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

Cognitive dissonance and moral distress + (In their virtue-based model of ethical dec … In their virtue-based model of ethical decision-making, Crossan et al. outline how a virtue-based orientation may be a means of resilience for individuals who are trying to navigate between high situational pressures and demands for ethical behavior.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"'Medeiros et al. give an overview of cognitive biases prevalent among university staff.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"' Mecca et al. give valuable insights on the efficacy of a training intervention based on the finding of Medeiros et al.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"'Cassam recently introduced an account on how epistemic vices may influence unethical decision-making.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"' Moreover, he gives an overview on how these vices may be corrected (see chapter 8 “Self-improvement“, p. 167-187).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000000E-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000000E-QINU`"')
Teaching sensitive and controversial issues in divided societies + (In these situations, history teachers are … In these situations, history teachers are mediators between different and sometimes conflicting collective memories.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005AC-QINU`"' Teaching topics such as the civil war in Northern Ireland, where everyday life reminds its population about their divisions due to past and present conflicts is particularly difficult for history teachers who teach in that area.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005AD-QINU`"' According to recent findings, many teachers feel uncertain and underprepared when teaching controversial and sensitive issues because of the fear of the emotional reaction in the classroom, perception of pressures from school, parents, local community or state or even because of their own beliefs and identities.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005AE-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000005AF-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-000005B0-QINU`"'This is why some European universities offer courses on teaching controversial and sensitive issues in history education with aim of preparing future teachers for these challenges.'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B1-QINU`"' Providing students with balanced academic approach of these issues'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B2-QINU`"' is necessary to help them understand that almost every historical topic is open to different interpretations,'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B3-QINU`"' particularly when teaching these issues in societies with opposite narratives. That is an opportunity for a multi-perspective approach,'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B4-QINU`"' but also for developing students’ ability to deal with controversial issues and debating with people who do not share their opinion.Main strategies teachers can use when dealing with these issues in the classroom are:-distancing strategy (when an issue is highly sensitive in the community where the teacher is teaching or when the class is polarized. This strategy proposes examining analogies and parallels or going back further in time to trail the history of the issue that is being discussed). -compensatory strategy (when students are expressing attitudes based on ignorance, when the minority is being bullied or discriminated against by the majority or when there is consensus in the class in favor of one particular interpretation. In these cases, teachers can play the devil’s advocate, highlight contradictions in students’ responses or demythologize popular beliefs). -empathetic strategy (when the issue involves a group or nation which is unpopular with the students, when the issue involves latent discrimination against some group or where the issue is distant from the students’ own lives. Teachers can use several methods, such as role reversals, for-and-against lists, role play and simulations and also vicarious experience through examining films, novels or documentaries). -exploratory strategies (when the issue is not clearly defined or where the teacher’s aim is also to use the issue as a tool to develop analytical skills. In such conditions, students can explore people’s diaries and memoirs or conduct oral history).'"`UNIQ--ref-000005B5-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-000005B6-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000005B6-QINU`"')
AI Ethics and Governance in Practice: An Introduction + (In this workbook, we introduce fundamental … In this workbook, we introduce fundamental concepts of AI, responsible research and innovation, and AI ethics and governance, such as the SSAFE-D Principles – which stands for Sustainability, Safety, Accountability, Fairness, Explainability, and Data-Stewardship. The SSAFE-D Principles are a set of ethical principles that serve as starting points for reflection and deliberation about possible harms and benefits associated with data-driven technologies. associated with data-driven technologies.)
Confidentiality + (Informed consent is an explicit agreement between the researcher and the subject, where the researcher promises not to reveal the identity or the personal data of the subject.)
(re)submitting without consent of all authors + (Institutions and journals need to have cle … Institutions and journals need to have clear guidelines on publication and authorship in place. Guidelines should involve a section about gaining consent from all authors before submitting a manuscript or grant proposal. The Forum from COPE suggests that journals should send acknowledgements to all listed authors, not just the corresponding author, upon receiving a manuscript.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000038A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000038B-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000038B-QINU`"')
Hostile peer review + (It is difficult to cope with negative crit … It is difficult to cope with negative criticism, especially when it’s hostile in nature. Always keep in mind that any reviewer is a person, just like you.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000251-QINU`"' Maybe they were burdened with work, maybe they had a bad day at the office. It is nothing personal, and can happen to anybody. Think of anything useful that you can take from such a review. Maybe there is advice hidden under that unnecessary criticism? Speak with your superior, talk to your mentor. If you both consider that the review is insulting, consider raising that topic with the editor.'"`UNIQ--references-00000252-QINU`"'itor. '"`UNIQ--references-00000252-QINU`"')
Selling Out? Making Deals with Other Institutions + (It shows that researchers' responsibilities towards their projects and collected data extends beyond the duration of their employement in a particular research institute.)
P-value hacking + (It’s difficult to address the issue of P-v … It’s difficult to address the issue of P-value hacking, especially since there aren’t many incentives to replicate research. However, some steps can be taken in order to prevent it. Cross-validation, or out-of-sample testing is a statistical method used to create two sets of data. The first set of data is then used for statistical analysis, to develop new models or hypotheses, and the other, independent set is then used to verify them.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000275-QINU`"' A number of statistical analyses is also available to check for p-value hacking, such as Bonferonni correction, Scheffé's method and false discovery rate. A lot of journals will now ask for raw data to be published, or shift their way of work to registered report format. That is a publication process in which journals accept the publications based on theoretical justification and methodology only, without looking at results. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000276-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000277-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000277-QINU`"')
The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct + (Leiden university also made a MOOC with th … Leiden university also made a MOOC with this movie: https://www.coursera.org/learn/scientist. Read more on the university website https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2018/01/mooc-on-the-dilemmas-of-scienceThis movie is also included in the collection of fiction movies for RCR education (NRIN). See www.nrin.nl/ri-collection/library/videos/on-being-a-scientist-movie-2016/ry/videos/on-being-a-scientist-movie-2016/)
Predatory publishing + (Lists of predatory publishers (blacklists) … Lists of predatory publishers (blacklists) as well as lists of high quality open access publishers (whitelists) are of great value to researchers and decision makers.===Blacklists===The University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall developed a list of potential predatory journals in 2008, which has been since taken offline because of certain flaws in the methodology.*[https://beallslist.weebly.com/ Beall's list]*[https://www2.cabells.com/blacklist Cabells' lists]*[https://predatoryjournals.com/ Stop Predatory Journals]===Whitelists===*[https://doaj.org/ Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)]===Choosing a journal===Stefan Eriksson and Gert Helgesson have identified 25 signs of predatory publishing, '"`UNIQ--ref-000001F6-QINU`"' and argue that more points on the list that apply to the journal at hand, the more skeptical you should be."#The publisher is not a member of any recognized professional organization committed to best publishing practices (like COPE or EASE)#The journal is not indexed in well-established electronic databases (like MEDLINE or Web of Science)#The publisher claims to be a "leading publisher" even though it just got started#The journal and the publisher are unfamiliar to you and all your colleagues#The papers of the journal are of poor research quality, and may not be academic at all (for instance allowing for obvious pseudo-science)#There are fundamental errors in the titles and abstracts, or frequent and repeated typographical or factual errors throughout the published papers#The journal website is not professional#The journal website does not present an editorial board or gives insufficient detail on names and affiliations#The journal website does not reveal the journal's editorial office location or uses an incorrect address#The publishing schedule is not clearly stated#The journal title claims a national affiliation that does not match its location (such as "American Journal of ..." while being located on another continent) or includes "International" in its title while having a single-country editorial board#The journal mimics another journal title or the website of said journal#The journal provides an impact factor in spite of the fact that the journal is new (which means that the impact cannot yet be calculated)#The journal claims an unrealistically high impact based on spurious alternative impact factors (such as 7 for a bioethics journal, which is far beyond the top notation)#The journal website posts non-related or non-academic advertisements#The publisher of the journal has released an overwhelmingly large suite of new journals at one occasion or during a very short period of time#The editor in chief of the journal is editor in chief also for other journals with widely different focus#The journal includes articles (very far) outside its stated scope#The journal sends you an unsolicited invitation to submit an article for publication, while making it blatantly clear that the editor has absolutely no idea about your field of expertise#Emails from the journal editor are written in poor language, include exaggerated flattering (everyone is a leading profile in the field), and make contradictory claims (such as "You have to respond within 48 h" while later on saying "You may submit your manuscript whenever you find convenient")#The journal charges a submission or handling fee, instead of a publication fee (which means that you have to pay even if the paper is not accepted for publication)#The types of submission/publication fees and what they amount to are not clearly stated on the journal's website#The journal gives unrealistic promises regarding the speed of the peer review process (hinting that the journal's peer review process is minimal or non-existent)—or boasts an equally unrealistic track-record#The journal does not describe copyright agreements clearly or demands the copyright of the paper while claiming to be an open access journal#The journal displays no strategies for how to handle misconduct, conflicts of interest, or secure the archiving of articles when no longer in operationA number of other initiatives have also put together criteria for journal selection:*[https://thinkchecksubmit.org/ Guideline to choose the right journal for research] -*[https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/beinformed Be iNFORMEd: Checklist] - A checklist to assess the quality of a journal or publisher==Other information==[http://www.wame.org/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) statement on predatory publishing][https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2019.1646535 The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), European Medical Writers Association (EMWA), and International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) Joint Position Statement on Predatory Publishing] [http://www.icmje.org/news-and-editorials/fake_predatory_pseudo_journals_dec17.html ICMJE document on predatory publishing] '"`UNIQ--references-000001F7-QINU`"'lt;br /> '"`UNIQ--references-000001F7-QINU`"')
The ethics of managing a laboratory or research group + (Managing people, projects, and budgets, as … Managing people, projects, and budgets, as well as setting workplace procedures that foster efficiency, safety ethics, and high staff morale, are all issues that come with running a laboratory. Lab safety and ethics are two of the most important components of running a lab, yet they are often overlooked in favor of more fundamental lab management skills. It is critical to work hard to build a laboratory culture that prioritizes safety.aboratory culture that prioritizes safety.)
Inappropriate study design + (Observational studies, such as cohort or c … Observational studies, such as cohort or case – control studies, are sometimes overinterpreted in terms of cause-effect relationship. Correlation between a factor and an outcome does not necessarily mean causation. When it comes to experimental studies, sometimes randomization is not possible due to ethical reasons which should be taken in account when interpreting results of such studies. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000025F-QINU`"' Sometimes outcome measures do not correspond completely to questions asked in the study i.e. they are only indirectly connected.All of this is usually addressed in research methodology classes. When planning, doing and reporting research, you can always rely on appropriate EQUATOR reporting guidelines to make sure you have everything accounted for.'"`UNIQ--references-00000260-QINU`"' for. '"`UNIQ--references-00000260-QINU`"')
Research metrics + (On an individual level, the most important … On an individual level, the most important research metrics are the H-index and the i-10 index. The H-index, also known as Hirsch index, is an author level metric that shows how many articles have been cited a certain number of times. For example, a h-index of 10 shows that the author has 10 articles, each cited at least 10 times.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000011F-QINU`"' The i-10 index shows the number of articles an author has published with at least 10 citations.On a journal level, the impact factor shows an average number of citations per article in two consecutive years.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000120-QINU`"' Other famous journal metric systems are Eigenfactor and the SCImago Journal Rankings.It is important to note that every metric system has its flaws. As a result, they should not be the only criterion when determining the quality and performance of a particular researcher, article, journal or research project.'"`UNIQ--references-00000121-QINU`"'ject. '"`UNIQ--references-00000121-QINU`"')
A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Multiple Submissions (1) + (On submission of an article, authors are u … On submission of an article, authors are usually asked to mention whether their submission is under review elsewhere. Duplicate submission is a form of research misconduct. However, if a journal does not review a manuscript in an appropriate amount of time, authors can withdraw their manuscript. However, the editor-in-chief should be informed beforehand and a record of all correspondence maintained by the corresponding author. Authors should never submit a manuscript to another journal before appropriate withdrawal of the manuscript or notice of a rejection.f the manuscript or notice of a rejection.)
A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Multiple Submissions (2) + (On submission of an article, authors are u … On submission of an article, authors are usually asked to mention whether their submission is under review elsewhere. Duplicate submission is a form of research misconduct. However, if a journal does not review a manuscript in an appropriate amount of time, authors can withdraw their manuscript. However, the editor-in-chief should be informed beforehand and a record of all correspondence maintained by the corresponding author. Authors should never submit a manuscript to another journal before appropriate withdrawal of the manuscript or notice of a rejection.f the manuscript or notice of a rejection.)
Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing) + (On the systemic level, HARKing can be prev … On the systemic level, HARKing can be prevented by changing researcher assessment and promoting the preregistration of studies, ideally in a form involving reviewed preregistration with guaranteed publication if the accepted protocol is followed. Individual researchers should make post hoc hypotheses transparent and thereby avoid deceiving readers to reap the benefits from exploratory studies without misrepresenting them as following a hypothetico-deductive model.s following a hypothetico-deductive model.)
Open peer review - transparent way of gatekeeping science + (One example of adaption of open peer revie … One example of adaption of open peer review policies in seen in BMC series journals. BMC begun with open peer review in 1999, and since then has promoted the benefits of peer review and developed different variations and options in peer review system. On top of that, they have decided to move beyond “prescription” of peer review patterns and instructions, and have started publishing a journal called Research Integrity and Peer Review, whose main focus is on research on peer review. Recently, the very same journal has published an article on guidelines for the implementation of open peer review, with a checklist aimed at making the implementation of peer review easier. This was developed mostly for editors, but for those who are still unfamiliar with open peer review, there are plenty of long (e.g. FOSTER course on open peer review) and short'"`UNIQ--ref-000000F7-QINU`"' educational materials.'"`UNIQ--references-000000F8-QINU`"'ials. '"`UNIQ--references-000000F8-QINU`"')
Digital humanities + (One of the best examples of the applicatio … One of the best examples of the application of digital tools within the humanities is the collaborative, interdisciplinary research project [http://republicofletters.stanford.edu/index.html Mapping the Republic of Letters], developed by Stanford University in 2010 and funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The aim of the project is to map the 17th and 18th century correspondence of prominent and influential intellectuals in the Age of Enlightenment '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E2-QINU`"'. The “Republic of Letters” was a self-proclaimed community of scholars that exchanged their ideas via handwritten letters across Europe and the Americas. The researchers on the project used metadata to produce maps, charts and other visual tools '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E3-QINU`"'. These modern visualization tools provide a greater understanding of distribution of the letters over hundreds of years and help identify geographic “hot-spots” in the archive '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E4-QINU`"'. They shed light on, for example, Voltaire’s correspondence, which consists of about 15.000 letters. The visualization of the letter exchanges on a map shows the places where Voltaire traveled and reveals patterns in his writing at specific times and in specific places '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E5-QINU`"'. These maps of correspondence raise new questions and facilitate new interpretations of the letters and related documents '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E6-QINU`"'. The project also provides a basis for further research not only concerning the Republic of letters, but also in related topics. The use of digital tools in the humanities has seen the formation of organizations that foster research in the digital humanities. One of them is the European Association for Digital Humanities (EADH), established in 1973 under the name of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E7-QINU`"'. This organization is one of the constituent organizations in the Alliance of Digital Humanities (ADHO), formed in 2005, which supports and promotes digital research and education in all the arts and humanities disciplines '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E8-QINU`"'. In addition, numerous universities now offer undergraduate and graduate courses and programs in the digital humanities '"`UNIQ--ref-000003E9-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-000003EA-QINU`"'"`UNIQ--ref-000003E9-QINU`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-000003EA-QINU`"')
Forensic Statistics to detect Data Fabrication + (One of the techniques for detecting the fa … One of the techniques for detecting the fabrication of numbers is to check the “rightmost digits” of the collected data. The “rightmost digit” is the digit that a number ends in. It is considered to be “the most random digit of a number,” which means that that the numbers that make up a data set should be uniformly distributed as in a lottery '"`UNIQ--ref-00000430-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000431-QINU`"'. Since the rightmost digits in each study should be unpredictable, the appearance of any patterns is a reason to suspect data fabrication'"`UNIQ--ref-00000432-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000433-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000434-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000435-QINU`"'. Research conducted by Mosimann et al. in 1995 showed that most people cannot generate random numbers when fabricating data, which makes it possible to detect potentially fabricated data '"`UNIQ--ref-00000436-QINU`"'. They also developed a program called the “chi-square test for uniformity of the digit distributions”, which measures the production of random digits '"`UNIQ--ref-00000437-QINU`"'. If the distribution of numbers is not uniform, the numbers are falsified '"`UNIQ--ref-00000438-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000439-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000043A-QINU`"'. There are other methods that can be used to detect the fabrication of rightmost digits. For example, some journals have adopted a policy of statistical review for all papers containing numerical data '"`UNIQ--ref-0000043B-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-0000043C-QINU`"'. In addition, published graph data can be compared with “raw” notebook or computer data to determine whether the numbers have been reported correctly '"`UNIQ--ref-0000043D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000043E-QINU`"'. Authors should present the raw data that supports their findings, while journals, universities and granting agencies should promote this practice '"`UNIQ--ref-0000043F-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000440-QINU`"'. Some argue that the use of statistical methods will significantly reduce fabrication of numerical data '"`UNIQ--ref-00000441-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-00000442-QINU`"'U`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-00000442-QINU`"')
Spin of research results + (Open data practices can help increase tran … Open data practices can help increase transparency, allowing other researchers and interested parties to undertake their own analyses.A technique to identify and classify spin in RCT reports has been developed by Boutron et al,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000029A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000029B-QINU`"' focusing on RCTs reporting statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes because the interpretation of these results is more likely to be subject to prior beliefs of effectiveness, leading to potential bias in reporting. Similar approaches are available to systematically assess the explicit presentation of nonsignificant results in trial reports in various subspecialties, such as described by Lockyer et al, and Turrentine. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000029C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000029D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000029E-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000029E-QINU`"')
Fostering Integrity in Research + (Part Three (pages 161-224): Fostering Inte … Part Three (pages 161-224): Fostering Integrity in ResearchChapter 9 (page 163): [https://www.nap.edu/read/21896/chapter/1#content-toc_pz15-2 Identifying and Promoting Best Practices for Research Integrity]Chapter 10 (page 195): [https://www.nap.edu/read/21896/chapter/1#content-toc_pz15-3 Education for the Responsible Conduct of Research]n for the Responsible Conduct of Research])
Authorship criteria + (Practice guidelines are diverse and vary a … Practice guidelines are diverse and vary according to the scientific field. Rather than rules, professional bodies provide guidelines or recommendations and most guidelines leave some room for interpretation.===='''Medicine'''====The best-known authorship guideline comes from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The ICMJE recommends that an author should meet all four of the following criteria: '"`UNIQ--ref-000000E5-QINU`"'‘‘Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work,’’'"`UNIQ--ref-000000E6-QINU`"'’’Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content,’’ '"`UNIQ--ref-000000E7-QINU`"' ‘‘Final approval of the version to be published,’’ and '"`UNIQ--ref-000000E8-QINU`"'‘‘Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved’’. The committee further designates that in addition to excluding a scholar who has not met all four criteria, any scholar who meets all four should be included as an author. Following the authorship criteria, the ICMJE expressly describes contributions that should be included as an acknowledgment, and not authorship (i.e., funding, supervision, writing assistance, technical or language editing, proofreading). '"`UNIQ--ref-000000E9-QINU`"'===='''Science'''====The Council of Science Editors describes authors as “individuals identified by the research group to have made substantial contributions to the reported work and agree to be accountable for these contributions. In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which of their co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, an author should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. All authors should review and approve the final manuscript.”'"`UNIQ--ref-000000EA-QINU`"'===='''Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics'''====Guidelines in the physical and mathematical sciences offer somewhat less precise definitions, such as this from the American Physical Society: “Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the research study. All those who have made significant contributions should be offered the opportunity to be listed as authors. Other individuals who have contributed to the study should be acknowledged, but not identified as authors.”'"`UNIQ--ref-000000EB-QINU`"'===='''Sociology'''====The American Sociological Association includes the following in its Code of Ethics: “(a) Sociologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed. (b) Sociologists ensure that principal authorship and other publication credits are based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. In claiming or determining the ordering of authorship, sociologists seek to reflect accurately the contributions of main participants in the research and writing process. (c) A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored publication that substantially derives from the student’s dissertation or thesis.” '"`UNIQ--ref-000000EC-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-000000ED-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000000ED-QINU`"')
Questionable Research Practices in Study Design + (Pre-registration of study protocols enhances the transparency of the research process and lends credibility to results.)
Moral conflict and moral dilemma + (Reflection on moral conflicts, and especia … Reflection on moral conflicts, and especially on moral dilemmas, is an important element of responsible research practice. Take for example Phase I trials that involve novel therapies for patients (so-called First-In-Human (FIH) Trials). '"`UNIQ--ref-00000038-QINU`"' These trials involve a high degree of uncertainty in intervention development and possible outcomes. Although this step, hopefully, in turn, will make a Phase-III clinical trial in compliance with the basic epistemological and ethical requirement of therapeutic trials possible, it is a fact that so far no widely accepted standards for judgments of uncertainty, safety, and value of FIH trials have yet been formulated. Consequently, no selection of patients to be included in such trials can be said to be fully satisfactory, i.e. without the possibility of moral failure. Through acknowledging the possible existence of irresolvable moral conflicts in research, researchers will learn modesty, and thereby also protect themselves from being infected by the vice of ''hybris''.Reflection on moral dilemmas can be fostered by organizing Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). '"`UNIQ--ref-00000039-QINU`"' In MCD, a morally troublesome situation is investigated by a group, guided by a facilitator. During the investigation, the conflicting values in the situation are examined in dialogue. This enables participants to become aware of, and reflect on the moral conflict involved. MCD specifically focuses on moral conflicts that cannot be restlessly solved, that is on moral dilemmas. The aim is to investigate different values of stakeholders in practice, and become aware that in making a choice, certain values will be harmed. This may result in the awareness that, although a choice is unavoidable, one should be open to the negative consequences of and take responsibility for them.'"`UNIQ--references-0000003A-QINU`"'them. '"`UNIQ--references-0000003A-QINU`"')
Insufficiently reported study flaws and limitations + (Regardless of the importance and necessity … Regardless of the importance and necessity to fully report study limitations, in practice researchers still need to be encouraged to report their limitations and to describe them properly and thoroughly. The following example demonstrates that scientists in medicine do not fully discuss and present limitations of their research '"`UNIQ--ref-00000463-QINU`"'. A study was conducted on 400 articles published in 2005 in journals with the highest number of citations, among them two open-access journals. Full-texts of these articles were electronically searched, looking for words ‘limitation’, ‘caveat’ or ‘caution’. The results showed that only 67 articles (17%) used at least one of the mentioned words when presenting their own research. Furthermore, only four articles (1%) used the word ‘limitation’ in their abstract, while not one article mentioned limitations of their research that had impact on the conclusions '"`UNIQ--ref-00000464-QINU`"'.Researchers do not present their study limitations because perhaps they do not fully understand the significance, outcomes and implications of these limitations to the study results. Maybe they think that probability for publication of their work would be higher by not addressing them '"`UNIQ--ref-00000465-QINU`"'. Journals also bear great responsibility in this matter because of the word limits that prevent authors from reporting and thoroughly describing their limitations '"`UNIQ--ref-00000466-QINU`"'. When researchers do mention their study limitations, they usually provide only a list, they do not fully describe them '"`UNIQ--ref-00000467-QINU`"'. There are several things researchers and journals can do to responsibly report study flaws and limitations. When describing them, researchers should clearly classify the type of limitation so that readers could interpret the research findings correctly '"`UNIQ--ref-00000468-QINU`"'. They should not only describe the limitations, but also explain their implications. Assessing impact of limitations on conclusions of the research and its validity is also very important and can help to avoid bias. Researchers should explain why they did not take some alternative approaches or maybe provide some alternative explanations of their findings. Finally, researchers should describe efforts taken to mitigate the implications of study limitations '"`UNIQ--ref-00000469-QINU`"'. Journals, on the other hand, should encourage authors to present their study limitations and provide them with some guidelines '"`UNIQ--ref-0000046A-QINU`"'. Reporting study flaws and limitations should enter the everyday research practice. The only way to deal with such uncertainties is to present data, methodology, limitations and study deficiencies transparently so that decision makers can be fully aware of quality and potential errors in inference.'"`UNIQ--references-0000046B-QINU`"'ence. '"`UNIQ--references-0000046B-QINU`"')

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

A Case Series in Publication Ethics: Copyright Violation + (Reproducing any part of an article or book … Reproducing any part of an article or book (figure, table, etc) definitely requires permission from the copyright holder. The copyright holder is usually the publisher since authors tend to transfer the copyright to the publisher upon submission of their manuscripts.sher upon submission of their manuscripts.)
Research Integrity Advisors + (Research integrity advisors are experience … Research integrity advisors are experienced researchers with in-depth knowledge of research integrity and research ethics. They are appointed by the university to serve the complex role of dealing with all sort of questions related to research integrity practices, procedures, and issues.For example, in Australia, universities have established research integrity advisors’ teams to assist researchers and research students in conducting research with integrity and advise them on questions that may arise during the research process. If you are not sure who to talk with, the universities web pages contain lists of RIAs and guidance on when to approach to an advisor. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000097-QINU`"' At Melbourne University, RIAs also have a responsibility to report alleged cases of research misconduct to authorized bodies. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000098-QINU`"'In Europe, for example, in Denmark, some Danish research institutions (e.g., Aarhus University) have special advisors for supporting the good scientific practice. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000099-QINU`"' Moreover, LARI (Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity) provides research ethics consultations to researchers of all levels. While LARI advisors are not officially called RI advisors, they still have a similar role. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000009A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000009B-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000009B-QINU`"')
Conflicts with Community Leaders + (Researchers can consult the following guid … Researchers can consult the following guidelines on collaboration with communities:* Kate Chatfield et al. (2018) Research with, not about, communities - Ethical guidance towards empowerment in collaborative research, a report for the TRUST project. http://trust-project.eu/* Figueiredo Nascimento, S., Cuccillato, E., Schade, S., Guimarães Pereira, A. (2016) Citizen Engagement in Science and Policy-Making. doi:10.2788/40563 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/sites/jrccties/files/mc10_rio_sio-lopez_mobility_reading.pdfes/mc10_rio_sio-lopez_mobility_reading.pdf)
Ethical issues of involving children with disabilities in research + (Researchers must always consider mitigatio … Researchers must always consider mitigation strategies to overcome challenges that occur when it comes to involving children with disabilities in research and to do it in an ethical and respectful way. For meaningful participation, the individual capacities of each child involved must be considered at all stages of the research cycle, to ensure that processes are suitable for the diverse competencies, knowledge, interests, access, needs and contexts of all children involved.eds and contexts of all children involved.)
Secondary corrections + (Researchers should be up-to-date in their … Researchers should be up-to-date in their field of interest and, when they notice a retraction of an article that they have previously cited, correct the article. The easiest way to be regularly updated on retractions is by following Retraction Watch and their database '"`UNIQ--ref-000004CB-QINU`"'. Zotero citation manager has established a partnership with Retraction Watch and has implemented retraction notifications that pop-up when an article from the users’ database has been retracted. Hopefully other citation managers will follow this practice.An initiative to stimulate this kind of behavior could result in more corrected articles. In practice, taking into account the number of articles that are published every day, it is hard to expect an individual to notice everything. The ideal practice would be that the journal which has retracted the article, notifies authors which have cited the retracted article. However, that is hard to be expected, especially for older articles. Alternately, authors of the retracted article could inform all the authors who have cited their article. This may be expected from authors whose article is retracted due to unintentional mistake and have initiated the retraction, but it might be illusory to expect this from authors who have committed fabrication, plagiarism, or similar misconduct.'"`UNIQ--references-000004CC-QINU`"'duct. '"`UNIQ--references-000004CC-QINU`"')
The impact of the GDPR on scientific data + (Researchers that work with personal data c … Researchers that work with personal data can consult the GDPR online [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679 here]. In 2020 the European Data Protection Supervisor issued [https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/20-01-06_opinion_research_en.pdf A Preliminary Opinion on data protection and scientific research].You should also be able to contact your local Data Protection Officer or study supervisor for more information on handling personal data.ore information on handling personal data.)
Deception by Research Participants + (Resnik et al (2015) list four measures res … Resnik et al (2015) list four measures researchers can take to address deception by research subjects. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000030-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`"')
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-0000000D-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-0000000E-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-0000000F-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000010-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000010-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-00000006-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000007-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000007-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-00000015-QINU`"' , the Declaration of Helsinki '"`UNIQ--ref-00000016-QINU`"' and similar ethical and legal documents were enacted by governing bodies and professional associations. '"`UNIQ--references-00000017-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`"')
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`"')