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. All Case Studies

    Research Ethics Testi2023

    Animated navigation - turn off
    Animated navigation - turn off
    • All Case Studies

      Here you can find all case studies and read them at your leisure. Some of the cases are shorter than others, and we've decided to leave the shortest ones out of the actual group discussion.


      • B. Ethics in Research Planning

      • B1.1. Case Study - Research Context
        B1.1. Case Study - Research Context
      • B1.2. Case Study - Industrially-sponsored research and confidentiality
        B1.2. Case Study - Industrially-sponsored research and confidentiality
      • B1.3. Case Study - Industrially-sponsored research and conflict of interests
        B1.3. Case Study - Industrially-sponsored research and conflict of interests
      • B2.1. Case Study - Professor Helsinki
        B2.1. Case Study - Professor Helsinki
      • B2.2. Case Study - Workplace Recruiters
        B2.2. Case Study - Workplace Recruiters
      • B2.3. Case Study - Police and Rescue Training Methods
        B2.3. Case Study - Police and Rescue Training Methods
      • B2.4 Case Study – Doing Research in Tinder
        B2.4 Case Study – Doing Research in Tinder
      • B3.1. Case Study - Dr. Apple
        B3.1. Case Study - Dr. Apple
      • B3.2. Case Study - Dr. Sears
        B3.2. Case Study - Dr. Sears
      • B3.3. Case Study - PhD Student and Data Ownership
        B3.3. Case Study - PhD Student and Data Ownership
      • B3.4. Case Study - Another PhD Student and Data Ownership
        B3.4. Case Study - Another PhD Student and Data Ownership
      • B3.5. Case Study - Third PhD Student and Data Ownership
        B3.5. Case Study - Third PhD Student and Data Ownership
      • B4.1. Case Study - Bill and Sara
        B4.1. Case Study - Bill and Sara
      • B4.2. Case Study - Two kinds of research environments
        B4.2. Case Study - Two kinds of research environments
      • B4.3. Case Study - New Collaborators
        B4.3. Case Study - New Collaborators

      • C. Ethics in Conducting Research

      • C1.1. Case Study - Colleague X
        C1.1. Case Study - Colleague X
      • C1.2. Case Study - Potential Misconduct and Peer-Review
        C1.2. Case Study - Potential Misconduct and Peer-Review
      • C1.3. Case Study - An unsuccessful grant application
        C1.3. Case Study - An unsuccessful grant application
      • C2.1. Case Study - Research Misconduct and Supervision
        C2.1. Case Study - Research Misconduct and Supervision
      • C2.2. Case Study - Misconduct and Mentoring
        C2.2. Case Study - Misconduct and Mentoring

      • D. Ethics and Sharing Research Results

      • D1.1. Case Study - The Role of the Editor
        D1.1. Case Study - The Role of the Editor
      • D1.2. Case Study - Self-plagiarism
        D1.2. Case Study - Self-plagiarism
      • D1.3. Case Study - Plagiarism and Peer-Review
        D1.3. Case Study - Plagiarism and Peer-Review
      • D2.1. Case Study - Determining Author Order
        D2.1. Case Study - Determining Author Order
      • D2.2. Case Study - Assessing Author Contribution
        D2.2. Case Study - Assessing Author Contribution
      • D2.3. Case Study - Chancellor
        D2.3. Case Study - Chancellor
      • D2.4. Case Study - Dr. White
        D2.4. Case Study - Dr. White
      • D2.5. Case Study - Dr. Quick
        D2.5. Case Study - Dr. Quick
      • D3.1. Case Study - Peer-review and confidentiality
        D3.1. Case Study - Peer-review and confidentiality
      • D3.2. Case Study - Shared peer-review?
        D3.2. Case Study - Shared peer-review?
      • D.3.3. Putting Social Advocacy Before the Data
        D.3.3. Putting Social Advocacy Before the Data
      • D4.1. The Magic Key
        D4.1. The Magic Key
      • D4.2. Should Scientific Research Be Censored?
        D4.2. Should Scientific Research Be Censored?

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