All pages (Theme namespace)
From The Embassy of Good Science
- Clarifying the aims of a research study
- Telemedicine: Bridging Gaps or Creating New Challenges?
- Plagiarism
- Falsification
- Preprint servers
- Peer Review in the Social Sciences and Humanities
- Open access publishing: the new norm?
- Journal Impact Factor based on the date of electronic publication
- Conflicts of interest in the review of grant proposals
- Research Integrity Committees
- Imputation of missing data in clinical trials
- FAIR principles: sharing data for maximisation of results
- Informed consent
- Eigenfactor
- Mental health in academia
- Institutional policies and procedures for research misconduct
- Editorial conflicts of interest
- Governance of research integrity: Options for a coordinated approach in Europe
- Supervision Guidelines
- Moral conflict and moral dilemma
- Informed consent in psychiatry
- Inaccurate representation of results in the media
- Reasonable standards for career advancement
- Image Integrity
- ORI - The Office of Research Integrity
- Serious gaming in research integrity education
- Non-reporting of negative findings
- Dilemmas in daily practice
- Data driven hypotheses without disclosure (‘HARKing’)
- Unfair reviewing
- Development and Value of National Research Integrity Codes
- Consent for publication (Author)
- Research misconduct
- Peer review
- SCImago Journal Rankings
- Conflict of interest: a research integrity and research ethics perspective
- Ethical issues in qualitative research
- Inadequately handle or store data or (bio)materials
- Cross-boundary collaborations
- Honorary or gift authorship
- Not asking permission from contributors for the wording of the acknowledgement
- Preregistration of animal study protocols
- Research Integrity lunch meetings
- Statistical pre-registration
- Research integrity training for PhD students
- Non-disclosure of changes to the research design
- Incidental research findings
- Respectable and honest supervision ensures responsible and ethical research in the future.
- Consent and assent in research on children
- Peer review card game
- Feedback of findings in genome-wide association studies
- Teaching sensitive and controversial issues in divided societies
- Ignoring substantial safety risks of studies
- Polarized research
- Conducting research in high risk locations
- Imposter Syndrome
- Ethical considerations in dealing with human remains
- The ethics of managing a laboratory or research group
- Posing irrelevant research questions
- Anonymous Authorship in Research: Ethical Concerns and Best Practices
- Publication
- Gender bias
- Forensic Statistics to detect Data Fabrication
- Importance of healthy lifestyle
- Questionable Research Practices in Analysis and Reporting
- Predatory publishing
- How to be a good lab partner
- Retractions: correcting the scientific literature
- Qualitative research
- Virtues in research integrity
- Privacy in research
- Inappropriate authorship
- Grading the quality of evidence in clinical practice guidelines
- Research Integrity champions
- Selective citation
- The decision on ice
- Insufficiently reported study flaws and limitations
- Faking it in academia- the rise of authorship fraud
- Prospective registration of clinical trials
- Fabrication
- The impact of the GDPR on scientific data
- The Rise of Octopus Affiliation: Navigating Multiple Institutional Associations in Academic Publishing
- Dialogue versus debate
- Initiatives promoting research integrity
- Dutch National Survey on Research Integrity
- Collaboration In Research
- Discipline specific codes and guidelines on research integrity
- Monitoring funding processes
- Data management plans
- The learning curve - theatre play #MeTooAcademia
- P-value hacking
- Conflict of interests
- The influence of pharmaceutical company on drug availability
- Science policy
- Consent and Assent for Research on Children
- Poor mentoring or supervision of early career researcherers
- Networks and projects promoting research integrity
- Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company
- Collaborative working
- Superb Supervision: integrity training for supervisors
- H-index
- (re)submitting without consent of all authors
- Not acknowledging contributors who do not qualify for authorship
- Communicate results to the general public before a peer reviewed publication is available
- Journal Impact Factor
- Outcome reporting bias
- Replicability
- Research with children
- Spin of research results
- Ethical issues of involving children with disabilities in research
- Standards of authorship
- Research metrics
- Research integrity training for diverse disciplines
- Questionable Research Practices in Collaboration
- High income and low- and middle-income country collaborations
- Questionable research practices & research misbehaviors
- Improper data use (a bias distorting research results)
- Affiliations
- Responsible mentoring
- Being grossly unfair to your collaborators
- Research Integrity Advisors
- Post-publication peer review
- Take no full responsibility for the integrity of the research project and its reports
- Funders
- Salami publication
- Plan S
- Research ethics committees
- Research ethics committee members' skills
- Connecting researchers through ORCID
- Publishers - COPE guidelines
- "Met de billen bloot" (airing your dirty laundry)
- Confidentiality
- Questionable Research Practices in Data Collection
- Theme:A22bd155-7f88-4750-aa9c-cba9ad72cbec
- AI Generated Content
- The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity
- Conflict of interest in peer review
- Responsible supervision
- Reward campaign
- Consent for publication (Participant)
- Mertonian norms
- Epistemic virtues
- Paper Mills
- Falsifiability and Attractor States in Scientific Theories: A Framework for Evaluating Evidence
- Protecting research subjects
- Institutional codes of conduct for research integrity
- Research culture
- Intellectual property rights in research collaborations
- Anonymisation and pseudonymisation
- Legal rights of accused scientists
- Values and norms
- Digital humanities
- Inferring from P-values
- Secondary corrections
- Altmetrics
- Questionable Research Practices in Study Design
- Funding (Sponsorship) bias
- The Dilemma Game
- Hostile peer review
- Open Science
- Data Practices and Management
- Supervision
- How to select trustworthy repositories
- Internet Research Ethics
- Responsible Use of AI in Research: Balancing Innovation and Integrity
- Methods to increase data availability
- Empathy in History Research and Education
- Authorship criteria
- Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)
- Research integrity officers in Europe
- Cognitive dissonance and moral distress
- Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC)
- Sharing and preserving data in repositories
- Vulnerable and non-competent subjects in clinical trials
- Research Integrity and Research Ethics Scenarios for Teaching
- High Integration of Research Monographs in the European Open Science (HIRMEOS)
- Research with humans
- Replicability in the Humanities
- Gene Editing: Ethical Frontiers and Scientific Integrity
- Turning a blind eye to breaches of integrity
- Research with animals
- Intellectual conflicts of interest
- Industry funded research
- The ethical dilemmas of genome editing
- Research collaboration
- Publication bias (positive results)
- Inappropriate study design
- Research integrity in practice: dealing with everyday dilemmas
- Balancing harms and benefits
- Keeping inadequate notes of the research process
- Initiative for Open Abstracts (I4OA)
- Open peer review - transparent way of gatekeeping science
- Self-plagiarism
- Perverse incentives
- Informed assent
- Ethics in global digital psychiatry: balancing innovation and responsibility
- Fake peer-reviewing
- Responsible Research and Innovation - RRI
- Whistleblower protection/rights
- The ConScience App - theatre play
