Search by property

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

List of results

Open peer review - transparent way of gatekeeping science + (One example of adaption of open peer revie … One example of adaption of open peer review policies in seen in BMC series journals. BMC begun with open peer review in 1999, and since then has promoted the benefits of peer review and developed different variations and options in peer review system. On top of that, they have decided to move beyond “prescription” of peer review patterns and instructions, and have started publishing a journal called Research Integrity and Peer Review, whose main focus is on research on peer review. Recently, the very same journal has published an article on guidelines for the implementation of open peer review, with a checklist aimed at making the implementation of peer review easier. This was developed mostly for editors, but for those who are still unfamiliar with open peer review, there are plenty of long (e.g. FOSTER course on open peer review) and short'"`UNIQ--ref-000000F7-QINU`"' educational materials.'"`UNIQ--references-000000F8-QINU`"'ials. '"`UNIQ--references-000000F8-QINU`"')
Digital humanities + (One of the best examples of the applicatio … One of the best examples of the application of digital tools within the humanities is the collaborative, interdisciplinary research project [http://republicofletters.stanford.edu/index.html Mapping the Republic of Letters], developed by Stanford University in 2010 and funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The aim of the project is to map the 17th and 18th century correspondence of prominent and influential intellectuals in the Age of Enlightenment '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E2-QINU`"'. The “Republic of Letters” was a self-proclaimed community of scholars that exchanged their ideas via handwritten letters across Europe and the Americas. The researchers on the project used metadata to produce maps, charts and other visual tools '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E3-QINU`"'. These modern visualization tools provide a greater understanding of distribution of the letters over hundreds of years and help identify geographic “hot-spots” in the archive '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E4-QINU`"'. They shed light on, for example, Voltaire’s correspondence, which consists of about 15.000 letters. The visualization of the letter exchanges on a map shows the places where Voltaire traveled and reveals patterns in his writing at specific times and in specific places '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E5-QINU`"'. These maps of correspondence raise new questions and facilitate new interpretations of the letters and related documents '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E6-QINU`"'. The project also provides a basis for further research not only concerning the Republic of letters, but also in related topics. The use of digital tools in the humanities has seen the formation of organizations that foster research in the digital humanities. One of them is the European Association for Digital Humanities (EADH), established in 1973 under the name of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E7-QINU`"'. This organization is one of the constituent organizations in the Alliance of Digital Humanities (ADHO), formed in 2005, which supports and promotes digital research and education in all the arts and humanities disciplines '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E8-QINU`"'. In addition, numerous universities now offer undergraduate and graduate courses and programs in the digital humanities '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E9-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-000003EA-QINU`"'"`UNIQ--ref-000003E9-QINU`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-000003EA-QINU`"')
Forensic Statistics to detect Data Fabrication + (One of the techniques for detecting the fa … One of the techniques for detecting the fabrication of numbers is to check the “rightmost digits” of the collected data. The “rightmost digit” is the digit that a number ends in. It is considered to be “the most random digit of a number,” which means that that the numbers that make up a data set should be uniformly distributed as in a lottery '"`UNIQ--ref-00000430-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000431-QINU`"'. Since the rightmost digits in each study should be unpredictable, the appearance of any patterns is a reason to suspect data fabrication'"`UNIQ--ref-00000432-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000433-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000434-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000435-QINU`"'. Research conducted by Mosimann et al. in 1995 showed that most people cannot generate random numbers when fabricating data, which makes it possible to detect potentially fabricated data '"`UNIQ--ref-00000436-QINU`"'. They also developed a program called the “chi-square test for uniformity of the digit distributions”, which measures the production of random digits '"`UNIQ--ref-00000437-QINU`"'. If the distribution of numbers is not uniform, the numbers are falsified '"`UNIQ--ref-00000438-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000439-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000043A-QINU`"'. There are other methods that can be used to detect the fabrication of rightmost digits. For example, some journals have adopted a policy of statistical review for all papers containing numerical data '"`UNIQ--ref-0000043B-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-0000043C-QINU`"'. In addition, published graph data can be compared with “raw” notebook or computer data to determine whether the numbers have been reported correctly '"`UNIQ--ref-0000043D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000043E-QINU`"'. Authors should present the raw data that supports their findings, while journals, universities and granting agencies should promote this practice '"`UNIQ--ref-0000043F-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000440-QINU`"'. Some argue that the use of statistical methods will significantly reduce fabrication of numerical data '"`UNIQ--ref-00000441-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-00000442-QINU`"'U`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-00000442-QINU`"')
Spin of research results + (Open data practices can help increase tran … Open data practices can help increase transparency, allowing other researchers and interested parties to undertake their own analyses.A technique to identify and classify spin in RCT reports has been developed by Boutron et al,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000029A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000029B-QINU`"' focusing on RCTs reporting statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes because the interpretation of these results is more likely to be subject to prior beliefs of effectiveness, leading to potential bias in reporting. Similar approaches are available to systematically assess the explicit presentation of nonsignificant results in trial reports in various subspecialties, such as described by Lockyer et al, and Turrentine. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000029C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000029D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000029E-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000029E-QINU`"')
Fostering Integrity in Research + (Part Three (pages 161-224): Fostering Inte … Part Three (pages 161-224): Fostering Integrity in ResearchChapter 9 (page 163): [https://www.nap.edu/read/21896/chapter/1#content-toc_pz15-2 Identifying and Promoting Best Practices for Research Integrity]Chapter 10 (page 195): [https://www.nap.edu/read/21896/chapter/1#content-toc_pz15-3 Education for the Responsible Conduct of Research]n for the Responsible Conduct of Research])
Authorship criteria + (Practice guidelines are diverse and vary a … Practice guidelines are diverse and vary according to the scientific field. Rather than rules, professional bodies provide guidelines or recommendations and most guidelines leave some room for interpretation.===='''Medicine'''====The best-known authorship guideline comes from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The ICMJE recommends that an author should meet all four of the following criteria: '"`UNIQ--ref-000000E5-QINU`"'‘‘Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work,’’'"`UNIQ--ref-000000E6-QINU`"'’’Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content,’’ '"`UNIQ--ref-000000E7-QINU`"' ‘‘Final approval of the version to be published,’’ and '"`UNIQ--ref-000000E8-QINU`"'‘‘Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved’’. The committee further designates that in addition to excluding a scholar who has not met all four criteria, any scholar who meets all four should be included as an author. Following the authorship criteria, the ICMJE expressly describes contributions that should be included as an acknowledgment, and not authorship (i.e., funding, supervision, writing assistance, technical or language editing, proofreading). '"`UNIQ--ref-000000E9-QINU`"'===='''Science'''====The Council of Science Editors describes authors as “individuals identified by the research group to have made substantial contributions to the reported work and agree to be accountable for these contributions. In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which of their co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, an author should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. All authors should review and approve the final manuscript.”'"`UNIQ--ref-000000EA-QINU`"'===='''Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics'''====Guidelines in the physical and mathematical sciences offer somewhat less precise definitions, such as this from the American Physical Society: “Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the research study. All those who have made significant contributions should be offered the opportunity to be listed as authors. Other individuals who have contributed to the study should be acknowledged, but not identified as authors.”'"`UNIQ--ref-000000EB-QINU`"'===='''Sociology'''====The American Sociological Association includes the following in its Code of Ethics: “(a) Sociologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed. (b) Sociologists ensure that principal authorship and other publication credits are based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. In claiming or determining the ordering of authorship, sociologists seek to reflect accurately the contributions of main participants in the research and writing process. (c) A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored publication that substantially derives from the student’s dissertation or thesis.” '"`UNIQ--ref-000000EC-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-000000ED-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000000ED-QINU`"')
Questionable Research Practices in Study Design + (Pre-registration of study protocols enhances the transparency of the research process and lends credibility to results.)
Ethics of ageing + (Recent advances in research allow for a mo … Recent advances in research allow for a more defined view of the ethical issues surrounding the treatment of aging. Today we know that the senescence of the organism is a pathological process with a great variety of pathological consequences in old age (which causes or aggravates cardiovascular disease, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases and many others). It has also been shown that in laboratory animals it is possible to slow down aging, prolong healthy adulthood and reduce the age incidence of a broad spectrum of aging-related diseases. This is accompanied by an overall extension of the life span, sometimes to a great extent. Ethics discussions in this area argue how the treatment of aging can have detrimental consequences on society as a whole.Anyway, given the developments in research in the treatment of diseases linked to aging, it would be useful to define how these interventions must be applied without ethically compromising the meaning of existence as a society, devaluing life by extending its duration'"`UNIQ--ref-000004CE-QINU`"' . In conclusion, decelerated aging leads to conflicting decisions. The health benefits force us to pursue it, despite the change in some ethical aspects of human society will be inevitable.pects of human society will be inevitable.)
Moral conflict and moral dilemma + (Reflection on moral conflicts, and especia … Reflection on moral conflicts, and especially on moral dilemmas, is an important element of responsible research practice. Take for example Phase I trials that involve novel therapies for patients (so-called First-In-Human (FIH) Trials). '"`UNIQ--ref-00000038-QINU`"' These trials involve a high degree of uncertainty in intervention development and possible outcomes. Although this step, hopefully, in turn, will make a Phase-III clinical trial in compliance with the basic epistemological and ethical requirement of therapeutic trials possible, it is a fact that so far no widely accepted standards for judgments of uncertainty, safety, and value of FIH trials have yet been formulated. Consequently, no selection of patients to be included in such trials can be said to be fully satisfactory, i.e. without the possibility of moral failure. Through acknowledging the possible existence of irresolvable moral conflicts in research, researchers will learn modesty, and thereby also protect themselves from being infected by the vice of ''hybris''.Reflection on moral dilemmas can be fostered by organizing Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). '"`UNIQ--ref-00000039-QINU`"' In MCD, a morally troublesome situation is investigated by a group, guided by a facilitator. During the investigation, the conflicting values in the situation are examined in dialogue. This enables participants to become aware of, and reflect on the moral conflict involved. MCD specifically focuses on moral conflicts that cannot be restlessly solved, that is on moral dilemmas. The aim is to investigate different values of stakeholders in practice, and become aware that in making a choice, certain values will be harmed. This may result in the awareness that, although a choice is unavoidable, one should be open to the negative consequences of and take responsibility for them.'"`UNIQ--references-0000003A-QINU`"'them. '"`UNIQ--references-0000003A-QINU`"')
Insufficiently reported study flaws and limitations + (Regardless of the importance and necessity … Regardless of the importance and necessity to fully report study limitations, in practice researchers still need to be encouraged to report their limitations and to describe them properly and thoroughly. The following example demonstrates that scientists in medicine do not fully discuss and present limitations of their research '"`UNIQ--ref-00000463-QINU`"'. A study was conducted on 400 articles published in 2005 in journals with the highest number of citations, among them two open-access journals. Full-texts of these articles were electronically searched, looking for words ‘limitation’, ‘caveat’ or ‘caution’. The results showed that only 67 articles (17%) used at least one of the mentioned words when presenting their own research. Furthermore, only four articles (1%) used the word ‘limitation’ in their abstract, while not one article mentioned limitations of their research that had impact on the conclusions '"`UNIQ--ref-00000464-QINU`"'.Researchers do not present their study limitations because perhaps they do not fully understand the significance, outcomes and implications of these limitations to the study results. Maybe they think that probability for publication of their work would be higher by not addressing them '"`UNIQ--ref-00000465-QINU`"'. Journals also bear great responsibility in this matter because of the word limits that prevent authors from reporting and thoroughly describing their limitations '"`UNIQ--ref-00000466-QINU`"'. When researchers do mention their study limitations, they usually provide only a list, they do not fully describe them '"`UNIQ--ref-00000467-QINU`"'. There are several things researchers and journals can do to responsibly report study flaws and limitations. When describing them, researchers should clearly classify the type of limitation so that readers could interpret the research findings correctly '"`UNIQ--ref-00000468-QINU`"'. They should not only describe the limitations, but also explain their implications. Assessing impact of limitations on conclusions of the research and its validity is also very important and can help to avoid bias. Researchers should explain why they did not take some alternative approaches or maybe provide some alternative explanations of their findings. Finally, researchers should describe efforts taken to mitigate the implications of study limitations '"`UNIQ--ref-00000469-QINU`"'. Journals, on the other hand, should encourage authors to present their study limitations and provide them with some guidelines '"`UNIQ--ref-0000046A-QINU`"'. Reporting study flaws and limitations should enter the everyday research practice. The only way to deal with such uncertainties is to present data, methodology, limitations and study deficiencies transparently so that decision makers can be fully aware of quality and potential errors in inference.'"`UNIQ--references-0000046B-QINU`"'ence. '"`UNIQ--references-0000046B-QINU`"')

A Data Governance Framework for Ethnography + (Regulatory compliance Data archiving and management)

A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Copyright Violation + (Reproducing any part of an article or book … Reproducing any part of an article or book (figure, table, etc) definitely requires permission from the copyright holder. The copyright holder is usually the publisher since authors tend to transfer the copyright to the publisher upon submission of their manuscripts.sher upon submission of their manuscripts.)
Research Integrity Advisors + (Research integrity advisors are experience … Research integrity advisors are experienced researchers with in-depth knowledge of research integrity and research ethics. They are appointed by the university to serve the complex role of dealing with all sort of questions related to research integrity practices, procedures, and issues.For example, in Australia, universities have established research integrity advisors’ teams to assist researchers and research students in conducting research with integrity and advise them on questions that may arise during the research process. If you are not sure who to talk with, the universities web pages contain lists of RIAs and guidance on when to approach to an advisor. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000097-QINU`"' At Melbourne University, RIAs also have a responsibility to report alleged cases of research misconduct to authorized bodies. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000098-QINU`"'In Europe, for example, in Denmark, some Danish research institutions (e.g., Aarhus University) have special advisors for supporting the good scientific practice. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000099-QINU`"' Moreover, LARI (Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity) provides research ethics consultations to researchers of all levels. While LARI advisors are not officially called RI advisors, they still have a similar role. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000009A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000009B-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000009B-QINU`"')
Conflicts with Community Leaders + (Researchers can consult the following guid … Researchers can consult the following guidelines on collaboration with communities:* Kate Chatfield et al. (2018) Research with, not about, communities - Ethical guidance towards empowerment in collaborative research, a report for the TRUST project. http://trust-project.eu/* Figueiredo Nascimento, S., Cuccillato, E., Schade, S., Guimarães Pereira, A. (2016) Citizen Engagement in Science and Policy-Making. doi:10.2788/40563 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/sites/jrccties/files/mc10_rio_sio-lopez_mobility_reading.pdfes/mc10_rio_sio-lopez_mobility_reading.pdf)
Ethical issues of involving children with disabilities in research + (Researchers must always consider mitigatio … Researchers must always consider mitigation strategies to overcome challenges that occur when it comes to involving children with disabilities in research and to do it in an ethical and respectful way. For meaningful participation, the individual capacities of each child involved must be considered at all stages of the research cycle, to ensure that processes are suitable for the diverse competencies, knowledge, interests, access, needs and contexts of all children involved.eds and contexts of all children involved.)
Secondary corrections + (Researchers should be up-to-date in their … Researchers should be up-to-date in their field of interest and, when they notice a retraction of an article that they have previously cited, correct the article. The easiest way to be regularly updated on retractions is by following Retraction Watch and their database '"`UNIQ--ref-000004CB-QINU`"'. Zotero citation manager has established a partnership with Retraction Watch and has implemented retraction notifications that pop-up when an article from the users’ database has been retracted. Hopefully other citation managers will follow this practice.An initiative to stimulate this kind of behavior could result in more corrected articles. In practice, taking into account the number of articles that are published every day, it is hard to expect an individual to notice everything. The ideal practice would be that the journal which has retracted the article, notifies authors which have cited the retracted article. However, that is hard to be expected, especially for older articles. Alternately, authors of the retracted article could inform all the authors who have cited their article. This may be expected from authors whose article is retracted due to unintentional mistake and have initiated the retraction, but it might be illusory to expect this from authors who have committed fabrication, plagiarism, or similar misconduct.'"`UNIQ--references-000004CC-QINU`"'duct. '"`UNIQ--references-000004CC-QINU`"')
The impact of the GDPR on scientific data + (Researchers that work with personal data c … Researchers that work with personal data can consult the GDPR online [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679 here]. In 2020 the European Data Protection Supervisor issued [https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/20-01-06_opinion_research_en.pdf A Preliminary Opinion on data protection and scientific research].You should also be able to contact your local Data Protection Officer or study supervisor for more information on handling personal data.ore information on handling personal data.)
Deception by Research Participants + (Resnik et al (2015) list four measures res … Resnik et al (2015) list four measures researchers can take to address deception by research subjects. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000197-QINU`"'# Researchers can verify information by letting participants undergo physical exams and laboratory tests.# Research subjects can be excluded from the study when deception is uncovered.# Studies can consider rewarding research subjects when they provide accurate self-reported information. # Researchers can require subjects to be registered in a clinical trial particpant registry.d in a clinical trial particpant registry.)
The qualification portfolio (UMC Utrecht): from output to impact + (See also: http://www.nature.com/news/fewer-numbers-better-science-1.20858)
Research ethics committees + (Several documents and declarations have be … Several documents and declarations have been developed in relation to ethical research committees. The European Network of Research Ethics Committees - EUREC is a network that brings together existing national Research Ethics Committees, networks or comparable initiatives on the level of European Union. RECs can be established for each academic institution and/or universities. In the United States, Institutional Review boards (IRBs) exist in both academic and state institutions.t in both academic and state institutions.)
Peer Review in the Social Sciences and Humanities + (Shortcomings in the current system have le … Shortcomings in the current system have led to discussions in the SSH community with the aim of addressing the challenges and implementing some changes. In February 2020, the European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (ENRESSH) provided a report, an “[https://enressh.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Hoffman-Holowiecki-Holm-Ochsner-Overview-of-Peer-Review-Practices-in-the-SSH.pdf Overview of Peer Review Practices in the SSH]” '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F3-QINU`"'. The report stressed that, in contrast to STEM, SSH disciplines are more heterogeneous in their publication outputs. This makes it difficult to define and evaluate research methodologies, which, subsequently, leads to a lack of consensus when it comes to the criteria for assessing the quality of research outputs '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F4-QINU`"'. The report states that copying the evaluation models that exist for STEM disciplines is not the best response '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F5-QINU`"'. However, some argue that certain practices, such as open peer review, could apply to SSH. The advantages of open peer review are that it would speed up the publication process and enable dialogue between authors and readers '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F6-QINU`"'.In order to speed up the review process, the report offers other suggestions, including, limiting the length of manuscripts, limiting the number of publications per researcher or institution and recruiting more reviewers '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F7-QINU`"'. In addition, the SSH community could learn from new peer review models in STEM subjects, and seek to apply them if possible '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F8-QINU`"'. Although SSH disciplines are heterogeneous, there is a call for general standards and principles for peer review '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F9-QINU`"', in order to ensure “timeliness, transparency and verifiability” '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FA-QINU`"'. Even though the SSH tend to be slower to respond to calls for change when compared with STEM disciplines, some journals and platforms have been adapting to recent developments in peer review systems, including 1) Kairos, which adopted a three-stage review process '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FB-QINU`"', 2) Palgrave Macmillian, which has trialed open peer review trial '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FC-QINU`"' and open publishing '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FD-QINU`"', and 3) Wellcome Open Research, which provides post-publication peer review '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FE-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-000003FF-QINU`"'U`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-000003FF-QINU`"')