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

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

A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Copyright Violation + (Reproducing any part of an article or book … Reproducing any part of an article or book (figure, table, etc) definitely requires permission from the copyright holder. The copyright holder is usually the publisher since authors tend to transfer the copyright to the publisher upon submission of their manuscripts.sher upon submission of their manuscripts.)
Research Integrity Advisors + (Research integrity advisors are experience … Research integrity advisors are experienced researchers with in-depth knowledge of research integrity and research ethics. They are appointed by the university to serve the complex role of dealing with all sort of questions related to research integrity practices, procedures, and issues.For example, in Australia, universities have established research integrity advisors’ teams to assist researchers and research students in conducting research with integrity and advise them on questions that may arise during the research process. If you are not sure who to talk with, the universities web pages contain lists of RIAs and guidance on when to approach to an advisor. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000097-QINU`"' At Melbourne University, RIAs also have a responsibility to report alleged cases of research misconduct to authorized bodies. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000098-QINU`"'In Europe, for example, in Denmark, some Danish research institutions (e.g., Aarhus University) have special advisors for supporting the good scientific practice. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000099-QINU`"' Moreover, LARI (Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity) provides research ethics consultations to researchers of all levels. While LARI advisors are not officially called RI advisors, they still have a similar role. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000009A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000009B-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000009B-QINU`"')
Conflicts with Community Leaders + (Researchers can consult the following guid … Researchers can consult the following guidelines on collaboration with communities:* Kate Chatfield et al. (2018) Research with, not about, communities - Ethical guidance towards empowerment in collaborative research, a report for the TRUST project. http://trust-project.eu/* Figueiredo Nascimento, S., Cuccillato, E., Schade, S., Guimarães Pereira, A. (2016) Citizen Engagement in Science and Policy-Making. doi:10.2788/40563 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/sites/jrccties/files/mc10_rio_sio-lopez_mobility_reading.pdfes/mc10_rio_sio-lopez_mobility_reading.pdf)
Ethical issues of involving children with disabilities in research + (Researchers must always consider mitigatio … Researchers must always consider mitigation strategies to overcome challenges that occur when it comes to involving children with disabilities in research and to do it in an ethical and respectful way. For meaningful participation, the individual capacities of each child involved must be considered at all stages of the research cycle, to ensure that processes are suitable for the diverse competencies, knowledge, interests, access, needs and contexts of all children involved.eds and contexts of all children involved.)
Secondary corrections + (Researchers should be up-to-date in their … Researchers should be up-to-date in their field of interest and, when they notice a retraction of an article that they have previously cited, correct the article. The easiest way to be regularly updated on retractions is by following Retraction Watch and their database '"`UNIQ--ref-000004CB-QINU`"'. Zotero citation manager has established a partnership with Retraction Watch and has implemented retraction notifications that pop-up when an article from the users’ database has been retracted. Hopefully other citation managers will follow this practice.An initiative to stimulate this kind of behavior could result in more corrected articles. In practice, taking into account the number of articles that are published every day, it is hard to expect an individual to notice everything. The ideal practice would be that the journal which has retracted the article, notifies authors which have cited the retracted article. However, that is hard to be expected, especially for older articles. Alternately, authors of the retracted article could inform all the authors who have cited their article. This may be expected from authors whose article is retracted due to unintentional mistake and have initiated the retraction, but it might be illusory to expect this from authors who have committed fabrication, plagiarism, or similar misconduct.'"`UNIQ--references-000004CC-QINU`"'duct. '"`UNIQ--references-000004CC-QINU`"')
The impact of the GDPR on scientific data + (Researchers that work with personal data c … Researchers that work with personal data can consult the GDPR online [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679 here]. In 2020 the European Data Protection Supervisor issued [https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/20-01-06_opinion_research_en.pdf A Preliminary Opinion on data protection and scientific research].You should also be able to contact your local Data Protection Officer or study supervisor for more information on handling personal data.ore information on handling personal data.)
Deception by Research Participants + (Resnik et al (2015) list four measures res … Resnik et al (2015) list four measures researchers can take to address deception by research subjects. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000197-QINU`"'# Researchers can verify information by letting participants undergo physical exams and laboratory tests.# Research subjects can be excluded from the study when deception is uncovered.# Studies can consider rewarding research subjects when they provide accurate self-reported information. # Researchers can require subjects to be registered in a clinical trial particpant registry.d in a clinical trial particpant registry.)
The qualification portfolio (UMC Utrecht): from output to impact + (See also: http://www.nature.com/news/fewer-numbers-better-science-1.20858)
Research ethics committees + (Several documents and declarations have be … Several documents and declarations have been developed in relation to ethical research committees. The European Network of Research Ethics Committees - EUREC is a network that brings together existing national Research Ethics Committees, networks or comparable initiatives on the level of European Union. RECs can be established for each academic institution and/or universities. In the United States, Institutional Review boards (IRBs) exist in both academic and state institutions.t in both academic and state institutions.)
Peer Review in the Social Sciences and Humanities + (Shortcomings in the current system have le … Shortcomings in the current system have led to discussions in the SSH community with the aim of addressing the challenges and implementing some changes. In February 2020, the European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (ENRESSH) provided a report, an “[https://enressh.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Hoffman-Holowiecki-Holm-Ochsner-Overview-of-Peer-Review-Practices-in-the-SSH.pdf Overview of Peer Review Practices in the SSH]” '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F3-QINU`"'. The report stressed that, in contrast to STEM, SSH disciplines are more heterogeneous in their publication outputs. This makes it difficult to define and evaluate research methodologies, which, subsequently, leads to a lack of consensus when it comes to the criteria for assessing the quality of research outputs '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F4-QINU`"'. The report states that copying the evaluation models that exist for STEM disciplines is not the best response '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F5-QINU`"'. However, some argue that certain practices, such as open peer review, could apply to SSH. The advantages of open peer review are that it would speed up the publication process and enable dialogue between authors and readers '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F6-QINU`"'.In order to speed up the review process, the report offers other suggestions, including, limiting the length of manuscripts, limiting the number of publications per researcher or institution and recruiting more reviewers '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F7-QINU`"'. In addition, the SSH community could learn from new peer review models in STEM subjects, and seek to apply them if possible '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F8-QINU`"'. Although SSH disciplines are heterogeneous, there is a call for general standards and principles for peer review '"`UNIQ--ref-000003F9-QINU`"', in order to ensure “timeliness, transparency and verifiability” '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FA-QINU`"'. Even though the SSH tend to be slower to respond to calls for change when compared with STEM disciplines, some journals and platforms have been adapting to recent developments in peer review systems, including 1) Kairos, which adopted a three-stage review process '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FB-QINU`"', 2) Palgrave Macmillian, which has trialed open peer review trial '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FC-QINU`"' and open publishing '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FD-QINU`"', and 3) Wellcome Open Research, which provides post-publication peer review '"`UNIQ--ref-000003FE-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-000003FF-QINU`"'U`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-000003FF-QINU`"')
AllTrials campaign + (Since 2008, the American Food and Drug Adm … Since 2008, the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required that results of all trials have to be posted within one year of their completion. This legislation, like others, does not work retroactively, which means that every treatment tested before 2008 does not have to have published results. Also, since the legislation came into action, no studies have been fined for noncompliance, and research has shown that 80% of clinical trials do not comply.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000082-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000083-QINU`"' Major clinical trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov, eudraCT), have independent trials trackers, led by Data Lab from Oxford University. They collect a list of trials that have ended and whether or not they published their results. The Data Lab also collaborated with Goldacre on Open Trials. Its aim is to collect everything related to clinical trials in one place, including their registration, data, reports, publications and researchers.'"`UNIQ--references-00000084-QINU`"'hers. '"`UNIQ--references-00000084-QINU`"')
Vulnerable and non-competent subjects in clinical trials + (Since World War II, a lot has been said ab … Since World War II, a lot has been said about human experimentation, and vulnerable groups in particular. Many different reports and guidelines have been developed and should be consulted when thinking about involving vulnerable and non-competent individuals. Start with the Declaration of Helsinki and don’t forget to check the appropriate regulations of your own country and institution.tions of your own country and institution.)
The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice + (Six principles: Honesty and scrupulousness, Reliability, Verifiability, Impartiality, Independence and Responsibility)
Sharing and preserving data in repositories + (Some journals, such as Nature, require dep … Some journals, such as Nature, require depositing data to data repositories as part of the manuscript submission process. This is one of the prerequisites for publication.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000917-QINU`"' Nature has set out certain criteria for data repositories. They should:-provide long-term preservation of data (at least 5 years after publication)-be supported by a research community or institution-provide deposited datasets with stable and persistent identifiers-allow open access-provide terms of data use-facilitate for anonymous reviewers to access data under embargo.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000918-QINU`"' The journal also offers a list of repositories across research areas for researchers who are not certain where to deposit their data:-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=Generalist%20repositories-,Biological%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Biological sciences]-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=Generalist%20repositories-,Biological%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Health sciences]-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRshaing%20entry-,Chemistry%20and%20Chemical%20biology,-%E2%A4%B4 Chemistry and Chemical biology]-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRsharing%20entry-,Earth%2C%20Environmental%20and%20Space%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Earth, Environmental and Space sciences]-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRsharing%20entry-,Physics,-%E2%A4%B4 Physics]-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20re3data%20entry-,Materials%20science,-%E2%A4%B4 Material science]-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20FAIRsharing%20entry-,Social%20sciences,-%E2%A4%B4 Social sciences]-[https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#:~:text=view%20re3data%20entry-,Generalist%20repositories,-%E2%A4%B4 Generalist repositories].'"`UNIQ--ref-00000919-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000091A-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000091A-QINU`"')
Replicability + (Some of the most common examples of replic … Some of the most common examples of replication failures come from drug discovery and development. Usually drugs are developed in several stages, beginning with cells and animal studies and ultimately advancing to human trials. Failures in both conceptual and direct replication are frequent in this branch of science. Conceptual failure, for example, can occur when testing a drug that has promising action in animals for the first time in humans'"`UNIQ--ref-0000039B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000039C-QINU`"', whereas a direct replication failure might occur when testing the same drug on a similar group of people'"`UNIQ--ref-0000039D-QINU`"'. Since successful replications enhance public trust in science and medicine, the increasing number of non-replicable studies in various disciplines, mainly psychology, have resulted in what has been described as a “replication crisis” and raised serious concerns'"`UNIQ--ref-0000039E-QINU`"'. A study conducted by a team of 270 scientists at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville showed that only 35 of 100 studies published in one of the prominent psychology journals in 2008 could be replicated'"`UNIQ--ref-0000039F-QINU`"'. Some argue however that there is no such thing as a “replication crisis”; moreover, sometimes the “non-replicability” could be helpful to science'"`UNIQ--ref-000003A0-QINU`"'.If replication fails, it does not necessarily mean that the original result of the experiment which is being replicated is false. It indicates some unknown factors are different in the replication experiment vs. the original experiment and an attempt should be made to investigate these '"`UNIQ--ref-000003A1-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000003A2-QINU`"'. If such factors are found (either of a technical or knowledge domain specific nature) they can substantially improve the understanding of the phenomena being studied.In the last few years, leading scientific institutions in the United States have taken some steps to improve replicability. In 2014, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided training modules for postdoctoral fellows and a list of publications regarding replicability on their website, and emphasized addressing transparency in grant applications'"`UNIQ--ref-000003A3-QINU`"'. The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) have published Companion Guidelines on Replication and Reproducibility in Education Research in 2018. The guidelines suggest several actions to enhance replicability. For example, proposals for replication studies should guarantee objectivity, pre-registration of the research design and methods should ensure transparency, research should be described in detail, and all research data should be publically available'"`UNIQ--ref-000003A4-QINU`"'. Taking these important steps calls for a significant culture shift so that accuracy in research would be valued more than swiftness'"`UNIQ--ref-000003A5-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-000003A6-QINU`"'U`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-000003A6-QINU`"')
Seven Ways to Plagiarise: The Magazine Surprise + (Specific advice for authors: "Do not put y … Specific advice for authors: "Do not put your name on a manuscript written by someone else. • Do not insert someone else’s text as a place-holder in a draft manuscript. The original might not be replaced later. • Do not copy verbatim the background section of someone else’s paper. Copying an amount beyond fair use might violate copyright law. The background section could be incomplete or erroneous. A subsequent inquiry or investigation would consume a lot of time from faculty and administrators, and it could embarrass the institution. • Include references to all sources, with appropriate citations, in all manuscripts and grant proposals. • Take allegations of plagiarism to a research integrity officer. If there is no research integrity officer, then consult a knowledgeable administrator"'"`UNIQ--ref-000002CA-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-000002CB-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000002CB-QINU`"')
Research with animals + (Starting in the 18th century, more and mor … Starting in the 18th century, more and more arguments against research with animals have been voiced. Today, guidance for ethical use of animals in research is represented by so called 3R principles. 3R stands for replacement, reduction and refinement.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000D6-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000000D7-QINU`"' Replacement implies that animals as an experimental system should be replaced with a system from which the identical conclusion could be made if it is available. Reduction means that minimal numbers of animals should be used to prove something in experiments. Refinement means that if suffering of animals is present in the experiment it should be refined with pain killing medications and other support measures. In 2013, European Union formally applied EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000D8-QINU`"'This directive refers to 3R principles, and its ultimate goal is to replace animals in research altogether.'"`UNIQ--references-000000D9-QINU`"'The application of the 3R principles is considered to be of crucial importance for the ethical use of animals in medicine testing across the European Union. Therefore, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in collaboration with a dedicated 3Rs Working Party (3RsWP) develops scientific guidelines to help medicine developers comply with EU Directive 2010/63/EU. In order to ensure that there are no references to animal tests that are no longer considered appropriate, the EMA reviews and updates EMA guidelines to implement best practice with regard to 3Rs. Additionally, in accordance with Regulatory Science Strategy to 2025, the Agency is promoting 3Rs through a multidisciplinary group - the Innovation Task Force (ITF). This approach is expected to encourage prioritising of alternative methods and facilitate their integration into the development and evaluation of medicinal products.ment and evaluation of medicinal products.)
Online Posts Damage a Researcher's Reputation + (TENK believes that it is important to keep the threshold low for initiating a preliminary inquiry into such cases.)
Good Practice and Reporting Cases in Finland + (TENK launched the Research Integrity Advis … TENK launched the Research Integrity Adviser system in order to raise awareness of the responsible conduct of research in Finland, to increase personal guidance on research integrity, and to offer expert training on responsible conduct of research and procedures.TENK advised various parties on mechanisms to resolve allegations of research misconduct as well the guidelines for handling alleged violations.TENK coordinates the ethical review of research in the field of human sciences and promotes cooperation between regional and institutional research ethics committees. The Board annually monitors the state of ethical review in universities and research institutions by gathering information on the cases handled by research ethics committees.TENK established a working group to update the guidelines for the ethical review of research in the field of human sciences in order to meet the requirements of the new General Data Protection Regulations ('GDPR').eral Data Protection Regulations ('GDPR').)
Ethical Guidelines for Good Research Practice + (The ASA Ethical Guidelines present the responsibilities that researchers have with research participants, funders, sponsors, employers, host governments and the discipline of anthropology in general.)
Inferring from P-values + (The ASA statement on P-values gives instru … The ASA statement on P-values gives instructions on the correct use of P-values, with the goal of improving interpretation in quantitative science. The overall conclusion of the ASA is that scientific inferences should not be based exclusively on P-value threshold, because that, in itself, does not provide substantial evidence regarding a model or hypothesis, nor does it measure the size of a certain effect or determine the importance of the results. Researchers should use P-values within a proper context, because otherwise it can lead to selective reporting '"`UNIQ--ref-0000041F-QINU`"'. Good scientific inference requires the full and transparent reporting of data and methods '"`UNIQ--ref-00000420-QINU`"'. There are other methods that researchers can use with or instead of P-values, which mostly focus on estimations as opposed to testing. These include confidence, credibility or prediction intervals, Bayesian methods, decision-theoretic modeling and false discovery rates '"`UNIQ--ref-00000421-QINU`"'.Since its release in 2016, the ASA statement has been cited about 1,700 times and downloaded nearly 300,000 times. In 2017, the ASA organized a symposium on statistical methods, which resulted in 43 articles on the topic of the responsible use of P-values'"`UNIQ--ref-00000422-QINU`"' . Statisticians and scientists are currently considering “a world beyond p<0.05” ('"`UNIQ--ref-00000423-QINU`"'), suggesting a wide spectrum of solutions and possibilities. One solution involves changing the P-value threshold for statistical significance from 0.05 to 0.005 ('"`UNIQ--ref-00000424-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000425-QINU`"'). By contrast, others argue that reproducibility of results and pre-registration are the best means for preventing selection bias '"`UNIQ--ref-00000426-QINU`"'. Others still recommend including more information when reporting P-values, such as the researcher’s confidence in the P-value or their assessment of the likelihood that a statistically significant finding is, in fact, a false positive result '"`UNIQ--ref-00000427-QINU`"'.Critiques, initiatives and recommendations require not only further academic discussion, but also significant educational reforms in statistics '"`UNIQ--ref-00000428-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-00000429-QINU`"'QINU`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-00000429-QINU`"')
Good Epidemiological Practice Guidelines + (The BRIDGE guidelines are the proposed best practices)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights + (The Belmont report '"`UNIQ--ref-0000020E-QINU`"' , the Declaration of Helsinki '"`UNIQ--ref-0000020F-QINU`"' and similar ethical and legal documents were enacted by governing bodies and professional associations. '"`UNIQ--references-00000210-QINU`"')
Balancing harms and benefits + (The Belmont report, '"`UNIQ--ref-000000B1-QINU`"' the Declaration of Helsinki '"`UNIQ--ref-000000B2-QINU`"' and similar ethical and legal documents were enacted by governing bodies and professional associations. '"`UNIQ--references-000000B3-QINU`"')
COMET Initiative + (The COMET initiative focuses on developing … The COMET initiative focuses on developing standardised sets of outcomes that represent a minimum that should be measured and reported in studies with different study designs. Core outcomes included in sets must be relevant for patients and healthcare providers. The COMET Initiative has a database open to all researchers planning to conduct a study with an 'advanced search' option to find core outcome sets appropriate for their studies'"`UNIQ--ref-0000095C-QINU`"'.heir studies'"`UNIQ--ref-0000095C-QINU`"'.)
Image Integrity + (The Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuv … The Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) has a dedicated webpage on image integrity. They identified some of the most important sources and tools on the subject (available [https://www.kuleuven.be/english/research/integrity/practices/image-processing here], accessed on 24-04-2020). As their page is brief, a more elaborate description of what it contains, and additional sources, follows below.Rossner & Yamada (2004)'"`UNIQ--ref-000002E1-QINU`"' wrote a prominent article arguing for a standard for image integrity. Working as Editors for The Journals of Cell Biology, they noticed the discrepancies between guidelines on image integrity journals gave to their authors (if any). To have a comprehensive overview, they developed their own guidelines for the Journal of Cell biology. They write that, for every aspect of the guideline, the main question is: “Is the image that results from this adjustment still an accurate representation of the original data?”'"`UNIQ--ref-000002E2-QINU`"' (p. 5). Whenever the answer is ‘no’, researchers should provide a detailed description of the adjustments, its purpose and the original image on request. If not, their actions might be regarded as misconduct.A step-by-step translation of the guideline is available on the website of American Journal Experts (access [https://www.aje.com/en/arc/avoiding-image-fraud-7-rules-editing-images/, here], accessed on 24-04-2020) and on the KU Leuven webpage. A similar guideline, and additional editorials on the subject, are given by the journal Nature on their editorial policies page (available [https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/image-integrity here], accessed on 24-04-2020). The Center for Ethics and Values in the Sciences, of the University of Alabama in Birmingham, created a website for both students and researchers with much material regarding image integrity (available [https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/RIandImages/default.html here], accessed on 24-04-2020). They provide guidelines with more in depth explanations and illustration videos, but also educational material such as case studies, discussion hand outs and a quiz. The Office of Research Integrity provides a tutorial on how to use ‘action sets’ in photoshop (available [https://ori.hhs.gov/actions here], accessed on 24-04-2020). These actions sets allow you to document the changes you make to an image and ‘slide’ (i.e. going back and forward) between all the steps you made. The process of the image you manipulated will hereby be completely transparent if you provide the ‘action set’ combine with a copy of the original image.For those reviewing papers, a free open source program, called InspectJ, is available on GitHub to identify cloning, stitching, patching and erased objects within an image. An advanced version also provides histogram equalization and gamma correction for improved image inspections (both available [https://github.com/ZMBH-Imaging-Facility/InspectJ here], accessed on 24-04-2020)'"`UNIQ--references-000002E3-QINU`"'-04-2020) '"`UNIQ--references-000002E3-QINU`"')
Research culture + (The Concordat to Support Research Integrit … The Concordat to Support Research Integrity lists eight aspects which are important for a good research environment to promote best practices and research integrity.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004ED-QINU`"' They state a good research culture should include, as a minimum, the following: *Have clear policies, practices and procedures to support researchers*Have research ethics and integrity training, including mentoring opportunities*Have robust management systems ensuring implementation of policies related to research, its integrity and researchers behaviour*Create awareness among the standards of behaviour of researchers*Ensure a system is in place that can identify concerns at an early stage*Provide support mechanisms for those that need assistance*Have policies in place ensuring no stigma is attached to those that find they need assistance from their emplyees*Communicate and implement processes to raise concerns about research integrity'"`UNIQ--references-000004EE-QINU`"'h integrity '"`UNIQ--references-000004EE-QINU`"')
Conflicts of interest in the review of grant proposals + (The Dutch funding agencies ZonMw and NWO h … The Dutch funding agencies ZonMw and NWO have set up guidelines for dealing with COIs in the reviewing process. COI citeria include: *personal interests*professional interests*interests arising out of other positions*business (financial or economic) interestsThe following personal interests always exclude participation in the process: *being the applicant or joint applicant*having written any part of an application without being an applicant or joint applicant*having any of the following relations with the applicant or joint applicant*actual or anticipated project manager or sub-project manager*direct manager*blood relation or affinity (up to and including the third degree*contract of cohabitation (other than a civil partnership*dean of the applicant’s institute'"`UNIQ--ref-00000220-QINU`"'Both ZonMw and NWO ask reviewers to declare their COIs. Next, the head of the committee assesses the impact of the declared COIs. He or she can decide if the reviewer cannot assess a particular application, or if he or she should not partake in the review process at all. Subsequently, the committee states whether they agree or disagree with this decision. Moreover, to ensure impartiality, individual reviewers do not get to see each other’s scores. After the review process has concluded, the reviewers assess whether the process has raised new insights into COIs. In the worst case scenario, if the process has been influenced by a reviewer’s COI, the whole review process is redone.'"`UNIQ--references-00000221-QINU`"'done. '"`UNIQ--references-00000221-QINU`"')
Take no full responsibility for the integrity of the research project and its reports + (The ECoC states that all partners involved … The ECoC states that all partners involved in research take full responsibility for the overall integrity of the project. All partners are also expected to have agreed at the outset on the standards of research integrity that will be maintained. 1 This can include all aspects of the research, from conception to publication, in order to prevent ambiguity at a later stage. The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations 4 states that all involved partners openly discuss their customary practices and expectations, including those of research integrity. While every individual is responsible fully for their own contribution, there should also be a collective responsibility for the integrity of the project. 4tive responsibility for the integrity of the project. 4)
ENERI Decision Tree + (The ENERI Decision Tree summarizes and lin … The ENERI Decision Tree summarizes and links to many important laws, regulations, codes and other documents that can help researchers to work ethically and with integrity and that can support RECs and RIOs in performing their roles adequately and fulfilling their responsibilities. More detailed information on all topics covered in the Decision Tree is available in the ENERI Manual on Research Ethics and Research Integrity. Besides, the [[Resource:C386dbba-2f69-4257-89c2-903898cf1f12|ENERI Classroom]] as well as the [[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|VIRT2UE Training Guide]] provide access to educational materials on research ethics and research integrity that help fostering skills conducive to ethical reflection.Furthermore, the [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Special:BrowseData/Resource?_search_Resource_Type%5B0%5D=Cases cases] in the resources section of the Embassy as well as the educational scenarios developed by EnTIRE that are available in the [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Special:BrowseData/Resource?_search_Resource_Type%5B0%5D=Education educational resources] section can be used for further reflections and deliberations on specific research ethics and research integrity problems.ch ethics and research integrity problems.)
EQIPD (Enhancing Quality in Preclinical Data) + (The EQIPD quality system is currently appl … The EQIPD quality system is currently applied at research labs within the IMI consortium and a group of interested labs. EQIPD made all the developed resources available to the public. Currently, this includes a preprint publication describing the EQIPD system in greater detail on the Open Science Framework [https://osf.io/ng32b/ here]. Additionally, a wiki page, [https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/EQIPD_Quality_System the EQIPD toolbox], is available providing information developed by the consortium and a broader stakeholder group.onsortium and a broader stakeholder group.)
Supervision Guidelines + (The European Code of Conduct (2017) specif … The European Code of Conduct (2017) specifies that training is necessary for researchers to improve supervision and mentoring. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000071-QINU`"' Please click [https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity#entry:29:url here] for the European Code of Conduct.'"`UNIQ--references-00000072-QINU`"'duct. '"`UNIQ--references-00000072-QINU`"')
Responsible mentoring + (The European Code of Conduct for Research … The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC RI) defines a good practice in mentorship:'"`UNIQ--ref-0000054F-QINU`"'“Senior researchers, research leaders and supervisors mentor their team members and offer specific guidance and training to properly develop, design and structure their research activity and to foster a culture of research integrity.” The ECoC RI also defines the misuse of seniority to encourage violations of research integrity as an unacceptable practice.The Office for Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services defines the expectations of trainees and mentors in the research process.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000550-QINU`"'“Trainees need to know:· how much time they will be expected to spend on their mentor’s research;· the criteria that will be used for judging performance and form the basis of letters of recommendation;· how responsibilities are shared or divided in the research setting;· standard operating procedures, such as the way data are recorded and interpreted; and, most importantly,· how credit is assigned, that is, how authorship and ownership are established.Mentors need to know that a trainee will:· do assigned work in a conscientious way,· respect the authority of others working in the research setting,· follow research regulations and research protocols, and· live by agreements established for authorship and ownership.”'"`UNIQ--references-00000551-QINU`"'hip.” '"`UNIQ--references-00000551-QINU`"')
Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations + (The European Code of Conduct states that g … The European Code of Conduct states that good research practice with regard to collaborations are based on the following principles:*All partners in research collaborations take responsibility for the integrity of the research.*All partners in research collaborations agree at the outset on the goals of the research and on the process for communicating their research as transparently and openly as possible.*All partners formally agree at the start of their collaboration on expectations and standards concerning research integrity, on the laws and regulations that will apply, on protection of the intellectual property of collaborators, and on procedures for handling conflicts and possible cases of misconduct.*All partners in research collaborations are properly informed and consulted about submissions for publication of the research results. (ECC 2017, section 2.6)Vicens and Bourne (2007) suggest the following rules: '"`UNIQ--ref-00000208-QINU`"' #Do Not Be Lured into Just Any Collaboration#Decide at the Beginning Who Will Work on What Tasks#Stick to Your Tasks#Be Open and Honest#Feel Respect, Get Respect#Communicate, Communicate, and Communicate#Protect Yourself from a Collaboration That Turns Sour#Always Acknowledge and Cite Your Collaborators#Seek Advice from Experienced Scientists#If Your Collaboration Satisfies You, Keep It Going'"`UNIQ--references-00000209-QINU`"'Going '"`UNIQ--references-00000209-QINU`"')
Collaborative working + (The European Code of Conduct'"`UNIQ--ref-0 … The European Code of Conduct'"`UNIQ--ref-00000052-QINU`"' states that good research practice with regard to collaborations are based on the following principles:*"All partners in research collaborations take responsibility for the integrity of the research.*All partners in research collaborations agree at the outset on the goals of the research and on the process for communicating their research as transparently and openly as possible.* All partners formally agree at the start of their collaboration on expectations and standards concerning research integrity, on the laws and regulations that will apply, on protection of the intellectual property of collaborators, and on procedures for handling conflicts and possible cases of misconduct.*All partners in research collaborations are properly informed and consulted about submissions for publication of the research results. "(ECC 2017, section 2.6)Vicens and Bourne (2007) suggest the following rules'"`UNIQ--ref-00000053-QINU`"': #Do Not Be Lured into Just Any Collaboration#Decide at the Beginning Who Will Work on What Tasks#Stick to Your Tasks#Be Open and Honest#Feel Respect, Get Respect#Communicate, Communicate, and Communicate#Protect Yourself from a Collaboration That Turns Sour#Always Acknowledge and Cite Your Collaborators#Seek Advice from Experienced Scientists#If Your Collaboration Satisfies You, Keep It Going'"`UNIQ--references-00000054-QINU`"'Going '"`UNIQ--references-00000054-QINU`"')
FAIR principles: sharing data for maximisation of results + (The European Commission decided to run a p … The European Commission decided to run a pilot under Horizon 2020 the [http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/oa-pilot/h2020-hi-erc-oa-guide_en.pdf Open Research Data Pilot] (ORD pilot). Which aims to improve and maximise access to and re-use of research data generated by Horizon 2020 projects. This initiative supports and requires the application of FAIR principles within the H2020 research projects, and therefore it strives to maximise the output and outreach of publicly funded research. and outreach of publicly funded research.)
Research integrity in practice: dealing with everyday dilemmas + (The European Commission funded VIRT2UE pro … The European Commission funded VIRT2UE project has designed a set of practical tools for recognizing and dealing with RI dilemmas in practice. One of these tools is the so called ‘Virtues, Values and Norms in Perspective’ exercise. In this exercise, inspired by a [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5236068/ virtue ethics approach to RI education], '"`UNIQ--ref-0000009C-QINU`"' participants are asked to reflect on a concrete dilemma experienced by one of the participants. By engaging in a dialogue, trainees are asked to put themselves in the shoes of the people involved in the case at stake and reflect on which values would be important for each of them. Then they are asked to reflect on which virtues are required to deal with the dilemma at stake: are they in conflict with each other? How are they related to salient norms? Which virtue is the most important in this situation? What is needed (concretely) to act in accordance with that virtue?This exercise aims at fostering reflection in oneself by means of understanding the concepts of virtues/values and norms and their relationship with practice.Another initiative is the [https://www.eur.nl/sites/corporate/files/24708_integriteitsspel_interactief_2016.pdf Rotterdam Dilemma Game], '"`UNIQ--ref-0000009D-QINU`"' which focuses less on virtue ethics but nonetheless provides structure to discuss RI dilemmas.'"`UNIQ--references-0000009E-QINU`"'mmas. '"`UNIQ--references-0000009E-QINU`"')
Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) + (The Initiative has asked scholarly publish … The Initiative has asked scholarly publishers, who were already depositing the reference lists of their publications at Crossref, to make them open and available to everyone. Before this Initiative, only 1% of all references deposited at Crossref were open. As of August 2021, the percentage of publications with open references has grown from 1% to 88% out of 56.1 million articles with references submitted to Crossref.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000544-QINU`"' Among significant publishers there are [https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/239 BMJ], [https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/56 Cambridge University Press], [https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/281 MIT Press], [https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/286 Oxford University Press], [https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/292 The Royal Society of Chemistry], [https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/179 SAGE Publications], and [https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/311 Wiley].'"`UNIQ--ref-00000545-QINU`"' You can see the full list [https://i4oc.org/#:~:text=Participating%20publishers here].'"`UNIQ--references-00000546-QINU`"'ere]. '"`UNIQ--references-00000546-QINU`"')
Honorary or gift authorship + (The International Committee of Medical Jou … The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides recommendations for defining the roles of authors and contributors. The ICMJE recommends the four main criteria that should be taken into account for authorship. These criteria include a) substantial contribution related to the study design, data collection, data analysis, and data interpretation, and b) drafting and critically revising the work, and c) approval for the final version for publication, and d) accountability for all aspects of the work, including its integrity '"`UNIQ--ref-000006BF-QINU`"'. The ICMJE emphasizes that those who meet all four criteria should be assigned as authors and provides guidance for acknowledging those who do not meet all of the above-mentioned criteria but still contributed to the study and whose contribution should be acknowledged. The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) is another example of guidance for avoiding authorship malpractices and disputes '"`UNIQ--ref-000006C0-QINU`"'. CRediT statement contains 14 items related to the authors’ contributions. For example, some of the items included in the statement are the authors’ contributions in conceptualization, methodology, analysis, writing and editing the manuscript, visualization, supervision, etc. Many publishers have already adopted the CRediT taxonomy and encourage authors to use it when providing authors contributions during the manuscript submission process '"`UNIQ--ref-000006C1-QINU`"'.ion process '"`UNIQ--ref-000006C1-QINU`"'.)
Development and Value of National Research Integrity Codes + (The Irish national statement for research integrity 7 is developed in line with the ECoC. - Principles of Research Integrity - Research Misconduct - Collaboratiosns)
Good Practice and Reporting Cases in Switzerland + (The Plagiarism Control Group checks the re … The Plagiarism Control Group checks the research proposals submitted to the SNSF both at random (5% of all submissions) and when it is alerted to potential research integrity cases by persons outside the SNSF.The SNSF uses the ''iThenticate'' software, produced by Turnitin, in order to compare research proposals with texts on the internet and scientific databases. Only results with a similarity index of ≥ 10% and/or the largest possible degree of correspondence of >200 words are followed up.respondence of >200 words are followed up.)
Reasonable standards for career advancement + (The Qualification portfolio, implemented by Utrecht UMC. To be described in further detail elsewhere on The Embassy.)
The Dilemma Game + (The Taskforce Scientific Integrity from th … The Taskforce Scientific Integrity from the Erasmus University Rotterdam has made a number of recommendations for use of the game in their institution. One of the recommendations is that the game is used as a part of PhD training, as well as a faculty training session on research integrity.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' The dilemma game has also proved useful beyond its home institution, for example it is used as an exercise in [https://www.ucl.ac.uk/research/integrity/training-accordion/integrity-seminars research integrity seminars] provided by University College London and the PRINTEGER project has listed the dilemma game as one of the [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ learning modules] on their platform. As an interactive and educational exercise, the dilemma game is used in training sessions for research integrity trainers by the Horizon 2020 VIRT2UE project. '''Dilemma game app'''The developers have been adapting the card game into an app, in order to make the dilemmas not only more accessible, but also more relevant to a rapidly changing research environment and available for different purposes. With this app, researchers and teachers can use it individually, in a classroom game-mode and in a lecture mode, by connecting in a group. Moreover, users are now more regularly confronted with integrity dilemmas through notifications, with new dilemma’s added each month and the invitation to share own research integrity dilemma’s. This app is a great example of an inspiring initiative, since it serves different objectives: it is a usable tool for training purposes, creates ongoing awareness and supports research culture by facilitating discussion.The dilemma game can be downloaded as an application on [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=nl.eur.dilemmagame&gl=NL Android devices] and [https://apps.apple.com/nl/app/dilemma-game/id1494087665 iOS]. The app has three modes: individual, group and lecture mode, allowing users to interact with the dilemma's in a variety of ways. You can also open the lecture mode in your [https://dilemmagame.eur.nl/ui/ browser], so you can show students the dilemma and their answers. '"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"'answers. '"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"')
Conflict of interest: a research integrity and research ethics perspective + (The [[Resource:C386dbba-2f69-4257-89c2-903898cf1f12|ENERI Classroom]] … The [[Resource:C386dbba-2f69-4257-89c2-903898cf1f12|ENERI Classroom]] as well as the ENERI [[Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434|Research Ethics and Research Integrity Manual]] describe in more detail what COIs are and how they can be avoided and managed responsibly. [[Theme:1fc5c5b6-6c30-4400-a79b-8838b5a041cc|Path2Integrity]] has developed a [[Resource:C13f2fea-2e63-4da9-8b9a-e4039c3dfde1|learning card]] (instruction for a learning unit) on COIs (card Y7).The Research Ethics Program of the University of California, San Diego has developed an [http://research-ethics.org/topics/conflicts-of-interest/#summary educational resource on COIs].The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has collected [https://ori.hhs.gov/conflicts-interest-and-commitment resources on COIs and commitment].The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has developed [https://publicationethics.org/competinginterests guidelines] for addressing COIs in the realm of publication ethics.The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has [http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ disclosure of interest form].of-interest/ disclosure of interest form].)
Cross-boundary collaborations + (The [https://wcrif.org/documents/354-montr … The [https://wcrif.org/documents/354-montreal-statement-english/file Montreal Statement on Research Integrity] in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations was developed at the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, 2013. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000055-QINU`"' The statement details twenty separate responsibilities of individuals and institutions concerning general collaborations, management of collaborations, collaborative relationships, and outcomes of research. '"`UNIQ--references-00000056-QINU`"'rch. '"`UNIQ--references-00000056-QINU`"')
Legal rights of accused scientists + (The [https://www.embassy.science/resources … The [https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity European Code of Conduct] states that fairness and integrity are most important for procedures for investigating misconduct, principles to be followed are also stated.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000073-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000074-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000074-QINU`"')
Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Research Environments and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Research Procedures and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Safeguards, Data-sharing and the Disclosure of Sensitive Results: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Research Integrity and Research Ethics Scenarios for Teaching + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Training, Supervision and Mentoring with Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project + (The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow … The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.s well as their local rules and practices.)
Preregistration of animal study protocols + (The best practice is to preregister study … The best practice is to preregister study protocols online in a registry. When describing their study designs, researchers should be as transparent and complete as possible.To date, only two reliable animal registries are available:[https://preclinicaltrials.eu/ Preclinicaltrials.eu] and the [https://www.animalstudyregistry.org/asr_web/index.action Animal Study Registry]. It is also possible to use general registries, e.g. the Open Science Framework, however the registration forms will not be tailored to animal studies specifically. If a study could not be preregistered, it is still worthwhile to register its protocol at a later stage; especially if the study could not be published. Although, prospective registration (i.e., registration before the experiments) should be encouraged.ore the experiments) should be encouraged.)
Respectable and honest supervision ensures responsible and ethical research in the future. + (The best practices include the supervisor … The best practices include the supervisor creating a relaxed atmosphere, being open to communication and making themselves approachable for students. In that sense, it is useful when supervisors respect the ideas of open science, and share their knowledge and experience with the researcher/student they are supervising. A relaxed, yet professional communication could also be helpful in achieving these goals. If any issues occur, or if a supervised researcher/student makes mistakes, this should be resolved through suggestions and recommendations for improvement, rather than harsh criticism or stressing the student's failures.Students/early career researchers should be honest in communication and respecftul, while taking the supervisor's comments seriously and accepting criticism as a tool for improvement.pting criticism as a tool for improvement.)
Informed consent in psychiatry + (The best practices is the first step in the targeting the right population of the patients that will be included in research. Also, it is important to give them the informed consent at the beginning of the research, before any procedure.)
Definition of plagiarism: Phrasing + (The case provides some ideas of best pract … The case provides some ideas of best practices in order to avoid such plagiarism allegations: a) Create your own review model after you have read a number of different review examples, rather heavily relying on one single exampleb) Acknowledge that the book review model used relies heavily on XX’s review by referencing appropriatelyn XX’s review by referencing appropriately)
Author Misconduct: Not Just the Editors' Responsibility + (The cases reveal practices to avoid: < … The cases reveal practices to avoid: *Plagiarism*Undeserved authorship*Duplicate submission*Unprofessional conduct*Lack of ethical approval*Redundant or duplicate publicationOther experienced misconduct to avoid were: *"‘salami‐slicing’– dividing up a piece of research as thinly as possible to get the maximum number of papers out of it; this naturally involves a great deal of repeated information, especially in the ‘methods’ section;"*"cutting and pasting whole sections from 1 manuscript to another – another unfortunate temptation of the electronic age;"'"`UNIQ--ref-0000018F-QINU`"'*"publishing a paper in a small national journal, then having it translated into English and submitting it to a larger journal without revealing its previous publication;"*"publishing a paper in a minor journal or in some other format such as an e‐journal and then submitting it to a larger journal without revealing its previous publication, and"*"attempting to have a paper published in 2 journals simultaneously; some authors even go so far as to give identical papers different titles and list the authors in a different order in an attempt to disguise this type of misconduct." '"`UNIQ--ref-00000190-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000191-QINU`"'-00000190-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000191-QINU`"')
UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity + (The concordat targets four main areas: *Maintaining the highest standards of research integrity *Embedding a culture of research integrity *Dealing with allegations of research misconduct *A commitment to strengthening research integrity )
Selective citation + (The correct use of previously published ma … The correct use of previously published material does not involve selective citation to enhance one’s own findings or to please editors, reviewers or colleagues.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000028C-QINU`"' References to published material should not be used to promote self-interests.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000028D-QINU`"' Nuanced use of previously published material involves using resources in a neutral and unbiased way.'''Examples of citation in the scientific and popular literature'''Journal articles:*[https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/2/e026518 Selective citation in the literature on the hygiene hypothesis: a citation analysis on the association between infections and rhinitis]*[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/267954 Selective Citation of Evidence Regarding Photoreceptor Loss in Glaucoma]*[https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-017-0041-z Selective citation in the literature on swimming in chlorinated water and childhood asthma: a network analysis]Blog sphere:*[https://www.embassy.science/theme/Citation%20bias%20favoring%20positive%20clinical%20trials Citation bias favoring positive clinical trials]News outlets:*[https://theconversation.com/how-time-poor-scientists-inadvertently-made-it-seem-like-the-world-was-overrun-with-jellyfish-61564 How time-poor scientists inadvertently made it seem like the world was overrun with jellyfish]*[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167812 'Stunningly Offensive' Paper 'Negates Judaism]''"`UNIQ--references-0000028E-QINU`"'ism]' '"`UNIQ--references-0000028E-QINU`"')
Research integrity officers in Europe + (The details of an RIO's job vary from coun … The details of an RIO's job vary from country to country, but the position is mandatory in many.In the United States, any institution that receives Public Health Service funding reports to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the Department of Health and Human Services. A RIO serves as the liaison between the ORI and their institution. By law, they ensure that the institution has policies and procedures for investigations and reports these to the ORI.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000A1-QINU`"' They also contribute to investigations that lead to retractions, expulsions, and (sometimes) arrests.In the European Union, each country has slightly different requirements and roles for their RIOs, but their task is essentially the same. The European Network of Research Integrity Officers serves as the expert agency in the EU, assisting RIOs with advice and guidance.With the increasing pace of scientific publications, an RIO's job is more important than ever. They serve an essential role in the scientific community. They protect individual researchers from accidental missteps. They protect the public from poor, fraudulent, and fabricated science. They protect the whole scientific community by building public trust. An RIO serves on the front lines of scientific integrity. They're present to guide researchers and foster trust in institutions. RIOs exist to protect science and are a resource for researchers who need guidance or help with misconduct questions.'"`UNIQ--references-000000A2-QINU`"'ions. '"`UNIQ--references-000000A2-QINU`"')
The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity + (The document offers a rationale and examples of each of the five principles.)
Serious gaming in research integrity education + (The field of gaming in RCR education is gr … The field of gaming in RCR education is growing. A few examples include ‘‘Grants and Researchers’’, a card game designed to simulate the experience of ethical decision making within the context of academic research. Rules of the game are available [http://youtu.be/L4Jk84HlLN8 here] . Gaming Against Plagiarism (GAP) project developed three games that put the player in the central role of various issues in authorship, misconduct and intellectual property. More information on the games can be found [https://digitalworlds.ufl.edu/research-production/projects/gaming-against-plagiarism-gap/ here].ects/gaming-against-plagiarism-gap/ here].)
Informed consent + (The idea of written informed consent is no … The idea of written informed consent is not new. It first appeared in the early 20th century in Walter Reed’s research of yellow fever.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000C4-QINU`"' The development of human rights after the second World War brought to life numerous declarations and rules (e.g., the Nuremberg Code) regarding human experimentation.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000C5-QINU`"' In order for informed consent to be valid, four conditions need to be met'"`UNIQ--ref-000000C6-QINU`"':*Voluntariness: subjects should not be coerced. This could be a tricky condition sometimes, especially when subjects have no alternative choice (e.g., when a terminally ill patient is offered to join an experiment that might save their life)*Capacity: subjects should have the capacity to understand and judge provided information. This could become a thorny issue when dealin with vulnerable subjects (e.g., children) or patients with mental problems (e.g., those suffering from illnesses such as dimensia)*Information: subjects should be provided with adequate amount of information. These may include methodology, process, duration of the experiment, but also research goals, beneficiaries, data retention schedule, others uses of extracted data (e.g., publication of research articles, use of material in tangent projects, etc.).*Comprehension: subjects should understand the provided information. Relevant considerations include using straightforward language that is understandable for the least advantaged members of the target group, and avoding the use of scientific jargon.Before accepting a manuscript for publication, editors should make sure authors have all the necessary research ethics permissions and signed informed consent forms from all participants.'"`UNIQ--references-000000C7-QINU`"'all participants. '"`UNIQ--references-000000C7-QINU`"')
Governance of research integrity: Options for a coordinated approach in Europe + (The main options analysed are the establis … The main options analysed are the establishment of permanent European bodies to support institutions in investigating, overviewing or advising on research misconduct investigations. A European body to carry out investigations on behalf of institutions would ensure that investigations are carried consistently, reduce the risk of conflicts of interest, allow expertise to develop, and professionalize the handling of cases. It would be particularly helpful for institutions that still do not have any structures or experience in handling research misconduct allegations. Some obstacles would have to be overcome for such a body to be effective. Institutions might be reluctant to expose internal problems for fear of damaging their reputation and losing their autonomy; national regulations might limit access to data; and some counties might not recognize its legitimacy.A further option would be to set up an oversight body that would not conduct investigations but only review investigations carried out by institutions to make sure that they have followed appropriate procedures, previously agreed on internationally. This might motivate institutions to follow those procedures, and so it would bring more homogeneity in the handling of allegations across Europe. As well, an external check would help control and lower risks of conflict of interest. On the other hand, depending on its status, it might not be able to require an institution to redo a poorly conducted investigation, and if it did, this would require more resources for each investigation.Another role that a European body could have is advisory. It could advise institutions on how to create structures and policies to prevent research misconduct and protect integrity, and it could even set up a database of experts to assist investigations committees. The main concern about such a body is that it might be appear redundant or in conflict with existing national advisory bodies.ct with existing national advisory bodies.)
Plan S + (The main principle of Plan S states that a … The main principle of Plan S states that all research funded from public or private grants must be openly accessible when published. There are, in addition, ten sub-principals:#Authors should have copyright of their publications, which should be made available under a Creative Commons Attribution license;#Robust criteria for evaluation in high-quality open access journals, platforms and repositories should be developed;#Funders should provide incentives to establish and support open access journals where there aren’t any;#Funders should cover the cost of publication fees;#Funders should support the diversity of business models for open access journals and platforms;#Funders should ensure transparency by supporting alignment of strategies, policies and practices;#Monographs and book chapters should have a longer process of achieving open access;#Hybrid models of publishing should be only be a means of transforming to full open access;#Funders should monitor compliance;#Research outputs should be assessed on the basis of their internal value, and not their scientometric characteristics. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000333-QINU`"'In September 2018, 11 national research funding organizations (from Austria, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom) signed a commitment to implement all that is necessary for the Plan S mission by 1st January 2020.'"`UNIQ--references-00000334-QINU`"'gt; January 2020. '"`UNIQ--references-00000334-QINU`"')
Post-publication peer review + (The most famous practice example of post p … The most famous practice example of post publication peer review system is [https://f1000.com/ F1000], which is not a traditional journal, but more of an open science platform where published articles can be modified. New versions are uploaded online, with references to previous versions and changes. Moreover, the entire peer review process is transparent from the beginning to the end of the procedure. In that way, the manuscripts can be changed and adapted to include new insights. However, there are some critics who point out that it is a problem that previous versions of the article are still available online to anyone, even if they contain flawed reporting. Recent research has been discouraging for PPPR. It showed that online comments in PLOS and BMC journals decline in frequency and that existing comments rarely contain anything related to the content of the article.In addition, PubPeer is considered as one of the major platforms designed for post-publication peer review and also conversations about publications. Users can leave comments with their ORCID username or anonymously.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000010A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000010B-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000010B-QINU`"')
Data driven hypotheses without disclosure (‘HARKing’) + (The most prominent examples in practice ar … The most prominent examples in practice are diagnostic studies and hypothesis generating studies. When developing new diagnostic models authors tend to combine multiple prognostic factors and then test such models using the ROC analysis on whole sample without validating the model on a separate sample. However, sometimes the need for validation of model is not disclosed in discussion section. Hypothesis generating studies are usually done on “big data” from databases such as The Cancer Genome Atlas. The primary goal of such studies is to build models based on large data sets and “get the feeling for the data”, or in more technical language to do exploratory data analysis, sometimes such studies do not disclose need for model validation (i.e. confirmatory data analysis). Sometimes after ANOVA, correction for multiple comparison testing also known as post hoc testing is done, these post hoc tests have more stringent statistical significance criteria with the purpose of somewhat replacing model validation. However, replacing model validation with more stringent statistical significance criteria is highly debated topics in a world of statistics. Another case which is usually confused with HARKing are planned multiple comparisons after ANOVA. In this case the fact that comparisons are planned means that model was built before the experiment and based on it, comparisons are done after gathering data.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000024C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000024D-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000024D-QINU`"')
Statistical pre-registration + (The most relevant examples are studies nee … The most relevant examples are studies needed for drug approval. The approval procedure usually requires a series of clinical trials divided into three phases. Phase I and II can involve model building according to European Medicines Agency (EMA), however phase III trial is always designed as a confirmatory trial'"`UNIQ--ref-000003C7-QINU`"'. Both the EMA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require statistical pre-registration before the beginning of a trial. Exploratory trials aim to produce evidence of effectiveness of new drugs. These results then lead to confirmatory trials'"`UNIQ--ref-000003C8-QINU`"'. The need for pre-registrations of trials is demonstrated by the following case. In 2004, the New York attorney general’s office filed a lawsuit against pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline. Four unpublished clinical trials showed evidence that use of the antidepressant Paxil increases the risk of suicidal tendencies amongst young people. This lawsuit helped raise awareness that studies need to be pre-registered'"`UNIQ--ref-000003C9-QINU`"'. That year the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required pre-registration of clinical trials'"`UNIQ--ref-000003CA-QINU`"'. US laws also require clinical trials to be pre-registered'"`UNIQ--ref-000003CB-QINU`"'. Journals and research funders support pre-registration and some organizations promote it as an important step towards openness and transparency in research'"`UNIQ--ref-000003CC-QINU`"'. There have been some other interesting efforts that promote pre-registration, such as the Preregistration Challenge, sponsored by the Center for Open Science. This campaign offered $1,000 awards to researchers who pre-register their studies and publish their results within a deadline'"`UNIQ--ref-000003CD-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000003CE-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000003CF-QINU`"'. These initiatives have led to a certain “cultural shift” - there are now more than 8,000 pre-registrations on Open Science Framework for research in different disciplines'"`UNIQ--ref-000003D0-QINU`"'. APS journals also began to practice pre-registration in 2014. From 2014 to 2019, 43 of 154 articles published in Psychological Science earned “Preregistered badge” due to pre-registration of design and analysis plan of their studies'"`UNIQ--ref-000003D1-QINU`"'. Although pre-registration has demonstrated benefits for the trustworthiness of research, the practice still needs to be widely adopted across the scientific community.'"`UNIQ--references-000003D2-QINU`"'nity. '"`UNIQ--references-000003D2-QINU`"')
Fiction movies for RCR education + (The movies included in the final selection … The movies included in the final selection are:*And the band played on (1993)*Awakenings (1990)*Creation (2009)*Dallas Buyers Club (2013)*Extreme measures (1996)*Kinsey (2004)*Lorenzo's oil (1992)*On being a scientist (2016)*Silkwood (1983)*Star Trek 'Nothing human' (1998)*The boys from Brazil (1978)*The China syndrome (1979)*The Fly (1986)*The Insider (1999)*The Island (2005)*The Lawnmower man (1992)*Wit (2001)005) *The Lawnmower man (1992) *Wit (2001))
Research Integrity Committees + (The organizational structures of RI commit … The organizational structures of RI committees and their responsibilities regarding cases of research misconduct may vary. In some countries, RI committees (or commissions) are established at the national level, hence their responsibility is to handle cases of research misconduct, or serve as an advisory body, for all research institutions within state borders (e.g. National Commission for Research Integrity-Luxembourg, Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, Danish Committee on Research Misconduct (DCRM), Commission for Research Integrity-Austria, French Office for Scientific Integrity, Netherlands Board on Research Integrity). For example, the Danish law on research misconduct stipulates the responsibility of the DCRM to handle the cases of research misconduct, while each institution has a responsibility to process cases of questionable research practices.Some RI committees are established as a part of research integrity organisations, providing training and other educational activities for researchers (e.g. the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity, the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity).In some countries, dealing with cases of research misconduct is the responsibility of research institutions and institution-based committees as there is no national body to handle investigations and process cases of misconduct. An example of the latter is Sweden, where each research institution is responsible for conducting an investigation of research misconduct and to impose a sanction.All these RI bodies, both at the national and institutional level, are doing important work in the field of research integrity promotion and guiding researchers with the principles of good scientific practices. There are numerous documents, issued by RI bodies and committees in the form of guidelines and checklist, as well as documents describing committees’ procedures when dealing with misconduct allegations. Some European examples are: Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity, FNR Research Integrity Guidelines, Guidelines for the Investigation of Misconduct (by the Irish National Forum), Roadmap for Scientific Integrity 2020 (OFIS), Integrity and responsibility in research practices (CNRS-CPU), Scientific integrity guideline(CNRS), TENK Guidelines.ntegrity guideline(CNRS), TENK Guidelines.)
Dialogue versus debate + (The philosophical importance of dialogue h … The philosophical importance of dialogue has been elaborated in philosophical hermeneutics. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000002B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000002C-QINU`"'Moral Case Deliberation is an example of group reflection on moral issues through dialogue.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002D-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.'"`UNIQ--references-0000002E-QINU`"'ogue. '"`UNIQ--references-0000002E-QINU`"')
Dilemmas in daily practice + (The presence of a dilemma’s indicates that … The presence of a dilemma’s indicates that there is no universal hierarchy of values. A guideline or algorithm cannot simply resolve the dilemma'"`UNIQ--ref-000006B7-QINU`"'. But, a dilemma (‘tragedy’) can be the start of reflection and improvement. Depending on the severity of the situation and the impact of your choice, consider the following:*Informal discussion with peers*Consult your supervisor or mentor*Check a code of conduct or guideline*Consult a confidentiality advisor*Discuss it with ‘neutral outsiders’, friends or family*Analyse the dilemma in more detail, e.g. by [[Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd|moral case deliberation]]*Is there a rearrangement of practices that can remove the tragedy (Hegel’s question)?'"`UNIQ--references-000006B8-QINU`"'ion)? '"`UNIQ--references-000006B8-QINU`"')
“Five steps to decide what data to keep: a checklist for appraising research data” + (The purpose of “Five steps to decide what … The purpose of “Five steps to decide what data to keep” checklist for appraising research data, developed by the Digital Curation Centre (DCC) is to guide researchers and help them choose what data to keep in order to meet their objectives and comply with the institutional and external funders demands.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000090C-QINU`"' These are five steps proposed by the Guide:Step 1. Identify purposes that the data could fulfil Before deciding what data to keep, researchers should be able to identify goals and objectives of these data: verification, further analysis, building academic reputation, community resource development, further publications, learning and teaching, or private use. Identifying one of more of these purposes will make the selection process go smoother and faster. Step 2. Identify data that must be keptThis concerns legal principles that should be respected. With regard to this issue, researchers should answer following questions: Are there Research Data Policy reasons to keep it? Do regulations require the availability of the data? Are there other legal or contractual reasons? Does it contain personal data relevant to the reuse purpose?Step 3. Identify data that should be keptThis step concerns researchers’ expertise and knowledge on research data. Before making a decision regarding this aspect, they should consider following questions: Is it good enough? Is there likely to be a demand? How difficult is it to replicate? Do any barriers to further use exist? Is it the only copy? Step 4. Weigh up the costsConsidering this step will help researchers in economic aspects of data keeping, i.e. potential costs of all the stages of data keeping - creation, collection & cleaning, short-term storage & backup, short-term access & security, team communication & development, preservation & long term access, and staff time. Step 5. Complete the data appraisal This final step includes filling out the table on data collection, reuse purposes, value, risk of budget shortfall and whether you plan to keep your data.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000090D-QINU`"'ether you plan to keep your data.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000090D-QINU`"')
Research integrity training for PhD students + (The regulation of research integrity train … The regulation of research integrity training for PhD students varies among countries. Some countries oblige RI training at postgraduate level in their national codes, like Denmark in the Danish code of conduct for research integrity. '"`UNIQ--ref-000000A7-QINU`"' This code states that research integrity training must be provided by higher education institutions. Similarly, in France the Ministry of Education declared that all PhD students must be trained in research integrity and research ethics before defending their thesis. In some countries, training is provided by both universities and independent research integrity institutions. An example of the latter is Luxembourg where training for PhD students on research ethics and principles of good research practice, is conducted by the University of Luxembourg while the LARI (Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity), an independent body, offers training for researchers from all career stages. How the training is conducted also differs. LARI offers highly interactive, face to face training, combining traditional and creative methods while the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK), for example, provides online courses. '"`UNIQ--references-000000A8-QINU`"'ses. '"`UNIQ--references-000000A8-QINU`"')
Plagiarism, Voluntary Settlement Agreements and Public Health Service Grants + (The researcher entered into a Voluntary Se … The researcher entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement with the ORI. They voluntarily agreed to exclude themselves from serving in any advisory capacity to the PHS and to certify in every PHS research application or report that all contributions to the application or report are properly cited or otherwise acknowledged. properly cited or otherwise acknowledged.)
Ethical considerations in dealing with human remains + (The training of forensic anthropologists i … The training of forensic anthropologists is usually associated with archaeology, with little or no contact with human remains that are not skeletonized. Education is important for the proper implementation of ethical principles. So, it is necessary to educate forensic anthropologists in practical skills, and moral and legal responsibilities brought about by their work. Moreover, when talking about forensic anthropology there are few international or national associations with formal codes of ethics like the American Board of Forensic Anthropology, the British Association for Forensic Anthropology, and the International Forensic Center of Excellence for the Investigation of Genocide. These associations provide broad guidelines about behavior but little attention to practice '"`UNIQ--ref-00000987-QINU`"' .'"`UNIQ--references-00000988-QINU`"'`"' . '"`UNIQ--references-00000988-QINU`"')
Data management plans + (The use of DMPs in aeronautical and engine … The use of DMPs in aeronautical and engineering projects in the 1960s expanded into other engineering and scientific fields in the late 1970 and 1980s. Their purpose was to help complex projects cope with their data management requirements during data collection or analysis stages.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006CE-QINU`"' In the early 2000s the Organisation Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has recommended that “responsibility for the various aspects of data access and management should be established in relevant documents”, such as grant applications, and six major UK research funding bodies recommended that all funding bodies should mandate submission of DMPs with grant applications.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006CF-QINU`"' Some of them have implemented the recommendation, among them Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006D0-QINU`"' Today, 86% of UK Research Councils and 63% of US funding bodies requires submission of DMPs with funding applications.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006D1-QINU`"' DMPs have been created and promoted mostly by University libraries which have become “institutional centres of data management practice”.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006D2-QINU`"' Two most known are the Digital Curation Centre and California Digital Library.The Digital Curation Centre (DCC), a leading centre in digital information curation that gives advice and help on how to store, manage, protect and share digital research data, provides resources, such as online tools, guidance and training. One of them is DMP online, a free web-based tool that supports researchers in developing DMPs by providing them with templates and guidelines.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006D3-QINU`"'California Digital Library has also developed DMPTool, an open and international source project, that helps researchers, institutions, and funders in the USA in creating DMPs.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006D4-QINU`"'Science Europe, an association of Research Funding Organisations and Research Performing Organisations, has developed Practical Guide to the International Alignment or Research Data Management. This Guide, which provides a basis for development of data practices and management, has identified six main requirements for DMPs:1. Data description and collection or re-use of existing data2. Documentation and data quality3. Storage and backup during the research process4. Legal and ethical requirements, codes of conduct5. Data sharing and long-term preservation6. Data management responsibilities and resources.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006D5-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-000006D6-QINU`"'U`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000006D6-QINU`"')
Outcome reporting bias + (The use of appropriate statistical analyse … The use of appropriate statistical analyses and the full publication of results (whether approving or rejecting the study’s hypothesis) are among the best practices. Preregistering research is another way of communicating research plans and improve the credibility of results.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000269-QINU`"'In the case of clinical trials, ICMJE advises groups to register clinical trials and link the analysis of clinical trials to the same registration. They are also advised to make sure that there is no discrepancy between the registered methodology in the registries and what is published in the journals, and publish the registration number at the end of the abstract. Since July 2018, groups are also asked to include their data sharing plan and data sharing statement.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000026A-QINU`"'Furthermore, in order to encourage impartial and clear use of statistical methods, ICMJE asks groups to:“Describe statistical methods with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to judge its appropriateness for the study and to verify the reported results. When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as P values, which fail to convey important information about effect size and precision of estimates. References for the design of the study and statistical methods should be to standard works when possible (with pages stated). Define statistical terms, abbreviations, and most symbols. Specify the statistical software package(s) and versions used. Distinguish pre-specified from exploratory analyses, including subgroup analyses” (p.16-17). '"`UNIQ--ref-0000026B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000026C-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000026C-QINU`"')
Peer review card game + (The use of card exchange games is an appro … The use of card exchange games is an approach used in teaching the philosophy of science. It was developed by Bergquist and Phillips in 1975 and later popularized by Cobern. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000008F-QINU`"' The idea of card games is to foster dialogue between participants about statements written on cards, and such games have been effective in improving students’ knowledge.In the peer review card exchange game, six different domains of peer review are explored by different statements written on cards. Participants can agree or disagree with the statements, but they are asked to discuss them and reach a consensus as a group. The explored domains are: responsiveness, competence, impartiality, confidentiality, constructive criticism and responsibility to science. Participants have to find which cards they all agree on. After that, they participate in a moderated discussion.'"`UNIQ--references-00000090-QINU`"'sion. '"`UNIQ--references-00000090-QINU`"')
Eigenfactor + (The website [http://www.eigenfactor.org/ w … The website [http://www.eigenfactor.org/ www.eigenfactor.org] reports measures for publications indexed by JCR as well as journals, books, newspapers, and other reference items that are referred to by these publications.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000519-QINU`"' The number of journals has increased each year. In 1997 the website listed 6,439 journals, whereas in 2014 it measured influence of 11,200 journals.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000051A-QINU`"'Two principle scores are calculated: Eigenfactor score and Article Influence score. Eigenfactor scores are scaled so that the scores of all journals listed in JCR sum up to 100. If a journal has an Eigenfactor score of 1.0, it has 1% of the total influence of all indexed publications. In 2014, the journal PLoS One had the highest Eigenfactor score, with a value of 1.533.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000051B-QINU`"' Since larger journals will have more citations, they will subsequently have larger Eigenfactor scores.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000051C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000051D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000051E-QINU`"' However, the most prestigious journals are not necessarily the largest, but the ones that receive the most citations per article. With regards to that, the Article Influence score measures the influence of a journal per article. It is calculated as a journal’s Eigenfactor Score divided by the number of articles in that journal and normalized so that the average article in the JCR has an Article Influence score of 1.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000051F-QINU`"' Therefore, if an Article Influence score of a journal is 3.0, then the articles of that journals are on average three times as influential as the average article in JCR.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000520-QINU`"' In 2014, the journal CA-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians had the highest Article Influence score, with value of 3.95.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000521-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000522-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000522-QINU`"')
Responsible Research and Innovation - RRI + (The ‘Research; Increasing value, reducing … The ‘Research; Increasing value, reducing waste’ project, led by The Lancet medical journal, provides an excellent example of an RRI approach. This project aims to address deficiencies in the medical research system that reduce the value of research and often result in significant financial loss caused by inadequate research agendas, flawed research designs, not publishing negative results, and poorly reporting findings. In order to increase the value of research and reduce waste, the project adopted four RRI process requirements: diversity and inclusiveness, transparency and openness, anticipation and reflection, as well as responsiveness and adaptation to change. Inclusion of patients and medical caregivers in setting the right research agenda is recommended to increase diversity in the research process. The project proposes that research should be more transparent and open, and supports a full and public documentation of the research process. The project also highlights a need to discuss current practices that lead to wasted effort. Finally, a series of five papers published in The Lancet offers 17 recommendations that outline the changes that should be made to current structures and systems'"`UNIQ--ref-000003B2-QINU`"'.RRI is not just about better science from a scientist’s point of view; it is a continuous effort to talk to diverse societal actors and involve them in the research process, through meaningful conversations and contributions beyond “just” being a participant'"`UNIQ--ref-000003B3-QINU`"'. Various activities for bringing more awareness to research processes, such as science cafés or open lab days, are just a part of the framework'"`UNIQ--ref-000003B4-QINU`"'. Collaboration with small enterprises and social innovators, as well as citizen scientists, is also a crucial part of RRI. It involves the improvement of science and society through mutual sharing of expertise and experiences.'"`UNIQ--references-000003B5-QINU`"'nces. '"`UNIQ--references-000003B5-QINU`"')
Bioethicists Call for Investigation Into Nutritional Experiments on Aboriginal People + (There are six tenets or principles: indig … There are six tenets or principles: indigenous identity development, indigenous paradigmatic lens, reflexivity and power sharing, critical immersion, participation and accountability, and methodological flexibility.See more at: [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476750315622542 Guidance in the article published in Action Research.]the article published in Action Research.])
Altmetrics + (There are different online companies offer … There are different online companies offering altmetrics services. Some of them are Altmetric, Impactstory, and Plum Analytics.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000124-QINU`"' They can track HTML views and PDF downloads, shared articles on social media platforms, saved and cited items. Altmetrics scores are often indicators of how popular an article is online with the general public. Unlike typical research metrics, Altmetrics software enables the user to track the dissemination of publications in real time. Some publishers have started offering their readers this information (BioMed Central, PLOS, Nature, Elsevier). Some argue that this form of metric is not a good indicator of popularity or quality, as social media activity and time of publication can have a big influence on the metric. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000125-QINU`"' There seems to be no correlation between citations and altmetrics.'"`UNIQ--references-00000126-QINU`"'rics. '"`UNIQ--references-00000126-QINU`"')
Open access publishing: the new norm? + (There are different ways to make research … There are different ways to make research open access. The two main routes that authors can take towards publishing open access are self-archiving, the so-called green route, and open access publishing, the gold route. '"`UNIQ--ref-000000F1-QINU`"' When taking the green route, the article is published behind a paywall, but a free copy is published in an online repository. In the gold route, articles are published immediately in open access mode.'"`UNIQ--references-000000F2-QINU`"'mode. '"`UNIQ--references-000000F2-QINU`"')
The EQUATOR Network: Reporting guidelines + (There are hundreds of different reporting … There are hundreds of different reporting guidelines which an author can choose from. Selecting the right guideline seems difficult, but has been made easier with the use of a few tools. [http://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/20160226-RG-decision-tree-for-Wizard-CC-BY-26-February-2016.pdf This flowchart] depicts in several easy steps which of the most common research methods (i.e. systematic review, randomized trials, observational studies) match a reporting guideline. If you have a more specific study, [https://www.penelope.ai/equator-wizard this reporting guideline wizard] was developed to reveal which guideline you can use. Please visit the [http://www.equator-network.org/ EQUATOR Network] for more information on reporting medical research.information on reporting medical research.)
Consent for publication (Author) + (There are numerous cases of violation of p … There are numerous cases of violation of publication ethics with regards to authors’ rights. For instance, when journals publish articles without the authors’ consent. One of the representative examples is an article on the quality of therapeutic trials in perinatal medicine, written by Dr Jon Tyson and his colleagues and published in the Journal of Pediatrics in 1983.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000668-QINU`"' Six months after that, the paper was published in full in the journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology without the authors’ consent only to be described “as a poor study” in a hostile accompanying editorial.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000669-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000066A-QINU`"'Another case regards dispute between the authors. An article was submitted to a journal by corresponding author (CA), at the time a PhD student, and published online. Later, co-author A (head of the research group) informed the publisher that the paper was submitted to a journal by CA during her absence (maternity leave) and that she as well as other 7 co-authors were not informed about the publication. Additionally, she requested the retraction of the article. She also mentioned that she had recently submitted an updated version of the same paper to another journal and that all authors, including CA, had agreed to the publication. When journal contacted CA, he stated that he had asked co-author A for permission to submit the article but that the had not received an answer for one year.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000066B-QINU`"' The CA replied that he had signed contract at the research institution where co-author A worked and where the research had been conducted. He agreed to retract the article. One of the co-authors also contacted the publisher asserting that CA had published the paper without his approval and he also suggested retraction of the paper. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000066C-QINU`"'In the end, the authors submitted an updated version of the same paper to another journal.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000066D-QINU`"'This case was discussed at the COPE Forum. The Forum suggested for future notice that when a journal receives a manuscript, it must send an acknowledgement to all of the authors, not just the corresponding author.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000066E-QINU`"' Most Forum members agreed that there was no ground for retraction of the article, because there was no issue concerning the scientific content of the article. However, since the editor did not have authors’ consent for publication, some members of the Forum concluded that the authors did have some ground for retraction.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000066F-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000670-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000670-QINU`"')
Non-disclosure of changes to the research design + (There are several ways to deal with this q … There are several ways to deal with this questionable research practice. The first is disclosing the changes made to the research design. The second is preregistration of studies. '''Disclosing changes'''Deviating from the research design is allowed under certain instances. For instance, new sub-questions can surface when further progressing with the project. These can only be answered by performing extra analyses or different tests. In those cases, disclosing changes to the research design is considered a good practice. These analyses or changes should be presented as explorative, rather than final.'''Preregistration'''Preregistration is the process of submitting the research design before performing the study. Preregistration can be seen as an effective way to address researchers from not ‘luring’ them into changing methods to present results more spectacularly. Some journals also publish protocols and/or accept studies based in their design, proposed methods and relevance – and make a commitment to publish results. The outcome of the study is made of lesser importance, and the relevance of the study and rigor of the study design more important. rigor of the study design more important.)
Incidental research findings + (There are some guidelines and recommendati … There are some guidelines and recommendations available on how to handle incidental findings in the social sciences and the humanities. The APA Committee on Human Research, for example, suggests including potential incidental findings in a researcher’s study plan or project proposal, with details about the threshold for reporting them '"`UNIQ--ref-0000040A-QINU`"'. The European Commission’s “[https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020_ethics-soc-science-humanities_en.pdf Ethics in Social Sciences and Humanities]” also suggests that researchers should consider potential incidental findings in their research '"`UNIQ--ref-0000040B-QINU`"'. They should draft a policy for coping with these findings and discuss them with their consortium, taking into account the legal context in which they are conducting their research, and, if appropriate, liaising with the legal department of their host institution. Furthermore, researchers should also inform the participants about the limits of confidentiality '"`UNIQ--ref-0000040C-QINU`"'. The European Commission also released their “[https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/guide_research-refugees-migrants_en.pdf Guidance note — Research on refugees, asylum seekers & migrants]”, intended to help researchers in the social sciences and the humanities deal with incidental research findings when they relate to specific vulnerable populations '"`UNIQ--ref-0000040D-QINU`"'. When human research subjects are refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, the European Commission recommends that researchers contact the relevant NGOs rather than the authorities '"`UNIQ--ref-0000040E-QINU`"'. In order to mitigate the potential power differences between researchers and participants, the European Commission advises that projects involving these specific vulnerable populations should look to include researchers with a refugee or migrant background or, at least, researchers from the same culture. When the participants are unaccompanied minors, researchers should also contact National Refugee Councils for legal advice, psychological and interpretive support, and legally assigned supervision '"`UNIQ--ref-0000040F-QINU`"'.Researchers in the biomedical and health sciences also require guidance regarding the management and communication of incidental findings '"`UNIQ--ref-00000410-QINU`"'. The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues in 2013 issued a report, stating that researchers should communicate potential incidental findings as part of the informed consent process '"`UNIQ--ref-00000411-QINU`"'. In addition, researchers should make a plan to evaluate and manage anticipatable and un-anticipatable incidental findings and seek the approval of the relevant institutional review board '"`UNIQ--ref-00000412-QINU`"'. It is important that researchers inform the participants about the potential un-anticipatable incidental findings. If such findings occur, researchers should assess their importance and consult with experts on the matter '"`UNIQ--ref-00000413-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-00000414-QINU`"'-QINU`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-00000414-QINU`"')
Conducting research in high risk locations + (There have been discussions regarding pote … There have been discussions regarding potential risks for research in sites such as Central Asian region that includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan – countries with authoritarian regimes.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000060D-QINU`"' One of the examples that can adequately present what type of risk researchers can encounter is the arrest and accusation for espionage of Alexander Sodiqov, a Tajik citizen and political science PhD student at the University of Toronto, in Tajikistan in 2014 during his fieldwork on conflict resolution.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000060E-QINU`"' Sodiqov was arrested while interviewing Tajik civil society leaders and he spent five weeks in jail.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000060F-QINU`"' His colleagues in Canada maintained that this event implied that research in Tajikistan is “under threat”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000610-QINU`"' This case shows that researchers must be aware of potential risks that await them at their fieldwork. In order to handle them adequately, they need to plan a strategy before embarking upon a field research. This is where advice and recommendations from the research community can be very useful. However, there is a lack of uniform guidelines that would cover all the categories of fieldwork in dangerous zones and that would specify all potential risks.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000611-QINU`"' Some researchers with experience in fieldwork offer their advice and recommendations individually. The most important part is pre-departure planning.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000612-QINU`"' Before the actual fieldwork, researchers should be able to understand the local context well'"`UNIQ--ref-00000613-QINU`"' and know their legal rights as foreign scholars conducting research.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000614-QINU`"' Engaging local contacts for some insights regarding potential risks can also be helpful.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000615-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000616-QINU`"' One of the most important things while conducting research is to protect confidentiality and anonymity of the participants at any cost, even to the detriment of other research objectives.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000617-QINU`"' The European Commission (EC) has also offered a list of recommendations for research in regions or countries of high risks for researchers and participants. The EC also emphasizes the importance of making a clear strategy for keeping their research participants and themselves safe.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000618-QINU`"' With regards to that, a risk assessment has to be made and it should include details of safety measures the researchers are planning to take, for example training for staff and insurance cover.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000619-QINU`"' It is also important for researchers to provide justification in their ethics self-assessment for choosing an approach or site of research that involves higher risk, explain why alternative approaches are not possible, identify the potential risks and show how they intend to mitigate these risks.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000061A-QINU`"'The necessity of conducting research in sites that pose risk to researchers and research participants compels policy-makers, universities and funding agencies, in collaboration with researchers experienced in fieldwork in risk zones, to formulate clear and precise guidelines and recommendations on the topic. '"`UNIQ--references-0000061B-QINU`"'ic. '"`UNIQ--references-0000061B-QINU`"')
Replicability in the Humanities + (There have been some cases of successful s … There have been some cases of successful study replication. One of the most known cases is deciphering the Rosetta Stone. The Stone which was discovered during the Napoleonic Egyptian Campaign in 1799 contains texts both in Ancient Egyptian (hieroglyphic and Demotic script) and in Ancient Greek. By comparing the Demotic, hieroglyphic and ancient Greek texts, British scholar Thomas Young and French scholar Jean-François Champollion managed to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphic.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005BC-QINU`"' Numerous scholars have studied the stone later and the main results have been replicated multiple times.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005BD-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-000005BE-QINU`"'Although there is no consensus in the research community, some research organisations, academic journals and platforms have been encouraging replication in the humanities. One of them is the [https://www.nwo.nl/en/about-nwo Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research] (NWO). The NWO recognizes that while not all humanities research is suitable for replication, this practice is possible in the empirical humanities and this is what it aims to “encourage and facilitate”.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005BF-QINU`"'Cambridge University based journal [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-teaching Language Teaching] is also fostering original research articles which replicate previous experimental studies in the field of language learning and teaching.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005C0-QINU`"' It emphasizes that replication studies can improve the way we interpret empirical research because they provide a second opinion regarding the hypotheses, methods and results of the original paper.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005C1-QINU`"' Publishing platform [https://opencontext.org/ Open context], founded by archaeologists, also supports and encourages replication in the humanities.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005C2-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000005C3-QINU`"'U`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000005C3-QINU`"')
Responsible supervision + (There is increased recognition that lectur … There is increased recognition that lecturing supervisors about responsible supervision may not be the most useful approach. Below are some innovative examples that integrate responsible research with responsible supervision. This list is far from comprehensive, but should serve as a starting point for exploration of the topic.First, Whitbeck described a group mentoring approach that was intended to support the discussion of research integrity in supervision. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'Besides, the research group was assisted in grasping the complexity of situations they may encounter that challenge the integrity of their research.Second, Kalichman & Plemmons have developed a workshop curriculum for supervisors.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' This workshop curriculum is explicitly designed to convey responsible research in the actual research environment, as opposed to a classroom environment that is separated from the lab.Thirdly, Anne Walsh and Mark Hooper from Queensland University of Technology office of Research Ethics and Integrity are developing a fully online training module that challenges supervisors to reflect on their own supervision and formulate concrete goals to improve their supervision skills, explicitly connected to responsible research.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' Their full training will be released late 2019.Finally, as part of the Academic Research Climate in Amsterdam project, an interactive training called ''Superb Supervision'' was developed. The training continuously alternates responsible research and soft skill development and participants meet in between to discuss their own dilemmas, see [http://www.amsterdamresearchclimate.nl/superb-supervision/ here].The [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/strategy-and-policy/integrity/scientific-integrity/dilemma-game Erasmus Dilemma game] lists a variety of example dilemmas from the perspective of the junior researcher as well as from the senior researcher. These example dilemmas may serve as useful conversation starters when discussing responsible supervision.'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"'ervision. '"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"')
Consent for publication (Participant) + (There is no single uniform consent form fo … There is no single uniform consent form for all journals, only general principles and guidance provided by committees for publication ethics. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) Ethics Committee, for example, offers recommendations on how to obtain the participant’s consent. The consent is necessary even if identifying details are removed. Participant’s personal information will not be published if he or she refuses to give consent, with the exception of high importance to public health.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000067A-QINU`"' Some recommendations to publish research findings without participant’s consent include these conditions:-the participant cannot be found in order to give his consent or it is impossible or unreasonable to expect to gain consent from the patient or his next-of-kin-the article contains data which importance for public health overrides the importance of participant’s consent-it is expected that a participant would not object to the publication of the case. This requires an assessment of the intrusiveness of the disclosure and potential embarrassment or distress-the case is anonymized so that the participant’s identity will not be revealed.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000067B-QINU`"'The committee has also stated that giving absolute priority to confidentiality would hold back medical research and education, so there must be a balance between confidentiality and the need for data sharing.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000067C-QINU`"'Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has released a [https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Discussion_document_on_Best_Practice_for_Consent_for_Publishing_Medical_Case_Reports.pdf Discussion document on Best Practice for Consent for Publishing Medical Case Reports]. The document stated that authors are obliged to collect the signed consent forms, not journals, and that forms should be used for cases where an individual or a group of individuals could be identified.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000067D-QINU`"' It concluded that no single form would be adequate for all journals, so it presented some specific points that a consent form should include:-a place for the name of the patient and the name of the individual signing the form-a place for the name of the person who has explained the form to the patient or family member -indication that the patient has seen the case report and pictures regarding it and that they agree to it-information that the journal cannot guarantee confidentiality after publishing the case report-information under what license the report is published-information that form does not remove the patient’s rights to privacy-information that the patient has been informed of his right to revoke consent at any time before publication-information that patients cannot expect any financial benefit from the publication of the case.The document also provided links to examples of cases report forms and relevant guidance.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000067E-QINU`"' Example of participant’s consent for publication in a PLos One journal can be found [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf here]. s-consent-form-english.pdf here]. )
Institutional codes of conduct for research integrity + (There should be an open dialogue about res … There should be an open dialogue about research practices between all levels of staff at an institution. The guidelines themselves, as a written set of rules should be easily accessible. All procedures should have a level of transparency and there should be secure channels of contact in case of concern about certain practices being planned out or implemented.ractices being planned out or implemented.)
Framework to Enhance Research Integrity in Research Collaborations + (This Framework sets out the elements of a collaborative agreement that can be enhanced with regards to good research practices.)
Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety: A guide for the responsible design and implementation of AI systems in the public sector + (This document provides end-to-end guidance … This document provides end-to-end guidance on how to apply principles of AI ethics and safety to the design and implementation of algorithmic systems in the public sector. The guidance has set the foundation for The AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Programme curriculum which is composed of a series of eight workbooks, the first four published in 2023 and the second four to be published in 2024. Each of the workbooks in the series covers how to implement a key component of the PBG Framework. These include sustainability, fairness, technical safety, accountability, explainability, and data stewardship. Each of the workbooks also focuses on a specific domain, so that case studies can be used to promote ethical reflection and animate the key concepts.l reflection and animate the key concepts.)
Guideline for discussing work-related stress + (This guide was developed during the COVID pandemic by the department of Experimental Immunology of Amsterdam UMC and is implemented by this department to talk about stress with their PhD-candidates.)
Swiss Academy of Arts and Sciences Code of Conduct for Scientific Integrity r + (This guideline has best practice recommendations with respect to - Institutional structures - Collaborations - Publication and dissemination - Authorship - Data management - Assessment and evaluation - Research process - Private funding)
A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Redundant Publication + (This is a case of redundant publication. A … This is a case of redundant publication. Authors are usually asked to provide a signed statement that the manuscript they are submitting has not been published elsewhere. Any violation of this statement is considered to be a case of misconduct and can result in retraction. If a translation of a previously published article is going to be submitted to another journal, prior permission should be sought from the publisher of the first article and the second manuscript should contain an appropriate reference to the first publicationopriate reference to the first publication)
Mental health in academia + (This is still a novel area of research. Of … This is still a novel area of research. Official advice and policies regarding the prevention of mental health problems in academia is lacking. However, previous research has established connections between organizational climate and health '"`UNIQ--ref-0000031F-QINU`"'. Suggested actions to combat the rise of mental health problems in academia include raising awareness, creating more dialogue, providing training on mental health and emotional wellness, effective mentoring practices, monitoring mental health via anonymous surveys, and providing free counseling sessions for those marked as symptomatic or at high-risk. What should also be considered is the need to establish official policies that reward researchers not just for their scientific output and ability to obtain funding, but also for their educational, mentoring and “wellness” practices. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000320-QINU`"'[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:D3784352-c18f-4c40-b862-d9ee2afabb0a This guide] was developed during the COVID pandemic by the department of Experimental Immunology of Amsterdam UMC and is implemented by this department to talk about stress with their PhD-candidates.'"`UNIQ--references-00000321-QINU`"'ates. '"`UNIQ--references-00000321-QINU`"')
Duplicate publications and secondary publications + (This is the definition of duplicate public … This is the definition of duplicate publication by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):“When a published work (or substantial sections from a published work) is/are published more than once (in the same or another language) without adequate acknowledgment of the source/cross-referencing/justification”.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000019A-QINU`"'The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) differentiates between '''duplicate submission''' – when authors submit the same work (possibly in different languages) to two or more journals at the same time; and '''duplicate publication''' – when the same work is already published more than once.Duplicate publications must be retracted, and duplicate submissions, if discovered by journal editors, are usually rejected. COPE provides guidance on how to handle duplicate publications. Some indexing databases, such as PubMed, automatically tag duplicate publications when they identify them during indexation. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000019B-QINU`"'Acceptable '''secondary publication''' is publication of the same work but with clear reference to its first publication and is usually intended for a different audience. In addition, authors must have approval from the journal that first published the article. The secondary publication must be a faithful reflection of the original publication and it must clearly reference the primary publication – as a note in the article and in the title of the secondary article. What is not a duplicate publication? The ICMJE considers that a structured abstract under 500 words and registration of trial results in public trial registries are not redundant publications. This means that publishing a conference abstract is not considered a publication. Presentations at a meeting (poster or a talk) are also not considered to be proper publications, because they are usually not peer reviewed. Increasingly, authors post their work first in a preprint server (online research repositories) and many journals do not consider this to be duplicate publication. Journals expect the authors to inform them about where the work was posted on a preprint server.'"`UNIQ--references-0000019C-QINU`"'rver. '"`UNIQ--references-0000019C-QINU`"')
PhD-pizza - Gathering for PhD-candidates to talk freely + (This kind of semiformal meeting is very su … This kind of semiformal meeting is very supportive, not only for PhD candidates, but for all members of research teams. Sometimes, team members are coming from different institutions and this is the best way for them to get to know each other better. In this way they would improve their communication which will become much easier and of better quality. become much easier and of better quality.)
A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Editorial Misconduct + (This practice is discouraged by COPE. Authors should resist such requests as much as possible.)
Casuistry – is this RM, QRP or RCR? Three cases with dilemmas + (This teaching material was developed by th … This teaching material was developed by the NRIN. In the first session in which this material was used, case 1 was not entirely clear to the participants. Some information was therefore added to this material. A session with discussions on all dilemma’s would take about 60-90 minutes.Cases 2 and 3 were slightly simplified for a meet-the-keynote-speaker session with Prof. Lex Bouter. He used one only case 2 (Case A in the ppt) in this session, because it already yielded a lively discussion with the participants who also discussed related dilemma’s they encountered in their work.The material then was further developed for the course on research integrity for PhD-candidates at VUmc. New materials to be uploaded.tes at VUmc. New materials to be uploaded.)
AI Ethics and Governance in Practice: AI Fairness in Practice + (This workbook discusses how to put the pri … This workbook discusses how to put the principle of AI Fairness into practice across the AI project workflow through Bias Self-Assessment and Bias Risk Management as well as through the documentation of metric-based fairness criteria in a Fairness Position Statement.criteria in a Fairness Position Statement.)
AI Sustainability in Practice Part One: Foundations for Sustainable AI Projects + (This workbook introduces the SUM Values (S … This workbook introduces the SUM Values (Support, Underwrite, Motivate), a set of ethical values intended to help AI project teams to assess the potential societal impacts and ethical permissibility of their projects. It then presents a Stakeholder Engagement Process (SEP), which provides tools to facilitate proportionate engagement of and input from stakeholders with an emphasis on equitable and meaningful participation and positionality awareness.participation and positionality awareness.)
AI Sustainability in Practice Part Two: Sustainability Throughout the AI Workflow + (This workbook provides a template of the S … This workbook provides a template of the SIA and activities that allow a deeper dive into crucial parts of it. For example, it discusses methods for weighing values and considering trade-offs during the SIA process, and highlights the need to approach the SIA as an end-to-end process of responsive evaluation and re-assessment. The workbook also includes a series of activities related to AI in Urban Planning to assist public sector bodies in developing a shared vocabulary and practical skills to implement ethical AI projects.l skills to implement ethical AI projects.)
Research with humans + (Throughout history, multiple violations of … Throughout history, multiple violations of ethical principles in human research have occurred. The most widely known are perhaps the inhumane experiments conducted by the Nazis and Japanese during the WW2. In the aftermath of the WW2, the Nuremberg Code was published to provide basic guidelines in human research. To further improve the ethics of human research, the World Medical Association developed the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964. While providing some guidance, instances of unethical research persisted. In the United States, a large study was conducted to assess the impact of syphilis, and hundreds of participants were barred from seeking treatment in what was known as the Tuskegee experiment. Following the public outcry, the Belmont report was published in 1978. These documents set important standards in human research and provide the foundations of medical ethics. Some of the important points are respect for the person, personal autonomy (and informed consent), justice, and beneficence. Nowadays, different countries have national laws, informed by the aforementioned international guidance, regarding clinical research and oversight by research ethics committees. '''Related guidelines''' *[https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf Nuremberg code]*[https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ Declaration of Helsinki]*[https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html Belmont report]'''Related cases''' *[https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm Tuskegee syphilis experiment]*[https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-medical-experiments Nazi human experiments]ticle/nazi-medical-experiments Nazi human experiments])
Informed assent + (Throughout the world, different practices … Throughout the world, different practices have been developed to protect the interest of children participating in clinical trials. In the United States, researchers have to ask permission from both minors and their parents or legal guardians. Permission from minors has to be definitive and the lack of objections cannot be defined as assent. When asking for assent, researchers should present all relevant information in a simple and understandable language, according to the child’s level of understanding (1). In the European Union, different practices exist, and some countries provide different legal and mandatory or recommended ages for assent (review of practices provided in tools section). In some situations, giving informed consent is not necessary. For example, when the only treatment for a disease is only available through clinical trials.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000C1-QINU`"'nical trials.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000C1-QINU`"')
Reward campaign + (To address the issues stated above, the RE … To address the issues stated above, the REWARD campaign offers five set of recommendations. First, research priorities need to be selected. This means that prior to engaging in any experimentation or observation, a systematic review of literature should be done, funders should make their criteria for funding transparent, and research funders should develop sources of information about ongoing research. Second, the REWARD campaign supports rigor in research design, conduct and analysis. This includes improving protocols and making them public, engaging professional staff and non-conflicted stakeholders, as well as rewarding quality and reproducibility of the research, rather than novelty. Third, research waste can be reduced through research regulation and management. It emphasizes the important role and influence of research regulators who, along with policy makers, should collaborate with researchers, patients and health professionals. Their cooperation should simplify and coordinate laws and regulations that control or guide research. Furthermore, researchers should be able to improve the efficiency of their research using high quality designs that reduce inefficiencies of recruitment, retention, data monitoring, and data sharing. Finally, the integration of research findings in daily clinical practice should be promoted.Fourth, all information on research methods and findings should be accessible. Academic institutions and funders should reward research that is publicly available and disseminated. REWARD recommends the standardization of protocols and data sharing, as well as the release of complete study reports. Finally, journals, funders, sponsors, research ethics committees, regulators and legislators should support and enforce study registration and availability of complete information regarding research.Fifth, research reports should be complete and usable. With that aim, the REWARD campaign suggests that the focus of research regulations and rewards should be to encourage complete research reporting. To facilitate this, there is a need for good reporting infrastructure. Authors, editors and reviewers should be trained about reporting guidelines, publication ethics, and research integrity. Funders should support and monitor training.nders should support and monitor training.)
Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company + (To manage conflict of interests, which is … To manage conflict of interests, which is inevitable and must always be declared, it is important to maximize transparency in industry-funded research. Some of the proposed approaches include a carefully constructed advisory board with specific responsibilities as well as strict guidelines to protect research quality.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000956-QINU`"' It is important to fully disclose financial, personal, and professional interests. Oversight by an independent third party is recommended as well as pre-registration of the study. The role of commercial partners must be defined and the relationship has to be continuously monitored. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000957-QINU`"' The scientific community has improved recently in regards to some of the key indicators of research reproducibility and transparency. This includes information on funding, conflict of interests statements, and an increase in protocol and data sharing. There is also a growing number of fully available texts, although the majority of texts are still not fully available. Nevertheless, confusion about research transparency still exists, and even though there has been some improvement, the scientific community is far from perfect in terms of research transparency and reproducibility.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000958-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000959-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000959-QINU`"')
Funding (Sponsorship) bias + (To prevent funding bias, the International … To prevent funding bias, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requires that research articles have Disclosure Form containing: “-sources of support for the work, including sponsor names along with explanations of the role of those sources if any in study design; -collecting, analysis, and interpretation of data; -writing of the report; -any restrictions regarding submission of the report for publication; -or a statement declaring that the supporting source had no such involvement or restrictions regarding publication.”'"`UNIQ--ref-00000559-QINU`"' In addition to that, editors may request that authors also sign a statement, such as: “I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis”.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000055A-QINU`"' Some investigators have even proposed that academic studies funded by industry should continue only if academic medical centres would be solely responsible for the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials. Others have recommended that conflict-of-interest committees should be created at academic institutions to monitor the finances.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000055B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000055C-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000055C-QINU`"')
European Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC) + (To support cooperation between national RE … To support cooperation between national RECs associations and address novel research ethical challenges, EUREC organizes regular conferences of members, sets up working parties, monitors legal developments, collects and evaluates training materials, and participates in various research projects. Among other things, EUREC currently supports initiatives connecting the hitherto rather disparate communities of research ethics and research integrity specialists (like the Embassy, ENERI, and Path2Integrity) and projects addressing novel ethical challenges emanating from technological transformations (like PANELFIT, SHERPA, and SIENNA).Besides further information about EUREC and the projects EUREC participates in, the network’s website ([http://www.eurecnet.org/ www.eurecnet.org]) provides information on and links to:*RECs in Europe*national legislation governing RECs*EU legislation governing RECs*literature on RECs*training materials==Other information==EUREC is a pan-European network registered in Germany.an-European network registered in Germany.)
Methods to increase data availability + (To support wide data availability, authors … To support wide data availability, authors should publish their data so it could provide inputs to new hypotheses, and innovation (5,6). Journals could increase awareness on data availability and request mandatory data deposition. Modern manuscript checklists should routinely include data availability part which should additionally emphasize its importance to the authors. Finally, all of this could improve the verification of result, and reduce the misconduction related to data fabrication and falsification, and could serve as training tools for junior researchers (6). aining tools for junior researchers (6). )
Ignoring substantial safety risks of the study to participants, workers or environment + (VIGOR (Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Res … VIGOR (Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research) study is one of the most known cases where researchers ignored safety risks. The study aimed to examine if a new drug Vioxx, produced by drug maker Merck, would cause fewer gastrointestinal side effects for the treatment of the rheumatoid arthritis than naproxen. Over 8,000 patients participated in the study, half of them taking Vioxx, and the other half naproxen. As it turned out, the risk of serious heart problems and death was twice as higher for patients using Vioxx, than for those using naproxen, however, the study decided to ignore the risks and obscure the results.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000535-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000536-QINU`"' Five years after Vioxx’s launch, Merck withdrew the drug from the market, but by that time it had already sold billions of dollars of the drug'"`UNIQ--ref-00000537-QINU`"'. Another study published in the medical journal Lancet estimates that 88,000 Americans had heart attacks from taking Vioxx, and 38,000 of them died.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000538-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000539-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000539-QINU`"')
Virtues in research integrity + (Values and norms are core concepts in mora … Values and norms are core concepts in moral reflection about research integrity. For instance in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), a method used to reflect on morally troublesome situations investigation of values and norms is used to deepen the understanding of the situation at stake. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000049-QINU`"' A core element in this investigation, guided by a facilitator, is analysing the case by looking at the values and norms of all relevant perspectives (persons involved in the case and/or participants in the MCD meeting). Which values motivate each of the persons? How can these values be specified into norms for the person? For example, a moral issue might concern supervision. Should one, as a supervisor of a PhD student, in preparing a response to a reviewer, give guidance and correct mistakes, or at some point take over the writing? A relevant value for the supervisor in the case might be: autonomy. The corresponding norm in the case could be: I should give the opportunity to the PhD student to try this herself. Another value might be: effectiveness. The norm related to this value in the concrete situation could be: the article should be accepted and published. In analysing the case from the perspective of the supervisor, the group becomes aware of these conflicting values. This may then give rise to a dialogue on what value is most important in this situation. This can lead to a conclusion on the most desirable norm and related course of action. Also, the dialogue might provide insights in how to deal with the conflicting value which turns out less important. How can one do justice to the value which will not be realized? In the example, efficiency might turn out to be most important for the supervisor, meaning that at a certain point she will take over the writing. In order to do justice to the value of autonomy, the supervisor might, for instance, propose that the PhD student will get more responsibilty for writing the response after submission of the next article. MCD can thus foster decision making, not by prescribing a rule, but by fostering reflection and dialogue, enabling participants to achieve an new and richer view on the situation.It is useful to differentiate between three different types of scientific values and norms: ''internal'' values and norms, ''external'' values and norms, and ''linkage'' values and norms . '"`UNIQ--ref-0000004A-QINU`"' ''Internal'' values and norms of science justify and guide the practice of science itself. Examples of scientific values of the internal kind are: ''truth, honesty, simplicity, consistency, coherence, economy, exactitude and completeness, openness, open-mindedness, confidence, originality and ‘interestingness’.'' External values and norms comprise general ideals and rules for action which are relevant for science, but are not constitutive of the practice of science itself. Examples of external values are human (and animal) welfare notions which are related to the wider social and cultural context in which scientists operate. Finally, we have a different set of values and norms guiding scientific research which represent normative points of contact - linkage - between the research community and the community at large, between internal and external values and norms. Examples are requirements of fruitfulness and relevance.'"`UNIQ--references-0000004B-QINU`"'ance. '"`UNIQ--references-0000004B-QINU`"')
Values and norms + (Values and norms are core concepts in mora … Values and norms are core concepts in moral reflection about research integrity. For instance in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), a method used to reflect on morally troublesome situations, investigation of values and norms is used to deepen the understanding of the situation at stake.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003E-QINU`"' A core element in this investigation, guided by a facilitator, is analysing the case by looking at the values and norms of all relevant perspectives (persons involved in the case and/or participants in the MCD meeting). Which values motivate each person? How can these values be specified into norms? For example, a moral issue might concern supervision. Should one, as a supervisor of a PhD student, in preparing a response to a reviewer, give guidance and correct mistakes, or at some point take over the writing? A relevant value for the supervisor in the case might be: autonomy. The corresponding norm in the case could be: I should give the opportunity to the PhD student to try this herself. Another value might be: effectiveness. The norm related to this value in the concrete situation could be: the article should be accepted and published. In analysing the case from the perspective of the supervisor, the group becomes aware of these conflicting values. This may then give rise to a dialogue on what value is most important in this situation. This can lead to a conclusion on the most desirable norm and related course of action. Also, the dialogue might provide insights in how to deal with the conflicting value which turns out less important. How can one do justice to the value which will not be realized? In the example, efficiency might turn out to be the most important for the supervisor, meaning that, at a certain point, she will take over the writing. In order to do justice to the value of autonomy, the supervisor might, for instance, propose that the PhD student will get more responsibility for writing the response after submission of the next article. MCD can thus foster decision making, not by prescribing a rule, but by encouraging reflection and dialogue, enabling participants to achieve a new and richer view of the situation.It is useful to differentiate between three different types of scientific values and norms: ''internal'' values and norms, ''external'' values and norms, and ''linkage'' values and norms.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003F-QINU`"' Internal values and norms of science justify and guide the practice of science itself. Examples of scientific values of the internal kind are: truth, honesty, simplicity, consistency, coherence, economy, exactitude and completeness, openness, open-mindedness, confidence, originality and ‘interestingness’. External values and norms comprise general ideals and rules for action, which are relevant for science, but are not constitutive of the practice of science itself. Examples of external values are human (and animal) welfare notions, which are related to the wider social and cultural context in which scientists operate. Finally, we have a different set of values and norms guiding scientific research, which represent normative points of contact - linkage - between the research community and the community at large, between internal and external values and norms. Examples are requirements of fruitfulness and relevance. '"`UNIQ--references-00000040-QINU`"'ce. '"`UNIQ--references-00000040-QINU`"')
Not acknowledging contributors who do not qualify for authorship + (Variety of journals, such as [https://jour … Variety of journals, such as [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines PLOS ONE], [https://thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/authors/tlrm-info-for-authors.pdf The Lancet] or [https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/supp-info Nature], request complete disclosure and transparency from authors, so by not acknowledging your contributors you are disregarding the principle of transparency. This also means that you are not being completely honest because you do not acknowledge that someone has done a certain amount of work for you.Some authors even use the help of professional writers who, for example, may substantially contribute to drafting or write a full first draft of the manuscript'"`UNIQ--ref-000006A2-QINU`"'. In such a case, authors should also acknowledge the contribution and obtain a written permission from those named in acknowledgments.'"`UNIQ--ref-000006A3-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-000006A4-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000006A4-QINU`"')
Research misconduct + (Various practices are related to research … Various practices are related to research misconduct, ranging from building an environment conducive to good research conduct to the policies and procedures for reporting misconduct. Below, some initiatives to improve the reporting of misconduct are detailed.The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity focuses on the adherence to Integrity and Fairness in misconduct procedures. Find the code [https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity here.]The Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) outline the responsibilities of journal editors and publishers in their ‘core practices’ [https://publicationethics.org/resources/elearning/introduction-publication-ethics/publication-ethics-and-misconduct here]. Recommendations include:*"Journals must take seriously allegations of misconduct pre-publication and post-publication"*"Journals should have a clearly described process for handling allegations, however they are brought to the journal's or publisher's attention"*"COPE expects members to have robust and well-described, publicly documented practices in all these areas for their journals and organisations"reas for their journals and organisations")
Imposter Syndrome + (What should we do, then, if we experience … What should we do, then, if we experience imposter syndrome? There might not be a single -effective strategy to minimize it. Yet, new evidence indicates that reframing might be effective. One option is to introduce the idea of imposter syndrome to graduate students. By doing this, you might highlight the idea that imposter syndrome is a natural emotion and let go of the shame that goes along with it. Students may be able to adopt a growth mindset toward their sense of belonging by reframing their experience and using guided reflection exercises to facilitate discussion and support of this experience [5].References:# Villwock JA, Sobin LB, Koester LA, Harris TM. Impostor syndrome and burnout among American medical students: a pilot study. Int J Med Educ. 2016; 7: 364-9.# Sakulku J, Alexander J. The impostor phenomenon. J Behav Sci. 2011; 6 (1): 75-97.# Sverdlik A, CHall N, McAlpine L. PhD imposter syndrome: Exploring antecedents, consequences, and implications for doctoral well-being. Int J Dr Stud. 2020; 15: 737-58.# Kernan W, Bogart J, Wheat ME. Health-related barriers to learning among graduate students. Health Educ. 2011; 111 (5): 425-45.# Morgenstern BZ, Beck Dallaghan G. Should medical educators help learners reframe imposterism? Teach Learn Med. 2021; 33 (4): 445-52.Lauren A. Mason.ed. 2021; 33 (4): 445-52. Lauren A. Mason.)
Academic Affiliation and Research in a Personal Capacity + (When a complaint is submitted to the Execu … When a complaint is submitted to the Executive Board of a university, it is the Board's duty to forward the case to the university's research integrity office.When researchers are commissioned to produced research in a personal capacity, the associated studies should explicitly state that the authors are working in a personal capacity. In addition, there should be no mention of their academic affiliations.no mention of their academic affiliations.)
Qualitative research + (When qualitative research is intended to g … When qualitative research is intended to generate hypotheses for future research or to test the feasibility and acceptability of interventions, then applying the results is relatively straightforward. Can the results of qualitative research be applied directly to daily clinical practice? If the study population seems similar enough to one’s own, then the clinician can justifiably consider the usage of the study results to reflect on his or her practice (2).lts to reflect on his or her practice (2).)
Industry funded research + (When research is sponsored by industry sta … When research is sponsored by industry stakeholders this should be declared as a conflict of interest. Moreover, in a systematic scoping review Cullerton, Adams, Forouhi, Francis & White identified themes for good collaboration with industry stakeholders (specifically in the food industry).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000307-QINU`"' In [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6767600/figure/obr12851-fig-0003/ this flowchart] the auhtors describe several steps and actions sthat can be taken to ensure good collaboration between researchers and industry stakeholders.'"`UNIQ--references-00000308-QINU`"'eholders. '"`UNIQ--references-00000308-QINU`"')
Open Science + (When submitting the final, written output … When submitting the final, written output of their research, researchers can publish it in an Open Access Journal. The [https://doaj.org/ DOAJ] indexes more than 13k of open access, high quality and peer-reviewed journals. Given that only a small portion of these open access journals require payment of an Article Processing Charge (APC),'"`UNIQ--ref-0000034D-QINU`"' researchers can choose from a variety of journals. At the same time, researchers can post a preprint of their article to a preprint server (a list of preprint servers, organised by discipline is available [https://osf.io/preprints/ here]). Research data can also be stored online in a research data repository. For an extensive list of repositories researchers can check [https://www.re3data.org/ Registry of Research Data Repositories] and [http://databib.org/ Databib]. [https://zenodo.org Zenodo] is among the well-known repositories that allows researchers to archive various digital artefacts such as data sets, research software, reports, posters.'"`UNIQ--references-0000034E-QINU`"'ters. '"`UNIQ--references-0000034E-QINU`"')
Conflict of interests + (While some COIs might be inevitable (e.g. … While some COIs might be inevitable (e.g. in case of scientists who move between academia, industry, and government), disclosure and providing extra information is believed to empower readers to place credence on presented data. '"`UNIQ--ref-000002A5-QINU`"'Conflict of interests is explained in numerous guidelines . For example, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has issued several guidelines for dealing with conflict of interest, from both reviewers’ and readers’ point of view. COPE guidelines for reviewers can be found [https://www.embassy.science/theme/A%20lot%20has%20been%20said%20about%20conflict%20of%20interest.%20For%20example,%20Committee%20on%20Publication%20Ethics%20(COPE)%20has%20issued%20several%20guidelines%20for%20dealing%20with%20conflict%20of%20interest,%20from%20both%20reviewers%E2%80%99%20and%20readers%E2%80%99%20point%20of%20view.%20COPE%20guidelines%20for%20reviewers%20can%20be%20found%20here here], and guidelines for readers can be accessed [https://www.embassy.science/theme/A%20lot%20has%20been%20said%20about%20conflict%20of%20interest.%20For%20example,%20Committee%20on%20Publication%20Ethics%20(COPE)%20has%20issued%20several%20guidelines%20for%20dealing%20with%20conflict%20of%20interest,%20from%20both%20reviewers%E2%80%99%20and%20readers%E2%80%99%20point%20of%20view.%20COPE%20guidelines%20for%20reviewers%20can%20be%20found%20here here].International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) also addressed the issue of conflict of interest, and defined purposeful failure to disclose conflicts of interest as a form of misconduct. They categorize conflict of interest as following: financial relationships (such as consultancies, stock ownership or options, honorary payments, patents…), personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs. A more detailed ICMJE explanation and guide can be found [https://www.embassy.science/theme/International%20Committee%20of%20Medical%20Journal%20Editors%20(ICMJE)%20also%20addressed%20the%20issue%20of%20conflict%20of%20interest,%20and%20defined%20purposeful%20failure%20to%20disclose%20conflicts%20of%20interest%20as%20a%20form%20of%20misconduct.%20They%20categorize%20conflict%20of%20interest%20as%20following%3A%20financial%20relationships%20(such%20as%20consultancies,%20stock%20ownership%20or%20options,%20honorary%20payments,%20patents%E2%80%A6),%20personal%20relationships%20or%20rivalries,%20academic%20competition,%20and%20intellectual%20beliefs.%20A%20more%20detailed%20ICMJE%20explanation%20and%20guide%20can%20be%20found%20here here].A separate ICMJE declaration of conflict of interest form can be accessed [http://www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest/ here]. Completed ICMJE COI declaration is often a requirement for submitting an article to a scientific journal.'"`UNIQ--references-000002A6-QINU`"'rnal. '"`UNIQ--references-000002A6-QINU`"')
Whistleblower protection/rights + (Whistleblower protections are an important … Whistleblower protections are an important element in an institution's ethics code, describing procedures to deal with allegations and violations of misconduct. There is general agreement within the scientific community that reporting misconduct is essential in the prevention and management of misconduct and that whistleblowers should be provided adequate safeguards. Whistleblower protections also support a culture of scientific integrity within an institution. However, policies on researchers’ duties to report and the consequent protections differ significantly by institution and country. [https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] '"`UNIQ--ref-00000077-QINU`"'contains the following guidance in the section “Dealing with Violations and Allegations of Misconduct”:"National or institutional guidelines differ as to how violations of good research practice or allegations of misconduct are handled in different countries. However, it always is in the interest of society and the research community that violations are handled in a consistent and transparent fashion. The following principles need to be incorporated into any investigation process.[…] Procedures are conducted confidentially in order to protect those involved in the investigation. Institutions protect the rights of ‘whistleblowers’ during investigations and ensure that their career prospects are not endangered."In the UK it seems that universities develop a specific whistleblowing policy for different misbehaviours (grievance, bullying and harassment, discipline, research misconduct). As an example, we refer to the [https://le.ac.uk/~/media/uol/docs/about-us/policies/whistleblowing-policy-updated-may-2017.pdf document of the University of Leicester],'"`UNIQ--ref-00000078-QINU`"' which guarantees confidentiality for whistleblowers:"The University will treat disclosures of information made under this Policy in a confidential and sensitive manner. The identity of individuals making allegations may be kept confidential, if requested by the individual(s) concerned, so long as it does not hinder or frustrate any investigation. In this event, the University will consult the individual before it takes any further action which might break the initial confidentiality. It should be recognised, however, that the investigation process may, of necessity, reveal the source of the information and, as part of the investigation, an individual making a disclosure may need to provide a statement as part of the evidence required."In the USA, whistleblowers have well established legal protection. The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 strengthened protection for federal employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse in government operations.'"`UNIQ--references-00000079-QINU`"'ions. '"`UNIQ--references-00000079-QINU`"')
The decision on ice + (Worldwide, governmentally regulated limita … Worldwide, governmentally regulated limitations for maintaining embryos in cryostorage vary from 24 months to an infinite duration'"`UNIQ--ref-00000971-QINU`"'. Although consensus regarding the ethics of thawing and discarding does not exist, in the absence of explicit, contemporaneous consent, approaches to the issue of unclaimed embryos have been proposed by other advisory bodies. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Task Force on Ethics and Law has advocated standard time limits that can be renewed a limited number of times on a couple’s demand'"`UNIQ--ref-00000972-QINU`"', while the ASRM committee concluded that a clinic can consider embryos abandoned and discard them if 5 years has passed since the last contact with the couple and if significant efforts have been made to contact that couple'"`UNIQ--ref-00000973-QINU`"'. Spanish regulations mandate that embryos should only be used for reproductive purposes, which makes embryo donation the only legal solution when couples do not want the embryos for their own transfer'"`UNIQ--ref-00000974-QINU`"'. Meanwhile, Malta is one of the countries whose legislation does not permit embryo discarding and allows to inseminate up to three oocytes while all resulting embryos are required to be transferred'"`UNIQ--ref-00000975-QINU`"'. Although this immensely complicated issue is substantially discussed in the bioethical and philosophical literature, it is still one of the most significant ethical dilemmas in the world of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART)'"`UNIQ--ref-00000976-QINU`"'hnology (ART)'"`UNIQ--ref-00000976-QINU`"')
Infographic - SOPs4RI Research integrity education guidelines for research institutions + ([[Resource:571bc2b5-9c13-4d5e-b371-c6eadd53a851]] [[Resource:571bc2b5-9c13-4d5e-b371-c6eadd53a851]] [[Resource:E205949b-f8b5-4b8b-91de-2aeaeca98b4c]] [[Resource:Dd4e2cd2-c665-43a6-86ec-8e75a43eef3a]])
Poor mentoring or supervision of early career researcherers + ([https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/ … [https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] defines good practices for training, supervision and mentoring: "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"to foster a culture of research integrity")