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. C1. Research Misconduct

    Research Ethics Testi2023

    Animated navigation - turn off
    Animated navigation - turn off
    • C1. Research Misconduct

      • Research Misconduct

        TENK

        Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity
        Responsible Conduct of Research 2023


        Conducting scientific work 

        Plan, carry out and document scientific activities carefully and, where possible, in accordance with the principles of open science. Include previous research in the planning process. Apply for funding for scientific activities truthfully and use the funds allocated to the activities as agreed. 


        Research Misconduct is defined as:

        Research misconduct distorts research findings and misleads the research community, decision-makers or the general public. In addition, it weakens the value of scientific work, its results or outputs and the appreciation of science while harming the other authors and participants in scientific work.

        In Finland, research misconduct is classified according to international practice into three subcategories, which are fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. This section discusses fabrication and falsification in detail. Plagiarism is discussed in section D1.


        Fabrication refers to presenting fake observations, research data or results. For example when the observations presented in a scientific report have not been made in the manner or with the methods described in the report. 

        Falsification is unjustified modification of research data. Falsification of observations refers to modifying and presenting original observations so that the results based on those observations are distorted. The falsification of results refers to the unfounded modification or selection of results. Falsification can be found in publications, manuscripts intended for publication, educational materials or funding applications. Falsification also refers to the omission of results or information that is essential for the conclusions. 

        ______________________________________________________________


        C1 - LECTURE_Fabrication_Falsification.m4v

        Transcript

        Handout



        C1. Quiz - Research Misconduct 


        C1.1. Case Study - Colleague "X"

        C1.2. Case Study - Potential Misconduct and Peer-Review

        C1.3. Case Study - An unsuccessful grant application



        C1. Optional Reflective Activity - Misconduct 

        Resources

        • Faneli (2009): How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE4(5):e5738
        • Fang etl. al. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications, PNAS
        • Wicherts Jelte M. et. al. (2016): Degrees of Freedom in Planning, Running, Analyzing, and Reporting Psychological Studies: A Checklist to Avoid p-Hacking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7:16.  Article on how to avoid falsification when it comes to statistics and setting up your research. Written for psychologists but contains great advice for anyone collecting and analysing data.


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