Search by property

From The Embassy of Good Science

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

Search by property

A list of all pages that have property "What are the best practices?" with value "Regulatory compliance Data archiving and management". Since there have been only a few results, also nearby values are displayed.

Showing below up to 51 results starting with #1.

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


    

List of results

  • SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on the research integrity education of post-doctorate and senior researchers  + (Given the broad diversity that exists amonGiven 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 amonGiven 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 amonGiven 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 amonGiven 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 amonGiven 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 amonGiven 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 amonGiven 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.</br></br>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 researcGood 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. </br></br>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 platforHIRMEOS integrates five publishing platforms:</br></br>-[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. </br></br>-[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. </br></br>-[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.  </br></br>-[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. </br></br>-[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`"' </br></br>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`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-0000052D-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000052D-QINU`"')
  • Polarized research  + (Holm and Ploug suggest that researchers shHolm and Ploug suggest that researchers should address the following two questions:</br></br>#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?</br>#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`"'</br></br>Four questions about polarized research:</br></br>*'''Why does polarized research exist?''' Because researchers have different perspectives and interests.</br>*'''Is polarized research fraud?''' No, because it is based on valid scientific methods.</br>*'''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.</br>*'''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.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-0000027C-QINU`"'rest. '"`UNIQ--references-0000027C-QINU`"')
  • Perverse incentives  + (How to reform the incentive structure of sHow to reform the incentive structure of science is a subject of ongoing research and debate. See, e.g.,</br></br>*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]</br>*Krimsky, S. (2004). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? Rowman & Littlefield.</br>*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 iIf 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.</br></br>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`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000268-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000268-QINU`"')
  • Prospective registration of clinical trials  + (In 2004, the International Committee of MeIn 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.</br></br>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.”</br>'"`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. </br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000330-QINU`"'ier. '"`UNIQ--references-00000330-QINU`"')
  • Research with children  + (In a 2007 study, Einarsdóttir collected daIn a 2007 study, Einarsdóttir collected data in several ways:</br></br>'''''Group and individual interviews combined with observation'''''</br></br>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. </br></br>'''''Using props'''''</br></br>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. </br></br>'''''Modified surveys'''''</br></br>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 wastIn 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): </br></br>#Include objectives in research groups’ strategic plans and define the stakeholders whose opinions and priorities will be considered</br>#Draw on an existing summary of previous priority-setting exercises in the specialty before undertaking own exercise</br>#Use available methodological reviews of research priority setting as guidance about how to meet priority-setting objectives</br>#Ensure that the priority-setting team has the necessary data, information about context, and skill set for their exercise</br>#Pilot, assess, revise, and update the priority-setting exercise at intervals</br>#Participate in discussions within the community of interest to share findings and experiences”</br>'"`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`"'</br></br>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`"'</br></br>Some of the most popular preprint servers are:</br></br>-[https://www.biorxiv.org/ BioRxiv] (a preprint repository for the biological sciences);</br></br>-[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);</br></br>-[https://thewinnower.com/ the Winnower] (an open access online publishing platform that offers an open post-publication peer review);</br></br>-[https://psyarxiv.com/ PsyArXiv] (a preprint server for the field of psychology, launched in 2016 by Cornell University);</br></br>-[http://www.prepubmed.org/ PrePubMed] (a platform that indexes preprints from PeerJ Preprints, Figshare, bioRxiv, and F1000Research)'"`UNIQ--ref-000005F9-QINU`"';</br></br>-[https://www.medrxiv.org/ medRxiv] (the first preprint server for medicine, launched in 2019 by Yale and BMJ).'"`UNIQ--ref-000005FA-QINU`"'</br></br>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]. </br></br>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`"' </br></br>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`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000603-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000603-QINU`"')
  • Conflict of interest in peer review  + (In its guidelines for editors, Elsevier stIn 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.</br></br>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.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000240-QINU`"'lace. '"`UNIQ--references-00000240-QINU`"')
  • Initiatives promoting research integrity  + (In the United States, the Office for ReseaIn 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.</br></br>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 15<sup>th</sup> century being forced into marriage and were given six options: </br></br>-Refuse because it is inhuman, immoral and illegitimate to force someone to marry without real love;</br></br>-Obey because good economy is more important for a family than passionate love between wife and husband;</br></br>-Run away to a nunnery or a monastery because religious life is worth more than worldly life;</br></br>-Consent because nearly all young people have married in accordance with their parents’ decisions;</br></br>-Resist because it is the natural right of any individual to marry for love;</br></br>-Obey because rebellion against the parents’ will is a rebellion against the law of God.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004DD-QINU`"'</br></br>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 15<sup>th</sup> century mentality.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004DE-QINU`"' Most students were not able to put themselves in the shoes of young people that lived in the 15<sup>th</sup> 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 15<sup>th</sup> 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 15<sup>th</sup> century young people.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004DF-QINU`"'</br></br>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 decIn 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`"'</br></br>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`"'</br></br>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`"'</br>'"`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`"' </br></br>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.</br></br>Main strategies teachers can use when dealing with these issues in the classroom are:</br></br>-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). </br></br>-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). </br></br>-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). </br></br>-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`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-000005B6-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000005B6-QINU`"')
  • AI Ethics and Governance in Practice: An Introduction  + (In this workbook, we introduce fundamentalIn 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 cleInstitutions 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`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-0000038B-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000038B-QINU`"')
  • Hostile peer review  + (It is difficult to cope with negative critIt 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.</br>'"`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-vIt’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`"'</br>'"`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 recKnowledge 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`"' </br></br>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`"'</br></br>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 thLeiden 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-science</br></br>This 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.</br></br>===Blacklists===</br>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.</br></br>*[https://beallslist.weebly.com/ Beall's list]</br>*[https://www2.cabells.com/blacklist Cabells' lists]</br>*[https://predatoryjournals.com/ Stop Predatory Journals]</br></br>===Whitelists===</br></br>*[https://doaj.org/ Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)]</br></br>===Choosing a journal===</br>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."</br></br>#The publisher is not a member of any recognized professional organization committed to best publishing practices (like COPE or EASE)</br>#The journal is not indexed in well-established electronic databases (like MEDLINE or Web of Science)</br>#The publisher claims to be a "leading publisher" even though it just got started</br>#The journal and the publisher are unfamiliar to you and all your colleagues</br>#The papers of the journal are of poor research quality, and may not be academic at all (for instance allowing for obvious pseudo-science)</br>#There are fundamental errors in the titles and abstracts, or frequent and repeated typographical or factual errors throughout the published papers</br>#The journal website is not professional</br>#The journal website does not present an editorial board or gives insufficient detail on names and affiliations</br>#The journal website does not reveal the journal's editorial office location or uses an incorrect address</br>#The publishing schedule is not clearly stated</br>#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</br>#The journal mimics another journal title or the website of said journal</br>#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)</br>#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)</br>#The journal website posts non-related or non-academic advertisements</br>#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</br>#The editor in chief of the journal is editor in chief also for other journals with widely different focus</br>#The journal includes articles (very far) outside its stated scope</br>#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</br>#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")</br>#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)</br>#The types of submission/publication fees and what they amount to are not clearly stated on the journal's website</br>#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</br>#The journal does not describe copyright agreements clearly or demands the copyright of the paper while claiming to be an open access journal</br>#The journal displays no strategies for how to handle misconduct, conflicts of interest, or secure the archiving of articles when no longer in operation</br></br>A number of other initiatives have also put together criteria for journal selection:</br></br>*[https://thinkchecksubmit.org/ Guideline to choose the right journal for research] -</br>*[https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/beinformed Be iNFORMEd: Checklist] - A checklist to assess the quality of a journal or publisher</br></br>==Other information==</br>[http://www.wame.org/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) statement on predatory publishing]</br></br>[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] </br></br>[http://www.icmje.org/news-and-editorials/fake_predatory_pseudo_journals_dec17.html ICMJE document on predatory publishing]<br /></br>'"`UNIQ--references-000001F7-QINU`"'lt;br /> '"`UNIQ--references-000001F7-QINU`"')
  • The ethics of managing a laboratory or research group  + (Managing people, projects, and budgets, asManaging 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 cuOPERAS offers several services that are currently at different stages of development:</br></br>-[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`"' </br></br>-[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.</br></br>-[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.</br></br>-[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.</br></br>-[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`"'</br></br>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.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-000005DF-QINU`"' etc. '"`UNIQ--references-000005DF-QINU`"')
  • Inappropriate study design  + (Observational studies, such as cohort or cObservational 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.</br></br>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.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000260-QINU`"' for. '"`UNIQ--references-00000260-QINU`"')
  • Research metrics  + (On an individual level, the most importantOn 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.</br></br>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.</br></br>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.</br>'"`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 uOn 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 uOn 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 prevOn 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. </br></br>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 revieOne 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.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-000000F8-QINU`"'ials. '"`UNIQ--references-000000F8-QINU`"')
  • Digital humanities  + (One of the best examples of the applicatioOne 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 17<sup>th</sup> and 18<sup>th</sup> 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. </br></br>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`"'.</br>'"`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 faOne 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`"'. </br></br>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`"'. </br></br>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`"'.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000442-QINU`"'U`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-00000442-QINU`"')
  • Spin of research results  + (Open data practices can help increase tranOpen data practices can help increase transparency, allowing other researchers and interested parties to undertake their own analyses.</br></br>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`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-0000029E-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000029E-QINU`"')
  • Fostering Integrity in Research  + (Part Three (pages 161-224): Fostering IntePart Three (pages 161-224): Fostering Integrity in Research</br></br>Chapter 9 (page 163): [https://www.nap.edu/read/21896/chapter/1#content-toc_pz15-2 Identifying and Promoting Best Practices for Research Integrity]</br></br>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 aPractice 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.</br></br>===='''Medicine'''====</br>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`"'</br></br>===='''Science'''====</br>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`"'</br></br>===='''Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics'''====</br>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`"'</br></br>===='''Sociology'''====</br>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`"'</br>'"`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 moRecent 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.</br></br>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 especiaReflection 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''.</br></br>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.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-0000003A-QINU`"'them. '"`UNIQ--references-0000003A-QINU`"')
  • Insufficiently reported study flaws and limitations  + (Regardless of the importance and necessityRegardless 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`"'.</br></br>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`"'.  </br></br>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`"'. </br></br>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.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-0000046B-QINU`"'ence. '"`UNIQ--references-0000046B-QINU`"')
  • A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Copyright Violation  + (Reproducing any part of an article or bookReproducing 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 experienceResearch 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.</br></br>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`"'</br></br>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`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-0000009B-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000009B-QINU`"')
  • Conflicts with Community Leaders  + (Researchers can consult the following guidResearchers can consult the following guidelines on collaboration with communities:</br></br>* 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/</br>* 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 mitigatioResearchers 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.</br></br>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.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-000004CC-QINU`"'duct. '"`UNIQ--references-000004CC-QINU`"')
  • The impact of the GDPR on scientific data  + (Researchers that work with personal data cResearchers 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].</br></br>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 resResnik et al (2015) list four measures researchers can take to address deception by research subjects. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000197-QINU`"'</br></br># Researchers can verify information by letting participants undergo physical exams and laboratory tests.</br># Research subjects can be excluded from the study when deception is uncovered.</br># Studies can consider rewarding research subjects when they provide accurate self-reported information. </br># 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 beSeveral 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 leShortcomings 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`"'.</br></br>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`"'. </br></br>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`"'.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-000003FF-QINU`"'U`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-000003FF-QINU`"')
  • AllTrials campaign  + (Since 2008, the American Food and Drug AdmSince 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.</br>'"`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 abSince 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 depSome 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:</br></br>-provide long-term preservation of data (at least 5 years after publication)</br></br>-be supported by a research community or institution</br></br>-provide deposited datasets with stable and persistent identifiers</br></br>-allow open access</br></br>-provide terms of data use</br></br>-facilitate for anonymous reviewers to access data under embargo.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000918-QINU`"' </br></br>The journal also offers a list of repositories across research areas for researchers who are not certain where to deposit their data:</br></br>-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=Generalist%20repositories-,Biological%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Biological sciences]</br></br>-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=Generalist%20repositories-,Biological%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Health sciences]</br></br>-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRshaing%20entry-,Chemistry%20and%20Chemical%20biology,-%E2%A4%B4 Chemistry and Chemical biology]</br></br>-[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]</br></br>-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRsharing%20entry-,Physics,-%E2%A4%B4 Physics]</br></br>-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20re3data%20entry-,Materials%20science,-%E2%A4%B4 Material science]</br></br>-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRsharing%20entry-,Social%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Social sciences]</br></br>-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20re3data%20entry-,Generalist%20repositories,-%E2%A4%B4 Generalist repositories].'"`UNIQ--ref-00000919-QINU`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-0000091A-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000091A-QINU`"')
  • Replicability  + (Some of the most common examples of replicSome 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`"'.</br></br>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.</br></br>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`"'.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-000003A6-QINU`"'U`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-000003A6-QINU`"')
  • Seven Ways to Plagiarise: The Magazine Surprise  + (Specific advice for authors: "Do not put ySpecific 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`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-000002CB-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000002CB-QINU`"')
  • Research with animals  + (Starting in the 18th century, more and morStarting 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.</br>'"`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 AdvisTENK 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.</br></br>TENK advised various parties on mechanisms to resolve allegations of research misconduct as well the guidelines for handling alleged violations.</br></br>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.</br></br>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 instruThe 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`"'.</br></br>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`"'.</br></br>Critiques, initiatives and recommendations require not only further academic discussion, but also significant educational reforms in statistics '"`UNIQ--ref-00000428-QINU`"'.</br>'"`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 developingThe 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. </br></br>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 LeuvThe 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.</br></br>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.</br></br>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). </br></br>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. </br></br>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.</br></br>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)</br>'"`UNIQ--references-000002E3-QINU`"'-04-2020) '"`UNIQ--references-000002E3-QINU`"')
  • Research culture  + (The Concordat to Support Research IntegritThe 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: <br></br>*Have clear policies, practices and procedures to support researchers</br>*Have research ethics and integrity training, including mentoring opportunities</br>*Have robust management systems ensuring implementation of policies related to research, its integrity and researchers behaviour</br>*Create awareness among the standards of behaviour of researchers</br>*Ensure a system is in place that can identify concerns at an early stage</br>*Provide support mechanisms for those that need assistance</br>*Have policies in place ensuring no stigma is attached to those that find they need assistance from their emplyees</br>*Communicate and implement processes to raise concerns about research integrity</br>'"`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 hThe Dutch funding agencies ZonMw and NWO have set up guidelines for dealing with COIs in the reviewing process. COI citeria include: </br></br>*personal interests</br>*professional interests</br>*interests arising out of other positions</br>*business (financial or economic) interests</br></br>The following personal interests always exclude participation in the process: </br></br>*being the applicant or joint applicant</br>*having written any part of an application without being an applicant or joint applicant</br>*having any of the following relations with the applicant or joint applicant</br>*actual or anticipated project manager or sub-project manager</br>*direct manager</br>*blood relation or affinity (up to and including the third degree</br>*contract of cohabitation (other than a civil partnership</br>*dean of the applicant’s institute'"`UNIQ--ref-00000220-QINU`"'</br></br>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.</br>'"`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 involvedThe 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. <sup>1</sup>  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 <sup>4</sup> 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. <sup>4</sup>tive responsibility for the integrity of the project. <sup>4</sup>)
  • ENERI Decision Tree  + (The ENERI Decision Tree summarizes and linThe 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.</br></br>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 applThe 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) specifThe 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.</br>'"`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`"'</br></br>“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.</br></br></br>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`"'</br></br>“Trainees need to know:</br></br>·       how much time they will be expected to spend on their mentor’s research;</br></br>·       the criteria that will be used for judging performance and form the basis of letters of recommendation;</br></br>·       how responsibilities are shared or divided in the research setting;</br></br>·       standard operating procedures, such as the way data are recorded and interpreted; and, most importantly,</br></br>·       how credit is assigned, that is, how authorship and ownership are established.</br></br>Mentors need to know that a trainee will:</br></br>·       do assigned work in a conscientious way,</br></br>·       respect the authority of others working in the research setting,</br></br>·       follow research regulations and research protocols, and</br></br>·       live by agreements established for authorship and ownership.”</br>'"`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 gThe European Code of Conduct states that good research practice with regard to collaborations are based on the following principles:</br></br>*All partners in research collaborations take responsibility for the integrity of the research.</br></br>*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.</br></br>*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.</br>*All partners in research collaborations are properly informed and consulted about submissions for publication of the research results. (ECC 2017, section 2.6)</br></br>Vicens and Bourne (2007) suggest the following rules: '"`UNIQ--ref-00000208-QINU`"' </br></br>#Do Not Be Lured into Just Any Collaboration</br>#Decide at the Beginning Who Will Work on What Tasks</br>#Stick to Your Tasks</br>#Be Open and Honest</br>#Feel Respect, Get Respect</br>#Communicate, Communicate, and Communicate</br>#Protect Yourself from a Collaboration That Turns Sour</br>#Always Acknowledge and Cite Your Collaborators</br>#Seek Advice from Experienced Scientists</br>#If Your Collaboration Satisfies You, Keep It Going</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000209-QINU`"'Going '"`UNIQ--references-00000209-QINU`"')
  • Collaborative working  + (The European Code of Conduct'"`UNIQ--ref-0The European Code of Conduct'"`UNIQ--ref-00000052-QINU`"' states that good research practice with regard to collaborations are based on the following principles:</br></br>*"All partners in research collaborations take responsibility for the integrity of the research.</br>*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.</br>* 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.</br>*All partners in research collaborations are properly informed and consulted about submissions for publication of the research results. "(ECC 2017, section 2.6)</br></br>Vicens and Bourne (2007) suggest the following rules'"`UNIQ--ref-00000053-QINU`"': </br></br>#Do Not Be Lured into Just Any Collaboration</br>#Decide at the Beginning Who Will Work on What Tasks</br>#Stick to Your Tasks</br>#Be Open and Honest</br>#Feel Respect, Get Respect</br>#Communicate, Communicate, and Communicate</br>#Protect Yourself from a Collaboration That Turns Sour</br>#Always Acknowledge and Cite Your Collaborators</br>#Seek Advice from Experienced Scientists</br>#If Your Collaboration Satisfies You, Keep It Going</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000054-QINU`"'Going '"`UNIQ--references-00000054-QINU`"')
  • FAIR principles: sharing data for maximisation of results  + (The European Commission decided to run a pThe 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 proThe 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?</br></br>This exercise aims at fostering reflection in oneself by means of understanding the concepts of virtues/values and norms and their relationship with practice.</br></br>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.</br>'"`UNIQ--references-0000009E-QINU`"'mmas. '"`UNIQ--references-0000009E-QINU`"')
  • Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC)  + (The Initiative has asked scholarly publishThe 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`"' </br></br>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].</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000546-QINU`"'ere]. '"`UNIQ--references-00000546-QINU`"')
  • Honorary or gift authorship  + (The International Committee of Medical JouThe 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  <sup>7</sup> 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 reThe 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.</br></br>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 thThe 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. </br></br>'''Dilemma game app'''</br></br>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.</br></br>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. </br>'"`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. </br></br>[[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).</br></br>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].</br></br>The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has collected [https://ori.hhs.gov/conflicts-interest-and-commitment resources on COIs and commitment].</br></br>The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has developed [https://publicationethics.org/competinginterests guidelines] for addressing COIs in the realm of publication ethics.</br></br>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-montrThe [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. </br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000056-QINU`"'rch. '"`UNIQ--references-00000056-QINU`"')
  • Legal rights of accused scientists  + (The [https://www.embassy.science/resourcesThe [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`"'</br>'"`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 allowThe 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 allowThe 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 allowThe 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 allowThe 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.)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
5.1.6