Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by:
Integrity In The Global Research Arena, By Edited By:. Reviewing makes you better. That states? Many sensible words say that by reading, your life will certainly be better. Do you believe it? Yeah, confirm it. If you require the book Integrity In The Global Research Arena, By Edited By: to review to prove the smart words, you can visit this web page completely. This is the website that will certainly provide all the books that probably you need. Are guide's collections that will make you feel interested to read? Among them right here is the Integrity In The Global Research Arena, By Edited By: that we will propose.
Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by:
Best PDF Ebook Online Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by:
With a seeming increase in the number of high-profile cases of research misconduct, there is a need for promoting and upholding the principles for the responsible conduct of research. At the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, convened in Montréal in 2013, vital issues relating to ethics and behavior in research environments were discussed at length. This book captures the major content and discussions arising from the conference. The Montréal Conference, like the previous conferences, attracted a diverse group of delegates and speakers, including government and institutional leaders, policy makers, journal editors, officials of research funding agencies, scientists and other researchers, students and postdoctoral fellows, representatives of academic societies and academies, and those responsible for compliance and regulation, as well as many who are engaged in doing empirical research on topics related to research integrity.
The aim of this book is to share the ideas emerging from the rich discussion at the conference with scholars and policymakers around the world. It covers the main topics that are today seen as vital to decision making about responsible research. The book also sets the stage for the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity, which will be held in Brazil in mid-2015.
This book and the prior World Conference publication, Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment , represent the largest ongoing global discussion of issues relating to integrity in research. It provides its readers with the opportunity to learn more about and eventually engage these issues locally or globally with colleagues.
Readership: Researchers, research administrators from funding agencies and similar bodies, research organisations performing research, scientists, universities, policy makers and general public.
Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by: - Amazon Sales Rank: #5193388 in Books
- Brand: Steneck, Nicholas H. (EDT)/ Mayer, Tony (EDT)/ Anderson, Melissa (EDT)
- Published on: 2015-05-31
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 9.10" h x .90" w x 6.20" l, .0 pounds
- Binding: Hardcover
- 332 pages
Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by: From the Inside Flap With a seeming increase in the number of high-profile cases of research misconduct, there is a need for promoting and upholding the principles for the responsible conduct of research. At the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, convened in Montr al in 2013, vital issues relating to ethics and behavior in research environments were discussed at length. This book captures the major content and discussions arising from the conference. The Montr al Conference, like the previous conferences, attracted a diverse group of delegates and speakers, including government and institutional leaders, policy makers, journal editors, officials of research funding agencies, scientists and other researchers, students and postdoctoral fellows, representatives of academic societies and academies, and those responsible for compliance and regulation, as well as many who are engaged in doing empirical research on topics related to research integrity.
The aim of this book is to share the ideas emerging from the rich discussion at the conference with scholars and policymakers around the world. It covers the main topics that are today seen as vital to decision making about responsible research. The book also sets the stage for the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity, which will be held in Brazil in mid-2015.
This book and the prior World Conference publication, Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, represent the largest ongoing global discussion of issues relating to integrity in research. It provides its readers with the opportunity to learn more about and eventually engage these issues locally or globally with colleagues.
About the Author Nicholas H Steneck, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of History and Director, MICHR Research Ethics and Integrity Program, University of Michigan. He is a co-founder of the World Conferences on Research Integrity. Prof. Steneck served as Chair of the national CTSA Clinical Research Ethics Key Functions Committee (2009–2011) and is currently Co-chair of the CTSA Electronic Informed Consent Affinity Group. He also advises and authors courses for the online education company, Epigeum.
Tony Mayer is a geologist studying first at the University of Manchester and then undertaking research at the University of Leicester and later, at University College London. He worked in research management at the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). During the mid-1980s he was seconded to the JOIDES Planning Office of the Ocean Drilling Program at the Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. In 1996, he joined the European Science Foundation (ESF) in Strasbourg France, responsible for strategic policy development. He also served as the first Director of the COST Office in Brussels before moving to Singapore to join the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) for which he continues to act as its European Representative, based in the UK. He is Treasurer and a member of the EuroScience Governing Board. He was the co-organiser and co-Chair of the First and Second World Conferences on Research Integrity.
Melissa S Anderson is associate dean of graduate education and professor of higher education at the University of Minnesota. Her work over the past 25 years has been in the areas of scientific integrity, research collaboration, and academy-industry relations, with particular attention to the research environment. She was principal investigator of a study funded by the US National Institutes of Health on international research collaborations and co-editor, with Nicholas Steneck, of International Research Collaborations: Much to be Gained, Many Ways to Get in Trouble(Routledge, 2010). Professor Anderson chairs the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and serves on the editorial boards of Science and Engineering Ethics, the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, and Accountability in Research. She serves as co-chair, with Sabine Kleinert of The Lancet, of the World Conference on Research Integrity (Montreal, May 5–8, 2013 and Rio de Janeiro, 2015).
Sabine Kleinert studied Medicine in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the USA, and trained as a Paediatrician in the UK and Belgium. After further specialist training in Paediatric Cardiology at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London and the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, and research training at the Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, USA, she joined The Lancet as a full-time Medical Editor in 1998. In March 2002, she became Executive Editor, and in July 2006 Senior Executive Editor. She joined the Committee on Publication Ethics in 1999, was elected to Council in 2002, and served as Vice-Chair from 2006 to March 2012. She is on the steering committee for the World Health Summits, held annually in Berlin, Germany, and was a member of the planning committee of the first and second World Conference on Research Integrity. She now co-chairs the planning committee for the 2013 World Conference on Research Integrity.
Where to Download Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by:
Most helpful customer reviews
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Seeking Uniformity in Research Codes in a Diverse World By John Richard Schrock “Integrity in the Global Research Arena” edited by Nicholas Steneck, Melissa Anderson, Sabine Kleinert, Tony Mayer. © 2015, World Scientific, 310 pages, hardcover. [Note: the below review is in British English as used in most of this volume.]This is the second proceedings on science integrity and is issued on the Third World Conference on Research Integrity convened in Montreal in 2013. The first world conference was held in Portugal in 2007 and the second was in Singapore in 2010 where the first proceedings were published as “Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment.” (The fourth conference was held in Rio de Janeiro in May 2015.) While the first proceedings had 59 chapters and was fairly well edited, this second compendium has 20 fewer chapters and nearly 90 fewer pages, but is laden with grammatical and typological errors, that from the nature of the errors (about one every 2-3 pages throughout most of the text), probably reflects both a rush to publish and, I suspect, text generated by voice recognition and edited only by spell-checking. [This is ironic in a volume that aspires to quality.] It is also unfortunate that these chapters, admittedly descriptive and often by administrators reporting their agencies, rarely have many references. Therefore the discussions of some issues completely leave out seminal and sometimes more in-depth discussions of research ethics, such as the Sigma Xi “Honor in Science” and Broad/Wade “Betrayers of the Truth”, an ironic omission in a compilation on science ethics.This conference and book attempted to build upon the Singapore work to “encourage the development of unified policies, guidelines and codes of conduct....” Unfortunately, while the universalism of science provides boundaries on proper procedures in science research, the various cultural and linguistic contexts are not universal in the way that we constrain research on humans, animals and the environment. In addition, there is a serious concern with enforcement of science integrity with two approaches—professionalism and legalism—in competition in various cultures and histories.The keynote address by Michael J.G. Farthing asks if the various guidelines are sufficient to curb misconduct, then what should be done? His general response centers on registration of clinical trials, increasing detection, and expanding communication and thereby openness. Most worrisome is his passing consideration of licensing researchers.Part 1. The Diversity of National Approaches to Research ActivityChapter 1. “Responsible Conduct of Research: A Canadian Approach” by Susan V. Zimmerman describes a new framework for RCR and the three Canadian research agencies involved in updating the 1994 policies. The “approach is more rigorous because the scope fo good practice is broader than a focus on misconduct.” Implementation involves a panel that reviews “anonymised versions of investigation reports” provided by institutions and is enforced by agreements with institutions with the penalty of losing agency funding.Chapter 2. “With Joined Forces for Research Integrity in Europe: European Network of Research Integrity Offices” by Nicole Foeger describes ENRIO with 21 European countries as members. Brief descriptions are provided of: Denmark, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Croatia, Switzerland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Spain and United Kingdom. A paragraph or two spells out the general guidelines and enforcement for each of these countries.Chapter 3. “Research Ethics and Research Integrity at the European Research Council” by Alessandra Ferrari introduces the ERC and details its operation including the Standing Committee on Conflict of Interests, Scientific Misconduct and Ethical Issues. This discussion includes more items related to conflict-of-interest, etc.Chapter 4. “Building a National Research Integrity Framework: Ireland’s Experience” by Maura Hiney describes the basis for the Irish policy an the use of definitions put forth by the OECD. Similar to other chapters/countries, these new policies and new agencies are works in progress looking at “next steps.”Chapter 5. “Impact in Denmark of the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity” by Nils Axelsen notes that Denmark was the first country after the USA to establish a central bureau on RI. From 1992-2010, following the Lomborg case, their research ministry moved responsibility for rulings on questionable research to the universities who were to establish practice committees. From 2010 to 2013, the Penkowa case caused a review of policy, with movement toward compulsory education in RCR by universities with research. A cartoon is used to illustrate the tensions between various types of universities when research misconduct is revealed.Chapter 6. “Professional Networks Contributing to Research Integrity and Ethics: From Cooperation to Innovation” by Snezana Krstic discusses the networking that results from the world conferences as well as networks among junior researchers, and the Ethics in Research Initiative.Chapter 7. “Updates on Developments in Australia” by Timothy M. Dyke is a very short 3-pages description of the three national standards and a few notes on cases since 2007.Part II. Principles and ResponsibilitiesChapter 8. “Essentials of Determining Authorship” by Ashima Anand attempts in four short pages to reduce the definition of authorship to various criteria, concluding: “...each of those who have been listed as authors should be able to present the work to which their name has been appended. Each should be able to answer the questions put to them and be able to provide future directions.” Unfortunately, this falls far short of addressing the far more complex problems of multi-authored complex research papers, an issue that is more extensively addressed in “Betrayers of the Truth” by Board and Wade.Chapter 9. “Research Conflict of Interest: Flaws in Professional Codes of Ethics” by Charles Marsan and Maude Laliberte defines the aspects of conflict of interest in the healthcare setting. This chapter is unique in only having one typo error and in using extensive citations.Chapter 10. “Error and Fraud: A Sometimes Fuzzy Frontier” by Jean-Pierre Alix provides a brief discussion of this problem.Chapter 11. “Bearing Crosses: A Case Study in Cross-Cultural, Cross-Disciplinary, Cross-Border Higher Degree by Research Supervision” by Karolyn White and Kristina Everett discusses the need for research ethics to be “culturally plural” using a case of research on indigenous peoples when the researcher does not recognize the need for ethics approval.Chapter 12. “Technology and Commitment” by Helene Ingierd discusses use of technology in detecting plagiarism and the message sent of lack of trust. A footnote provides a proposal for a “scientific oath.”Chapter 13. “Sharing of Data from Clinical Trials and research Integrity” by Karmela Krleza-Jeric consists of a one-page graphic.Part III. Responding to Research MisconductChapter 14. “Managing Research Misconduct Investigations: The Top 10 Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them” by Kerry Rehn discusses: 1)failure to follow institutional policies, 2)commissioning a formal investigation without preliminary assessment, 3)failure to secure evidence and protect interests of affected parties, 4)lack of timely notification of regulatory and funding bodies, 5)lack of clarity and investigating matters out fo0 scope, 6)failures in selection and support of investigation panels, 7)misunderstandings and beaches of confidentiality, 8)lack of procedural fairness, 9)deficient investigation and record keeping, and 10)failures in post-investigation. (This section III is mostly free of typo errors.)Chapter 15. “Research Misconduct: Suggested Remedies from a Psychiatrist’s Perspective” by Donald S. Kornfeld considers integrity to be learned far before graduate education and therefore “education in these principles at this stage of life is a futile exercise and adherence to these principles does not require teachable skills” which contradicts other sections advocating RCR education as a solution. This is backed up by a study of 146 closed-case reports but also asserts that “little can be done to change the reality of pressures to publish.” The recommendations include closer relationships with mentors to detect bad apples and protection for whistleblowers.Chapter 16. “Working Against Plagiarism” by Hallvard J. Fossheim first defines plagiarism and its consequences, and then discusses the ideal ethos of science versus the often double standard of hypocrisy in actions.Chapter 17. “Plagiarism as Violation of Law in Norway: On Inappropriate Juridification of Research Ethics” by Ragnvald Kalleberg exposes the problems with trying to police science practice via legalism. As the title indicates, Norway implemented an Act in 2006 that has “stimulated a misguided interpretation of research ethical norms as a kind of legal and administrative norms” and asserts that this causes more problems than it solves. The discussion is an extensive Western law tradition argument on “research ethics misunderstood as administrative rules for institutions and branches.” The author provides concrete examples in cases of both business schools and technical institutes. At this point I want to indicate the lack of the Eastern philosophy and management history that likewise supports this problem with legalism. For over two millennia, China has dealt with contrasting philosophies of “professionalism” in the form of Confucian ethic based in proper expected behavior versus legalism promoted by Han Fei-tze et al. who responded by embedding all actions in legal code. One of the shortcomings of this volume is that it primarily focuses on Western philosophies and perspectives. Therefore, it completely misses the ethical dilemmas faced by Eastern cultural norms such as guanxi, finding middle ground, and “saving face.”Chapter 18. “Research Integrity and Solid Management: The Dutch Experience” by Kees Schuyt focuses on two ideas, the assertion that “Modern science does and must involve teamwork, not the work of loners...” and the techno-cure of improved data management. A casual observation of prior major science breakthroughs such as Newton’s work, Einstein’s major theories or E.O. Wilson’s sociobiology reveals that much great work, and probably the seeds of most breakthrough paradigms come from individual minds and do not involve teamwork. Indeed, it is primarily the more mundane “mining out” of applications of new technological breakthroughs that involve larger teams. Schuyt calls for more colleagues looking over every researcher’s shoulders for “extrinsic motivation”—a proposal that I feel is counterproductive.Chapter 19. “What Lessons Can We Learn from the Stapel Case?” by Pieter J.D. Drenth follows up on the report: “Flawed Science: the Fraudulent Research Practices of Social Psychologist Diederik Stapel,” cases that occurred in universities in Amsterdam, Groningen and Tilburg and which resulted in retractions of 65 articles in international journals. Drenth recommends eight “sharpening of control mechanisms.”Part IV. Fostering Integrity in ResearchChapter 20. “Fostering Scientific Integrity and Assessing the Hidden Curriculum” by Peter Kakuk expresses scepticism “...based on the apparent tension between the formal curriculum of RCR courses and the informal and hidden curriculum of science education.” By hidden curriculum, he refers to the organisational culture of science. He concludes with a recommendation to divide authorship by fractional credit which I consider both unwise and functionally impossible.Chapter 21. “Software for Academic Integrity: The Role of Research Codes, Statements and Declarations in Research Ethics and Integrity” by Laetus O.K. Lategan makes many assertions that some veteran researchers and some philosophers would question: that science is a search for truth, etc. and “ethical codes are a minimum standard for professional behaviour...” opposed by the fact that “one cannot teach people to be ethical,” etc. Additional assertions are that producing a surplus of doctoral students compared to job opportunities means “it is unethical to educate students at a particular level knowing very well that there may be limited opportunities for them” which is highly questionable and also not at the heart of this book’s focus. The author uses nuclear weapons, genetic engineering etc. to assert that “research can easily jeopardise society and its values instead of promoting values that uphold a just and fair society” which opens up a completely different philosophical debate about whether science promotes a particular behavioral ethic or is value neutral, again not the central issue in this book.Chapter 22. “Cooperation Between Journals, Research Institutions and Funders Over Research and Publication Integrity Cases: Defining the Challenges" by Elizabeth Wager and Sabien Kleinert provides background on the COPE guidelines and why journals to not have the resources or standing to investigate research misconduct. Four pages outline issues faced by editors relative to screening for plagiarism, etc.; another page addresses how institutions should respond; two pages discuss investigations; a small section discusses the role of funders. The final paragraphs provide a summary of how to prevent and detect misconduct and errors. However, I can think of some cases of misconduct by publishers that are not addressed here or in this book. This chapters includes two pages of “further reading” and links.Chapter 23. “Blowing the Oboe, Not the Whistle: Creative Accounts about Saving Science from the Unethical” by Joan E. Sieber describes his conclusions from interviewing 135 NIH Pis “who had witnessed research wrongdoing” and uses several vignettes to show how students can be corrected. This is a practical chapter, discussing the “value of storytelling” and brief discussions of the practical actions to address misconduct.Chapter 24. “How Physicians Understand Research Ethics Problems in Russia” by Leyla Akhmadeeva, Gulnara Rayanova and Boris Veytsman describes how medical ethics only became a part of the medical curriculum in Russia a decade ago. This is a short chapter of three pages loaded with survey data.Chapter 25. “Developing Institutional Monitoring Protocols for Humanities and Social Science Research in Taiwan” by Shu-min Huang describes the top-down approach and negative reactions to this approach and a movement toward “self-rule.” The main focus of this social science discussion is IRBs.Part V. Responsible Conduct of Research TrainingChapter 26. “RCR Training in Peking University Health Science Center” by Yali Cong describes the recent requirement that graduate students in most universities publish papers in SCI publications and the resultant pressures. Survey data of 150 graduate students indicate that one-fifth “borrowed” paragraphs without attribution, half were uncertain about the need to provide citations, and over 4 percent had not read the reference papers they listed. However, this author does not know that these rates are not that far off from data secured for Western researchers who often cite indirectly through a secondary source and never read the original reference either. The author discusses the training that is required at the Health Science Center and the need to build an RCR atmosphere. However, there are much deeper concerns in the Chinese higher educational system to be addressed that are simply not discussed here, including guanxi, honorary authorship, lack of understanding of the definition and damage of plagiarism due to requiring all theses and dissertations to be scanned, etc.Chapter 27. “Reflections on Teaching RCR at an US Engineering Institution by Jason Borenstein addresses the rationale for RCR education. However, I strongly disagree with his assertion that if administrators “buy in” to the need to comply, then it reduces the burden on individual PIs. This is in complete contradiction to earlier papers in this book stressing the critical role of mentors as overseers and models of good conduct, and reflects the legalism cure for what is a professionalism ailment. Borenstein does discuss generic RCR courses versus courses specific to the research discipline.Chapter 28. “Research Integrity Management Framework for Joint PhD and Cotutelle Candidates at Macquarie University” by Ren Yi describes “cotutelle” as joint supervision across separate universities and shows such joint efforts expanding greatly since 2006. China, Germany and France cooperatives account for two-thirds of these arrangements with this Australian university. This short treatise emphasizes the importance of all parties understanding all of the involved standards.Chapter 29. “Learning Theory Applied to Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Instructional Design: A Case Study Assessing Research Integrity Training for Cross-Sector Science Trainees” by Camille Nebecker is a chapter that scientists can skip over, being about as valuable as a chapter on leeching would be in a medical conference. Loaded with educationist terminology on metacognitive assessment tools, contextualizing, and assessing whether instructional strategies for independent learning were carried out, there really is nothing in this chapter to aid the RCR problem.Chapter 30. “Teaching Good Scientific Practice and Curricular Development in Germany” by Helga Nolte, Michael Gommel, and Gerlinde Sponholz provides little in the way of data to back up the general observations that teaching RCR can “foster the process of prevention through education....”Chapter 31. “The University as a Learning Environment for Research Ethics” by Erika Lofstrom and Minka Rissanen is a slightly better study of students in the behavioral sciences and their ability to recognize ethical issues in research and whether this correlates with empathy, socialisation, etc. using a standard instrument using sub-scales including competition, solidarity and individualism. Small sample size and response rate, in addition to the students being in psychology rather than the hard sciences, make conclusions tentative.Part VI. Integrity and SocietyChapter 32. “Intersection of research Integrity with Social responsibility” by Mark S. Frankel stresses “...the link between a scientist’s professional and social responsibilities as they apply to research integrity.” While his assertion would seem to make it impossible for a scientist to pursue research alone on a desert island, I do not expect that philosophical depth nor that extreme case to totally obviate his thesis. There is a brief discussion of whether to publish research that could be used for bioterrorism or self-censor, and uses a variety of recent cases. This discussion however is brief, shallow and inconclusive.Chapter 33. “Societal Consideration as Willingness to Dialogue—A Commentary to Singapore Statement Point N. 14" by Danielle Fanelli and 8 other authors address the last point of the prior Singapore Statement: “Researchers and research institutions should recognize that they have an ethical obligation to weigh societal benefits against risks inherent in their work.” This commentary details the various points, but overall there seems to be no distinction between the requirements of science-as-science and science-effects-in-the-context-of-the-affected society, which is to say that there is no science reason not to conduct research on a cow, but in India where a cow may be considered to be a reincarnated relative, the research cannot then be done. There are seven general “fundamental points” briefly described and their superficial wording begs for the participation of experts in bioethics. A 3-page “Appendix” follows this chapter as a “non-exclusive list of research questions.”Chapter 34. “Where research Integrity and Scientific Reporting Converge, Animal Welfare Stands to Benefit” by Nicola J. Osborne discuses the RSPCA’s attempts to convince journals and journal editors to make clear the nature fo research that they will publish. This includes the analysis of 385 English language journals and their publication policies and one-fourth did not mention the word “animal”, a decline from 40 percent that previously did not have such a policy. They used a point-system to evaluate animal policies and 36 percent improved their policies while 11 journals decreased in scores. Of course, this association promotes the “3 Rs” including reduction, but not mentioned here is the fact that recent genome work has caused a dramatic new age of animal research to explore the genome-phenotype connection. This is therefore an animal welfare-oriented article that asserts that this journal limitation on the nature of animal research will be “critical in ensuring results are reliable, reproducible and scientifically valid” when actually it is not relevant at all to the topic of research integrity.Chapter 35. “Geoethics: A Challenge for Research Integrity in Geosciences” by Silvia Peppoloni, Peter Bobrowsky and Guiseppe De Capua defines “geoethics” and further discusses this in terms of “respect for Nature” and “fostering the proper and correct dissemination of the results....” Like a few other chapters, the term “truth” is used which is an indication of not-very-careful philosophical discussion; a better phraseology would involve correspondence with physical reality, etc. Finally the International Association for Promoting Geoethics or IAPG is described.Chapter 36. “Principles for Building Public/Private Partnerships to Benefit Public Health” by Sylvia Rowe cursorily discusses the conflict of interest situation with public/private partnerships and notes some guidelines that include science with an “appropriately phrased hypothesis” etc. which really reveals naivete in how science functions. This discussion si more than cursory and has valuable references, but still falls short of resolving the conflicts fo interest between private science that wishes to maintain secret proprietary knowledge and the publicly-known science that propels future research for the public good.Chapter 37. “Research Integrity and Governance in Contentious Policy Arenas: An Exploration of Coal Seam Gas Debates in Australia” by Naomi Smith Devetak is a practical discussion of the private-public interface between coal seam gas research and public science. This discusses but does not resolve the issues between private knowledge and socially robust knowledge.Because these international discussions soon expand to use a specialized jargon based on abbreviations and acronyms, I am providing the following legend of acronyms.AcronymsALLEA European Federation of Academies of Sciences and HumanitiesARC Australian Research CouncilCESHE Committee for Ethics in Science and Higher EducationCFRS Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of ScienceCoI Conflict of InterestCoIME Standing Committee on Conflict of Interests, Scientific Misconduct and Ethical IssuesCOPE Committee on Publication Ethics (UK)CSG Coal Seam GasCSIC Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (Spain)DCSD Danish Committee on Scientific DishonestyDFG German Research FoundationENRIO European Network of Research Integrity OfficesERC European Research CouncilERCEA European Research Council Executive AgencyESF European Science FoundationFFP Fabrication, Falsification and PlagiarismFNR National Research Fund (Luxembourg)GFD German Research FoundationGRP Good Research PracticeHRPP Human Research Protection Platform (Taiwan)IAPG International Association for Promoting GeoethicsICSU International Council of Scientists (India)IF Impact FactorILSI International Life Science Institute North AmericaIRB Institutional Review BoardISEC Independent Scientific Experts Committee (Australia)LOWI National Board for Research Integrity (Netherlands)NHMRC National Health and Medical Research CouncilOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOLAF European Commission’s European Anti-Fraud OfficePPP Public/Private PartnershipsQRP Questionable Research PracticeRCR Responsible Conduct of ResearchRI Research IntegrityRM Research MisconductSAMS Swiss Academies of Arts and SciencesSCI Science Citation IndexSRDA Slovak Research and Development AgencySTS Science and Technology StudyTAIRB Taiwan Association of IRBsUKRIO United Kingdom Research Integrity OfficeWCRI World Congress on Research Integrity
See all 1 customer reviews...
Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by:
Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by: PDF
Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by: iBooks
Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by: ePub
Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by: rtf
Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by: AZW
Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by: Kindle
Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by:
Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by:
Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by:
Integrity in the Global Research Arena, by Edited by:
