In Detail (Has Detail)

From The Embassy of Good Science
Here you can go in more detail and even add subheaders to give more relevant background information.


  • ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
Showing 20 pages using this property.
B
1.           Agbo CC, Mahmoud QH, Eklund JM. Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Systematic Review. Healthcare. 2019 Jun;7(2):56. 2.           Ben Fekih R, Lahami M. Application of Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Study. Impact Digit Technol Public Health Dev Dev Ctries. 2020 May 31;12157:268–76. 3.           Abu-elezz I, Hassan A, Nazeemudeen A, Househ M, Abd-alrazaq A. The benefits and threats of blockchain technology in healthcare: A scoping review. Int J Med Inf. 2020 Oct 1;142:104246.  +
D
The detailed report on national guidelines in Europe is available here: [https://community.embassy.science/c/entire/entirerep/24 Latest EnTIRE/Repository topics - The Embassy of Good Science] References: 1.            Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, et al. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLOS Biology 2020;18(7): e3000737. 2.            Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), [https://sfdora.org/about-dora/ https://sfdora.org/about-dora/#]; 2012 [accessed 2022.11th January]. 3.            All European Academies (ALLEA). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf; 2017 [accessed 2021.11th January]. 4.            Council ER. Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, https://www.eetika.ee/sites/default/files/www_ut/hea_teadustava_eng_trukis.pdf; 2017. 5.            Ministry of Higher Education and Science. Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2014/files-2014-1/the-danish-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity.pdf; 2014. 6.            The Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. Code of Conduct for Scientific Integrity, https://api.swiss-academies.ch/site/assets/files/25709/kodex_layout_en_web.pdf; 2021. 7.            Forum RIN. Irish National Policy Statement for Ensuring Research Integrity, https://www.iua.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/IUA_Research_Integrity_in_Ireland_Report_2019.pdf; 2014. <br />  +
E
Considering the challenges and issues, whether social or ethical, it’s extremely important to develop guidelines for the management of AAL technologies based on (bio)ethical principles while respecting the fundamental dignity of each human being. Such guidelines have been initiated by the AAL programme funded by the European Commission. Namely, in 2020, new AAL guidelines for ethics, data privacy and security were published (7). The updated version was published in December 2022 (8). These guidelines offer a model that integrates compliance with the general law with ethical dialogue and offer reflections on how to establish ethical excellence for solutions aim to be active and long lasting using digital technology. Those guidelines not only seek to achieve the legal and ethical regulation of the AAL systems but propose the implementation of ethical excellence and encourage the conduct of an ethical dialogue involving various actors, users, and legislators, to researchers and manufacturers. The mentioned guidelines highlight some AAL principles: justice, equality of access; respect for autonomy and dignity; trust, acceptance, and accessibility; transparency and choice. Ethical principles, EU regulations, international standards and national guidelines that should be the guidance to ethical dialogue are also mentioned. The ethical principles to be considered are autonomy, benevolence, harmlessness, and justice. The EU regulation refers to several legal and regulations such as the protection of any undertaking involving people (i.e., Ovieda Convention) or the privacy and security of data dealt with by the GDPR. The guidelines also bring a few practical examples and open space for analysis and dialogue. It should be added that in addition to the above principles, it is very important to consider the personalistic principle of vulnerability because the effort to apply AAL represents the starting point and ''raison d'être ''of care for particularly vulnerable people – in this case of the elderly. In this sense, it cannot be viewed solely from a biomedical perspective (5). The holistic approach should consider ethical issues on the use of gerontotechnology, which includes not only problems related to the use of health technology (for example telemedicine) but also aspects of social welfare and related issues. Equally, it requires broader and more specific reflection on the ethics, especially pertaining to in-home care. 1.           CDC. Healthy Places Terminology. 2009. Aging in place. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000010-QINU`"' 2.           European Fonds [Internet]. UNIVERSAAL - UNIVERsal open platform and reference Specification for Ambient Assisted Living. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000011-QINU`"' 3.           European innovation partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. Active & Assisted Living Programme [Internet]. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000012-QINU`"' 4.           Patel AD, H. Shah J. Ambient Assisted Living Systems: The Scope of Research and Development. J Sci Technol Issue Inf Commun Technol. 2017; 5.           Singbo OG. Philosophical and Theological Contributions by Romano Guardini and Jacques Ellul to the Understanding of Technological Power. Bogosl Smotra. 2020;90(5):1027–50. 6.           McCarthy N. Autonomous Systems: Social, Legal and Ethical Issues. The Royal Academy of Engineering. 2009. 7.           Dantas C, Hoogendoorn P, Kryspin-Exner I, Stuckelberger A, Tijink D. AAL Guidelines for Ethics, Data Privacy and Security [Internet]. The Ambient Assisted Living Association; 2020. p. 22. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000013-QINU`"' 8.           Dantas C, Hoogendoorn P, Kryspin-Exner I, Stuckelberger A, Tijink D. AAL Guidelines for Ethics, data privacy and security. The Ambient Assisted Living Association; 2022.  
N
#Nevozhay D, Kańska U, Budzyńska R, Boratyński J. Współczesny stan badań nad koniugatami i innymi systemami dostarczania leków w leczeniu schorzeń nowotworowych i innych jednostek chorobowych Current status of research on conjugates and related drug delivery systems in the treatment of cancer and other d. Postepy Hig Med Dosw [Internet]. 2007;61:350–60. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000000F-QINU`"' #Wilczewska AZ, Niemirowicz K, Markiewicz KH, Car H. Nanoparticles as drug delivery systems. Pharmacol Reports [Internet]. 2012;64(5):1020–37. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000010-QINU`"' #Suri SS, Fenniri H, Singh B. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2007;2(1):1–6. #Rizvi SAA, Saleh AM. Applications of nanoparticle systems in drug delivery technology. Saudi Pharm J [Internet]. 2018;26(1):64–70. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000011-QINU`"'   +
V
This list might help when using virtues in e.g. teaching about responsible conduct of research. *Virtues in bold mirror the principles for research integrity outlined in the [[European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]]. {| class="wikitable" |+ !Virtue !Meanings in research integrity & ethics |- |'''Accountability'''* |Responsibility, answerability |- |Availability |Efficaciousness, readiness to come to effect |- |Clarity of purpose |Visionary, targeted, zeal |- |Collaborative spirit |Cooperative, synergistic, sharing |- |Competency |Expertise, proficiency, capability |- |Compliance |Willingness to conform/follow |- |Courage |Braveness, heroic resoluteness |- |Creativity |Inventiveness, imagination, originality |- |Critical awareness |Analytic, insightful, rationality |- |Curiosity |Eagerness to know or to explore, inquisitiveness |- |Diligence |Earnestness, perseverance in carrying out action |- |Empathy |Understanding, compassion, recognition |- |Fairness |Justice, equity |- |'''Honesty'''* |Truthfulness, candidness, sincerity |- |Humility |Humbleness, modesty |- |Loyalty |Faithfulness, allegiance, fidelity |- |Moderation |Temperance, patience |- |Morality |Ethicalness, righteousness, decency |- |Objectivity |Neutrality, unbiased, impartiality, open-minded |- |Open-mindedness |Willing to reconsider views, receptiveness, tolerance |- |Patience |Perseverance, willingness to endure |- |Perseverance |Dedication, determination, persistence |- |Positivity |Alacrity, willingness |- |Punctuality |Readiness, promptness, steadiness |- |Reflexivity |Thoughtfulness, contemplativeness, deliberation |- |'''Reliability'''* |Trustworthiness, accuracy, dependability |- |Resoluteness |Determination, persistence, purposefulness |- |'''Respectfulness'''* |Politeness, having good manners, courtesy |- |Responsibility |Accountability, liable, trustworthiness, truthfulness |- |Selflessness |Altruism, benevolence |- |Sincerity |Earnestness, truthfulness, veracity, honesty |- |Thoroughness |Care, scrupulousness |- |Transparency |Clarity, not hiding, honesty, openness |- |Trustworthiness/truthfulness |Honesty, accuracy, sincerity |} [[File:Virtue wheel2 NW.png|center|frameless|1050x1050px]]A visual ‘wheel’ of virtues is also presented as a useful resource for teaching (with no virtue prioritized over others to inspire but not lead participants).  This resource was created by Neelam Wright, University of Surrey.  
[
1. Tenny S, Brannan GD, Brannan JM, Sharts-Hopko NC. Qualitative Study. 2020 2. Giacomini, M. K. & Cook, D. J. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care. B. What are the results and how do they help me care for my patients? Evidence-Based MedicineWorking Group. JAMA 2000; 284: 478–482.  +
While all COIs are related to contradictory primary and secondary interests, they can be traced to different causes and result in different types of detrimental research practices. Moreover, safeguards to address COIs vary depending on whether they are avoidable and how they can be mitigated. It is important to emphasize that while COIs can lead to intentional breaches of research integrity and research ethics, conflicting interests are more likely to result in unintentional bias. In general, it is common to distinguish between financial and non-financial COIs. Financial COIs occur if researchers receive direct payments from the sponsor of a study, hold stocks in the sponsoring company, receive financial benefits from the sponsor for services, or have any other financial relationship with the producer of the product investigated in a study.<sup>[6]</sup> Due to the resulting incentive structure, financial COIs increase the likelihood of bias towards results favorable to the company directly or indirectly paying the researchers. Non-financial COIs, by contrast, are unrelated to financial remuneration and tend to be more difficult to identify. At least three types of non-financial COIs can be differentiated: personal COIs, intellectual COIs, and medical COIs.<sup>[7]</sup>   Personal COIs are usually attributable to positive or negative personal relationships, even though conflicts of conscience (that is, conflicts between the personal values of researchers and the demands placed on them by their institution) also fall into this category. Biased peer-review is a well-known example of the detrimental effects of personal relationships because the peer review system is based on the premise of reviewer neutrality. Reviewers who have recently collaborated with the author(s) of a paper or grant application or who work in the same department might have a more favorable view on the paper or application under review than reviewers without such personal associations. Even if reviews are based on a blinded system, reviewers might know or be able to guess who the authors are, especially in highly specialized and rather small fields of research or when researchers can suggest reviewers. Negative personal relationships, by contrast, can have the opposite effect.<sup>[8]</sup> Intellectual COIs occur when researchers become so convinced of the truth of a particular finding or paradigm that they become biased against alternative explanations and dismissive of contradictory findings, regardless of the quality of the evidence.<sup>[9]</sup>   Medical COIs refer to situations where the personal medical experiences of researchers could bias their research in that area. For example, a researcher who has suffered from a particular disease, could be inclined to view this disease in a way colored by personal experiences.<sup>[10]</sup> This may have methodologically unjustifiable effects on research design or, in the same way as intellectual COIs, lead to biased interpretations of results. COIs are addressed by three types of safeguards: disclosure, management and prohibition. They can be disclosed to the research institution, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, journal editors and readers, and research participants. Management refers to erecting procedures that mitigate the risk of COIs, for example by replacing researchers with a COI with researchers without a COI for certain parts of a research project. Prohibition refers to prohibiting certain types of research if a COI exists. Employees of pharmaceutical companies cannot lead clinical drug trials of drugs produced by their company, for example.<sup>[11]</sup> According to current regulations, financial COIs must be declared so that readers are made aware of conflicting interests and can scrutinize papers accordingly. Non-financial COIs are regulated less stringently and perhaps also less amenable to formal regulation. Overall, it is strongly recommended to avoid personal COIs by refraining from suggesting reviewers who might be biased as well as by refraining from accepting to review manuscripts or grant applications one cannot assess neutrally. Intellectual COIs can perhaps best be managed by regular self-reflection and regular participation in reflection-based research integrity trainings, such as, for example, the VIRT2UE training or the PRINTEGER Upright program. Medical COIs could potentially be declared, yet this is not usually done and would be challenging both legally and ethically because it would require the disclosure of sensitive personal information. Overall, COIs can take many forms and be mitigated through different types of safeguards. As such, COIs are not breaches of research integrity or research ethics, yet they increase the likelihood of violations of good scientific practice. Therefore, the research community has adopted mitigatory measures to manage COIs that might require further refinement in the future.   '''References''' [1] Emanuel E.J., & Thompson D.F. (2008). The concept of conflict of interest. In: Emanual, E.J., Grady, C., Crouch, R.A, Lie, R.K., Miller, F.G., & Wendler, D.D. ''The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 758-766. [2] https://eneri.mobali.com/content/conflict-interest, Key issues [3] Ibid. [4] WMA International Code of Medical Ethics, 2006. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-international-code-of-medical-ethics/ [5] https://eneri.mobali.com/content/conflict-interest, Learning objectives and introduction [6] Ibid. [7] https://eneri.mobali.com/content/conflict-interest, Key issues [8] Ibid. [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid. [11] Ibid.  
These collected data and guidelines will improve future scientific researches. However, some improvements could be recommended: - some of the data could be false positive, which will have a direct impact to the result, and the result will be incorrect. This is something we are trying to avoid in the trials. - some of the individuals may not be comfortable sharing their personal data, as the pandemic is still going on but with the decreased intensity, we will have to learn to live with the COVID 19. -data should be stored in a safe place and it could be accessed only by authorized persons  +
'''References''' Kaye J, Boddington P, de Vries J, Hawkins N, Melham K. Ethical implications of the use of whole genome methods in medical research. European journal of human genetics : EJHG. 2010;18(4):398-403. Epub 2009/11/06. <br />  +
1.  Kitchin R. The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures, and Their Consequences. SAGE; 2014. 241 p. 2. Tedersoo L, Küngas R, Oras E, Köster K, Eenmaa H, Leijen Ä, et al. Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Sci Data. 2021 Jul 27;8:192. 3.   Fischer BA, Zigmond MJ. The essential nature of sharing in science. Sci Eng Ethics. 2010 Dec;16(4):783–99. 4. Gabelica M, Bojcic R, Puljak L. Many researchers were not compliant with their published data sharing statement: mixed-methods study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2022 May 30;150:33-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.019. 5.   Sustainable Digital Data Preservation and Access Network Partners. NSF - National Science Foundation [Internet]. [cited 2022 Mar 2]. Available from: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000006-QINU`"' 6.  Tenopir C, Allard S, Douglass K, Aydinoglu AU, Wu L, Read E, et al. Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions. PLOS ONE. 2011 Jun 29;6(6):e21101. <br />  +
The big issue in clinical research is collecting an informed consent from all participants included in research. This can become a dilemma in psychiatry research, too. In psychiatry, the patient should be stable and informed about all procedures that will be taken. However, collecting an informed consent from psychiatry patient can become a challenge. A patient should be fit for work tasks and should be cognitive capable of understanding that he is a part of research.  +
'''Juniors only''' In 2018, the session was extended with a second meeting where only junior researchers attend. In this session they have the opportunity to discuss issues that they did not feel comfortable to discuss with the seniors present and/or issues related to supervisors. '''Organizing members''' The ‘Billen Bloot’ sessions are organized by and for researchers from Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, which is also where the initiative was conceived by prof. dr. Van der Flier (head of research), in 2015. The ‘Billen Bloot’ sessions are organized by the research quality committee of the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam and receives no support from external parties.  +
'''Bottlenecks''' According to Yan Wang, data stewards at the TU Delft have been very lucky, because all the necessary resources, such as the funding, positions and material were provided by the university. Although there haven’t been any urgent issues during implementation, there are /were a few points of attention. Sometimes, data stewards have so much work that they need to limit their role. They cannot provide as much support as they would like to. Luckily, the university has agreed to recruit eight data managers that can specifically help with the data, thereby giving space to the data stewards. Moreover, some requests are too technical for data stewardship. In those cases, they send out the researcher’s request to the ICT board. Lastly, Yang Wang expressed that it took time to get adjusted to the university structure. '''Future scope''' The pilot of the data stewardship will finish at the end of 2020, along with the funding. Meanwhile, data stewardship has proven to be successful and therefore, in the future each data steward will be paid by the faculty, thereby becoming a permanent employee at the faculty. In this way, the initiative remains sustainable. The TU Delft data stewardship likes to create awareness about data management. One way to approach this is by going to external events, such as the INSPIRE symposium in January 2020. The university supports these events as long as it is related to data stewardship or if it is good promotion. '''Any tips?''' “''The most important thing is to really translate the objectives into the perspective of the researchers. For instance, if there is resistance to the word integrity, then use it in another way. There is always a way to work around it. And always reflect on the initiative itself.''” From an interview with Yan Wang, current data steward at the architecture and building faculty at TU Delft.  +
All of them, especially junior researchers would be more ready to talk about their dilemmas or obstacles they are facing during their research work. They might not hesitate to ask for help or for any other suggestion which will improve the quality of their scientific investigation. For senior researchers, these meetings would be the valuable feedback about their overall research giving them the opportunity to stimulate their junior colleagues if it is necessary and/ or to support their work, efforts, ideas etc. The frequency and duration of these meetings depend on the researchers themselves, their satisfaction from previous meetings, the quality of their achievements so far, and the necessity for further improvement of their research work. From time to time, maybe, it would be valuable to everyone to invite the research leader on ''Pizza-Gathering'' emphasizing the integrity of the team and the integrity of the research, as well.  +
'''Examples of common situations which involve dilemmas''' {| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" | width="200" valign="top"|'''Dilemma''' | width="200" valign="top"|'''Value A''' | width="200" valign="top"|'''Value B''' |- | width="200" valign="top"|Co-authorship <br /> | width="200" valign="top"|intellectual contribution | width="200" valign="top"|collegiality |- |Sharing your data openly |Verification & re-use |Rebuttal |} '''Examples of common values & principles involved in dilemmas''' {| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" | width="120" valign="top"|'''Personal''' | width="120" valign="top"|'''Scientific''' | width="120" valign="top"|'''Technological''' | width="120" valign="top"|'''Professional''' |- | width="120" valign="top"|Honesty | width="120" valign="top"|Accuracy | width="120" valign="top"|Utility | width="120" valign="top"|Mentorship |- | width="120" valign="top"|Curiosity | width="120" valign="top"|Completeness | width="120" valign="top"| | width="120" valign="top"|Collaboration |- | width="120" valign="top"|Trustworthiness | width="120" valign="top"|Consistency | width="120" valign="top"| | width="120" valign="top"| |- | width="120" valign="top"|Respect | width="120" valign="top"|Objectivity | width="120" valign="top"| | width="120" valign="top"| |- | width="120" valign="top"|Autonomy | width="120" valign="top"|Auditability | width="120" valign="top"| | width="120" valign="top"| |- | width="120" valign="top"|Collegiality | width="120" valign="top"|Universality | width="120" valign="top"| | width="120" valign="top"| |- | width="120" valign="top"| | width="120" valign="top"|Precision | width="120" valign="top"| | width="120" valign="top"| |- | width="120" valign="top"| | width="120" valign="top"|Verification | width="120" valign="top"| | width="120" valign="top"| |} <br />  +
The PRO-RES Framework is built upon a set of resources that both help to generate ethical research and assess its integrity. The resources are operationalised in a toolbox that includes several means for assessing ethical research. The final ‘pillar’ in the PRO-RES Framework is ‘The Accord’ – a statement of principles for ethical evidence-gathering that individuals, agencies and organisations can sign up to as an assurance of their best intentions when gathering and using evidence to inform policies.  +
The formal learning pathway of Path2Integrity consists of 29 so-called [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:C13f2fea-2e63-4da9-8b9a-e4039c3dfde1 learning cards], which describe step-by-step how topics related to research integrity can be taught in units of 90-120 minutes. All learning cards address topics identified as crucial for research integrity in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. There are three series of learning cards: *S-series: for secondary school students and undergraduate students (pre-disciplinary) *M-series: for graduate students (disciplinary) *Y-series: for early career researcher (post-disciplinary) All learning cards are based on one of three dialogical methods: role-play, storytelling or coming to an agreement. The learning cards are [https://path2integrity.eu/ri-materials#LearningCards openly available on the Path2Integrity website] and described in more detail in the educational resources section. The learning cards can not only be used in classroom settings, but also in online teaching. To facilitate online teaching, Path2Integrity has created an [https://www.learning-p2i.eu/ online learning platform], which allows for combining asynchronous and synchronous phases of learning. The informal learning pathway of Path2Integrity consists of a [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:1ac96d0e-6379-41ca-8cb4-cd219aecf298 campaign] that aims to raise awareness about the importance of research integrity for science and society. Campaign materials include posters, postcards, leaflets, booklets and videos, many of which are not only available in English, but also in Bulgarian, Spanish, Catalan, Danish, German and Polish). Many of the materials rely on prominent researchers as role models to inspire pupils, students and young researchers to strive for integrity in their own work. Path2Integrity evaluates the effectiveness of all materials throughout all phases of the project in order to identify crucial factors for effective research integrity education.  
'''To search for initiatives in the spectrum of initiatives:''' There are multiple ways in which you can find the initiatives: *Find the initiatives in the right sidesbare on this page. *Use the search function of The Embassy of Good Science, and type in the word 'INSPIRE'. Please note that you will also find other search results that use the same word in their text. *When you know what kind of information you are looking for, you can use the tag 'INSPIRE' in your search. For example, if you would like to find a theme page about an initiative, **You can go to Themes, **Then go to Good practices, **And then you get a filter functionality in which you can select (or type) INSPIRE in the box 'Who", and click the search button (magnifying glass icon). **''You can follow a similar strategy to other searches. For example to find links to guidelines: go to resources, then guidelines, and select INSPIRE in 'who').'' *Have a look at the highlighted initiatives listed in this page (under 'What are the best practices'). '''Project team''' *Project lead: Dr. Fenneke Blom *Junior researcher: Dorien van der Schot *Supervision: Prof. dr. Lex Bouter *Webcrawler: Marc-Philippe Verschuren *Assistants: Simone Dunn, Simon Crox, Nadja den Haan (Intern) *Advisory group: Dr. Daan Andriessen, Prof. dr. Frans van Lunteren, Dr. Lotte Melenhorst, Prof. dr. Yvo Smulders, Dr. Els Swennen, Dr. Joeri Tijdink, Prof. dr. Guy Widdershoven, <br />  +
'''Project team:''' '''Project coordinators''': Prof. Niels Mejlgaard and Dr. Mads P. Sørensen '''WP leaders''': Prof. Niels Mejlgaard, Prof. Costas Charitidis, Prof. Ana Marušić, Dr. Joeri Tijdink, Dr. Mads P. Sørensen, Prof. Nick Allum, Dr. Nicole Foeger '''Researchers''': Dr. Tine Ravn, Anna-Kathrine Bendtsen, Prof Dr. Lex Bouter, Prof. Dr. Guy Widdershoven, Krishma Labib, Rea Ščepanović, Teodora Konach, Dr. Panagiotis Kavouras, Prof. Dr. Sarah De Rijcke, Dr. Thed Van Leeuwen, Andrea Reyes Elizondo, Dr. Maura Hiney, Prof. Dr. Kris Dierickx, Daniel Pizzolato, Prof. George Gaskell, Nik Claesen, Borana Taraj, Prof. Giuseppe Alessandro Veltri, Prof. Anna Domaradzka '''Advisory Board members''': Prof. James A. DuBois, Dr. Anja Gilis, ZoёHammatt, Prof. Judit Sandor, Tony Mayer, Prof. Philippe Ravaud, Katie Metzler  +
www.tetrias.eu [https://osf.io/gyfhr OSF registration]  +