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

Addressing the socio-economic consequences of research misconduct + (It is more important than ever to deal wit … It is more important than ever to deal with the effects of research misconduct on society and the economy. When research misconduct happens, e.g. when research is not conducted in accordance to the highest standards, public trust in science is affected, making people less willing to accept and believe in new ideas and innovations. It also slows down progress and discourages private actors from investing in innovation. On a personal level, those involved can suffer damage to their careers and well-being, which also affects their families and colleagues. Organizations connected to the misconduct or responsible for dealing with it may face damage to their reputation and financial losses.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"'ncial losses.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"')
Confronting Research Misconduct in Citizen Science + (It is unusual to encounter cases of ethics violations on citizen's science and similar disciplines. The author raises some interesting points for discussion.)
INSPIRE Checklist + (It is used for the taxonomy of the spectru … It is used for the taxonomy of the spectrum of initiatives that soon will be made available at The Embassy of Good Science. The checklist can also be used by stakeholders to assess and improve their initiatives themselves, or by others who plan to implement an existing initiative, for example which they found in the spectrum on The Embassy!they found in the spectrum on The Embassy!)
Selection bias in skull measurements + (It nicely shows the self-correcting feature of science. In his 1978 paper, Gould accused Morton (a 19th-century intellectual) of racial bias and misconduct. However, Gould himself is later found to have selected his data in a biased manner.)
Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine + (It provides a framework or a set of rules to protect human dignity and the bio-rights of individuals. It is an important benchmark in the protection of human rights related to biomedicine and technology.)
UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity + (It provides a national framework for research integrity in the UK.)
Traver paper: The Unique Case of a Published Delusion + (It raises questions about the definition of fabrication and its difference with bad science, and whether journal editors should/could take into account the mental state of authors who submit articles. '"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"')
The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity + (It represented the first international eff … It represented the first international effort to develop a global code of conduct on research integrity. An additional purpose was to challenge governments and research institutions worldwide to think about these issues and develop their own guidelines or codes of conduct. their own guidelines or codes of conduct.)
Plagiarism Charge for Romanian Minister + (It shows a case of misconduct against a high-profile politician. It also shows that researchers' early publications might be scrutinised later on.)
Prominent Video Game-Violence Researcher Loses Another Paper to Retraction + (It shows a clear case of self-plagiarism where both the plagiarised and plagiarising manuscripts were published in the same journal.)
What happens when an ex-physicist writes about gender identity? + (It shows that a combination of gender bias and citation bias could result in the publication of inaccurate and disrespectful papers. It also shows what can be achieved with post-publication peer-review and concerted efforts of responsible scientists.)
Premature release of clinical trials data + (It shows that academic and industrial research partners might have different priorities that do not always match.)
Research published by Hans Eysenck is unsafe + (It shows that academic institutions have a responsibility towards the publications of those who are/were affiliated with them. In this case, King's college shows exemplary stewardship.)
Veterinary scientist fabricates data and manipulates images + (It shows that data and image integrity are part and parcel of modern research.)
Inexperienced researcher gives too much caffeine to subjects + (It shows that even when there is a protocol for trials involving human subjects, experiments can go terribly wrong.)
Procrastinating Researcher Delegates Grant Reviews to Trainee + (It shows that important tasks should not be delegated.)
Journalist who fabricated his reports + (It shows that it is not only peer-reviewed journal publications that should accurately uphold norms of academic integrity, but the communication of other forms of research (e.g. journalism) should also remain accurate and factual.)
Unhelpful retraction notice about a study that received favourable media attention + (It shows that media attention received by a study is not necessarily an indication of reliability or accuracy of reported results.)
Researcher discovers paper published by co-author in another journal + (It shows that research in some disciplines might take years to be published. Researchers should respect their colleagues and be patient.)
Fourth retraction for neuroscientist sentenced for fraud + (It shows that researchers who have been involved in fraudulent practices could have been involved in more controversies, and a full analysis of their publication record could reveal additional irregularities.)
Inconsistent Findings Between Trainee and Researcher + (It shows that seniority does not necessarily indicate reliability.)
Outsourcing animal experimentation + (It shows that some researchers are willing to conduct unethical parts of their research in countries where regulations are less stringent.)
Nutrition researcher selling supplements + (It shows that some researchers might successfully hide their conflicting interests for years without funding agencies and journals realising that.)
The Dutch anthropologist making up data and papers + (It shows that some researchers might use ethical reasoning (e.g. protecting subjects' confidentiality) to fabricate data and results.)
A 24-year-old sociology paper found to have plagiarised a 1975 article + (It shows that using plagiarism-detection software to check books and articles published in the past might result in the discovery of plagiarised items.)

Rainy Days for a Struggling Mentee + (It shows the adverse effects of strict mentoring.)

Harvard Scientists Disciplined for Not Declaring Ties to Drug Companies + (It shows the limitations of policies about … It shows the limitations of policies about financial conflict of interests and how discrepencies between national and institutional policies could contribute to confusion. It also shows what consequences may follow from a lack of transparency about the received funds. of transparency about the received funds.)
The publication of controversial views + (It shows the limits of academic freedom, and provides a factual case that could be used to explain where freedom ends and disrespect starts.)
Ethical Issues in Developing Pharmacogenetic Research Partnerships With American Indigenous Communities + (It shows two specific cases of having info … It shows two specific cases of having informed consent about further use of research samples are taken for granted. It also provides a brief overview of the legal procedure that affected communities can follow in The United States, and possible rulling of the courte in these cases.ible rulling of the courte in these cases.)
Postdoc randomly chose data during figure assembly + (It shows what can be achieved with post-publication peer-review. Furthermore, it shows what can go wrong when contributors who are responsible for important aspects of publications change institutions and country of residence.)
Publishers - COPE guidelines + (Journal editors often need to make difficu … Journal editors often need to make difficult decisions about allegations of misconduct, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, lack of ethical oversight of a submission, and so on. The COPE “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing” and “Core Practices” consist of guidelines and tools to assist editors, publishers and other stakeholders to “preserve and promote the integrity of the scholarly record through policies and practices that reflect the current best principles of transparency and integrity”. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"')
Using Different Learning Taxonomies + (Learning is what the learner does, but it … Learning is what the learner does, but it can be facilitated through what trainers do and through appropriate teaching activities.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000058-QINU`"' The Taxonomy of Significant Learning (sometimes also referred as the [https://www.buffalo.edu/catt/teach/develop/design/learning-outcomes/finks.html Fink’s taxonomy]) is not hierarchical in the same way as the other two, however, it builds on Blooms’ taxonomy by including a long-forgotten affective component into the discussion (namely caring).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000059-QINU`"' It encourages to include into the learning outcomes the objectives foundational knowledge, application, integration, a human dimension, caring, and learning to acquire competencies, thus providing a holistic approach to learning.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000005A-QINU`"' However, since the existing material aligns with Bloom's and SOLO frameworks, this module will primarily describe these two to ensure coherence and consistency in training delivery. Nevertheless, we encourage trainers to also consider the more effective type of learning objectives proposed in the Taxonomy of Significant Learning.'"`UNIQ--references-0000005B-QINU`"'ning. '"`UNIQ--references-0000005B-QINU`"')
Using Different Learning Taxonomies + (Learning is what the learner does, but it … Learning is what the learner does, but it can be facilitated through what trainers do and through appropriate teaching activities.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000035-QINU`"' The Taxonomy of Significant Learning (sometimes also referred as the [https://www.buffalo.edu/catt/teach/develop/design/learning-outcomes/finks.html Fink’s taxonomy]) is not hierarchical in the same way as the other two, however, it builds on Blooms’ taxonomy by including a long-forgotten affective component into the discussion (namely caring).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000036-QINU`"' It encourages to include into the learning outcomes the objectives foundational knowledge, application, integration, a human dimension, caring, and learning to acquire competencies, thus providing a holistic approach to learning.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000037-QINU`"' However, since the existing material aligns with Bloom's and SOLO frameworks, this module will primarily describe these two to ensure coherence and consistency in training delivery. Nevertheless, we encourage trainers to also consider the more effective type of learning objectives proposed in the Taxonomy of Significant Learning.'"`UNIQ--references-00000038-QINU`"'ning. '"`UNIQ--references-00000038-QINU`"')
Der Balanceakt + (Liest man verschiedene Research Integrity … Liest man verschiedene Research Integrity Verhaltenskodizes oder Leitlinien zur guten wissenschaftlichen Praxis, fällt auf, dass von den Wissenschaftler:innen oft erwartet wird, dass sie bestimmte Pflichten kennen und bestimmte Werte und Tugenden vertreten, und dass sie von alleine wüssten, wie sie sich entsprechend zu verhalten hätten. Beispiele sind: “Ehrlichkeit”, “Zuverlässigkeit”, “Verantwortung” und “Rechenschaftspflicht”.Doch wie sollte man sich verhalten, um dem Wert “Ehrlichkeit” in bestimmten Situationen gerecht zu werden? Kann ein:e Wissenschaftler:in zu ehrlich sein? Oder nicht ehrlich genug? Diese Übung fördert die gemeinsame und kritische moralische Überlegung darüber, was es bedeutet, sich bestimmten Werten und Tugenden entsprechend zu verhalten - vor allem in Situationen, die eine Herausforderung für die eigene oder allgemeine Research Integrity darstellen. allgemeine Research Integrity darstellen.)
Der Balanceakt + (Liest man verschiedene Research Integrity … Liest man verschiedene Research Integrity Verhaltenskodizes oder Leitlinien zur guten wissenschaftlichen Praxis, fällt auf, dass von den Wissenschaftler:innen oft erwartet wird, dass sie bestimmte Pflichten kennen und bestimmte Werte und Tugenden vertreten, und dass sie von alleine wüssten, wie sie sich entsprechend zu verhalten hätten. Beispiele sind: “Ehrlichkeit”, “Zuverlässigkeit”, “Verantwortung” und “Rechenschaftspflicht”.Diese Leitlinien sollen Wissenschaftler:innen darin anleiten, sich integer zu verhalten, wenn sie in ihrem Forschungsalltag mit moralischen Fragen konfrontiert werden.Doch wie sollte eine Person sich verhalten, um dem Wert “Ehrlichkeit” in einer konkreten Situation gerecht zu werden? Kann ein:e Wissenschaftler:in zu ehrlich sein? Oder nicht ehrlich genug? Was ist, am Beispiel von “Ehrlichkeit”, genau das richtige Maß an Ehrlichkeit für die spezifische Person in dem spezifischen Kontext?Diese Übung soll Trainer:innen darin schulen, einen gemeinsamen kritischen moralischen Reflexionsprozess bei den Teilnehmenden zu fördern, um ihnen erfahrbar zu machen, was es heißt, werte-orientiertes Verhalten zu zeigen.t, werte-orientiertes Verhalten zu zeigen.)
Recommendations to mainstream citizen science in policy + (Mainstreaming citizen science is crucial b … Mainstreaming citizen science is crucial because it enables more inclusive, real-time, and locally grounded data for better policy decisions. Traditional research alone cannot capture all environmental and societal challenges, especially those requiring continuous monitoring such as air quality, biodiversity loss, and climate impacts. By involving the public, governments gain access to larger datasets, improved societal trust, and greater policy legitimacy. It also empowers communities, increases scientific literacy, and supports behavioral change. Recognizing citizen science in policy unlocks funding, long-term support, and institutional acceptance, shifting it from small-scale initiatives to meaningful governance tools. This contributes directly to EU priorities on sustainability, digital transformation, and democratic engagement.transformation, and democratic engagement.)
Multiple submission + (Manuscript processing and peer reviewing t … Manuscript processing and peer reviewing timelines may vary among journals. Waiting for a journal’s decision of acceptance (or, otherwise) of a manuscript can be frustrating for authors. However, as this case shows, advancing one’s career is not a sufficient justification for multiple submissions and breaching a journal’s guidelines. The case provides some food for thought as to why practices of multiple submissions may challenge research ethics.submissions may challenge research ethics.)
Framework to Enhance Research Integrity in Research Collaborations + (Many issues of misconduct arise because collaborators have not agreed at the outset on the policies and practices to which the collaborative partners should adhere.)
Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences' Guideline on Authorship in Scientific Publications + (Many kinds of authorship related disputes … Many kinds of authorship related disputes exist, from clear breaches of integrity such as omission of authorship to gray areas such as disagreements on the order of attribution. In light of the rapid rise in the number of publications, such conflicts are also on the rise. Many such gray areas have not been previously addressed - neither by ethical guidelines nor by legislation. This guideline builds on an analysis of previous authorship related guidance and sets forth newer recommendations concerning authorship criteria, disputes and their management.p criteria, disputes and their management.)
Integrity Games + (Many of the academic integrity issues stud … Many of the academic integrity issues students face – such as freeriding in group work or handling deviating data - are not covered by the local disciplinary rules, and even if they are, the interpretation of the rules may be context dependent.Navigating grey zones therefore requires attention to context and reflection on the broader aims of higher education.Integrity Games encourages this through engaging and realistic cases drawn from a major study on the integrity issues commonly faced by undergraduate students in Europe.faced by undergraduate students in Europe.)
The learning curve - theatre play #MeTooAcademia + (Many of us think academia will provide a s … Many of us think academia will provide a safe, sensible and intellectual environment in which #MeToo behaviour is absent. Unfortunately, it sometimes isn’t. Although the play is fictitious, it is based on interviews, some of which were confidential. The purpose of the play is to create awareness of harassment in academia – which tends to impact young researchers or support staff in particular – while also exploring individual and institutional ways to address these issues and create a safe working environment.ues and create a safe working environment.)
Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines on How to Handle Authorship Disputes + (Many people (both editors and investigator … Many people (both editors and investigators) feel that the misrepresentation of authorship is a form of research misconduct, and that honesty in reporting science should extend to authorship. They argue that, if scientists are dishonest about their relationship to their work, this undermines confidence in the reporting of the work itself.dence in the reporting of the work itself.)
Dutch National Survey on Research Integrity + (Many researchers work in environments that … Many researchers work in environments that stimulate responsible behavior. However, scholarly environments are also complex and full of competition. Competition can stimulate people to work hard, but may also have downsides. What is an optimal research environment? What working conditions are detrimental to good research practices? Fostering responsible research and preventing questionable practices is important. However, the causes behind the variability in engagement in responsible and questionable practices and research misconduct are largely unknown. Once known, strategies to enhance responsible research practices while reducing questionable practices can be developed and evaluated. The NSRI attempts to play an important role in solving this. Watch this two-minute [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYvsa-1d_wQ video] on why research integrity matters to every one of us in society.To optimally address all 40,000 academic researchers in The Netherlands, a survey instrument was the most fitting choice for this project. While it has its drawbacks, especially when studying a complex topic such as research integrity, the primary goal of this survey was to get concrete estimates of RRP, QRPs, and their associated factors for these practices across disciplines. Balancing time to answer such a survey, while protecting the privacy and the target sample size of about 40,000 researchers, a survey tool was most appropriate.This does not exclude us from exploring themes that will arise from the survey results through more detailed focus group discussions at the next stage of this project.The Dutch National Survey on Research Integrity (NSRI) is unique in a number of ways:* It aims to provide valid disciplinary field-specific estimates on the occurrence of responsible research practices and questionable research practices across the biomedical sciences, the humanities, natural sciences and engineering, and the social and behavioral sciences.*It targets the entire population of academic researchers in The Netherlands.*The survey employs a technique known as the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvcaziHteAI Randomized Response (RR)] which has shown to elicit more honest answers around sensitive topics.* It examines a broad range of factors that may impact scholars engagement in responsible research practices and questionable research practices.'''How is the privacy of participants joining the NSRI guaranteed?'''Given the sensitivity of the topic, NSRI has paid very close attention to fully ensuring the protection of the identity of the participants and their research institutions. Our privacy protection measures include:#No personal identifying data except disciplinary field and academic rank (PhD, A/Prof, Full Prof) were collected in the survey#The use of the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvcaziHteAI&feature=emb_logo Randomized Response] (RR) technique for the two most sensitive questions. RR which has been proven in research on doping and social security fraud to reduce the effect of social desirability and thereby elicit a greater sense of trust with respondents. It does so by creating a probabilistic rather than direct association between the answers of respondents and the sensitive question (see also [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124104268664 Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research- Thirty-Five Years of Validation. Sociological Methods & Research 2005;33 (3): 319-348)]#All data was collected by a trusted third party, [https://www.kantar.com/public/ Kantar Public] so the research team never directly received any personal data.#IP addresses were not collected. The research team only received anonymized data by disciplinary field and academic rank.Because of these measures, no data was analysed or published that can be traced to individual participants or specific research institutions. You can access the NSRI’s publications [https://community.embassy.science/c/nsri/97 here].To find out more about the NSRI, visit our FAQ page [https://community.embassy.science/t/nsri-faqs/358 here].//community.embassy.science/t/nsri-faqs/358 here].)
Medical students' decisions about authorship in disputable situations: intervention study + (Medical curriculum prepares medical students for their future profession by teaching them the facts and rules of medicine as well as other aspects of medical profession, such as professional behavior and ethics.)
Responsible mentoring + (Mentoring is important as it has tradition … Mentoring is important as it has traditionally been a successful way for research development of individuals, as well as research institutions and systems.Although mentoring is an old concept (Mentor and Telemachus in The Odyssey), it is a difficult concept. It is should not be confused with other types of professional research relationship, such as teaching, tutoring, coaching, advising, counselling, supervising, sponsoring, role-modelling, preceptoring, peer support.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"'Mentoring is a complex phenomenon,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"' which integrates different functions, as mentors help their mentees to acquire, synthesize and integrate new knowledge and skills, as well as develop professionally and personally. It is an intense, personal as well as professional relationship with high commitment over a long period of time. It is reciprocal but asymmetrical, as the primary goal is the professional growth and development of a mentee.We do not have solid evidence that mentorship work. A systematic review of mentoring in academic medicine'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000F-QINU`"' showed that it is perceived as very important bur there is little evidence that it is actually successful. This is similar for many other disciplines and types of mentoring.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000010-QINU`"'There are different ethical issues in mentoring, related to the individuals involved in the mentoring relationship but also related to the hosting organization.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000011-QINU`"' Issues for mentees include lack of motivation and poor collaboration, and laps in professionalism, failure to acknowledge mentee’s contribution, lack of commitment and collaboration. Ethics burdens to a mentoring relationship may be the power imbalance, misalignment of goals, poor communication, competition, gender or cultural bias, and personality conflicts. Organizations where mentorship happen are also responsible for ethics problems generated by mentoring: they may not have adequate recruitment procedures, oversight, assessment and recognition of good mentorship, lack of clear guidelines, and lack of administrative support, such as protected time for mentoring.'"`UNIQ--references-00000012-QINU`"'ring. '"`UNIQ--references-00000012-QINU`"')
Imputation of missing data in clinical trials + (Missing data are unavoidable in clinical t … Missing data are unavoidable in clinical trials. Frequently, complete cases analysis is used only including individuals with no missing data '"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"'. However, that can generate bias and can lead to exclude several individuals, causing loss of precision and power '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"'. The risk of bias from missing data depends on the cause '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"':Missing completely at random: There are no systematic differences between the missing values and the observed values.Missing at random: Any systematic difference between the missing values and the observed values can be explained by differences in observed data.Missing not at random: Systematic differences remain between the missing values and the observed values.The determination of the type of missing values is difficult due to the nature of missing values '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"'. Therefore, practical guidelines are needed to deal with missing data.ines are needed to deal with missing data.)
Research collaboration + (Much of scientific work happens through co … Much of scientific work happens through collaboration. But collaboration can also lead to conflict when the roles of different collaborators are unclear or when expectations are not met. Laying clear ground rules and having an open discussion about expectations helps the collaboration run smoothly. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' Collaboration promotes ''the building of effective communication and partnerships, and also provides equal opportunity among team members.'' It honors and respects each member's individual and organizational style. Collaboration also promotes ethical behavior by maintaining '''honesty, integrity, equity, transparency and confidentiality.''' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"'INU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"')
National Policy on Academic Ethics (2019), Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India + (National Policy on Academic Ethics distils … National Policy on Academic Ethics distils national expectations for research integrity in India and clarifies what researchers and institutions in India need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark;for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India in 2019, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation.licies, training, and grant documentation.)
Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India National Policy on Academic Ethics (2024) + (National Policy on Academic Ethics' is imp … National Policy on Academic Ethics' is important because it ensures credibility and trust in research by providing both preventive and corrective guidance. It prevents misconduct by educating researchers on standards, and offers frameworks for addressing violations fairly. In today’s interconnected research environment, having shared ethical codes strengthens international collaboration and consistency. For governments, institutions, and the public, this document demonstrates commitment to transparency, fairness, and societal responsibility. It is not just a guideline but a foundation for safeguarding the reliability of research outcomes.ding the reliability of research outcomes.)
National Research Integrity Framework of Tanzania (2020) + (National Research Integrity Framework of T … National Research Integrity Framework of Tanzania distils national expectations for research integrity in Tanzania and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Tanzania need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark;for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by nan in 2020, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation.licies, training, and grant documentation.)
National Statement on Scientific Integrity (2015), COSCE, crue, CSIC + (National Statement on Scientific Integrity … National Statement on Scientific Integrity distils national expectations for research integrity in Spain and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Spain need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark;for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by COSCE, crue, CSIC in 2015, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation.licies, training, and grant documentation.)