在线观看视频高清无删减 汤姆在线 多多影院私人电影 汤姆影视在线观看岁 好大哥dgdg 嫩草官网 私人影视官网 骚虎视频 啦啦啦在线观看免费视频 好男人视频在线电影 野花在线观看免费视频 科蚪窝网 汤姆叔淑网站 汤姆首页 两个人看的视频啦啦啦啦 汤姆高清在线观看入口 啦啦啦在线观看免费视频 优优在线 电影免费看 骚虎在线观看 汤姆猫网站 月夜影视 汤姆首页 免费无限资源 小视频在线观看流畅黄 汤姆最新官网 骚虎官网 新视觉影院 桃红世界网站进入 bt天堂网.www在线 嘟嘟影院 嘟嘟影音网站 一个人看免费视频WWW 国自产精品手机在线视频 两个人看的视频在线观看 骚虎视频 无限资源好看片' 影视大全高清版 影视大全 汤姆影视在线观看岁 久久电影网 嘟嘟影音网站 骚虎app 青苹果乐园影院免费 草蜢社区在线观看 私人官网影视 木瓜影院 影视大全高清版 青苹果乐园影院免费观看 好男人视频在线电影 禁啪啪午夜剧场 四虎影院 骚虎 性爱片福利 最近中文字幕在线完整视频 免费无限资源 骚虎官网 野花在线观看免费视频 最新TOM影院入口在线观看 影视大全免费追剧 在线看免费韩国电影 骚虎官方 汤姆影视在线观看 MD传媒免费全集观看在线观看 午夜剧场 在线看免费韩国电影 汤姆官网 影院在线 午夜剧场 私人官网影视 骚虎官方 汤姆影视在线观看岁 新视觉影院 韩国午夜片线观看 私人电影网 骚虎高清影院 日本伦理剧在线观看 免费无限资源 两个人的免费视频完整版 两个人的免费视频完整版 午夜剧场 新视觉影院 汤姆影院官网首页 欧美视频 免费视频频在线观看 御用导航 御用导航提示页面汤姆骚虎 虎骚视频 汤姆影视最新出口 好男人视频在线电影 韩国午夜片线观看 骚虎视频 骚虎影视 汤姆影视最新出口 亚洲精品 骚虎入口 骚虎tv 汤姆叔叔 啦啦啦免费观看视频6 啦啦啦在线视频免费看

Research integrity

Keele University expects its researchers to observe the highest standards of integrity when undertaking research. This section defines research integrity and provides detail and resources about our research misconduct procedures, code of good research practice, how to contact the research integrity team and links to the research integrity talks

Research integrity is defined as maintaining high quality and robust research practices throughout a research project.  It is about ensuring that, from idea conception through design, conduct, collection and recording of data, reporting and dissemination of findings, to the application and exploitation of findings, all practices are conducted in an honest and transparent manner.  For a more detailed definition of research integrity please see page 6 of the revised Concordat to support research integrity.

As detailed in the Keele University Research Integrity Policy, Keele University is committed to the standards of research integrity outlined in the revised Concordat to support research integrity.  The five commitments described in the Concordat to support research integrity are:

  1. Maintaining the highest standards of research integrity
  2. Ensuring that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards
  3. Supporting a research environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity and based on good governance, best practice and support for the development of researchers
  4. Dealing with allegations of research misconduct using transparent, timely, robust and fair processes
  5. Work together to strengthen the integrity of research and to review progress regularly and openly

The Code of Good Research Practice outlines Keele’s commitment to research integrity as an employer and details the expectations of those conducting research on behalf of Keele.

Professor David Amigoni - Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research & Enterprise is the institutional lead for research integrity at Keele, he is supported by Dr Jim Grange, Academic Lead for Research Integrity and Improvement, and Dr Tracy Nevatte, Head of Project Assurance.  This team is responsible for developing initiatives to raise awareness of research integrity and enhancing the research culture at Keele.  


The Research Committee is responsible for the oversight of research integrity matters at Keele, with escalation of concerns to the Senate if required. 

Keele's main contact for research integrity is:

Professor David Amigoni
Pro Vice Chancellor for Research & Enterprise
Room CM2.15
Claus Moser Research Centre
Keele University
Staffordshire
ST5 5BG

Email: d.amigoni@keele.ac.uk
Tel: +44(0)1782 733209

The administrative contact is:

Dr Tracy Nevatte
Head of Project Assurance
Directorate of Research, Innovation and Engagement
David Weatherall Building
Keele University
Staffordshire
ST5 5BG

Email: t.nevatte@keele.ac.uk
Tel: +44(0)1782 732975

or you can contact:

Dr Jim Grange
Academic Lead for Research Integrity and Improvement
DH1.28 - Dorothy Hodgkin Building
Keele University
Staffordshire
ST5 5BG

E-mail: j.a.grange@keele.ac.uk
Tel: +44(0)1782 733389

Allegations of research misconduct should be made, in writing, to the relevant Associate Dean for Research/Research Institute/School Director. Where the subject of the complaint/allegation is the Associate Dean for Research/Research Institute/School Director themselves, the complaint should be made to the relevant Dean. A copy should also be sent to the Human Resources Department.

If you wish to contact the Research Integrity team about research misconduct or any other related query, please email the Research Integrity team at research.integrity@keele.ac.uk, this can be used for allegations of research misconduct or general queries.

 

Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Research Integrity Champion - Dr Sarah Hart

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Research Integrity Champion - Dr Mark Eccleston-Turner

Faculty of Life Sciences Research Integrity Champion - Dr Sue Sherman

In accordance with the Concordat to support research integrity, Keele University produces an annual statement that is made publicly available.  The current Research Integrity Annual Statement 2019-20 is available.

Archive Annual Research Integrity Statements:

Research misconduct is when individuals fail to meet the standards of research integrity i.e. ethical, legal and professional standards, honesty, transparency and safety.  Examples of misconduct include fabrication of results, manipulation of images, conducting unethical research, breaches of legislation and plagiarism.  The misconduct can be through negligence or intentional.  The revised Concordat to support research integrity has a more detailed definition of Research Misconduct and is the definition that Keele University also uses.

Keele University has a process for dealing with allegations of research misconduct that is described in the Research Misconduct Procedure.

If you would like to contact the University about an allegation of research misconduct please see the contact section above.

Public and academic trust in publications has been eroded over time due to poor practice and integrity.  The China’s Publication Bazaar article (Science 2013 (342) 1035-39) and other articles have highlighted the practices of ghost writers, authorship, data and papers for sale as some of the main issues.  In some countries large financial rewards have been provided to authors of high-impact articles as described in this Nature article.  Dr Irene Hames gave a presentation, at a UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) event, which covereds publication ethics.  The majority of issues which arise are related to authorship, peer review and images.  This article has a useful figure (figure 2) describing misconduct in relation to publications.

Authorship and contributorship

Issues around authorship occur in all disciplines and are not confined to the biomedical sciences. 

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has published guidance on integrity and authorship and has a database of cases that can be searched as guidance and as an educational tool.  

It is recommended that the research lead outlines authorship order at the start of the project and highlights that it may be updated due to changes in contribution as the project progresses.  This should be an ongoing dialogue that continues throughout the project.  The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) authorship guidelines can be too rigid and are open to abuse but McNutt et al (2018) have suggested alternative authorship policies.

If a PhD student contributes the majority of the work for a publication they must be the primary author and not replaced by the research lead or head of the research group.  It does not matter what career stage an author is at, it is their contribution to the research that determines their place in the author list.

The Bullied into Bad Science campaign is aimed at supporting early career researchers.   If you are an early career researcher and feel that it is difficult to directly challenge a more senior academic, the authorship guidelines from COPE and the McNutt et al (2018) article may be useful tools to indirectly engage in dialogue.  Please remember you can contact your Faculty Research Integrity Champion, our Academic Lead for Research Integrity and Improvement or the institutional lead for Research Integrity for support.

Ghost writers, those that write a paper and are not listed as an author or ‘guest writers’ that appear in the author list without any contribution to the work, are not acceptable practices and are not supported by Keele University.

The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations is a useful standard when dealing with authorship in research collaborations. The Contributors Roles Taxonomy is a useful tool that can help to define an individual's contribution to a publication and is becoming more widely adopted by journals and publishers.

It is recommended that all researchers register with ORCiD to get an ORCID iD which is your unique digital identifier as a researcher.

Peer review

Dr Jane Alfred gave a  presentation, at a UKRIO event about publication ethics, which highlights some of the issues with the peer review system.  Peer review must be ethical and robust. Again, trust in the peer review system has been eroded due to poor conduct and integrity.  The classic peer review system lacks transparency, for example authors can suggest reviewers that they have worked with introducing bias into the review process.  Occasionally academics are asked to review an article or application in a field that is not aligned with their expertise, if this happens to you it is ok to reject the request you should never feel pressured to complete a review.

Images

Image manipulation to falsify results is an unacceptable practice and yet is often reported.  Jana Christopher gave a presentation, at a UKRIO publication ethics event, which highlights some of the practices that have been identified during her role as an Image Data Integrity Analyst.  Journals are moving towards routine screening of images following publications such as Bik et al 2018 highlighting the extent of the problem.  It is recommended that you work as much as possible with the primary data to create images and to keep the primary data in an unadulterated format so that it can be provided to the journal at submission or is available if requested.  Some alterations are acceptable for example using contrast to improve the quality of an image but it is not acceptable to increase the contrast to a point where data are obscured.  If you are unsure, this article by Cromey (2010) may be a useful resource.  In a move to prevent the publication of altered images PLOS ONE and PLOS Biology updated their submission policy in 2019, so that raw gel and blot data must be provided at submission.

Predatory journals and publishers

Predatory publishers and journals suffer from a lack of transparency and quality, and generally cannot be trusted.  You may have received an email from one asking for you to submit an article or promising faster publication turnaround times.  If you are unsure of a journal or have been approached to publish in a journal you do not recognise, you can use this website to help to check if a journal is trusted, or speak to others in your area or to your Faculty Research Integrity Champion.  

Cambridge University Library produced this useful video on ‘How to spot a predatory publisher’.

 

Reproducibility is a key component of robust research and features initiatives such as open access and making protocols and datasets available for others to review or use.  Keele University is a formal institutional member of the UK Reproducibility Network..

The following introduction documents are produced by the UK Reproducibility Network:

Pre-registration and registered reports

Preprints

Open access publications

Data sharing

Open code and software

 

The Keele University Research Governance Toolkit is designed to facilitate legislatively compliant research.  It includes details of the university’s research ethics committees, procedures to follow if undertaking health and social care research, research involving human tissue and research data management.

As part of the Research Talks series the following presentations relating to research integrity and research culture have been recorded and made available here:

Dr Simon Kolstoe - 26 February 2019 - Research Ethics, Integrity and Governance: What is the difference and who is responsible?

Prof Marcus Munafo - 24 October 2019 - Scientific ecosystems and research reproducibility

Prof Leanne Hodson - 27 November 2019 - Developing a supportive research environment

Please inform the Project Assurance Research Integrity team if you find a useful resource that is not listed here so we can add it to the list.

Dynamic Ecology

Retraction Watch

Research integrity and culture

Wellcome Report - What researchers think about research culture

UKRI Report - Research Integrity: A Landscape Study

Lucas, G.N., 2010. Singapore statement on research integrity. Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health, 39(4), pp.126–127. DOI: http://doi.org/10.4038/sljch.v39i4.2476

Research Misconduct

The Office of Research Integrity definition of research misconduct

The Office of Research Integrity - It's a slippery slope to research misconduct

Image integrity

American Scientist article on how to detect faked photos

Enago Academy - Scientific fraud - how journals detect image manipulation - part 1

Enago Academy - Scientific fraud - how journals detect image manipulation - part 2

The Office of Research Integrity - online learning tool for research integrity and image processing

List of other useful resources from the Image Data Integrity initiative

Koppers, L., Wormer, H. & Ickstadt, K. Towards a Systematic Screening Tool for Quality Assurance and Semiautomatic Fraud Detection for Images in the Life Sciences. Sci Eng Ethics 23, 1113–1128 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9841-7

Publications, Authorship and contributorship

COPE report 2003 - How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers

Authorship: Musings about guests and ghosts - Citrome - 2017 - International Journal of Clinical Practice  https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12986 

UK Research Integrity Office, 2010: Guidance for researchers on retractions in academic journals

UK Research Integrity Office, 2017: Good practice in research: Authorship

COPE webinar (2017) Standards in authorship

Author services supporting Taylor and Francis authors - Co-authorship in the Humanities and Social Sciences

Reappraised Checklist - to assess whether a paper has flaws that call its integrity into question

Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy

Predatory Publishing guidance from COPE

 

喝茶影视-喝茶影院--电影在线观看 骚虎视频官方-房事视频免费看 四虎视频官方-女人本色高清视频 午夜视频官方-24小时日本在线视频 野花在线官方-影视大全 久草视频入口-嫩草视频官网 小草视频入口-两个人观看野花免费视频 嫩草视频入口-大片免费视频 好大哥视频-好大哥dgdg