Research

This page is for sharing and opening my dissertation work. The page, as life itself, not to mention dissertations, will be under constant construction. These are the things I wish to share here at one point or another:

  • Literature references
  • Papers
  • Grant applications
  • Data
  • Ethical review documents
  • Documents related to interviews: information for interviewees, questions, consent forms

References

I am experimenting with sharing my references via RefWorks. Not sure yet how it works exactly (or if RefWorks is the best option, but it’s provided by Uni. of Helsinki, so unless it proves to be a complete disaster I’ll stick with it), so comment and advice welcome. At least for the time being I’m not sharing direct links or documents for fear of copyright violations

RefWorks folders

Responsible conduct for research >

Guidelines

The journal Lancet reported in 2013 about there being 49 sets of ethical guidelines for research in place in 19 European countries. The ALLEA (All European Academies) standing committee on research ethics lists at it’s website 17 European national level guidelines, 9 Pan-European guidelines and 17 other guidelines (including f.e. Japan, Brazil, USA as well as Unesco and OECD). I will try to make sense of the mess, for myself at least, and add here links to all ethical guidelines I come across during my adventures on the internet. If I have the time and the energy, I will also try and provide a short comment on every guideline.

National 

Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland
These guidelines, written by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity, are at the core of my research. The first version (of sorts) was published in 1994, with a minor update in 1998. A more significant update saw the light of day in 2002, which was again replaced by an revised version in 2013 (although called the 2012 guidelines).

International

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
The European Code is the result of co-operation between the European Science Foundation (ESF) and the All European Academies (ALLEA). The two organizations used to pack more punch in 2010, when the Code was launched, but they are picking themselves up after some less glorious years. However, I don’t think their shifting statuses have affected the standing of the Code much. The former is now reinventing itself, while passing some of it’s previous duties to Science Europe, while the latter is also facing some new challenges.

This is how the purpose of the Code is described in the foreword:  “The Code addresses the proper conduct and principled practice of systematic research in the medical, natural and social sciences and the humanities. It stands as a canon for self-regulation with clear recommendations, and is now on the way to being taken as a reference template for implementation throughout Europe. It is not intended to replace existing national or academic guidelines, but to represent a Europe-wide agreement on a set of principles and priorities for the research community.

The Montreal Statement
The Third World Conference on Research Integrity published the Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations. The statement builds on the Singapore Statement (see below).

The Singapore Statement
The Singapore Statement was drafted at the 2010 Second World Conference on Research Integrity, held in Singapore. It was penned by conference co-chairs, Nicholas Steneck (University of Michigan) and Tony Mayer (Nanyang Technological University), and the incoming chair for the next World Conference, Melissa Anderson (University of Minnesota).

Related

Report by the Dutch Academy of Sciences (KNAW): Responsible Data Management and the Prevention of Scientific Misconduct
In the aftermath of the highly publicized and highly embarassing Diederik Stapel data fabrication case the Dutch Academy of Sciences did the right thing: instead of blaming the scandal on individuals, they started to wonder whether there was something amiss with the current research culture, especially in regards to data management. The pondering led to a survey, which led to a report. Did the report lead to anything? That I am not aware of, but at least it makes for interesting reading.

2 thoughts on “Research

  1. Pingback: What is research misconduct and why it matters for open science | THE HONEST BROKER

  2. Pingback: New Year’s Resolutions: My Open Pledge | THE HONEST BROKER

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s