral fellows and a list of publications regarding replicability on their website, and emphasized addressing transparency in grant applications'"`UNIQ--ref-000003A3-QINU`"'. The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) have published Companion Guidelines on Replication and Reproducibility in Education Research in 2018. The guidelines suggest several actions to enhance replicability. For example, proposals for replication studies should guarantee objectivity, pre-registration of the research design and methods should ensure transparency, research should be described in detail, and all research data should be publically available'"`UNIQ--ref-000003A4-QINU`"'. Taking these important steps calls for a significant culture shift so that accuracy in research would be valued more than swiftness'"`UNIQ--ref-000003A5-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-000003A6-QINU`"'U`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-000003A6-QINU`"')
Seven Ways to Plagiarise: The Magazine Surprise + (Specific advice for authors: "Do not put y … Specific advice for authors: "Do not put your name on a manuscript written by someone else. • Do not insert someone else’s text as a place-holder in a draft manuscript. The original might not be replaced later. • Do not copy verbatim the background section of someone else’s paper. Copying an amount beyond fair use might violate copyright law. The background section could be incomplete or erroneous. A subsequent inquiry or investigation would consume a lot of time from faculty and administrators, and it could embarrass the institution. • Include references to all sources, with appropriate citations, in all manuscripts and grant proposals. • Take allegations of plagiarism to a research integrity officer. If there is no research integrity officer, then consult a knowledgeable administrator"'"`UNIQ--ref-000002CA-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-000002CB-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000002CB-QINU`"')
Research with animals + (Starting in the 18th century, more and mor … Starting in the 18th century, more and more arguments against research with animals have been voiced. Today, guidance for ethical use of animals in research is represented by so called 3R principles. 3R stands for replacement, reduction and refinement.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000D6-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000000D7-QINU`"' Replacement implies that animals as an experimental system should be replaced with a system from which the identical conclusion could be made if it is available. Reduction means that minimal numbers of animals should be used to prove something in experiments. Refinement means that if suffering of animals is present in the experiment it should be refined with pain killing medications and other support measures. In 2013, European Union formally applied EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000D8-QINU`"'This directive refers to 3R principles, and its ultimate goal is to replace animals in research altogether.'"`UNIQ--references-000000D9-QINU`"'The application of the 3R principles is considered to be of crucial importance for the ethical use of animals in medicine testing across the European Union. Therefore, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in collaboration with a dedicated 3Rs Working Party (3RsWP) develops scientific guidelines to help medicine developers comply with EU Directive 2010/63/EU. In order to ensure that there are no references to animal tests that are no longer considered appropriate, the EMA reviews and updates EMA guidelines to implement best practice with regard to 3Rs. Additionally, in accordance with Regulatory Science Strategy to 2025, the Agency is promoting 3Rs through a multidisciplinary group - the Innovation Task Force (ITF). This approach is expected to encourage prioritising of alternative methods and facilitate their integration into the development and evaluation of medicinal products.ment and evaluation of medicinal products.)
Online Posts Damage a Researcher's Reputation + (TENK believes that it is important to keep the threshold low for initiating a preliminary inquiry into such cases.)
Good Practice and Reporting Cases in Finland + (TENK launched the Research Integrity Advis … TENK launched the Research Integrity Adviser system in order to raise awareness of the responsible conduct of research in Finland, to increase personal guidance on research integrity, and to offer expert training on responsible conduct of research and procedures.TENK advised various parties on mechanisms to resolve allegations of research misconduct as well the guidelines for handling alleged violations.TENK coordinates the ethical review of research in the field of human sciences and promotes cooperation between regional and institutional research ethics committees. The Board annually monitors the state of ethical review in universities and research institutions by gathering information on the cases handled by research ethics committees.TENK established a working group to update the guidelines for the ethical review of research in the field of human sciences in order to meet the requirements of the new General Data Protection Regulations ('GDPR').eral Data Protection Regulations ('GDPR').)
Ethical Guidelines for Good Research Practice + (The ASA Ethical Guidelines present the responsibilities that researchers have with research participants, funders, sponsors, employers, host governments and the discipline of anthropology in general.)
Inferring from P-values + (The ASA statement on P-values gives instru … The ASA statement on P-values gives instructions on the correct use of P-values, with the goal of improving interpretation in quantitative science. The overall conclusion of the ASA is that scientific inferences should not be based exclusively on P-value threshold, because that, in itself, does not provide substantial evidence regarding a model or hypothesis, nor does it measure the size of a certain effect or determine the importance of the results. Researchers should use P-values within a proper context, because otherwise it can lead to selective reporting '"`UNIQ--ref-0000041F-QINU`"'. Good scientific inference requires the full and transparent reporting of data and methods '"`UNIQ--ref-00000420-QINU`"'. There are other methods that researchers can use with or instead of P-values, which mostly focus on estimations as opposed to testing. These include confidence, credibility or prediction intervals, Bayesian methods, decision-theoretic modeling and false discovery rates '"`UNIQ--ref-00000421-QINU`"'.Since its release in 2016, the ASA statement has been cited about 1,700 times and downloaded nearly 300,000 times. In 2017, the ASA organized a symposium on statistical methods, which resulted in 43 articles on the topic of the responsible use of P-values'"`UNIQ--ref-00000422-QINU`"' . Statisticians and scientists are currently considering “a world beyond p<0.05” ('"`UNIQ--ref-00000423-QINU`"'), suggesting a wide spectrum of solutions and possibilities. One solution involves changing the P-value threshold for statistical significance from 0.05 to 0.005 ('"`UNIQ--ref-00000424-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000425-QINU`"'). By contrast, others argue that reproducibility of results and pre-registration are the best means for preventing selection bias '"`UNIQ--ref-00000426-QINU`"'. Others still recommend including more information when reporting P-values, such as the researcher’s confidence in the P-value or their assessment of the likelihood that a statistically significant finding is, in fact, a false positive result '"`UNIQ--ref-00000427-QINU`"'.Critiques, initiatives and recommendations require not only further academic discussion, but also significant educational reforms in statistics '"`UNIQ--ref-00000428-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-00000429-QINU`"'QINU`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-00000429-QINU`"')
Good Epidemiological Practice Guidelines + (The BRIDGE guidelines are the proposed best practices)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights + (The Belmont report '"`UNIQ--ref-0000020E-QINU`"' , the Declaration of Helsinki '"`UNIQ--ref-0000020F-QINU`"' and similar ethical and legal documents were enacted by governing bodies and professional associations. '"`UNIQ--references-00000210-QINU`"')
Balancing harms and benefits + (The Belmont report, '"`UNIQ--ref-000000B1-QINU`"' the Declaration of Helsinki '"`UNIQ--ref-000000B2-QINU`"' and similar ethical and legal documents were enacted by governing bodies and professional associations. '"`UNIQ--references-000000B3-QINU`"')
COMET Initiative + (The COMET initiative focuses on developing … The COMET initiative focuses on developing standardised sets of outcomes that represent a minimum that should be measured and reported in studies with different study designs. Core outcomes included in sets must be relevant for patients and healthcare providers. The COMET Initiative has a database open to all researchers planning to conduct a study with an 'advanced search' option to find core outcome sets appropriate for their studies'"`UNIQ--ref-0000095C-QINU`"'.heir studies'"`UNIQ--ref-0000095C-QINU`"'.)
Image Integrity + (The Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuv … The Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) has a dedicated webpage on image integrity. They identified some of the most important sources and tools on the subject (available [https://www.kuleuven.be/english/research/integrity/practices/image-processing here], accessed on 24-04-2020). As their page is brief, a more elaborate description of what it contains, and additional sources, follows below.Rossner & Yamada (2004)'"`UNIQ--ref-000002E1-QINU`"' wrote a prominent article arguing for a standard for image integrity. Working as Editors for The Journals of Cell Biology, they noticed the discrepancies between guidelines on image integrity journals gave to their authors (if any). To have a comprehensive overview, they developed their own guidelines for the Journal of Cell biology. They write that, for every aspect of the guideline, the main question is: “Is the image that results from this adjustment still an accurate representation of the original data?”'"`UNIQ--ref-000002E2-QINU`"' (p. 5). Whenever the answer is ‘no’, researchers should provide a detailed description of the adjustments, its purpose and the original image on request. If not, their actions might be regarded as misconduct.A step-by-step translation of the guideline is available on the website of American Journal Experts (access [https://www.aje.com/en/arc/avoiding-image-fraud-7-rules-editing-images/, here], accessed on 24-04-2020) and on the KU Leuven webpage. A similar guideline, and additional editorials on the subject, are given by the journal Nature on their editorial policies page (available [https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/image-integrity here], accessed on 24-04-2020). The Center for Ethics and Values in the Sciences, of the University of Alabama in Birmingham, created a website for both students and researchers with much material regarding image integrity (available [https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/RIandImages/default.html here], accessed on 24-04-2020). They provide guidelines with more in depth explanations and illustration videos, but also educational material such as case studies, discussion hand outs and a quiz. The Office of Research Integrity provides a tutorial on how to use ‘action sets’ in photoshop (available [https://ori.hhs.gov/actions here], accessed on 24-04-2020). These actions sets allow you to document the changes you make to an image and ‘slide’ (i.e. going back and forward) between all the steps you made. The process of the image you manipulated will hereby be completely transparent if you provide the ‘action set’ combine with a copy of the original image.For those reviewing papers, a free open source program, called InspectJ, is available on GitHub to identify cloning, stitching, patching and erased objects within an image. An advanced version also provides histogram equalization and gamma correction for improved image inspections (both available [https://github.com/ZMBH-Imaging-Facility/InspectJ here], accessed on 24-04-2020)'"`UNIQ--references-000002E3-QINU`"'-04-2020) '"`UNIQ--references-000002E3-QINU`"')
Research culture + (The Concordat to Support Research Integrit … The Concordat to Support Research Integrity lists eight aspects which are important for a good research environment to promote best practices and research integrity.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004ED-QINU`"' They state a good research culture should include, as a minimum, the following: *Have clear policies, practices and procedures to support researchers*Have research ethics and integrity training, including mentoring opportunities*Have robust management systems ensuring implementation of policies related to research, its integrity and researchers behaviour*Create awareness among the standards of behaviour of researchers*Ensure a system is in place that can identify concerns at an early stage*Provide support mechanisms for those that need assistance*Have policies in place ensuring no stigma is attached to those that find they need assistance from their emplyees*Communicate and implement processes to raise concerns about research integrity'"`UNIQ--references-000004EE-QINU`"'h integrity '"`UNIQ--references-000004EE-QINU`"')
Conflicts of interest in the review of grant proposals + (The Dutch funding agencies ZonMw and NWO h … The Dutch funding agencies ZonMw and NWO have set up guidelines for dealing with COIs in the reviewing process. COI citeria include: *personal interests*professional interests*interests arising out of other positions*business (financial or economic) interestsThe following personal interests always exclude participation in the process: *being the applicant or joint applicant*having written any part of an application without being an applicant or joint applicant*having any of the following relations with the applicant or joint applicant*actual or anticipated project manager or sub-project manager*direct manager*blood relation or affinity (up to and including the third degree*contract of cohabitation (other than a civil partnership*dean of the applicant’s institute'"`UNIQ--ref-00000220-QINU`"'Both ZonMw and NWO ask reviewers to declare their COIs. Next, the head of the committee assesses the impact of the declared COIs. He or she can decide if the reviewer cannot assess a particular application, or if he or she should not partake in the review process at all. Subsequently, the committee states whether they agree or disagree with this decision. Moreover, to ensure impartiality, individual reviewers do not get to see each other’s scores. After the review process has concluded, the reviewers assess whether the process has raised new insights into COIs. In the worst case scenario, if the process has been influenced by a reviewer’s COI, the whole review process is redone.'"`UNIQ--references-00000221-QINU`"'done. '"`UNIQ--references-00000221-QINU`"')
Take no full responsibility for the integrity of the research project and its reports + (The ECoC states that all partners involved … The ECoC states that all partners involved in research take full responsibility for the overall integrity of the project. All partners are also expected to have agreed at the outset on the standards of research integrity that will be maintained. 1 This can include all aspects of the research, from conception to publication, in order to prevent ambiguity at a later stage. The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations 4 states that all involved partners openly discuss their customary practices and expectations, including those of research integrity. While every individual is responsible fully for their own contribution, there should also be a collective responsibility for the integrity of the project. 4tive responsibility for the integrity of the project. 4)
ENERI Decision Tree + (The ENERI Decision Tree summarizes and lin … The ENERI Decision Tree summarizes and links to many important laws, regulations, codes and other documents that can help researchers to work ethically and with integrity and that can support RECs and RIOs in performing their roles adequately and fulfilling their responsibilities. More detailed information on all topics covered in the Decision Tree is available in the ENERI Manual on Research Ethics and Research Integrity. Besides, the [[Resource:C386dbba-2f69-4257-89c2-903898cf1f12|ENERI Classroom]] as well as the [[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|VIRT2UE Training Guide]] provide access to educational materials on research ethics and research integrity that help fostering skills conducive to ethical reflection.Furthermore, the [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Special:BrowseData/Resource?_search_Resource_Type%5B0%5D=Cases cases] in the resources section of the Embassy as well as the educational scenarios developed by EnTIRE that are available in the [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Special:BrowseData/Resource?_search_Resource_Type%5B0%5D=Education educational resources] section can be used for further reflections and deliberations on specific research ethics and research integrity problems.ch ethics and research integrity problems.)
EQIPD (Enhancing Quality in Preclinical Data) + (The EQIPD quality system is currently appl … The EQIPD quality system is currently applied at research labs within the IMI consortium and a group of interested labs. EQIPD made all the developed resources available to the public. Currently, this includes a preprint publication describing the EQIPD system in greater detail on the Open Science Framework [https://osf.io/ng32b/ here]. Additionally, a wiki page, [https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/EQIPD_Quality_System the EQIPD toolbox], is available providing information developed by the consortium and a broader stakeholder group.onsortium and a broader stakeholder group.)
Supervision Guidelines + (The European Code of Conduct (2017) specif … The European Code of Conduct (2017) specifies that training is necessary for researchers to improve supervision and mentoring. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000071-QINU`"' Please click [https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity#entry:29:url here] for the European Code of Conduct.'"`UNIQ--references-00000072-QINU`"'duct. '"`UNIQ--references-00000072-QINU`"')
Responsible mentoring + (The European Code of Conduct for Research … The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC RI) defines a good practice in mentorship:'"`UNIQ--ref-0000054F-QINU`"'“Senior researchers, research leaders and supervisors mentor their team members and offer specific guidance and training to properly develop, design and structure their research activity and to foster a culture of research integrity.” The ECoC RI also defines the misuse of seniority to encourage violations of research integrity as an unacceptable practice.The Office for Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services defines the expectations of trainees and mentors in the research process.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000550-QINU`"'“Trainees need to know:· how much time they will be expected to spend on their mentor’s research;· the criteria that will be used for judging performance and form the basis of letters of recommendation;· how responsibilities are shared or divided in the research setting;· standard operating procedures, such as the way data are recorded and interpreted; and, most importantly,· how credit is assigned, that is, how authorship and ownership are established.Mentors need to know that a trainee will:· do assigned work in a conscientious way,· respect the authority of others working in the research setting,· follow research regulations and research protocols, and· live by agreements established for authorship and ownership.”'"`UNIQ--references-00000551-QINU`"'hip.” '"`UNIQ--references-00000551-QINU`"')
Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations + (The European Code of Conduct states that g … The European Code of Conduct states that good research practice with regard to collaborations are based on the following principles:*All partners in research collaborations take responsibility for the integrity of the research.*All partners in research collaborations agree at the outset on the goals of the research and on the process for communicating their research as transparently and openly as possible.*All partners formally agree at the start of their collaboration on expectations and standards concerning research integrity, on the laws and regulations that will apply, on protection of the intellectual property of collaborators, and on procedures for handling conflicts and possible cases of misconduct.*All partners in research collaborations are properly informed and consulted about submissions for publication of the research results. (ECC 2017, section 2.6)Vicens and Bourne (2007) suggest the following rules: '"`UNIQ--ref-00000208-QINU`"' #Do Not Be Lured into Just Any Collaboration#Decide at the Beginning Who Will Work on What Tasks#Stick to Your Tasks#Be Open and Honest#Feel Respect, Get Respect#Communicate, Communicate, and Communicate#Protect Yourself from a Collaboration That Turns Sour#Always Acknowledge and Cite Your Collaborators#Seek Advice from Experienced Scientists#If Your Collaboration Satisfies You, Keep It Going'"`UNIQ--references-00000209-QINU`"'Going '"`UNIQ--references-00000209-QINU`"')
Collaborative working + (The European Code of Conduct'"`UNIQ--ref-0 … The European Code of Conduct'"`UNIQ--ref-00000052-QINU`"' states that good research practice with regard to collaborations are based on the following principles:*"All partners in research collaborations take responsibility for the integrity of the research.*All partners in research collaborations agree at the outset on the goals of the research and on the process for communicating their research as transparently and openly as possible.* All partners formally agree at the start of their collaboration on expectations and standards concerning research integrity, on the laws and regulations that will apply, on protection of the intellectual property of collaborators, and on procedures for handling conflicts and possible cases of misconduct.*All partners in research collaborations are properly informed and consulted about submissions for publication of the research results. "(ECC 2017, section 2.6)Vicens and Bourne (2007) suggest the following rules'"`UNIQ--ref-00000053-QINU`"': #Do Not Be Lured into Just Any Collaboration#Decide at the Beginning Who Will Work on What Tasks#Stick to Your Tasks#Be Open and Honest#Feel Respect, Get Respect#Communicate, Communicate, and Communicate#Protect Yourself from a Collaboration That Turns Sour#Always Acknowledge and Cite Your Collaborators#Seek Advice from Experienced Scientists#If Your Collaboration Satisfies You, Keep It Going'"`UNIQ--references-00000054-QINU`"'Going '"`UNIQ--references-00000054-QINU`"')
FAIR principles: sharing data for maximisation of results + (The European Commission decided to run a p … The European Commission decided to run a pilot under Horizon 2020 the [http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/oa-pilot/h2020-hi-erc-oa-guide_en.pdf Open Research Data Pilot] (ORD pilot). Which aims to improve and maximise access to and re-use of research data generated by Horizon 2020 projects. This initiative supports and requires the application of FAIR principles within the H2020 research projects, and therefore it strives to maximise the output and outreach of publicly funded research. and outreach of publicly funded research.)
Research integrity in practice: dealing with everyday dilemmas + (The European Commission funded VIRT2UE pro … The European Commission funded VIRT2UE project has designed a set of practical tools for recognizing and dealing with RI dilemmas in practice. One of these tools is the so called ‘Virtues, Values and Norms in Perspective’ exercise. In this exercise, inspired by a [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5236068/ virtue ethics approach to RI education], '"`UNIQ--ref-0000009C-QINU`"' participants are asked to reflect on a concrete dilemma experienced by one of the participants. By engaging in a dialogue, trainees are asked to put themselves in the shoes of the people involved in the case at stake and reflect on which values would be important for each of them. Then they are asked to reflect on which virtues are required to deal with the dilemma at stake: are they in conflict with each other? How are they related to salient norms? Which virtue is the most important in this situation? What is needed (concretely) to act in accordance with that virtue?This exercise aims at fostering reflection in oneself by means of understanding the concepts of virtues/values and norms and their relationship with practice.Another initiative is the [https://www.eur.nl/sites/corporate/files/24708_integriteitsspel_interactief_2016.pdf Rotterdam Dilemma Game], '"`UNIQ--ref-0000009D-QINU`"' which focuses less on virtue ethics but nonetheless provides structure to discuss RI dilemmas.'"`UNIQ--references-0000009E-QINU`"'mmas. '"`UNIQ--references-0000009E-QINU`"')
Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) + (The Initiative has asked scholarly publish … The Initiative has asked scholarly publishers, who were already depositing the reference lists of their publications at Crossref, to make them open and available to everyone. Before this Initiative, only 1% of all references deposited at Crossref were open. As of August 2021, the percentage of publications with open references has grown from 1% to 88% out of 56.1 million articles with references submitted to Crossref.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000544-QINU`"' Among significant publishers there are [https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/239 BMJ], [https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/56 Cambridge University Press], [https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/281 MIT Press], [https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/286 Oxford University Press], [https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/292 The Royal Society of Chemistry], [https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/179 SAGE Publications], and [https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/311 Wiley].'"`UNIQ--ref-00000545-QINU`"' You can see the full list [https://i4oc.org/#:~:text=Participating%20publishers here].'"`UNIQ--references-00000546-QINU`"'ere]. '"`UNIQ--references-00000546-QINU`"')
Honorary or gift authorship + (The International Committee of Medical Jou … The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides recommendations for defining the roles of authors and contributors. The ICMJE recommends the four main criteria that should be taken into account for authorship. These criteria include a) substantial contribution related to the study design, data collection, data analysis, and data interpretation, and b) drafting and critically revising the work, and c) approval for the final version for publication, and d) accountability for all aspects of the work, including its integrity '"`UNIQ--ref-000006BF-QINU`"'. The ICMJE emphasizes that those who meet all four criteria should be assigned as authors and provides guidance for acknowledging those who do not meet all of the above-mentioned criteria but still contributed to the study and whose contribution should be acknowledged. The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) is another example of guidance for avoiding authorship malpractices and disputes '"`UNIQ--ref-000006C0-QINU`"'. CRediT statement contains 14 items related to the authors’ contributions. For example, some of the items included in the statement are the authors’ contributions in conceptualization, methodology, analysis, writing and editing the manuscript, visualization, supervision, etc. Many publishers have already adopted the CRediT taxonomy and encourage authors to use it when providing authors contributions during the manuscript submission process '"`UNIQ--ref-000006C1-QINU`"'.ion process '"`UNIQ--ref-000006C1-QINU`"'.)
Development and Value of National Research Integrity Codes + (The Irish national statement for research integrity 7 is developed in line with the ECoC. - Principles of Research Integrity - Research Misconduct - Collaboratiosns)
Good Practice and Reporting Cases in Switzerland + (The Plagiarism Control Group checks the re … The Plagiarism Control Group checks the research proposals submitted to the SNSF both at random (5% of all submissions) and when it is alerted to potential research integrity cases by persons outside the SNSF.The SNSF uses the ''iThenticate'' software, produced by Turnitin, in order to compare research proposals with texts on the internet and scientific databases. Only results with a similarity index of ≥ 10% and/or the largest possible degree of correspondence of >200 words are followed up.respondence of >200 words are followed up.)
Reasonable standards for career advancement + (The Qualification portfolio, implemented by Utrecht UMC. To be described in further detail elsewhere on The Embassy.)
The Dilemma Game + (The Taskforce Scientific Integrity from th … The Taskforce Scientific Integrity from the Erasmus University Rotterdam has made a number of recommendations for use of the game in their institution. One of the recommendations is that the game is used as a part of PhD training, as well as a faculty training session on research integrity.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' The dilemma game has also proved useful beyond its home institution, for example it is used as an exercise in [https://www.ucl.ac.uk/research/integrity/training-accordion/integrity-seminars research integrity seminars] provided by University College London and the PRINTEGER project has listed the dilemma game as one of the [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ learning modules] on their platform. As an interactive and educational exercise, the dilemma game is used in training sessions for research integrity trainers by the Horizon 2020 VIRT2UE project. '''Dilemma game app'''The developers have been adapting the card game into an app, in order to make the dilemmas not only more accessible, but also more relevant to a rapidly changing research environment and available for different purposes. With this app, researchers and teachers can use it individually, in a classroom game-mode and in a lecture mode, by connecting in a group. Moreover, users are now more regularly confronted with integrity dilemmas through notifications, with new dilemma’s added each month and the invitation to share own research integrity dilemma’s. This app is a great example of an inspiring initiative, since it serves different objectives: it is a usable tool for training purposes, creates ongoing awareness and supports research culture by facilitating discussion.The dilemma game can be downloaded as an application on [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=nl.eur.dilemmagame&gl=NL Android devices] and [https://apps.apple.com/nl/app/dilemma-game/id1494087665 iOS]. The app has three modes: individual, group and lecture mode, allowing users to interact with the dilemma's in a variety of ways. You can also open the lecture mode in your [https://dilemmagame.eur.nl/ui/ browser], so you can show students the dilemma and their answers. '"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"'answers. '"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"')
Conflict of interest: a research integrity and research ethics perspective + (The [[Resource:C386dbba-2f69-4257-89c2-903898cf1f12|ENERI Classroom]] … The [[Resource:C386dbba-2f69-4257-89c2-903898cf1f12|ENERI Classroom]] as well as the ENERI [[Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434|Research Ethics and Research Integrity Manual]] describe in more detail what COIs are and how they can be avoided and managed responsibly. [[Theme:1fc5c5b6-6c30-4400-a79b-8838b5a041cc|Path2Integrity]] has developed a [[Resource:C13f2fea-2e63-4da9-8b9a-e4039c3dfde1|learning card]] (instruction for a learning unit) on COIs (card Y7).The Research Ethics Program of the University of California, San Diego has developed an [http://research-ethics.org/topics/conflicts-of-interest/#summary educational resource on COIs].The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has collected [https://ori.hhs.gov/conflicts-interest-and-commitment resources on COIs and commitment].The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has developed [https://publicationethics.org/competinginterests guidelines] for addressing COIs in the realm of publication ethics.The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has [http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ disclosure of interest form].of-interest/ disclosure of interest form].)
Cross-boundary collaborations + (The [https://wcrif.org/documents/354-montr … The [https://wcrif.org/documents/354-montreal-statement-english/file Montreal Statement on Research Integrity] in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations was developed at the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, 2013. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000055-QINU`"' The statement details twenty separate responsibilities of individuals and institutions concerning general collaborations, management of collaborations, collaborative relationships, and outcomes of research. '"`UNIQ--references-00000056-QINU`"'rch. '"`UNIQ--references-00000056-QINU`"')
Legal rights of accused scientists + (The [https://www.embassy.science/resources … The [https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity European Code of Conduct] states that fairness and integrity are most important for procedures for investigating misconduct, principles to be followed are also stated.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000073-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000074-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000074-QINU`"')
Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … 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.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Research Environments and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … 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.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Research Procedures and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … 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.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … 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.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Safeguards, Data-sharing and the Disclosure of Sensitive Results: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … 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.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … 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.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … 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.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Research Integrity and Research Ethics Scenarios for Teaching + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … 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.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Training, Supervision and Mentoring with Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … 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.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Preregistration of animal study protocols + (The best practice is to preregister study … The best practice is to preregister study protocols online in a registry. When describing their study designs, researchers should be as transparent and complete as possible.To date, only two reliable animal registries are available:[https://preclinicaltrials.eu/ Preclinicaltrials.eu] and the [https://www.animalstudyregistry.org/asr_web/index.action Animal Study Registry]. It is also possible to use general registries, e.g. the Open Science Framework, however the registration forms will not be tailored to animal studies specifically. If a study could not be preregistered, it is still worthwhile to register its protocol at a later stage; especially if the study could not be published. Although, prospective registration (i.e., registration before the experiments) should be encouraged.ore the experiments) should be encouraged.)
Respectable and honest supervision ensures responsible and ethical research in the future. + (The best practices include the supervisor … The best practices include the supervisor creating a relaxed atmosphere, being open to communication and making themselves approachable for students. In that sense, it is useful when supervisors respect the ideas of open science, and share their knowledge and experience with the researcher/student they are supervising. A relaxed, yet professional communication could also be helpful in achieving these goals. If any issues occur, or if a supervised researcher/student makes mistakes, this should be resolved through suggestions and recommendations for improvement, rather than harsh criticism or stressing the student's failures.Students/early career researchers should be honest in communication and respecftul, while taking the supervisor's comments seriously and accepting criticism as a tool for improvement.pting criticism as a tool for improvement.)
Informed consent in psychiatry + (The best practices is the first step in the targeting the right population of the patients that will be included in research. Also, it is important to give them the informed consent at the beginning of the research, before any procedure.)
Definition of plagiarism: Phrasing + (The case provides some ideas of best pract … The case provides some ideas of best practices in order to avoid such plagiarism allegations: a) Create your own review model after you have read a number of different review examples, rather heavily relying on one single exampleb) Acknowledge that the book review model used relies heavily on XX’s review by referencing appropriatelyn XX’s review by referencing appropriately)
Author Misconduct: Not Just the Editors' Responsibility + (The cases reveal practices to avoid: < … The cases reveal practices to avoid: *Plagiarism*Undeserved authorship*Duplicate submission*Unprofessional conduct*Lack of ethical approval*Redundant or duplicate publicationOther experienced misconduct to avoid were: *"‘salami‐slicing’– dividing up a piece of research as thinly as possible to get the maximum number of papers out of it; this naturally involves a great deal of repeated information, especially in the ‘methods’ section;"*"cutting and pasting whole sections from 1 manuscript to another – another unfortunate temptation of the electronic age;"'"`UNIQ--ref-0000018F-QINU`"'*"publishing a paper in a small national journal, then having it translated into English and submitting it to a larger journal without revealing its previous publication;"*"publishing a paper in a minor journal or in some other format such as an e‐journal and then submitting it to a larger journal without revealing its previous publication, and"*"attempting to have a paper published in 2 journals simultaneously; some authors even go so far as to give identical papers different titles and list the authors in a different order in an attempt to disguise this type of misconduct." '"`UNIQ--ref-00000190-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000191-QINU`"'-00000190-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000191-QINU`"')
UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity + (The concordat targets four main areas: *Maintaining the highest standards of research integrity *Embedding a culture of research integrity *Dealing with allegations of research misconduct *A commitment to strengthening research integrity )
Selective citation + (The correct use of previously published ma … The correct use of previously published material does not involve selective citation to enhance one’s own findings or to please editors, reviewers or colleagues.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000028C-QINU`"' References to published material should not be used to promote self-interests.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000028D-QINU`"' Nuanced use of previously published material involves using resources in a neutral and unbiased way.'''Examples of citation in the scientific and popular literature'''Journal articles:*[https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/2/e026518 Selective citation in the literature on the hygiene hypothesis: a citation analysis on the association between infections and rhinitis]*[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/267954 Selective Citation of Evidence Regarding Photoreceptor Loss in Glaucoma]*[https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-017-0041-z Selective citation in the literature on swimming in chlorinated water and childhood asthma: a network analysis]Blog sphere:*[https://www.embassy.science/theme/Citation%20bias%20favoring%20positive%20clinical%20trials Citation bias favoring positive clinical trials]News outlets:*[https://theconversation.com/how-time-poor-scientists-inadvertently-made-it-seem-like-the-world-was-overrun-with-jellyfish-61564 How time-poor scientists inadvertently made it seem like the world was overrun with jellyfish]*[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167812 'Stunningly Offensive' Paper 'Negates Judaism]''"`UNIQ--references-0000028E-QINU`"'ism]' '"`UNIQ--references-0000028E-QINU`"')
Research integrity officers in Europe + (The details of an RIO's job vary from coun … The details of an RIO's job vary from country to country, but the position is mandatory in many.In the United States, any institution that receives Public Health Service funding reports to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the Department of Health and Human Services. A RIO serves as the liaison between the ORI and their institution. By law, they ensure that the institution has policies and procedures for investigations and reports these to the ORI.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000A1-QINU`"' They also contribute to investigations that lead to retractions, expulsions, and (sometimes) arrests.In the European Union, each country has slightly different requirements and roles for their RIOs, but their task is essentially the same. The European Network of Research Integrity Officers serves as the expert agency in the EU, assisting RIOs with advice and guidance.With the increasing pace of scientific publications, an RIO's job is more important than ever. They serve an essential role in the scientific community. They protect individual researchers from accidental missteps. They protect the public from poor, fraudulent, and fabricated science. They protect the whole scientific community by building public trust. An RIO serves on the front lines of scientific integrity. They're present to guide researchers and foster trust in institutions. RIOs exist to protect science and are a resource for researchers who need guidance or help with misconduct questions.'"`UNIQ--references-000000A2-QINU`"'ions. '"`UNIQ--references-000000A2-QINU`"')
The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity + (The document offers a rationale and examples of each of the five principles.)
Serious gaming in research integrity education + (The field of gaming in RCR education is gr … The field of gaming in RCR education is growing. A few examples include ‘‘Grants and Researchers’’, a card game designed to simulate the experience of ethical decision making within the context of academic research. Rules of the game are available [http://youtu.be/L4Jk84HlLN8 here] . Gaming Against Plagiarism (GAP) project developed three games that put the player in the central role of various issues in authorship, misconduct and intellectual property. More information on the games can be found [https://digitalworlds.ufl.edu/research-production/projects/gaming-against-plagiarism-gap/ here].ects/gaming-against-plagiarism-gap/ here].)