DOCSLIB.ORG

General Guidelines for Academic Integrity Report (Amended Version)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

General Guidelines for Academic Integrity Report (amended version) 9/23/2019 Erasmus+ project “European Network for Academic Integrity” Loreta TAUGINIENĖ Milan OJSTERŠEK Tomáš FOLTÝNEK Franca MARINO Marco COSENTINO Inga GAIŽAUSKAITĖ Irene GLENDINNING Shiva SIVASUBRAMANIAM Salim RAZI Laura RIBEIRO Tatjana ODIŅECA Oliver TREVISIOL This publication refers to a sub-output of the project “European Network for Academic Integrity”, funded under Erasmus Plus, Strategic Partnerships (agreement No. 016-1- CZ01-KA203-023949). It is available for download at the project website http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/. Project coordinator: Contact regarding the report: Tomáš Foltýnek Mendel University in Brno (Czech Republic) Inga Gaižauskaitė E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Project consortium: HOW TO CITE ISO 690 Tauginienė, L, Ojsteršek, M, Foltýnek, T, Marino, F, Cosentino, M, Gaižauskaitė, I, Glendinning, I, Sivasubramaniam, S, Razi, S, Ribeiro, L, Odiņeca, T., Trevisiol, O. General Guidelines for Academic Integrity. ENAI Report 3A [online], first publication date: October 2018, amended version: September 2019. Publication history: Version 1.0 October 2018. Version 1.1 September 2019. 1 ABOUT THE PROJECT The project “European Network for Academic Integrity” (ENAI) aims foremost to raise awareness in the matters of plagiarism, academic ethics, scholarly values and academic integrity. ENAI focuses not only on students, but on the entire academic community (including professors, researchers, post-docs, PhDs, administration staff and management, academic ethics committees, etc.). This project envisages developing three major outputs: Educational materials for higher education institutions’ teachers and students (O1), Toolkit for cross-sector cooperation in terms of academic integrity (O2) and Handbook for improvements in academic integrity (O3). The latter output consists of seven sub-outputs, such as general guidelines for academic integrity, glossary of terms related to academic integrity, self- evaluation tools for students, teaching and research, self-assessment tool for institutions / faculties / departments and briefs. This report refers to a sub-output 3A (General guidelines for academic integrity) of the project. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors of this publication gratefully acknowledge: • The financial support for this work provided by the Erasmus+ Programme (agreement No. 016-1-CZ01-KA203-023949). • The intellectual support of this work provided by the project Advisory Board – Tracey Bretag, Teddi Fishman and Thomas Lancaster – for their valuable comments on draft versions of this publication. • The contributions of the whole consortium during the project meeting in Ephesus. Finally, the authors thank Irene Glendinning for proofreading of this publication. LEGAL NOTICE The sole responsibility for the contents of this publication lies with the authors. Their opinion does not necessarily reflect that of the European Union. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein. 2 CONTENT Preface _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5 Guidelines development approach ________________________________________________________________________________ 5 Amendment notice _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6 Guidelines about Fundamental Terms ____________________________________________________________________________ 7 ETHICS | ETHICAL PRINCIPLES | ETHICAL STANDARDS | ETHICAL VALUES | ETHICALITY | DILEMMA 8 RESPONSIBILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY | AUTONOMY _______________________________________________________ 11 MORAL | MORAL NORM | MORAL VALUES | MORALITY ____________________________________________________ 13 DATA | INFORMATION | KNOWLEDGE | COMMON KNOWLEDGE _________________________________________ 16 Guidelines about Institutional Culture and Practices __________________________________________________________ 21 CULTURE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY | ETHICS INFRASTRUCTURE _______________________________________ 22 CODE OF CONDUCT | CODE OF ETHICS | ACADEMIC INTEGRITY COMMITTEE | DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE | ETHICS COMMITTEE | RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE | AUDIT _________________________ 23 DATA MANAGEMENT __________________________________________________________________________________________ 26 WHISTLEBLOWING | REPORTING IRRESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES _____________________________ 28 RISK MANAGEMENT ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 30 GENDER-BASED HARASSMENT | EXPLOITATIVE RELATIONSHIPS _______________________________________ 32 Guidelines about Science and Research _________________________________________________________________________ 34 SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITY | RESEARCH | SCIENTIFIC WORK ___________________________________________________ 35 SCIENTIST | RESEARCHER ____________________________________________________________________________________ 37 RESEARCH ETHICS | RESEARCH INTEGRITY | RESEARCH FRAUD | RESEARCH MISCONDUCT _________ 39 RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH | QUESTIONABLE RESEARCH PRACTICES _____________________ 41 ETHICS ASSESSMENT | ETHICAL APPROVAL | AVOIDING HARM | INFORMED CONSENT ______________ 43 CONFIDENTIALITY | CONFIDENTIALITY VIOLATION ______________________________________________________ 46 Guidelines about Academic Writing and Publishing____________________________________________________________ 47 COPYRIGHT | AUTHOR’S PATRIMONIAL RIGHTS | AUTHOR’S ETHICAL RIGHTS ________________________ 48 AUTHOR | AUTHORSHIP | CO-AUTHOR | CORRESPONDING AUTHOR | CONTRIBUTORSHIP | UNETHICAL AUTHORSHIP | AUTHORSHIP ABUSE | GIFT OR GUEST AUTHORSHIP | COERCION AUTHORSHIP | GHOST AUTHORSHIP | GHOST WRITER | GHOSTWRITING | INVENTED AUTHORSHIP 50 CITATION | CITATION AMNESIA | DOUBLE CREATION | QUOTATION | PARAPHRASING _______________ 55 REFERENCE | REFERENCES | INVALID SOURCE | IRRESPONSIBLE SOURCE USE | BIBLIOGRAPHY | RECOGNISED REFERENCING STYLE | HONEST ERROR ____________________________________________________ 60 PROOFREADING________________________________________________________________________________________________ 64 PEER REVIEW | OPEN PEER REVIEW | BLIND PEER REVIEW | SINGLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW | DOUBLE- BLIND PEER REVIEW | TRIPLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW ______________________________________________________ 65 TEXT-MATCHING SOFTWARE ________________________________________________________________________________ 68 3 REPRODUCTION | REPUBLICATION __________________________________________________________________________ 71 RETRACTION ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 72 Guidelines about Academic Integrity Breaches _________________________________________________________________ 73 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY | ACADEMIC FRAUD | ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT | DISCIPLINARY MISDEMEANOUR _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 74 CORRUPTION | MISMANAGEMENT OF RESEARCH FUNDS | FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY _____________ 76 PLAGIARISM ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 78 DIPLOMA MILL _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 83 FABRICATION | FALSIFICATION | DATA FALSIFICATION | DATA FABRICATION | DATA IMPUTATION | DATA SUPPRESSION | FABRICATION, FALSIFICATION AND PLAGIARISM (FFP) ________________________ 85 CHEATING | COLLUSION | UNAUTHORIZED AID | CRIB NOTES ____________________________________________ 88 CONTRACT CHEATING | CONTRACT CHEATING SERVICES | GHOSTWRITING | PAPER MILL __________ 92 4 Preface These general guidelines serve as a supportive document for the glossary for academic integrity (sub-output 3G) that describes the definitions of terms related to academic integrity. They serve to help build common understandings of integrity issues in both academia and business. The guidelines outline minimum requirements and responsibilities of various stakeholders in academia. Many of the guidelines are necessarily general, but, where relevant, we provide country-specific examples as well as adjusting to meet to the needs of different fields of study/research. The general guidelines are addressed to a full range of stakeholders, including national ombudspersons, judicial authorities, compliance officers, research project managers and other related bodies or units in academia (such as policy units, educators/instructors, senior administrator/managers/coordinators) as well as students, the business sector and others. Guidelines development approach The development of the guidelines was divided into four stages. First, each guideline development group (GDG) member selected terms from the Glossary for Academic Integrity for which they have expert knowledge. At the end, 46 out of 208 terms remained free of guidelines as self-explanatory. Second, GDGs agreed on criteria for general guidelines development, such as: 1) a guideline should be country-and discipline-specific where appropriate; 2) a guideline should be concise; 3) a guideline should help avoiding misinterpretation of the words used in a term's definition; 4) a guideline should help make a distinction between terms; 5) if a guideline is inherent to particular stakeholders, it should be clearly stated; 6) only reliable sources should be included in guidelines; sources should be properly
Recommended publications
  • The Impact of External Whistleblowers on Uncovering Corruption: a Comparative Study

    The Impact of External Whistleblowers on Uncovering Corruption: a Comparative Study

    The Impact of External Whistleblowers on Uncovering Corruption: A Comparative Study Carmen Apaza PhD Candidate of Public Administration and Policy School of Public Affairs American University [email protected] Yongjin Chang PhD Candidate of Public Administration and Policy School of Public Affairs American University [email protected] Work in progress – please do not cite Paper to be presented to Ethics and Integrity of Governance European Group of Public Administration Rotherdam, Netherlands September, 2008 The Impact of External Whistleblowers on Uncovering Corruption: A Comparative Study Carmen Apaza & Yongjin Chang1 Abstract Through an original comparative framework as well as archival and pattern matching research methodology, this paper analyzes two important whistleblowing cases in Peru and South Korea. The study finds strong evidence to conclude that external whistlebowing is effective, mass media is a valuable tool for external whistleblowers, powerful allies and strong evidences are crucial factors for making whistle-blowing process easier, and external whistle- blowing works out even in the absence of sufficient legal protection. Nevertheless external whistleblowers experience severe retaliation when there is no proper legal protection. The findings of this study suggest that whistle-blowing is a crucial instrument to improve government accountability and transparency. Hence, it should be considered beyond national boundaries. 1 Both authors are equally contributed to write this paper. 2 Introduction Whistleblowing can be defined as a disclosure of information by an employee or contractor who alleges willful misconduct carried out by an individual or group of individuals within an organiztion (Figg 2000). A whistleblower is a valuable information source that the government or the public cannot get from any oversight systems, because they are insiders of the organizations.
  • The Carnage of Substandard Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Call for Quality Katrina a Bramstedt ‍ 1,2

    The Carnage of Substandard Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Call for Quality Katrina a Bramstedt ‍ 1,2

    Brief report J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/medethics-2020-106494 on 1 October 2020. Downloaded from The carnage of substandard research during the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for quality Katrina A Bramstedt 1,2 1Luxembourg Agency for ABSTRACT issued (tables 2 and 3).ii The source of most of these Research Integrity, Esch- sur- Worldwide there are currently over 1200 research studies incidents is Asia (n=19; 57.6%), with China the Alzette, Luxembourg 2 largest Asian subgroup (n=11; 57.9%). For three Bond University Faculty of being performed on the topic of COVID-19. Many of Health Sciences and Medicine, these involve children and adults over age 65 years. papers, the reason for the removal is unknown; Gold Coast, Queensland, There are also numerous studies testing investigational however, for the others, a range of problems Australia vaccines on healthy volunteers. No research team exist, including data falsification, methodological is exempt from the pressures and speed at which concerns, and concerns about interpretation of data Correspondence to COVID-19 research is occurring. And this can increase and conclusions, as well as authorship and research Professor Katrina A Bramstedt, participant privacy issues (table 4). To date, there Bond University Faculty of the risk of honest error as well as misconduct. To date, Health Sciences and Medicine, 33 papers have been identified as unsuitable for public have been no identified reports of plagiarism or Gold Coast, Queensland, use and either retracted, withdrawn, or noted with data fabrication. Another paper, a preprint from the Australia; concern. Asia is the source of most of these manuscripts USA about COVID-19 antibody seroprevalence, has txbioethics@ yahoo.
  • MOX Data Fabrication: Lack of Regulatory Ability Exposed

    MOX Data Fabrication: Lack of Regulatory Ability Exposed

    TOKYO March/April NUKE INFO 2000 Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center No. 76 3F Kotobuki Bldg., 1-58-15, Higashi-nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003, JAPAN URL: http://www.jca.apc.org/cnic/ e-mail : [email protected] MOX Data Fabrication: Lack of Regulatory Ability Exposed (Left) Protest against MOX utilization. (Right) X-ray photo of rejected BNFL fuel rods (source: Kansai Electric) The criticality accident at Tokai last fall Plant (PWR) on Oct. 1, the day after the demonstrated the inherent risks of nuclear JCO accident. Data fabrication by BNFL energy, and forced Japan to review its was revealed on Sep. 19, after the ship had nuclear power policies. Shortly before, left the British port, by an article in the UK and soon after, this worst-ever accident in newspaper, The Independent, which was Japan's nuclear history on Sep. 30, 1999, based on inside information. Kansai Elec- MOX fuel manufactured at British Nuclear tric announced that it had postponed the Fuels plc (BNFL) and Belgonuclaire arrived loading of MOX fuel into Takahama 3 on in Japan. It was later revealed that data CONTENTS for the quality control of the BNFL fuel had NII report on MOX data fabrication 1-2 been falsified. Plans for nuclear plant canceled 3 The ships carrying MOX fuel left Europe Aging and decommisioning of reactors 4-7 in mid-July and delivered 32 assemblies to STA's dose evaluation of JCO accident 8 Tokyo Electric's Fukushima I plant (BWR) Latest on Rokkasho facilities 9 on the eastern side of Japan on Sep.
  • Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic [V1 to V2 Differences]

    Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic [V1 to V2 Differences]

    Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic [V1 to V2 differences] Lonni Besançon ID 1,2*, Nathan Peiffer-Smadja ID 3,4, Corentin Segalas ID 5, Haiting Jiang6, Paola Masuzzo ID 7, Cooper Smout ID 7, Eric Billy8, Maxime Deforet ID 9+ and Clémence Leyrat ID 5,10+ 1Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia 2Media and Information Technology, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden 3Université de Paris, IAME, INSERM, F-75018 Paris, France 4National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom 5Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom 6School of Health Policy and Management, Nanjing Medical University, No.101 Longmian Avenue, Nanjing 211166, P.R.China. 7IGDORE, Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education 8Chercheur immuno-oncologie, Strasbourg, France 9Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Institut de Biologie Paris-Seine (IBPS), Laboratoire Jean Perrin (LJP), F-75005, Paris, France 10Inequalities in Cancer Outcomes Network, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom *[email protected] +these authors contributed equally to this work Abstract In the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of some of these Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output.
  • Mikrotipografija

    Mikrotipografija

    Mikrotipografija Klementina Možina Mikrotipografija Univerza v Ljubljani Naravoslovnotehniška fakulteta Oddelek za tekstilstvo Klementina Možina Mikrotipografija Izdala in založila Naravoslovnotehniška fakulteta, Oddelek za tekstilstvo Ljubljana, 2009 Odgovarja dr. Diana Gregor Svetec Recenzenta prof. Dušan Kirbiš, dr. Igor Kramberger Uredniški pregled Ira Ratej Lektorica Jana Lavtižar Oblikovanje ovitka & tipografskih vinjet Peter Koraca Prelom Barbara Blaznik V knjigi je uporabljena družina pisav mantika, ki jo je oblikoval Jürgen Weltin leta 2009. Natisnila Littera picta, d. o. o. Naklada 400 izvodov Knjiga je izšla s podporo Ministrstva za šolstvo, znanost in šport Republike Slovenije in s finančno pomočjo posestva Jazbec. CIP – Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 655.26-022.53 655.322-022.53 744.43-022.53 MOŽINA, Klementina Mikrotipografija / Klementina Možina. – Ljubljana : Naravoslovnotehniška fakulteta, Oddelek za tekstilstvo, 2009 ISBN 978-961-6045-65-0 245149696 Iri Ratej, Marini Železnik, Branki Lepšina, Sabini Prvinšek, Mojci Završnik in Silvi Jazbec – za pomoč pri preživetju. Zahvala Z izidom tega knjižnega dela je vsaj deloma zaključena tipografska vsebina, ki sem jo začela poglobljeno raziskovati in o njej pisati že pred nekaj leti. Zaradi zahtevnosti drugih obremenitev sem za nekaj let prekinila pisanje. Vrnitev k prvotni poti je bila težavna, zato je ta knjiga v končni različici korenito spremenjena. Zaradi »boja z mlini na veter« bi se rada zahvalila redkim, ki niso opustili upanja, da bo kdaj ugledala luč dneva. Hvaležna sem svojemu doktorskemu men- torju Martinu Žnideršiču, ker v preteklih letih ni samo ohranil stikov z menoj, temveč me je opogumljal, da sem vendarle dokončala zače- to delo. Za vse neprecenljive spodbude sem globoko hvaležna svoji mentorici na doktorskem izobraževanju na Univerzi Reading Marga- ret M.
  • A Narrative on the Fabrication of Results in Science

    A Narrative on the Fabrication of Results in Science

    GENERAL ARTICLES A narrative on the fabrication of results in science João Freitas*, Dulce Esteves and Henrique Neiva Data fabrication is an act of scientific misconduct that affects its transparency and veracity. In this study we identify the main data fabrication problems in scientific research and suggest prevention methodologies. This article is a narrative review of the major articles in fabrication of results in science. The results of this review provide the knowledge that fabrication cases come from most diverse scientific fields. Currently, there is more pressure on scientists to publish. As a result, several studies now report on data fabrication in research. State laws and research ethics committees strengthen relationships to criminalize this type of misconduct that usurps state funds. This study dis- cusses the controversies and complexities of data fabrication in scientific research. Ethics commit- tees must continue their efforts to prevent data fabrication, thus contributing to scientific transparency. Keywords: Criminalization, data fabrication, scientific misconduct, transparency. SCIENTIFIC misconduct does not stop with a decline in Current data show that, the success rate of eligible pro- morality and increase in competition in obtaining posals in the Universities for the year 2015 was only research funds. Instead, very well structured, accusations 14%; as governments decrease funding, the pressure on of scientific misconduct, stand in the history of universities to obtain funding from other sources increas- science itself from ancient Greece to the present day1. es, including the UE and the private sector13. Although the respective federal agencies nuclearize the Data fraud can have four types of external effects14. It concept of scientific conduct to review and disseminate can damage the career of colleagues and students, who research, experts have a more popular view2.
  • Safeguarding Academic Integrity

    Safeguarding Academic Integrity

    education sciences Article Online Delivery and Assessment during COVID-19: Safeguarding Academic Integrity Kelum A.A. Gamage 1 , Erandika K. de Silva 2,* and Nanda Gunawardhana 3 1 James Watt School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK; [email protected] 2 Department of Linguistics and English, University of Jaffna, Ramanathan Road Thirunelvely, Jaffna P.O. Box 57, Sri Lanka 3 Learning and Teaching Research Group, Sri Lanka Technological Campus, Padukka 10500, Sri Lanka; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 21 September 2020; Accepted: 22 October 2020; Published: 25 October 2020 Abstract: Globally, the number of COVID-19 cases continues to rise daily despite strict measures being adopted by many countries. Consequently, universities closed down to minimise the face-to-face contacts, and the majority of the universities are now conducting degree programmes through online delivery. Remote online delivery and assessment are novel experiences for many universities, which presents many challenges, particularly when safeguarding academic integrity. For example, invigilated assessments, often considered as more secure, are not an option given the current situation and detecting any cheating would be significantly challenging. This paper reviews assessment security in the digital domain and critically evaluates the practices from different universities in safeguarding academic integrity, including associated challenges. Keywords: academic integrity; COVID-19; remote learning and teaching 1. Introduction Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most governments around the world have temporarily closed educational institutions in order to contain the spread of the virus. These closures impact over 60% of the world’s student population [1].
  • Excerpts of Semiannual Reports to Congress

    Excerpts of Semiannual Reports to Congress

    OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT THE CONGRESS Number 1 April 1, 1989 Septernber 30, 1989 National Science Foundation Scientist Censured An assistant scientist with a northwest research institute agreed for Misrepresenting to be declared ineligible for funding as a principal investigator Preliminary after an internal review committee convened by his research in- stitute found a pattern of repeated misrepresentation of data in , Scientific Findings his proposals for research support. The grant application, which in Grant Application was also submitted to the National Institutes of Health was the scientist's independent attempt at obtaining federal funds for his research program. An inquiry was initiated after Foundation staff, who were evaluating the scientist's proposal for funding, discovered ap- parent misrepresentations of preliminary data in photomicro- graphs and reported the inconsistencies to the OIG. An initial inquiry conducted by at the scientist's research in- stitution a formal investigation of the matter. An internal review committee convened by the scientist's re- search institute agreed unanimously that a pattern of repeated misrepresentation of data was apparent, suggesting serious mis- conduct by the scientist his inability to meet the profes- standards and quality expected of a scientist with the he possessed. The scientist was provided an oppor- tunity to respond both to the internal review committee's find- ings and proposal to censure him by declaring him ineligible for funding as a principal investigator for a period of five years. While denying wrongdoing or guilt, the scientist ad- mitted to carelessness in preparing the grant applications which he to personal problems and poor laboratory ad- practices.
  • What Is New and True 1 About Fake News?

    What Is New and True 1 About Fake News?

    1 WHAT IS NEW AND TRUE1 ABOUT FAKE NEWS? Rainer Greifeneder, Mariela E. Jaffé, Eryn J. Newman, and Norbert Schwarz Following Brexit and the 2016 US presidential campaign, the Oxford Diction- ary selected “post-truth” as the Word of the Year 2016, which the dictionary defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief” (Oxford-Dictionary, 2016). A year later, the Collins Dictionary desig- nated “fake news” as the Collins Word of the Year 2017 in response to a 365% increase in its usage in the Collins corpus of the English language (Collins- Dictionary, 2017). As the dissemination of fake news flourished and became a topic of public discourse and concern, designating something as fake news became another tool in the repertoire of political propaganda. From US presi- dent Donald Trump accusing journalists and mainstream media of spreading fake news about him (e.g., Pengelly, 2017) to the mainstream media tracking fake news spread by Donald Trump (Kessler, Rizzo, & Kelly, 2019), and the German party AFD (Alternative für Deutschland) returning to the Nazi term Lgenpresse (lying press) to describe mainstream media, accusations of spreading fake news has become a daily occurrence. Against the background of this gen- eral climate, the present volume presents insights into fake news from multiple scientific disciplines and perspectives. What is fake news and what is misinformation? Fake news can be defined as “false, often sensational, information disseminated under the guise of news reporting” (Collins-Dictionary, 2017). Analyses of Google searches indicate that, prior to 2016, the term was used to locate satirical news, as offered by the satirical print magazine The Onion and the satirical tele- vision show The Daily Show.
  • Gaming the Metrics Infrastructures Series Edited by Geoffrey C

    Gaming the Metrics Infrastructures Series Edited by Geoffrey C

    Gaming the Metrics Infrastructures Series Edited by Geoffrey C. Bowker and Paul N. Edwards Paul N. Edwards, A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming Lawrence M. Busch, Standards: Recipes for Reality Lisa Gitelman, ed., “Raw Data” Is an Oxymoron Finn Brunton, Spam: A Shadow History of the Internet Nil Disco and Eda Kranakis, eds., Cosmopolitan Commons: Sharing Resources and Risks across Borders Casper Bruun Jensen and Brit Ross Winthereik, Monitoring Movements in Development Aid: Recursive Partnerships and Infrastructures James Leach and Lee Wilson, eds., Subversion, Conversion, Development: Cross- Cultural Knowledge Exchange and the Politics of Design Olga Kuchinskaya, The Politics of Invisibility: Public Knowledge about Radiation Health Effects after Chernobyl Ashley Carse, Beyond the Big Ditch: Politics, Ecology, and Infrastructure at the Panama Canal Alexander Klose, translated by Charles Marcrum II, The Container Principle: How a Box Changes the Way We Think Eric T. Meyer and Ralph Schroeder, Knowledge Machines: Digital Transformations of the Sciences and Humanities Sebastián Ureta, Assembling Policy: Transantiago, Human Devices, and the Dream of a World-Class Society Geoffrey C. Bowker, Stefan Timmermans, Adele E. Clarke, and Ellen Balka, eds., Boundary Objects and Beyond: Working with Leigh Star Clifford Siskin, System: The Shaping of Modern Knowledge Lawrence Busch, Knowledge for Sale: The Neoliberal Takeover of Higher Education Bill Maurer and Lana Swartz, Paid: Tales of Dongles, Checks, and Other Money Stuff Dietmar Offenhuber, Waste Is Information: Infrastructure Legibility and Governance Katayoun Shafiee, Machineries of Oil: An Infrastructural History of BP in Iran Megan Finn, Documenting Aftermath: Information Infrastructures in the Wake of Disasters Laura Watts, Energy at the End of the World: An Orkney Islands Saga Ann M.
  • Research Practices and Assessment of Research Misconduct Chris H.J

    Research Practices and Assessment of Research Misconduct Chris H.J

    SOR-SOCSCI Research practices and assessment of research misconduct Chris H.J. Hartgerink* and Jelte M. Wicherts Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands *Corresponding author’s e-mail address: [email protected] Published online: 2 August 2016 (version 1) Cite as: Hartgerink and Wicherts. ScienceOpen Research 2016 (DOI: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-SOCSCI.ARYSBI.v1) Reviewing status: The review of this article was author-mediated. The ScienceOpen editorial office has verified and confirmed the identities of the reviewers. The endorsement statement and reviewers names are provided below. The article is also available for continuous post-publication peer review on its dedicated ScienceOpen homepage. Peer Review by Endorsement Statement: “I have read this article, given feedback to the authors and now feel that it is of appropriate quality to be included in the scientific literature and be part of the open scientific discourse.” Prof. Dr. Bjoern Brembs Dr. Brian Nosek Professor of Neurogenetics, Institute of Zoology Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia Universität Regensburg, 2012-present Executive Director, Center for Open Science Primary discipline: General social science Secondary discipline: Applied ethics, General behavioral science, Ethics, Applied probability & Statistics Keywords transparency, research misconduct, questionable research practices, responsible research, data fabrication ABSTRACT can be improved, and how prevalent it might be. Institutions This article discusses the responsible conduct of research, could facilitate detection of data fabrication and falsification questionable research practices, and research misconduct. by implementing data auditing. Nonetheless, the effect of Responsible conduct of research is often defined in terms of a misconduct is pervasive: many retracted articles are still cited set of abstract, normative principles, professional standards, after the retraction has been issued.
  • Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 2018 16 the GAZETTE of INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [P ART II—SEC

    Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 2018 16 the GAZETTE of INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [P ART II—SEC

    Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 2018 16 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [P ART II—SEC . 3(i)] (9) यƘद Ƙकसी ƆिŎ ने उप -िनयम (8) के अंतगϕत सारणी मĞ िविनƠदƍ एक से अिधक XेिणयĪ के अधीन आने वाले अपराध Ƙकए हġ, तो ऐसे मामलĪ मĞ िजस अपराध के िलए अिधकतम शमन रािश िनधाϕƗरत कƙ गई है, वही रािश शमन रािश के Đप मĞ िनयत कƙ जाएगी। 51. शमन Oािधकारी कƙ शिŎयाँ एवं कēϕƆ – (1) यƘद शमन Oािधकारी , इस बात से संतुƍ है Ƙक Ƙकसी ƆिŎ ने िनयम 50 के उप-िनयम (2) के अधीन अपराध के शमन हेतु आवेदन Ƙकया है और उसने कायϕवाही मĞ उसके समϓ सहयोग Ƙदया है और वतुĸ , OƘ;या , पŵित या सेवा के संबंध मĞ तयĪ का पूरा तथा सŔा खुलासा Ƙकया है, तो वह ऐसे ƆिŎ को अिधिनयम के तहत अिभयो जन से उमुिŎ Oदान कर सकता है, यƘद इस Oकार शमन मामले के संबंध मĞ वाद नहĕ चलाया गया हो , तो ऐसी पƗरिथितयĪ मĞ शमन Oािधकारी जैसे उिचत समझे, उसे वैसे लागू कर सकता है। (2) शमन Oािधकारी को शमन करने के िलए हरेक आवेदन पर उस के फाइल होने के 60 ƘदनĪ के भीतर िनणϕय लेने का Oयास करेगा। (3) शमन Oािधकारी उसके ůारा OाƁ आवेदनĪ के िववरण तथा उन पर कƙ गई कारϕवाइयĪ को दशाϕते ćए महािनदेशक के समϓ एक मािसक Ɨरपोटϕ फाइल करेगा। [फा.