Resources

 

 

A. General Resources

B. Authorship, Publication and Presentation

C. Responsible Conduct of Research

D. Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism

E. External Resources

F. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Research Misconduct includes fabrication, falsification or misrepresentation of data, plagiarism or other wrongdoing in printing, designing, performing recording, supervising or reviewing research or in reporting research results or in breaching other relevant national legislation, rules and guidelines. It also includes self-plagiarism with the undisclosed publication of similar papers in different journals. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.

The resources found on this website are aimed at helping researchers learn more about how integrity in research can be practiced. However, the resources provided are not exhaustive and those engaged in research are required to be updated on best practices. If you have any queries a specific area of research or are unsure about how the policies and guidelines reflected in this website apply to you, please Contact Us.

Information regarding the RI Online Programme can be found here. If you have a specific question not found in this list, please Contact Us.

If you are facing issues completing the RI delcaration, please get in touch with a Research Integrity Point of Contact (RIPOC) from your school / institute. If you are unsure who your school's / institute's RIPOC is, please get in touch with us at [email protected]

All reports made regarding allegations of research misconduct in all its aspects will be handled with strict confidentiality. However, in the course of an investigation, details of the complainant may become apparent, for instance when the relationship between him and the respondent is made known. In all cases, the University does not condone any possible retaliation to the complainant and will employ best efforts to protect his identity.  

 

G. Reading Materials

  1. Steneck, N.H. (2007) "Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research". Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/rcrintro.pdf
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (2014) "For the Sound Development of Science: The Attitude of a Conscientious Scientist". Retrieved from https://www.jsps.go.jp/j-kousei/data/rinri_e.pdf
  3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. (2017) "Fostering Integrity in Research". 
  4. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s Core Pactices.
  5. ICMJE Recommendations​
  6. ​​​​Everyone needs a data-management plan. Nature 555, 286 (2018). doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-03065-z "They sound dull, but data-management plans are essential, and funders must explain why."
  7. Data management made simple​. Nature 555, 403-405 (2018). doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-03071-1 "Keeping your research data freely available is crucial for open science - and your funding could depend on it."
  8. "​Keeping science honest", by Josefin Sundin and Fredrik Jutfelt. Science, Vol 359, Issue 6383, pp. 1443. doi:10.1126/science.aat3473  
  9. 'UK trials of airway transplants are in limbo​', by Matt Warren. Science, Vol 359, Issue 6383, pp. 1448-1450. doi:10.1126/science.359.6383.1448      ​
  10. The Hague Ethical Guidelines​ for responsible conduct in the chemical sciences.
  11. ​​Before reproducibility ​must come preproducibility​. Nature ​557, 613 (2018). doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05256-0​
    "Instead of arguing about whether results hold up, let’s push to provide enough information for others to repeat the experiments, says Philip Stark."​
  12. House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee's Sixth Report of Session 2017-2019, Research Integrity.
  13. "Tide of Lies", by Kai Kupferschmidt. Science, Vol 361, Issue 6403, pp. 636-641. doi: 10.1126/science.361.6403.636
  14. "India targets universities in predatory-journal crackdown", by Subhra Priyadarshini. Nature 560, 537-538 (2018). doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-06048-2
  15. Infographics on the responsible conduct of research and handling of research misconduct.
  16. "Thousands of scientists publish a paper every 5 days", by John P.A. Ioannidis, Richard Klavans & Kevin W. Boyack. Nature 561, 167-169 (2018). doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-06185-8
  17. "Predatory conference scammers are getting smarter", by Emma Stoye. 
  18. "Systematic fabrication of scientific images revealed", by Jana Christopher. FEBS Letters, Vol 592, p3027-9 (26 Jul 2018).
  19. "Research on research", by Martin Enserink. Science, Vol 361, Issue 6408, pp. 1178-1179. doi: 10.1126/science.361.6408.1178
  20. "Journals under the microscope", by Jennifer Couzin-Frankel. Science, Vol 361, Issue 6408, pp. 1180-1183. doi: 10.1126/science.361.6408.1180
  21. "The metawars", by Jop de Vrieze. Science, Vol 361, Issue 6408, pp.1184-1188. doi: 10.1126/science.361.6408.1178
  22. "The truth squad", by Erik Stokstad. Science, Vol 361, Issue 6408, pp. 1189-1191. doi: 10.1126/science.361.6408.1189
  23. "A recipe for rigor", by Kai Kupferschmidt. Science, Vol 361, Issue 6408, pp.1192-1193. doi: 10.1126/science.361.6408.1192
  24. "Toward a more scientific science", by Pierre Azoulay et.al. Science, Vol 361, Issue 6408, pp.1194-1197. doi: 10.1126/science.aav2484
  25. Science, Vol 361 (21 September 2018).
  26. "Avoiding Predatory Journals and Questionable Conferences: A Resource Guide (2018)", by Eaton, Sarah Elaine. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/20
  27. "Exploring publication ethics in the arts, humanities, and social sciences: A COPE study 2019"
    https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.4.1
  28. "10 Types of Plagiarism in Research, by Helen Eassom. (2 Feb 2016)
 

Reproducibility

  1. "Robust research needs many lines of evidence", by Munafo and Smith. Nature, Vol 553:399. (25 Jan 2018)
  2. "Challenge to scientists: does your ten-year-old code still run?", by Jeffrey M. Perkel. Nature, Vol 584: 656-658. (24 Aug 2020)
 

Institutional Frameworks

  1. "Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk", by Niels Mejlgaard et.al. Nature, Vol 586:358-360. (12 Oct 2020)