Presentation "Challenges in research ethics" by Milica Ševkušić, Re@WBC ERASMUS + Project, Training for trainers, April 5–7, 2017, University of Belgrade
When publishing research, one needs to be aware of all such actions that are unethical and hence, must be avoided. This presentation gives an overview of the topic.
When publishing research, one needs to be aware of all such actions that are unethical and hence, must be avoided. This presentation gives an overview of the topic.
Redundant, Duplicate and Repetitive publications are the most important concerns in the scientific research/literature writing. The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences. To define this issue is much challenging because of the many varieties in which one can slice, reformat, or reproduce material from an already published study. This issue also goes beyond the duplication of a single study because it might possible that the same or similar data can be published in the early, middle, and later stages of an on-going study. This may have a damaging impact on the scientific study/literature base. Similar to slicing a cake, there are so many ways of representing a study or a set of data/information. We can slice a cake into different shapes like squares, triangles, rounds, or layers. Which of these might be the best way to slice a cake? Unfortunately, this may be the wrong question. The point is that the cake that is being referred to, the data/ information set or the study/findings, should not be sliced at all. Instead, the study should be presented as a whole to the readership to ensure the integrity of science/technology because of the impact that may have on patients who will be affected by the information contained in the literature/findings. Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive publications occur when there is representation of two or more studies, data sets, or publications in either electronic or print media. The publications can overlap partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of a previously/simultaneous ly or future published study is duplicated.
SALAMI SLICING: The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is known as salami publication or salami slicing. Unlike duplicate publication, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are called slices of a study. As a general rule, as long as the slices of a broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable in general practice. The same slice should never be published more than once at all. According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI), salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice (journal article) is derived from a different subject sample/source. Somehow this practice not only skews the scientific database but it creates repetition to waste reader's time as well as the time of editors and peer reviewers, who must also handle each paper separately.
CONTENTS :
INTRODUCTION
TRANSPARENCY
PROMOTING RESEARCH INTEGRITY
EDITORIAL STANDARDS AND PROCESSES
RESPONSIBLE PUBLICATION PRACTICES
OWNERSHIP OF IDEAS AND EXPRESSION
One of the most important research ethical issues that should be taken into consideration is “scientific misconduct” such as fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. Plagiarism can occur at any stage of the research activities such as reporting, communicating, authoring, and peer review. The purpose of this workshop is to engage researchers in their responsibility to conduct an ethical research.
Through the course of your research, right until you get your your paper published, there will be several individuals who have contributed to your research project in different ways. However, not all of these individuals can be considered as authors of your paper. So who qualifies as an author on your manuscript?
This slide deck will clarify who is an author, who does not qualify as an author of your paper and also three unethical authorship-related practices that you must avoid.
Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity.pptxsheelu57
Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways including:
Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. practices.
For individuals, research integrity is an aspect of moral character and experience. It involves above all a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one's actions and to a range of practices that characterize responsible research conduct.
This presentation is about shortlisting and choosing journals for publishing. It also discusses quality issues, including predatory and hijacked journals. Most appropriate for Social Science students.
Ethics in medical sciences research may not always translate into ethical publications.
Ethical violations in conducting medical research always promote unethical scientific publications.
Published research influences other researchers and establishes credibility for individual or journal.
The involvement of multiple individuals in different capacities naturally evokes the question of who should be credited and held accountable for the research published, especially since careers, ethics, and scientific integrity are at stake. This article outlines the major concepts pertaining to authorship.
Paper on "The Ethical conduct of Science" by Professor Sheryl L. HendriksMalabo-Montpellier-Panel
Professor Sheryl L. Hendriks, Professor and Head of Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development at the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences (University of Pretoria), presented a paper on the “Ethical conduct of Science” in Budapest, at the World Science Forum from November 20 to 22, 2019.
Redundant, Duplicate and Repetitive publications are the most important concerns in the scientific research/literature writing. The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences. To define this issue is much challenging because of the many varieties in which one can slice, reformat, or reproduce material from an already published study. This issue also goes beyond the duplication of a single study because it might possible that the same or similar data can be published in the early, middle, and later stages of an on-going study. This may have a damaging impact on the scientific study/literature base. Similar to slicing a cake, there are so many ways of representing a study or a set of data/information. We can slice a cake into different shapes like squares, triangles, rounds, or layers. Which of these might be the best way to slice a cake? Unfortunately, this may be the wrong question. The point is that the cake that is being referred to, the data/ information set or the study/findings, should not be sliced at all. Instead, the study should be presented as a whole to the readership to ensure the integrity of science/technology because of the impact that may have on patients who will be affected by the information contained in the literature/findings. Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive publications occur when there is representation of two or more studies, data sets, or publications in either electronic or print media. The publications can overlap partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of a previously/simultaneous ly or future published study is duplicated.
SALAMI SLICING: The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is known as salami publication or salami slicing. Unlike duplicate publication, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are called slices of a study. As a general rule, as long as the slices of a broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable in general practice. The same slice should never be published more than once at all. According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI), salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice (journal article) is derived from a different subject sample/source. Somehow this practice not only skews the scientific database but it creates repetition to waste reader's time as well as the time of editors and peer reviewers, who must also handle each paper separately.
CONTENTS :
INTRODUCTION
TRANSPARENCY
PROMOTING RESEARCH INTEGRITY
EDITORIAL STANDARDS AND PROCESSES
RESPONSIBLE PUBLICATION PRACTICES
OWNERSHIP OF IDEAS AND EXPRESSION
One of the most important research ethical issues that should be taken into consideration is “scientific misconduct” such as fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. Plagiarism can occur at any stage of the research activities such as reporting, communicating, authoring, and peer review. The purpose of this workshop is to engage researchers in their responsibility to conduct an ethical research.
Through the course of your research, right until you get your your paper published, there will be several individuals who have contributed to your research project in different ways. However, not all of these individuals can be considered as authors of your paper. So who qualifies as an author on your manuscript?
This slide deck will clarify who is an author, who does not qualify as an author of your paper and also three unethical authorship-related practices that you must avoid.
Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity.pptxsheelu57
Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways including:
Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. practices.
For individuals, research integrity is an aspect of moral character and experience. It involves above all a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one's actions and to a range of practices that characterize responsible research conduct.
This presentation is about shortlisting and choosing journals for publishing. It also discusses quality issues, including predatory and hijacked journals. Most appropriate for Social Science students.
Ethics in medical sciences research may not always translate into ethical publications.
Ethical violations in conducting medical research always promote unethical scientific publications.
Published research influences other researchers and establishes credibility for individual or journal.
The involvement of multiple individuals in different capacities naturally evokes the question of who should be credited and held accountable for the research published, especially since careers, ethics, and scientific integrity are at stake. This article outlines the major concepts pertaining to authorship.
Paper on "The Ethical conduct of Science" by Professor Sheryl L. HendriksMalabo-Montpellier-Panel
Professor Sheryl L. Hendriks, Professor and Head of Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development at the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences (University of Pretoria), presented a paper on the “Ethical conduct of Science” in Budapest, at the World Science Forum from November 20 to 22, 2019.
Ethical Publication Issues in the Collection and Analysis of Research Data.pdfssuser6f4a6d
the reputation of the institution and the concerned researcher. Conducting responsible and ethical research from the
start to the finish of the research process is necessary to publish ethical research. This comprises investigating a
socially relevant research question that will affect the profession and/or its users, as well as choosing a research
design, protecting human subjects, evaluating data, and disclosing findings ethically. This report covered a wide
range of measures necessary to publish ethical research and guarantee the validity or reliability of a researcher's
results.
Research Integrity: Philosophical Perspectives Robert Farrow
A short presentation exploring the concept of research integrity from a philosophical perspective and discussing some of the advice and frameworks that support research integrity.
Ethical Issues in Educational Research Management and Practiceijtsrd
Research in education is conducted to address educational problem and provides solution that will stimulate effectiveness within the educational sector. Like other disciplines, educational researches must be conducted without issues or bottlenecks that will hinder the integrity of the study or the researchers. This chapter identifies various issues that are currently practiced which are unethical. The chapter also provides insights to the aspects that researchers and scholars must focus in order to ensure that unethical issues are avoided when conducting researches. Conclusions and recommendations were made in order to improve the current practices towards global best practices in educational research management. Sukhdev Singh Dhanju "Ethical Issues in Educational Research Management and Practice" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-4 | Issue-4 , June 2020, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd30865.pdf Paper Url :https://www.ijtsrd.com/humanities-and-the-arts/philosophy/30865/ethical-issues-in-educational-research-management-and-practice/sukhdev-singh-dhanju
Increased access to the data generated is fuelling increased consumption and accelerating the cycle of discovery. But the successful integration and re-use of heterogeneous data from multiple providers and scientific domains is a major challenge within academia and industry, often due to incomplete description of the study details or metadata about the study. Using the BioSharing, ISA Commons and the STATistics Ontology (STATO) projects as exemplar community efforts, in this breakout session we will discuss the evolving portfolio of community-based standards and methods for structuring and curating datasets, from experimental descriptions to the results of analysis.
http://www.methodsinecologyandevolution.org/view/0/events.html#Data_workshop
Quantitative Methods of Research-Intro to research
Once a researcher has written the research question, the next step is to determine the appropriate research methodology necessary to study the question. The three main types of research design methods are qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods.
Quantitative research involves the systematic collection and analysis of data.
An overview of ethical research practices by Malcolm MacLean, Chair of UoG Research Ethics Committee.
Reader in the Culture & History of Sport, Faculty of Applied Sciences
Professional ethics and scientific research: conceptions of researchers who a...Martín López Calva
Forum Viena
Juan Martín López-Calva.
juanmartin.lopez@upaep.mx
María del Carmen de la Luz Lanzagorta. marucha_delaluz@yahoo.com.mx
UPAEP Puebla, México
Beyond Open Access: Open Science and Research IntegrityHeidi Laine
Presentation given at the 2015 Academic Mindtrek Conference at the workshop "Beyond Open Access: The changing culture of producing and disseminating scientific knowledge". Workshop was organised by the Open Knowledge Foundation Finland Open Science Working Group.
Are you familiar with the concepts of academic integrity or research misconduct? Learn what a student’s ethical responsibilities are as an academic researcher in handling and managing data, working with human subjects, and contributing to a larger body of knowledge. This is a presentation developed through the Graduate Resource Center at the University of New Mexico.
Presentation given at the 2012 UNM Jump Start Institute on April 28, 2012.
Research and Academic Integrity
a. Facilitators:
i. William L. Gannon, Ph.D., Director, UNM Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research, Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR)
ii. Gary Harrison, Ph.D., Dean, Office of Graduate Studies (OGS).
Topic for capstone .Implementing Opiod Risk assessment tool .docxnanamonkton
Topic for capstone
.Implementing Opiod Risk assessment tool from a multidisciplinary pain management approach
The purpose of the doctoral capstone project was to: (a) provide education to nursing staff on implementing a structured risk assessment tool in order to identify risk for imminent aggression, manage risk for imminent aggressive behaviors
Write a 6-8 page double-spaced paper with an additional template in which you analyze potential ethical considerations that may arise from your doctoral project. Determine strategies to address these ethical considerations.
Introduction
Ethical researchers act in honest ways. Ethics are conduct norms or standards that distinguish between right and wrong and acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. Ethical considerations matter because they guard against the fabrication or falsification of data. They promote the pursuit of knowledge and truth, research’s primary goal. Ethical behavior is also crucial for collaborative work because it encourages an environment of trust, accountability, and mutual respect among team members. Likewise, researchers must adhere to ethical standards for the public to support and believe in the research. Although most quality improvement and evidence based practice projects pose minimal risk to human subjects, an IRB screening process for your capstone project is required to ensure the project is meeting the appropriate ethical standards.
The Nuremberg Code (1947) protects human rights and is the leading code for conducting ethical research. It focuses on:
Voluntary informed consent.
Freedom to withdraw from research.
Protection from physical and mental harm.
Protection from suffering and death.
It also emphasizes the risk-benefit balance of conducting research. The Declaration of Helsinki (1964) underscored the importance of protecting subjects in research and strongly proclaimed that individuals’ well-being takes precedence over scientific and social interests.
Good research is well planned, appropriately designed, and ethically approved. Developing and following a research protocol helps to ensure this. Research needs to seek to answer specific questions rather than just collect data. Researchers must obtain approval from the Institutional Review Board or Ethics Committee. Researchers also need to pay special attention to vulnerable subjects to avoid breech of ethical codes. Although most quality improvement and evidence based practice projects pose minimal risk to human subjects, an IRB screening process for your capstone project is required to ensure the project is meeting the appropriate ethical standards.
The major ethical issues in conducting research usually involve:
Informed consent.
Beneficence—do no harm.
Respect for anonymity and confidentiality.
Respect for privacy.
You are responsible to ensure your project is conducted ethically and responsibly from planning to publication. Be familiar with ethical principles and follow them strictly. Di.
Tokom poslednjih decenija naučno izdavaštvo pretvorilo se u izvor velikih profita, što je otvorilo prostor za različite zloupotrebe, koje je ponekad teško prepoznati. Verovatno se i vama desilo da dobijete poziv od „uglednog“ izdavača da objavite rad u „vodećem“ ili bar „perspektivnom“ časopisu. U najvećem broju slučajeva iza takvog poziva stoje pobude koje nemaju mnogo veze sa naukom, a izdavače koje takve pozive šalju zovemo „predatorima“.
Na ovom predavanju pokušaćemo da objasnimo do kakvih zloupotreba može doći i da ukažemo na šta sve treba obratiti pažnju kako bi se „predatori“ i potencijalni „predatori“ na vreme prepoznali.
U akademskim bazama podataka ponekad je teško identifikovati autore, naročito u slučajevima kada su kombinacija imena i prezimena česte, ili se radi o naučnicama koje su promenile prezime. Jedinstvena identifikacija može biti problem čak i kod autora čija imena nisu tako česta, ali su tokom karijere više puta menjali afilijaciju. Zato se relativno često dešava da u akademskim bazama podataka radovi jednog naučnika greškom budu pripisani drugom, što stvara pogrešnu sliku o njihovom učinku i uticaju.
Šta raditi u tim slučajevima?
Na ovom predavanju biće reči o tome zašto dolazi do grešaka u indeksnim i drugim akademskim bazama podataka i kako se te greške mogu ispraviti.
Objasnićemo kako se identifikacija autora može olakšati uz pomoć servisa kao što su ResearcherID i ORCID i pokazaćemo kako se uređuju profili na ovim servisima.
Radionica u okviru projekta "Revisiting Open Access Journal Policies and Practices in Serbia", koji se realizuje uz podršku međunarodnog konzorcijuma eIFL
Narodna biblioteka Srbije, 29. novembar 2016.
Radionica u okviru projekta "Revisiting Open Access Journal Policies and Practices in Serbia", koji se realizuje uz podršku međunarodnog konzorcijuma eIFL u okviru EIFL Open Access Programme: open access advocacy campaigns in eIFL partner countries to reach out to research communities.
DOI
Redakcijska dokumentacija
Metapodaci u elektronskim časopisima
Bibliometrijski podaci
Altmetric
Pišete pregledni rad i želite da u njemu objavite grafičke priloge koje ste vi ili neko drugi ranije objavili u nekom časopisu. Objavili ste naučni rad koji želite da uključite u zbornik radova ili monografiju. Za to vam je često potrebna saglasnost nosilaca autorskih prava.
Tipične procedure dobijanja saglasnosti za ponovno objavljivanje takvih sadržaja.
Kako funkcioniše servis RightsLink?
Kako treba napisati molbu u slučajevima kada se zahtev ne može poslati preko servisa RightsLink?
Šta su Creative Commons licence?
Koncept Otvorene nauke (Open Science), nove paradigme obrazovanja, kao i najposećenije platforme za masovne onlajn kurseve – Coursera i EdH, Udacity
Sadržaj predavanja:
Nova paradigma obrazovanja – otvorena nauka, nov koncept obrazovanja i doživotno učenje
Predstavljanje najposećenijih platformi Coursera, EdH, Udacity
Masovni otvoreni onlajn kursevi prestižnih svetskih univerziteta Društvene mreže i učenje
Predavanje održano 9. marta 2016. godine u Narodnoj biblioteci Srbije u Beogradu, povodom obeležavanja Nedelje otvorenog obrazovanja 2016.
Sadržaj institucionalnih repozitorijuma ne mora se ograničavati na naučnu produkciju (teze, naučni radovi, primarni podaci) istraživača. Takozvani „sekundarni materijali“ koji nastaju tokom istraživačkog procesa ili procesa pripreme doktorske disertacije (prezentacije, radni materijali, tehnička uputstva itd.) dragoceni su za mlade istraživače ili studente koji tek usvajaju tehnike naučnog rada. U repozitorijume se mogu deponovati i skripta i edukativnim materijali koje zaposleni na univerzitetu pripremaju za svoje studente. Cilj prezentacije je da skrene pažnju na mogućnosti i prednosti ove prakse, imajući u vidu da ona još uvek nije zaživela na univerzitetima u Srbiji.
Predavanje održano 7. marta 2016. godine u Univezitetskoj biblioteci „Svetozar Marković“ u Beogradu, povodom obeležavanja Nedelje otvorenog obrazovanja 2016.
Univerzitetska biblioteka je aktivni učesnik u složenom i zahtevnom procesu nastanka doktorskih disertacija. Izlaganje želi da skrene pažnju, na osnovu rada i iskustva Univerzitetske biblioteke „Svetozar Markovic“, na one faze u tom postupku u kojima je uloga biblioteke narocito znacajna i nezaobilazna. Biće istaknuto da se pred akademsku biblioteku danas, pored očekivane i tradicionalne uloge, kao što je deponovanje ili davanje na korišćenje ovakvog materijala, postavljaju mnogo veći zadaci koji zadiru u sam čin stvaranja disertacija i unapredjenja nastavnog procesa.
Predavanje održano 7. marta 2016. godine u Univezitetskoj biblioteci „Svetozar Marković“ u Beogradu, povodom obeležavanja Nedelje otvorenog obrazovanja 2016.
Kako izabrati Creative Commons licencu? Koji moduli licence se koriste za metapodatke, primarne podatke, fotografije, audio i video materijale, edukativne kurseve, knjige, naučne radove itd.?
Sa razvojem interneta promenio se način komunikacije na svim planovima, pa i u nauci. Naučnici imaju uvid u sve veće količine podataka relevantnih za njihova istraživanja, ali i mogućnost da informacije o svom radu, kao i rezultate svojih istraživanja, sami plasiraju u javnost na globalnoj mreži.
Šta istraživači mogu, a šta neizostavno treba da urade kako se informacije koje o sebi plasiraju ne bi utopile u moru drugih informacija, a njihovi rezultati pripisali drugim naučnicima istog ili sličnog imena?
Kako se uz pomoć servisa kao što su ResearcherID i ORCID može olakšati identifikacija autora u citatnim bazama podataka?
Prezentacija govori i o ulozi i načinu funkcionisanja institucionalnih i tematskih repozitorijuma i društvenih mreža za naučnike.
U okviru prezentacije biće dat pregled izvora koji pružaju podatke o citiranosti kao što su Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, kako bi se objasnile sličnosti i razlike među njima i njihovo mesto u evaluaciji rada istraživača. Objasniće se način izrade pregleda citiranih radova u Univerzitetskoj biblioteci „Svetozar Marković“, odnosno rezultati koje istraživači dobijaju kada Biblioteci upute zahtev za izradu citiranosti. Predstaviće se i baza Journal Citation Report (JCR) ili SCI liste i druge liste kategorizovanih časopisa. Jedan deo izlaganja biće posvećen drugim bibliometrijskim indikatorima, pre svega Hiršovom indeksu.
The Art Pastor's Guide to Sabbath | Steve ThomasonSteve Thomason
What is the purpose of the Sabbath Law in the Torah. It is interesting to compare how the context of the law shifts from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Who gets to rest, and why?
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
This is a presentation by Dada Robert in a Your Skill Boost masterclass organised by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan (EFSS) on Saturday, the 25th and Sunday, the 26th of May 2024.
He discussed the concept of quality improvement, emphasizing its applicability to various aspects of life, including personal, project, and program improvements. He defined quality as doing the right thing at the right time in the right way to achieve the best possible results and discussed the concept of the "gap" between what we know and what we do, and how this gap represents the areas we need to improve. He explained the scientific approach to quality improvement, which involves systematic performance analysis, testing and learning, and implementing change ideas. He also highlighted the importance of client focus and a team approach to quality improvement.
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
The Indian economy is classified into different sectors to simplify the analysis and understanding of economic activities. For Class 10, it's essential to grasp the sectors of the Indian economy, understand their characteristics, and recognize their importance. This guide will provide detailed notes on the Sectors of the Indian Economy Class 10, using specific long-tail keywords to enhance comprehension.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
How to Create Map Views in the Odoo 17 ERPCeline George
The map views are useful for providing a geographical representation of data. They allow users to visualize and analyze the data in a more intuitive manner.
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasn’t one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
2. RESEARCH ETHICS
Phases of research
▸ Planning and designing research
▸ Research implementation
▸ Reviewing research
▸ Reporting research results
Participants
▸ Researchers
▸ Research subjects
▸ Public
Dimensions of research
▸ Data collection, use, and interpretation
▸ Relationships among researchers
▸ Relationships between researchers and those
that will be affected by their research
▸ Reporting methods
▸ Responding to disputes or misconduct
▸ Promoting ethical integrity in research
the application of ethical principles to scientific research
4. PRINCIPLES
▸ Honesty (valid interpretations and justifiable
claims)
▸ Reliability (in performing and reporting
research)
▸ Objectivity (transparency and verifiability)
▸ Impartiality and independence (from
pressures and interests)
▸ Open communication (ensuring availability
and accessibility)
▸ Duty of care (for research subjects – e.g.
human subjects, experimental animals)
▸ Fairness (referencing, crediting, relationship
with colleagues)
▸ Responsibility for future science generations
(mentorship)
5. MISCONDUCT
“Scientific misconduct includes (negligent or
intended) fabrication (making up data or
results), falsification (changing or misreporting
research data or improper manipulation of
experiments) and plagiarism (using ideas or
words without accurate reference).
These practices go against all scientific values
and can undermine the scientific progress.
Even more, it can cause harm.”
Science Europe. ‘Research Integrity Practices in
Science Europe Member Organisations: Survey
Report’. Science Europe, July 2016.
6. Major causes of research misconduct
▸the lack of personal and professional integrity
▸pressures in the working environment
▸Publish or Perish
▸failure to sanction misconduct
7. RULES AND
REGULATIONS
▸Code of ethics (values and general
principles)
▸Code of conduct (norms, rules,
responsibilities, proper practices)
▸Code of practice and procedure
▸Policy (statement of intent, general
concepts, responsibilities)
▸Rule on procedures
8. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010)
▸Integrity
▸Adherence to regulations
▸Research Methods
▸Research Records
▸Research Findings
▸Authorship
▸Publication acknowledgement
▸Peer review
▸Conflict of Interest
▸Public communication
▸Reporting irresponsible Research
practices
▸Responding to irresponsible
research practices
▸Research environments
▸Societal considerations
global guide to the responsible conduct of research
http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html
Responsibilities
9. University of Belgrade
▸Code of Professional Ethics at the University of Belgrade
(http://bg.ac.rs/files/sr/univerzitet/univ-propisi/Kodeks-
profesionalne-etike.pdf)
▸Rules on the Procedure of Establishing Non-academic
Conduct in Writing University Theses
(http://bg.ac.rs/files/sr/univerzitet/univ-propisi/Pravilnik-
neakademsko-pisanih-radova.pdf)
10. European Science Foundation and
ALLEA (All European Academies)
▸The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
(http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020
/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf)
11. “
“
Ethics is given the highest priority in EU funded research:
all the activities carried out under Horizon 2020 must
comply with ethical principles and relevant national, EU
and international legislation, for example the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the
European Convention on Human Rights.
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/ethics
12. European Commission – Policy – Research Ethics
▸ethics is an integral part of research from beginning to end
▸ethical compliance is seen as pivotal to achieve research
excellence
▸application of fundamental ethical principles and legislation
to scientific research in all possible domains of research
Ethics Appraisal Procedure in Horizon 2020
▸Ethics Self-Assessment (project preparation)
▸Ethics Review Procedure (before the start of the project)
▸Ethics Checks and Audits (throughout the project)
13. European Commission – Policy – Research Ethics
Ethical issues:
▸the involvement of children, patients, vulnerable populations,
▸the use of human embryonic stem cells,
▸privacy and data protection issues
▸research on animals and non-human primates
▸misuse/malevolent use
▸impact on the environment
▸the avoidance of any breach of research integrity (avoiding
fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other research
misconduct)
14. ▸ National Institute of Health
(https://grants.nih.gov/policy/research_integrity/index.htm)
▸The Office of Research Integrity (https://ori.hhs.gov/ori-policies)
▸National Science Foundation (https://www.nsf.gov/about/)
▸Academic Integrity in Research: Code of Practice and Procedure
of the University of Oxford
15. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
▸nonprofit organization established in 1997 by a group of medical journals
▸assistance to editors and publishers on publication ethics
▸guidelines on handling cases of research and publication misconduct
Codes of conduct
▸Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors
▸Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers
International standards for editors and authors
(http://publicationethics.org/node/11184)
Guidelines
▸http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines (authorship disputes,
text recycling, informed consent, peer review, retractions)
best practice in the ethics of scholarly publishing
17. COPE – Cases
• a searchable database
• more than 500 cases +
advice given by COPE
• follow-up and outcomes
(for some cases)
• not for the purposes of
court proceedings
19. Data manipulation
Falsification
▸changing or omission of
research results (data) to
support claims, hypotheses,
other data, etc.
▸manipulation of research
instrumentation, materials,
or processes.
▸manipulation of images
Fabrication
▸construction (inventing)
and/or addition of data that
have never occurred in the
research process
▸claims made based on
incomplete data
One of the causes: positive-results bias (“file drawer effect”)
One of the results: irreproducible data
‘The Hi-Tech War on Science Fraud’. The Guardian, 1 February 2017, sec. Science.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/01/high-tech-war-on-science.
20. Plagiarism
▸assuming another's ideas, words, or other creative expression as one's own
▸a clear violation of scientific ethics;
▸may also involve a violation of copyright law, punishable by legal action.
Plagiarism includes the following:
▸Word for word, or almost word for word copying, or purposely
paraphrasing portions of another author's work without clearly indicating
the source or marking the copied fragment (for example, using quotation
marks);
▸Copying equations, figures or tables from someone else's paper without
properly citing the source and/or without permission from the original
author or the copyright holder.
21. Self-plagiarism
“when authors reuse their own previously written work or data in a ‘new’ written
product without letting the reader know that this material has appeared
elsewhere”
▸ republishing the same paper that is published elsewhere without notifying the
reader nor publisher of the journal (duplicate publication)
▸ publishing a significant study as smaller studies to increase the number of
publications rather than publishing one large study
▸ reusing portions of a previously written (published or unpublished text)
Roig, Miguel. (2006). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide
to ethical writing. Retrieved from http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism.doc
Smith, Eldon R. ‘Plagiarism, Self-Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication’. The Canadian Journal of Cardiology
23, no. 2 (February 2007): 146–47. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650652/
https://www.ithenticate.com/hs-fs/hub/92785/file-5414624-pdf/media/ith-selfplagiarism-whitepaper.pdf
22. Plagiarism detection
▸manual (usually during the peer review process)
▸software-assisted (iThenticate, Turnitin, etc.)
▹comparing new documents with a reference collection
▹similarity criteria
▹detection efficiency depends on the scope and size of the
reference collection , but also on the language of the paper
▹unable to detect the plagiarism of ideas
▹software-assisted screening for plagiarism is just the beginning
of an investigation.
23. Plagiarism – problems and disputes
▸similarity percentage
▸“collage technique” but sources are cited
(http://retractionwatch.com/2014/05/13/the-sins-and-virtues-of-authors-
span-a-rather-colorful-palette-new-editor-yanks-plagiarized/)
▸the problem of “duplicative methodologies”
(http://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/bid/94140/The-
Challenge-of-Repeating-Methods-While-Avoiding-
Plagiarism#.WOP_uGclGUk)
Wager, Elizabeth. ‘How Should Editors Respond to Plagiarism?: COPE Discussion Paper’. COPE, 26 April
2011. https://publicationethics.org/files/COPE_plagiarism_discussion_%20doc_26%20Apr%2011.pdf.
24. BREACHES OF
SCIENTIFIC ETHICS
▸Questionable research practices
(QRPs)
▸Misuse of research data
▸Authorship-related misconduct
▸Failure to disclose a conflict of interest
▸Inadequate personal behaviour
25. Questionable research practices (QRPs)
▸QRPs vs. fraud
▸exclusion of data that are inconsistent with a theoretical hypothesis;
▸sometimes used for legitimate purposes;
▸creating overly positive picture
▸false impressions about the replicability of empirical results and
misleading evidence about the size of an effect
▸e.g. selective reporting of variables, failing to disclose experimental
conditions, reporting selectively studies that worked, etc.
R, Dr. ‘Questionable Research Practices: Definition, Detect, and Recommendations for Better
Practices’. Replicability-Index, 24 January 2015.
https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/questionable-research-practices-
definition-detect-and-recommendations-for-better-practices/.
26. Misuse of research data
▸ Intentional misinterpretation
▸ Data loss
▸ Data theft
▸ Allowing access to unauthorized users
▸ Not allowing access to those who should have access to
data (e.g. research group members)
▸ Pseudo-anonymization
27. Authorship-related misconduct
▸Bogus claims of authorship
▸Not crediting an author
▸Gift/honorary authorship (crediting as an author a person
who was not involved as an author )
▸Ghost authorship
▸Conflict of interest
Nature journals:
each new manuscript must include a statement of
responsibility that specifies the contribution of every author
Last
28. ICMJE authorship criteria
▸ Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the
acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
AND
▸ Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
AND
▸ Final approval of the version to be published;
AND
▸ 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.
▸An author should be able to take public responsibility for the work!
http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-
authors-and-contributors.html
29. Conflict of interest
▸ actual, apparent, or potential
▸ a situation in which financial or other personal interest
have the potential to compromise or bias professional
judgment and objectivity
▸ exists whether or not decisions are affected by a personal
interest
▸ tangible (financial) or intangible
▸ potential conflict of interest must be disclosed
32. Replication crisis
▸Positive-results bias
▸Difficult to publish results that
demonstrate the inability to replicate
already published results
▸Insufficient details in the ‘Methods’
section
▸Replication experiments are expensive
Used by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Yong, Ed. 2012. “Replication
Studies: Bad Copy.” Nature News 485 (7398): 298. doi:10.1038/485298a.
33. Reproducibility testing
▸ Reproducibility Project: Psychology
▸ Statcheck – software for checking PDF or HTML files for
statistical errors (http://statcheck.io/)
“Here’s Why More than 50,000 Psychology Studies Are
about to Have PubPeer Entries.” 2016. Retraction Watch.
September 2.
http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/02/heres-why-
more-than-50000-psychology-studies-are-about-to-have-
pubpeer-entries/.
▸
the process of validating that the reported research results can be
obtained in an independent experiment
Used by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Baker, Monya. 2017. “First
Results from Psychology’s Largest Reproducibility Test.” Nature News. Accessed April
5. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17433.
34. The crisis of peer review
Purpose of peer review
Experts critically examine
and evaluate a paper prior
to publication
▹ to eliminate papers of a
poor quality
▹ to help improve the
quality of the paper
Problems
▸ Time-consuming
process
▸ Reviewers are not paid
for their work
(motivation)
▸ Flaws are possible
(incorrect conclusions,
omitted references,
irreproducible results,
etc.)
Negative consequences
▸ Publishing irreproducible
results
▸ Retracted papers
▸ Fake reviews
▸ Predatory publishers
35. Sting operations against bad practices in journals
▸Bohannon, John. ‘Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?’ Science 342, no. 6154 (4
October 2013): 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60.
▸Bohannon, John. ‘I Fooled Millions into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight
Loss. Here’s How.’ io9. Accessed 5 April 2017. http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-
fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800.
▸Sorokowski, Piotr, Emanuel Kulczycki, Agnieszka Sorokowska, and Katarzyna
Pisanski. ‘Predatory Journals Recruit Fake Editor’. Nature News 543, no. 7646
(23 March 2017): 481. doi:10.1038/543481a.
36. Fake peer reviews
▸ Reviewers recommended by authors
▸ Reviewers selected by a guest editor
▸ Non-institutional (forged) email addresses for reviewers
▸ Reviews are completed quickly (within 24–48 hours).
▸ All reviews are positive.
▸ Agencies involved (sold positive reviews to authors)
Cohen, Adam, Smita Pattanaik, Praveen Kumar, Robert R. Bies, Anthonius de Boer, Albert Ferro, Annette Gilchrist,
Geoffrey K. Isbister, Sarah Ross, and Andrew J. Webb. ‘Organised Crime against the Academic Peer Review System’.
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 81, no. 6 (1 June 2016): 1012–17. doi:10.1111/bcp.12992.
Haug, Charlotte J. ‘Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process’. New England Journal of Medicine
373, no. 25 (17 December 2015): 2393–95. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1512330.
Callaway, Ewen. ‘Faked Peer Reviews Prompt 64 Retractions’. Nature, 18 August 2015. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.18202.
37. Retraction
Reasons for retraction
▸infringements of professional ethical codes
▸multiple submissions
▸bogus claims of authorship
▸plagiarism
▸fraudulent use of data
▸major misconduct in general
Retracted articles MUST NOT be deleted. In the electronic version of the retraction notice, a link
is made to the original article. In the electronic version of the original article, a link is made to
the retraction note where it is clearly stated that the article has been retracted. The original
article is retained unchanged, save for a watermark on the PDF indicating on each page that it is
“retracted.”
a formal notice declaring invalid a published paper
40. ▸ Publishing business model that involves charging publication
fees to authors without providing regular peer review
▸ Exploits and misuses
▸ the concept and mechanisms of Open Access
▸ information technologies
▸ Aim: financial gain
Predatory publishing
41. o superficial peer review or no peer review
o no editorial board
o missing affiliation information (for the editor and the editorial board)
o lack of transparency in publishing operations
o information about author fees is not transparent
o boastful language
o false claims about the IF
o spam emails sent to potential authors
o spam requests for peer reviews
o inconsistent licensing policy
o minimal or no copyediting or proofreading of submissions
Beall, Jeffrey. 2015. “Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (3rd Edition).”
Scholarly Open Access. January.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150320190303/https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/
criteria-2015.pdf.
Recognizing predatory journals
46. Hijacked journals
▸ bogus website claiming to belong to a legitimate journal
▸ Purpose: fraud!
▸ offering authors the opportunity to rapidly publish their research for a fee
▸ sometimes, the stealing of private data (passwords, credit cards numbers, etc.)
▸ Print-only journals and journals with poor websites are more likely to be
hijacked.
▸ Web domain of the false journal resembles that of the legitimate journal.
▸ The identity of perpetrators is usually difficult or impossible to establish.
Lukić, Tin, Ivana Blešić, Ljubica Ivanović Bibić, Dragan Milošević, and Dušan Sakulski. 2014. “Predatory and Fake
Scientific Journals/Publishers- A Global Outbreak with Rising Trend: A Review.” Geographica Pannonica 18 (3):
69–81.
54. Whistleblowing and investigation
▸formal reporting of alleged misconduct
▸based on evidence
▸A whistleblower does not take responsibility for the
investigation.
▸measures to protect both the whistleblower and the
accused
▸All parties must be given an opportunity to present
evidence.
▸Cases sometimes end up in court proceedings.
55.
56. NEW FORMS OF
PEER REVIEW
▹ Birukou, Aliaksandr, Joseph Rushton Wakeling, Claudio
Bartolini, Fabio Casati, Maurizio Marchese, Katsiaryna
Mirylenka, and others, ‘Alternatives to Peer Review: Novel
Approaches for Research Evaluation’, Frontiers in
Computational Neuroscience, 5 (2011),
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2011.00056
▹ DeCoursey, Thomas, ‘The Pros and Cons of Open Peer
Review’, Nature, 2006,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04991
▹ Frood, Arran, ‘Mentors, Mates or Metrics: What Are the
Alternatives to Peer Review?’, EuroScientist Webzine, 2014,
http://www.euroscientist.com/mentors-mates-or-metrics-
what-are-the-alternatives-to-peer-review/
▹ Vesnic-Alujevic, L., ‘Peer Review and Scientific Publishing in
Times of Web 2.0’, Publishing Research Quarterly, 30
(2014), 39–49, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12109-014-
9345-8
▹ Ware, Mark, ‘Peer Review: Recent Experience and Future
Directions’, New Review of Information Networking, 16
(2011), 23,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13614576.2
011.566812
58. Open research data and reproducibility
▸ European Commission. ‘What Are Open Research Data?’ Research and
Innovation: Open Science. Accessed 5 April 2017.
https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=researchdata&s
ection=monitor.
▸ Sue Childs, Julie McLeod, Elizabeth Lomas, and Glenda Cook. ‘Opening
Research Data: Issues and Opportunities’. Records Management Journal
24, no. 2 (15 July 2014): 142–62. doi:10.1108/RMJ-01-2014-0005.
▸ Schmidt, Birgit, Astrid Orth, Gwen Franck, Iryna Kuchma, Petr Knoth, and
José Carvalho. ‘Stepping up Open Science Training for European Research’.
Publications 4, no. 2 (17 June 2016): 16. doi:10.3390/publications4020016.
▸ Ayris, Paul. ‘Research Data Management Supporting Research Integrity and
Open Science’. In LEARN Toolkit of Best Practice for Research Data
Management. 23-27: LEARN, 2017. doi:10.14324/000.learn.00.