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

Mentoring: failure + (A second-year graduate student repeatedly fails the qualifier. What should she do?)
Office for Human Research Protections;Short videos about human research protections + (A series of short tutorials created by Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) aims to help professionals of human research protections. All the materials regarding the topic can be publicly used and distributed.)
Possible Conflict of Interest + (A state employee who can influence the decision-making proceess around the awarding of private archaeological licences applies for a permit to run a private antiquities firm that might benefit from such licences.)
When is Advanced Training Necessary? + (A student applies inappropriate procedures in research with rats because of a lack of training.)
Research with human subjects + (A student conducts an educational experime … A student conducts an educational experiment on her own classmates with the permission of the professor. The professor agrees the experiment has academic merit. The experiment clearly shows, one group performs significantly better than the other. The student wants to publish the results and give a talk about them. However, the student is in doubt about the right procedures.nt is in doubt about the right procedures.)
Mentoring: expectations + (A student enters graduate school with two years of funding. She easily finds a faculty member to work with. After the two years, the faculty member refuses to be the student's supervisor)
Publication and data ownership + (A student is working with his co-students … A student is working with his co-students and his professor on an experiment. The student becomes impatient with the checks the professor want to do to make sure everything is correct. He writes and submits a manuscript on their joint work with himself as first author and the other students and the professor as co-author, unbeknownst to the authors. The editor of the journal becomes suspicious due to the writing style and the fact that the professor is not included in the email, and calls the professor.ded in the email, and calls the professor.)
Whistle blowing + (A student who has been working in a lab discovers the head of the lab is engaging in serious misconduct. The student thinks she has solid evidence to demonstrate the misconduct. However, she hopes to obtain a PhD position in this lab.)
Credit for work + (A student, a post-doc and a professor are … A student, a post-doc and a professor are working on a problem. They achieve good results in their research. When the student is finishing his master thesis, he discovers that the professor and his post-docs have published a paper on the experiment, that he designed an important part of. He is not given any credit in the paper.. He is not given any credit in the paper.)
False results, premature infants and the CNEP trial + (A study compared two ways of nursing premature infants who require respiratory support. False results were generated by the study. This is a factual case.)
Data Sharing in Ongoing Projects + (A team led by Angela Beringer leads a long … A team led by Angela Beringer leads a long term research projects and publish a paper before they finish collecting all data for the project. A grad student involved in the project also publishes a dissertation on the basis of the data. Afterwards, a different researcher asks for access to the data relating to the published work as he wants to check their results and criticise their assumptions about the missing data. The case study asks whether Angela's team can withhold the data until they present their further analyis, and whether they can protect the integrity of their research by withholding datarity of their research by withholding data)
Authorship criteria + (A well known criteria of authorship states … A well known criteria of authorship states that an author must have contributed substantially to a work’s: conception or design;data acquisition, analysis or interpretation;intellectual content development or critical review;final version approval;and integrity, ensuring that issues related to the accuracy or completeness of any part of the work are properly investigated and resolved.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"')
Banked Samples and HD Testing + (A woman brushes off her most recent diagno … A woman brushes off her most recent diagnosis, Huntington disease (HD), and resists her doctor’s recommendations to tell her family about the diagnosis. By not disclosing this information to her family, they would not know that they might want to get tested for HD. Prior to diagnosis, the woman and her family provided genetic samples to a research database to investigate a genetic disease unrelated to HD. Since the database project required written consent for using samples in future research, the doctor wonders if he can run tests for HD on the stored samples that would include the materials of the woman and her family.the materials of the woman and her family.)
Psychologist made up sex bias results + (A young social psychologist "fabricated" f … A young social psychologist "fabricated" five experiments on social discrimination that she conducted while at Harvard University. In addition to retracting four published studies,she was banned from receiving federal research funds or serving on government advisory committees for 5 years.overnment advisory committees for 5 years.)
Action + (ACTION (Participatory science toolkit agai … ACTION (Participatory science toolkit against pollution) was a three-year Horizon 2020 project (2019–2022) that aimed to democratise citizen science around environmental pollution. It supported dozens of grassroots “pilot” projects via an accelerator, providing funding, mentoring, training, and infrastructure. It also developed an open-access toolkit full of methods, guidelines, and digital tools to help citizens and researchers co-create, run, and sustain inclusive science projects ensuring rigorous data, community engagement, and long-term impact. Furthermore, it built a framework to measure the social, environmental, economic, and policy impact of citizen science, promoting responsible research and innovation.oting responsible research and innovation.)
Ethical Challenges of AI-Driven Neurotechnology Devices + (AI-driven neurotechnology devices, such as … AI-driven neurotechnology devices, such as brain–computer interfaces (BCIs), are emerging tools that enable direct interaction between the human brain and external digital systems. These technologies increasingly rely on artificial intelligence to interpret neural signals and facilitate communication or motor function in individuals with neurological impairments. While they offer promising therapeutic applications, their use in scientific research raises important ethical concerns related to mental privacy, informed consent, data protection, long-term safety, and potential cognitive enhancement. As such devices are often developed and tested by private companies in collaboration with academic institutions, they challenge existing frameworks for research ethics and integrity. This theme explores the key ethical issues associated with the development and research use of AI-driven neurotechnology devices and highlights the need for updated governance and oversight mechanisms.dated governance and oversight mechanisms.)
AIOLIA + (AIOLIA is a Horizon Europe project that t … AIOLIA is a Horizon Europe project that transforms the EU AI Act’s ethical principles into practical tools for researchers, developers, and policymakers. Through real-world use cases, AIOLIA develops co-created guidelines, modular training materials, and interactive content like podcasts and chatbots. These resources are made accessible via the Embassy of Good Science. With a strong European foundation and global partnerships, including universities and UNESCO platforms in Asia, Africa, and North America, AIOLIA promotes culturally aware, socially robust, and ethically sound AI development. It empowers communities to implement responsible AI practices grounded in real-world relevance and global impact.in real-world relevance and global impact.)
Allea + (ALLEA (All European Academies) is the Euro … ALLEA (All European Academies) is the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, bringing together around 60 academies from more than 40 European countries. Founded in 1994, it works at the interface of science, policy, and society to improve research conditions, provide independent science advice to policymakers and the public, and promote scholarly collaboration across disciplines and borders. As a non-profit association registered under German law, ALLEA is fully independent of political, religious, or commercial influence. It champions scientific integrity, academic freedom, and evidence-based decision-making in Europe. evidence-based decision-making in Europe.)
ALLEA Permanent Working Group Science and Ethics + (ALLEA has been a long-standing voice in th … ALLEA has been a long-standing voice in the fields of research ethics and research integrity via its Permanent Working Group Science and Ethics, which has covered a wide-range of issues relating to ethics and integrity. The flagship publication of the group is the ''European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity,'' which was revised in 2017 and is regarded as one of the most comprehensive guides outlining how researchers should conduct their work.how researchers should conduct their work.)
ALLINTERACT + (ALLINTERACT was a Horizon 2020 project (20 … ALLINTERACT was a Horizon 2020 project (2020–2023) focused on expanding and diversifying citizen engagement in science, especially among young people and groups that are often excluded from scientific participation. It examined how increasing public awareness of the social impact of research can transform people’s willingness to engage into active involvement. The project concentrated on key societal challenges such as quality education and gender equality, using methods like social media analysis, surveys, focus groups, and real-world interventions. Through this work, ALLINTERACT developed new insights and practical, replicable strategies for motivating a broader range of citizens to interact with, contribute to, and benefit from scientific research. to, and benefit from scientific research.)
APEC Guiding Principles for Research Integrity (2022) + (APEC Guiding Principles for Research Integ … APEC Guiding Principles for Research Integrity (2022) is a international framework authored by nan, in english, targeting Asia Pacific. Originating from Asia Pacific, it aims to formalise principles of research integrity and open practice. It emphasises honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust in research. The text covers responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, spelling out expectations for good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Common provisions include clear authorship criteria, proper citation and acknowledgement, management of conflicts of interest, transparency of methods and data, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It also establishes procedures for handling breaches of integrity, defining misconduct, and setting up investigation mechanisms that ensure due process, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities. By aligning with international standards, it connects local policy to global norms, reinforcing mobility of researchers and comparability of practices across borders. The document integrates the principle of education—training for students and staff on responsible conduct—ensuring that integrity is taught as a core skill rather than assumed knowledge. It also incorporates guidance on emerging issues such as data management, digital tools, open science, and new forms of dissemination, embedding integrity in contemporary workflows. Practical tools often include checklists, codes of behaviour, reporting templates, and FAQs, translating high-level principles into day-to-day actions. The intended audience spans researchers, supervisors, institutions, and policymakers, all of whom need clarity on their roles in safeguarding the credibility of research. Equity and diversity appear as cross-cutting themes, recognising that integrity involves creating inclusive environments free from discrimination, harassment, or exploitation. Overall, the resource situates research integrity as both a personal commitment and an institutional responsibility, embedding it into the full research cycle from design to dissemination. Annexes may provide case studies, historical context, and references to international declarations such as Singapore or Montreal statements. Definitions and glossaries support consistent interpretation, and contact points or ombudsperson systems are described to lower barriers to reporting. These features help the resource serve not only as a policy but also as a practical handbook.a policy but also as a practical handbook.)
Research integrity training for diverse disciplines + (Academic disciplines, such as humanities, … Academic disciplines, such as humanities, medicine or natural science, approach research integrity for young researchers differently. While a university upholds one code of conduct, the manner of its application depends on the discipline, its methods and the data created. In many universities research integrity training is promoted for young (PhD) researchers. However, the form training takes within different disciplines highlights different “problem narratives” in relation to research integrity.atives” in relation to research integrity.)
Access to Scientific Information (by the Inter-Academy Panel) (2013), InterAcademy Panel + (Access to Scientific Information (2013), p … Access to Scientific Information (2013), produced by the InterAcademy Panel, is an international framework promoting open access and open science globally. It establishes openness as the default, balanced by ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, linking transparency to research quality, reproducibility, and equitable access to knowledge. The guidance encourages depositing publications in trusted repositories, using Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and FAIR-aligned data management plans. Responsibilities are shared across researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers, with clear instructions on planning for openness, rights retention, funding acknowledgment, and efficient use of infrastructure. Embargoes and exceptions for sensitive or commercial data must be transparently justified. The policy emphasizes equity, zero-embargo access, multilingual communication, and publisher-agnostic routes, while prioritizing the quality of openness metadata, reproducibility, and interoperability over output counts. By consolidating international principles into a coherent reference, it provides practical guidance for implementing transparent, inclusive, and accessible scientific communication worldwide.ssible scientific communication worldwide.)
Take no full responsibility for the integrity of the research project and its reports + (According to the European Code of Conduct … According to the European Code of Conduct in Research Integrity, “all partners in research collaborations take responsibility for the integrity of the research.” 1 It is thus expected that all involved parties are aware of, and agree on the principles of research integrity, what constitutes misconduct and how potential misconduct will be handled. In addition, all authors of a publication are assumed to be answerable for the entire content of the publication, unless specified otherwise.ontent of the publication, unless specified otherwise.)
Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences' Guideline on Authorship in Scientific Publications + (According to the Swiss Academies of Arts a … According to the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences, disputes regarding authorship attributions are the most frequently encountered form of research misconduct cases. Thus, this guideline serves to analyze existing guidelines on authorship practices and to formulate additional recommendations regarding the same.tional recommendations regarding the same.)

Not asking permission from contributors for the wording of the acknowledgement + (Acknowledging persons without consent)

https://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/connections/best-practices-collaborating-research + (Across the disciplines, collaboration and … Across the disciplines, collaboration and interdisciplinary work is growing. As teamwork in scholarship increases, it’s important to establish good practices for collaboration. Laying clear ground rules (Howard Gadlin and Kevin Jessar call these a “prenuptial agreement for scientists”) and having an open discussion about expectations helps the collaboration run smoothly. This is equally true if you are collaborating with different labs at other universities, working with private industry, or keeping your mentor up to date on your own research.ur mentor up to date on your own research.)
Networks and projects promoting research integrity + (Across the world networks and projects have been established to promote research integrity. These networks and projects aim to foster responsible research integrity practices.)
Keeping inadequate notes of the research process + (Adequate documentation or ‘note taking’ of … Adequate documentation or ‘note taking’ of the research process is essential for transparent and trustworthy results. Indeed, keeping inadequate notes of the research process is considered a questionable research practice .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' Inadequate note keeping can lead to ideas or information being forgotten, mistakes in reporting, an inadequate description of the context in which the data were generated, and difficulties for replication of findings. Different disciplines, research institutions, and research teams have different procedures for note taking, e.g. in a notebook or electronically, and different conceptions of what a ‘note’ consists of. In general, note taking serves as a ‘second memory’ in the research process and promotes the quality and transparency of the performed research.'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"'arch. '"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"')
Affiliations + (Affiliations allow for accurate appropriat … Affiliations allow for accurate appropriation of publications by institutions. When used correctly, affiliations can provide easy insight into an institution's scientific output and make it comparable to other institutions. Inaccurate, misspelled, and omitted affiliations lead to skewed results when researching institutional scientific output, which may affect an institution's ranking and funding.fect an institution's ranking and funding.)
Retraction notice - fake email peer-review + (After a thorough investigation, the Publis … After a thorough investigation, the Publisher has concluded that the Editor was misled into accepting this article based upon the positive advice of at least one suggested reviewer report. The report was submitted from an email account provided by the author, that was later determined not to be the email of the supposed expert reviewer.the email of the supposed expert reviewer.)
The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity + (After the second World Conference on Research Integrity, various stakeholders set out principles of research integrity.)
Simultaneous Submission Leading to Duplicate Publication + (All medical journals require submission of … All medical journals require submission of a contributors’ form signed by all the authors declaring that “Neither this manuscript nor one with substantially similar content under my/our authorship has been published or is being considered for publication elsewhere.” It seems that sometimes authors do not read the declaration thoroughly or perhaps understand the implications of signing it'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'. This is a factual case.'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"'case. '"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"')
The Limits of Expertise + (Alphonse recently finished a study about w … Alphonse recently finished a study about wages and cooperation in food processing industry. The state which funded her research called on her to testify about safety standards and practices in the industry. As Alphonse did not explicitly ask her sources about safety, she is not sure whether she has enough expertise about the matter to testify and whether she could protect her sources while doing so. could protect her sources while doing so.)
The Larnaca College (Cyprus) Statement on Research Integrity + (Although Cyprus has no national guideline on Research integrity, the Larnaca College, which is one of the largest in the country, makes a declaration to adhere to principles of integrity and ethics.)
Authorship Deserved, Not Earned: Research Ethics and Research Integrity Scenario + (Although ICMJE clearly defines the role of … Although ICMJE clearly defines the role of authors through its [http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html sets of recommendations], authorship criteria are not always strictly followed. The recommendations get blurry and faded based on convenience, interpersonal conflicts, or become subjected to manipulation. Such is the case described in this scenario, where a young researcher has a dispute with his superior about a rightful co-authorship. A publication would propel his career, but it appears there is no room for discussion.t appears there is no room for discussion.)
The University of Malta's Research Code of Practice + (Although Malta has no national document on … Although Malta has no national document on research integrity, the University of Malta expects its students, researchers and staff to abide by its code of practice. It describes both the ethical principles and their application, with special attention to research involving human participants or animals.h involving human participants or animals.)
Hungarian Decree on the system of integrity management at public administration bodies and the procedural rules of receiving lobbyists + (Although not aimed at research integrity, … Although not aimed at research integrity, this decree targets all public institutions (with the exception of the law enforcement and military agencies). It aims to ensure integrity, or the adherence to regulations and standards, within organizations, and prevent corruption or undue influence through external factors. undue influence through external factors.)
UKRIO's Guidance for researchers on retractions in academic journals + (Although the COPE guidelines provide guida … Although the COPE guidelines provide guidance to editors and publishers on authorship and publication practices, this awareness needs to spread to a wider audience that includes researchers, supporting staff and administrators. This guideline, besides clarifying publication-related terminology (such as retractions, partial retractions, expressions of concern and corrections), provides information on when retractions are warranted and the extent of researchers' responsibilities.e extent of researchers' responsibilities.)
Advisory Report of the Committee on Exploration of the Revision of the Dutch Code of Conduct + (Although the Dutch Code of Ocnduct for Res … Although the Dutch Code of Ocnduct for Researchers has previously undergone minor revisions, there is a need for more substantial changes in view of recent developments in international codes. This document provides an analysis if the pre-existing guideline and suggests modifications.ting guideline and suggests modifications.)
Altmetrics + (Altmetrics are an alternative, online based approach to research metrics, as opposed to traditional ones, such as h-index or impact factor.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"')
The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’ + (Among the various forms of academic miscon … Among the various forms of academic misconduct, text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’ holds a particularly contentious position as a new way to game the reward system of science. A recent case of alleged ‘self-plagiarism’ by the prominent Dutch economist Peter Nijkamp has attracted much public and regulatory attention in the Netherlands. During the Nijkamp controversy, it became evident that many questions around text recycling have only partly been answered and that much uncertainty still exists.ed and that much uncertainty still exists.)
Public Health Practice vs Research + (An Institutional Review Board assesses a p … An Institutional Review Board assesses a proposal that blurs the boundaries between research and practice. The IRB discusses issues concerning the disclosure of identifiable health information, informed consent, principles of beneficence and maleficence, coercion of research subjects and the intrusiveness of surveys. This is a factual case.veness of surveys. This is a factual case.)
Power to the People + (An anthropological consultancy is hired by … An anthropological consultancy is hired by two power companies to produce a report on the impact of these companies on the Native American communities who own the land in which the companies plan to operate. The companies ask for the reports to be secret. The Anthropologists have been hired by both the companies but feel moraly obliged to look after the interests of the Native Americans.ter the interests of the Native Americans.)
The Case of the Damaged Baby + (An anthropologist becomes aware that medical staff in an intensive care ward failed to administer a test that might have prevented permanent harm to a baby. The staff then did not inform the parents of the baby that the harm might have been avoided.)
"A Little Thing Like Plagiarism" + (An anthropologist finds their work has been plagiarised. The University Press claimed that while there had been plagiarism there had been no copyright infringement.)
The Case of the Egyptian Travel Agent + (An anthropologist hears that a collegaue is receiving kickbacks from organising university tours to Egypt. He is concerned about what he should do if asked about his colleague in terms of recommending him for a promotion)
Slow Code + (An anthropologist hired by a hospital ques … An anthropologist hired by a hospital questions whether he should record instances of "slow codes" in hospitals, whereby resident doctors were deciding in effect which patients to resuscitate or not. Recording this information has the potential to damage the career prospects of the doctors with whom the anthropologist is embedded. the anthropologist is unsure whether he owes loyalty to his research subjects or the maangement company that has hired him. He is unclear about which cohort are his research subjects.ut which cohort are his research subjects.)
Hiding A Suspect + (An anthropologist on a Native American reservation has been told that a person committed a serious crime. He denies meeting this person when questioned by the tribal police.)
Hiding A Suspect + (An anthropologist on a Native American reservation has been told that a person committed a serious crime. He meets the suspect but denies having seen them when questioned by the tribal police.)
Ethical Dilemmas and Moral Responsibilities + (An anthropologist who has been "adopted" i … An anthropologist who has been "adopted" into a Native American family in the Southwest during her research periods, is obligated to look after the elders when one of them develops dementia and his children have other responsibilities. She is unable to complete her academic work but strengthens her relationship with the family.engthens her relationship with the family.)