Skip to main content
FinDocNet
  • Home
  • More
English ‎(en)‎
English ‎(en)‎ Suomi ‎(fi)‎
You are currently using guest access
Log in
Home
Research Ethics Testi2023
33
 
33.3% Completed 1 / 3

Contents

    • Page
      Page
      Page
      Key course documents
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      A1. Optional Reflective Activity - Research ethics in your research
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      A2. MANDATORY Reflective Activity - Thinking through ethics
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      B1.1 Optional Reflective Activity - Your research context
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      B1.2 MANDATORY Reflective Activity - Subjectivity Statement
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      B2. Optional Reflective Activity - Exploring your values
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      C1. Optional Reflective Activity - Misconduct
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      C2. Optional Reflective Activity - Supervision
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      C3. Optional Reflective Activity - Research Funding
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      D1.Optional Reflective activity - plagiarism
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      D2. Optional Reflective Activity - Authorship
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      D3. Optional Reflective Activity - choosing a journal
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B1.1. Case Study - Research Context
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B1.2. Case Study - Industrially-sponsored research and confidentiality
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B1.3. Case Study - Industrially-sponsored research and conflict of interests
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B2.1. Case Study - Professor Helsinki
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B2.2. Case Study - Workplace Recruiters
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B2.3. Case Study - Police and Rescue Training Methods
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B2.4 Case Study – Doing Research in Tinder
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.1. Case Study - Dr. Apple
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.2. Case Study - Dr. Sears
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.3. Case Study - PhD Student and Data Ownership
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.4. Case Study - Another PhD Student and Data Ownership
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.5. Case Study - Third PhD Student and Data Ownership
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B4.1. Case Study - Bill and Sara
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B4.2. Case Study - Two kinds of research environments
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B4.3. Case Study - New Collaborators
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C1.1. Case Study - Colleague X
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C1.2. Case Study - Potential Misconduct and Peer-Review
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C1.3. Case Study - An unsuccessful grant application
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C2.1. Case Study - Research Misconduct and Supervision
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C2.2. Case Study - Misconduct and Mentoring
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D1.1. Case Study - The Role of the Editor
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D1.2. Case Study - Self-plagiarism
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D1.3. Case Study - Plagiarism and Peer-Review
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.1. Case Study - Determining Author Order
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.2. Case Study - Assessing Author Contribution
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.3. Case Study - Chancellor
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.4. Case Study - Dr. White
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.5. Case Study - Dr. Quick
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D3.1. Case Study - Peer-review and confidentiality
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D3.2. Case Study - Shared peer-review?
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D.3.3. Putting Social Advocacy Before the Data
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D4.1. The Magic Key
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D4.2. Should Scientific Research Be Censored?
    Skip Ohjaaja/Yhteystiedot
    Ohjaaja/Yhteystiedot

    Etunimi Sukunimi

    555 123 4567

    etunimi.sukunimi@sposti.fi

    Tähän voit laittaa tiedot kuka ohjaaja on ja kuinka hänet tavoittaa. Jos tälle ei ole tarvetta, lohkon voi poistaa. 

    Skip Upcoming events
    Upcoming events
    There are no upcoming events
    Go to calendar...
    1. Home
    2. Courses
    3. Tohtorikoulutusverkosto
    4. Vanhat Download-kurssit
    5. RE_Testi23
    6. D2. Authorship

    Research Ethics Testi2023

    Animated navigation - turn off
    Animated navigation - turn off
    • D2. Authorship

      • Authorship

        TENK

        Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity
        Responsible Conduct of Research 2023

        Authorship, publishing and dissemination

        Follow recommendations when agreeing on authorship and authors’ name order in scientific and other publications. International authorship guidelines are binding in Finland only if the authors have agreed so in advance. Communicate about scientific activities honestly and openly irrespective of the publication format or channel. Always inform collaborative partners when about to publish materials on related scientific activities. Specify sources of funding and commitments for each author in publications.

        Activities that violate RCR

        Violation of authorship

        • Inadequate or inappropriate references to earlier results
        • Omitting the name of a researcher who made a significant contribution to the scientific activity from the list of authors
        •  Other types of denigration of other researchers’ contributions, for example neglecting to mention them in publications or similar works
        • Manipulation of authorship by other means, such as including persons in the list of authors who did not participate in the research or by taking credit for work produced by what is referred to as ghost authors

        ______________________________________________________________


        These learning materials explore potential ethical challenges around authorship, including consideration of 

            1. who should be an author, 
            2. what are the responsibilities of an author and 
            3. what the journals are doing around authorship challenges. 

        Lecture - Authorship

        D2_LECTURE_Authorship.m4v

        Transcript

        Handout


        D2. Quiz - Authorship 


        D2.1. Case Study - Determining Author Order

        D2.2. Case Study - Assessing Author Contribution

        D2.3. Case Study - Chancellor of the University

        D2.4. Case Study - Dr. White

        D 2.5. Case Study - Dr. Quick



        D2. Optional Reflective Activity - Authorship

        Resources:

        • Agreeing on authorship. Recommendations for research publications - Finnish National Board on Research Integrity 2018
        • From the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE):
          • How to handle authorship disputes - a guide to new researchers
          • What constitutes Authorship - discussion document
        • ICMJE: Vancouver guidelines
        • Elsevier - Example of an Authorship statement



    You are currently using guest access (Log in)
    Policies
    Home
    • English ‎(en)‎
      • English ‎(en)‎
      • Suomi ‎(fi)‎