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

Psychology Grad Student Faked Data + (It is important to realise that not only researchers, but also students can falsify data.)
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-000001E9-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-0000010C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000010D-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000010D-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.)
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-00000549-QINU`"'Mentoring is a complex phenomenon,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000054A-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-0000054B-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-0000054C-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-0000054D-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-0000054E-QINU`"'ring. '"`UNIQ--references-0000054E-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-00000568-QINU`"'. However, that can generate bias and can lead to exclude several individuals, causing loss of precision and power '"`UNIQ--ref-00000569-QINU`"'. The risk of bias from missing data depends on the cause '"`UNIQ--ref-0000056A-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-0000056B-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-00000560-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-00000561-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000562-QINU`"'INU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000562-QINU`"')
Slovakian Academy of Sciences Ethics Code + (National codes can serve as guiding documents in countries to uphold the highest standards of research integrity and research ethics.)
Belgian Code of Ethics for Scientific Research + (National ethics guidelines can stimulate good research practices by presenting guidance of what constitutes good scientific practice in a specific country.)
ENERI Decision Tree + (New and emerging technologies as well as t … New and emerging technologies as well as the globalization of research and the rise of multi-center studies, to name just a few, have brought numerous challenges in terms of research ethics and research integrity. Based to a large extent on the [[Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434|ENERI Research Ethics and Research Integrity Manual]], the Decision Tree guides researchers as well as members of RECs and RIOs through several of these challenges and provides them with tools to conduct research ethically and with integrity. More specifically, the Decision Tree includes summaries of and links to laws, guidelines, codes and other pertinent references. In this way, it covers the international, European and national levels, all of which researchers, RECs and RIOs usually need to consider. The ENERI Decision Tree is based on three premises:1) Good researchers should reflect on and respond to ethical issues and challenges before, during and after conducting their research.2) RECs should help researchers in doing good research.3) RIOs should assist researchers in monitoring their research.The information in the Decision Tree is structured around the following topics:'''Responsibility in research'''*Research as a social practice*The legal framework of research'''Planning of the research'''*Cross-national and international multi central research*Responsibility in authorship*Research with human participants: general provisions*Research with animals*Research in biotechnology*Research in engineering, AI and robotics*Research in biotechnology for agricultural and food purposes (outside of the biomedical sector)*Research on human remains*Study design and objectives, avoiding bias*The role of funders*Research with personal data'''The actual research process'''*Research with humans in biomedical research*Research with human tissues/cells*Research with embryonic stem cells, embryos, fetal tissues*Research with samples and data taken from human biobanks*Research with human participants in psychology*Research with human participants - qualitative research*Research with human beings in implementing technology/devices*Research on the environment*Minimal disturbance to the integrity of nature*Monitoring animal welfare*Making uncertainties and value assumptions explicit*Dealing adequately with big data and complexity'''Quality assurance and dissemination'''*Sharing results in the scientific community, with the public and with stakeholders*Mechanisms for quality assurance*Were the methods and tools adequate for the claimed result? ''(under development)''*Publication as public knowledge ''(under development)''*Open science or restricted access ''(under development)''*Stakeholder consultations ''(under development)'''''Applications and monitoring'''*Dual use and misuse*Evaluation of success and failure ''(under development)''*Consultation with beneficiaries and stakeholders ''(under development)''*Assess necessity of retractions ''(under development)''*Re-start the research afresh ''(under development)''Each topic is a self-contained unit so that users can easily find tailored information to specific questions without having to read the whole Decision Tree. Like the ENERI Manual on Research Ethics and Research Integrity, the Decision Tree is a living document and will thus be updated periodically to account for new developments in research ethics and research integrity processes and policies.research integrity processes and policies.)
Research with humans + (New drugs. procedures and treatments requi … New drugs. procedures and treatments require detailed testing to ensure they are safe, effective and do not harm those undergoing the treatment or taking the drug. While a lot can be answered using in vitro experiments and animal testing, testing on humans is necessary in order to verify the safety and efficacy of novel treatments.'"`UNIQ--references-000000DC-QINU`"'ments.'"`UNIQ--references-000000DC-QINU`"')
Data protection in a global pandemic (COVID-19) + (New mobile applications developed by gover … New mobile applications developed by governments and private companies can track the citizens’ symptoms, collect, process and share data on individuals in order to limit the virus’ spread.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004F1-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000004F2-QINU`"' If a user turns out to be positive on COVID-19, the application reports this to the relevant health authorities.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004F3-QINU`"' Some argue that this may be a useful tool to cope with the increasing number of the infected citizens and verifying the population’s fulfilment of isolation and quarantine duties.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004F4-QINU`"' A team at Oxford University conducted a study which showed that the number of coronavirus cases and deaths could be reduced if about 60% of the population, or even less, use the digital contact tracing app.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004F5-QINU`"' Nevertheless, this practice poses ethical risks and challenges.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004F6-QINU`"' Digital tracing applications have been widely criticized because they provide authorities with the possibility of collecting sensitive data in the future, even after the pandemic.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004F7-QINU`"' Therefore, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) stresses the importance of protecting personal data during the pandemic.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004F8-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000004F9-QINU`"'With regard to that, new guidelines on data protection and data sharing should meet specific principles. They should rely on a legal basis that would guarantee the lawfulness and transparence of data processing.'"`UNIQ--ref-000004FA-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-000004FB-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000004FB-QINU`"')
Non-disclosure of changes to the research design + (Not disclosing changes creates a biased vi … Not disclosing changes creates a biased view of the research performed. Some of the changes that researchers perform after the first analyses include P-hacking, HARK-ing, cherry picking results, or performing explorative subgroup analyses. In qualitative research the methods can also be changed, for instance, changing the research question after data collection. h question after data collection. )
Law on Science and Studies of the Republic of Lithuania + (Not only does this document describe in de … Not only does this document describe in detail the definitions and organizational requirements of all scientific educational and research institutions, it also explains basic underlying principles such as academic freedom, openness, accountability to society and personal responsibility. Since it is legally binding, it is important that all those involved in research are aware of these tenets.ved in research are aware of these tenets.)