scholarly journals Guidance Document on Good Academic Research Practices (UGC GARP 2020)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
AISDL
Keyword(s):  
Research Performance ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Guidance Document ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Quality Research ◽  
Education In India ◽  
The University

Message from the Chairman I am delighted to present the Guidance Document on Good Academic Research Practices (GARP). This document gives information on good practices across the research lifecycle for quality, impactful, and ethical research.It is important to conduct quality research with integrity and focus on publishing the outcomes in high-quality journals. This will help in raising the benchmarks of research performance and enhancing the reputation of individuals, institutions, and the country. The University Grants Commission (UGC) is committed to raising the standards of research at institutions of higher education in India. This document reiterates the values underlying research integrity to help create a culture of responsible and quality research in the academic and research community. It offers practical checklists at each step of the research, which will act as good ready references for the audience. This compilation also covers guidance from several internationally and nationally recognized model documents on best practices and frameworks of research. The guidance will help prepare the Indian academic research community to be at par with international benchmarks for research quality, integrity, and excellence.I congratulate the Vice Chairman, UGC, the knowledge partner Clarivate, and the expert group committee members who have worked tirelessly to conceptualize and compile this document.I hope the academic and research community will find the GARP document helpful to guide them towards quality and ethical research.Prof. D. P. Singh - Chairman, UGC

scholarly journals Die identifisering van maatstawwe vir die navorsingsprestasie van akademici

1990 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
H. A. Labuschagne ◽  
M. L. Watkins
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Performance Criteria ◽  
Pass Rates ◽  
Development Participation ◽  
The University ◽  
Academic Personnel ◽  
Participation In Research

Identification of criteria for academic research performance. At South African universities, the achievement of objectives is usually measured in terms of so-called "process criteria" (e.g. pass rates), instead of performance criteria which reflect the quality of academic personnel. Stimulated by the need to identify valid indices of research performance, as a component of academic performance, this study investigated the dimensionality of several criteria, identified from empirical and literature studies. It was found that various valid criteria could be represented by six constructs, viz.: the stature of the researcher as scientist; scientific contributions; enhancement of own profession; community development; participation in research projects; and giving advice to persons or institutions outside the university. Opsomming By Suid-Afrikaanse universiteite word doelwitbereiking gewoonlik aan die hand van sogenaamde "prosesmaat-stawwe" (bv. slaagsyfers) in plaas van prestasiemaatstawwe wat die gehalte van akademiese personeel weerspieel, gemeet. Na aanleiding van 'n behoefte aan die identifisering van geldige rigtingwysers vir navorsingsprestasie as 'n komponent van akademiese prestasie, is daar ondersoek ingestel na die dimensionaliteit van verskillende maatstawwe wat vooraf deur middel van empiriese- en literatuurstudies geidentifiseer is. Daar is gevind dat verskeie geldige maatstawwe deur ses konstrukte verteenwoordig word, te wete: die statuur van die navorser as wetenskaplike, wetenskaplike bydraes, uitbouing van eie professie, gemeenskapsontwikkeling, deelname aan navorsingsprojekte en advieslewering aan persone of instellings buite die Universiteit.

The UGC-CARE initiative: Indian academia's quest for research and publishing integrity

First Monday ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bhushan Patwardhan ◽  
Shubhada Nagarkar
Keyword(s):  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Educational Institutions ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Ethical Practices ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Indian Academia

This paper discusses the reasons for emergence of predatory publications in India, engendered by mandates of higher educational institutions: that require stipulated number of research publications for employment and promotions. Predatory journals have eclipsed the merits of open access publishing, compromised ethical practices, and left the research community groping for benchmarks of research integrity and publication ethics. To fight back the menace of predatory publications, University Grants Commission, India has established “Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics” (UGC-CARE) in 2018 to promote and benchmark research integrity and publication ethics among the Indian academia. The present paper discusses the UGC-CARE initiative, its structure, objectives and specifically, “UGC-CARE Reference List of Quality Journals” (UGC-CARE list) and finally, the challenges it faces.

scholarly journals Responsible Practice of Research: Safeguarding Research Integrity and Publication Ethics

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Rebat Kumar Dhakal
Keyword(s):  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
General Interest ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Academic Debate

In recent years, there has been an outburst of general interest on how we do ‘research’ (Bossi 2010; Lins & Carvalho, 2014) – right from planning to reporting results – and how we disseminate ‘knowledge’. This rise of interest has particularly resulted from the surfeit of news on dishonest practices of research community. Some of the ‘acts of wrongdoing’ or fraudulent research practices that arise in our academic debate comprise the cases such as creation of false data or manipulating data to generate preferred results, cheating or using other’s ideas as own, disclosing improperly the identity of participants, underserved authorship claims, submission to multiple journals, duplicate publications, salami slicing, and predatory publications. In fact, these practices pose a serious question on research integrity. But what actually is ‘integrity’ in research?

scholarly journals Improving research quality: the view from the UK Reproducibility Network institutional leads for research improvement

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Stewart ◽  
Emily K. Farran ◽  
James A. Grange ◽  
Malcolm Macleod ◽  
Marcus Munafò ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Output ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Strategy ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Research Organisations ◽  
The Uk

AbstractThe adoption and incentivisation of open and transparent research practices is critical in addressing issues around research reproducibility and research integrity. These practices will require training and funding. Individuals need to be incentivised to adopt open and transparent research practices (e.g., added as desirable criteria in hiring, probation, and promotion decisions, recognition that funded research should be conducted openly and transparently, the importance of publishers mandating the publication of research workflows and appropriately curated data associated with each research output). Similarly, institutions need to be incentivised to encourage the adoption of open and transparent practices by researchers. Research quality should be prioritised over research quantity. As research transparency will look different for different disciplines, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach. An outward looking and joined up UK research strategy is needed that places openness and transparency at the heart of research activity. This should involve key stakeholders (institutions, research organisations, funders, publishers, and Government) and crucially should be focused on action. Failure to do this will have negative consequences not just for UK research, but also for our ability to innovate and subsequently commercialise UK-led discovery.

scholarly journals Partnering with postdocs: a library model for supporting postdoctoral researchers and educating the academic research community

2020 ◽  
Vol 108 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen H. Gau ◽  
Pamela Dillon ◽  
Teraya Donaldson ◽  
Stacey Elizabeth Wahl ◽  
Carrie L. Iwema
Keyword(s):  
Science Communication ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Research Community ◽  
University Of Pittsburgh ◽  
Academic Communities ◽  
Job Opportunities ◽  
Virginia Commonwealth University ◽  
The University ◽  
Postdoctoral Researchers

Background: A mutually beneficial need exists between postdoctoral scholars (postdocs) who want to grow their science communication, networking, and teaching skills and those in the general health sciences research community who want to learn more about specialized topics. Recognizing this need, interdepartmental teams at two public universities began offering postdocs a teaching opportunity at their health sciences libraries, which serve as discipline-neutral learning spaces for researchers.Case Presentation: At the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) and Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), postdocs are invited to submit talk proposals on “how to do something” related to the health sciences. Selected postdoc speakers conduct one-hour talks, get science communication and teaching support, have their talks uploaded to YouTube, and receive feedback from attendees.Conclusions: Postdoc participants appreciated being able to participate in this program, and attendees strongly indicated that the talks are of value. At VCU, surveys of the 25 talks from 2015–2018 showed that 91% of attendees believed they had a better understanding of the topic because of their attendance, and 85% planned to use the knowledge they gained. More than a year after their talks, several postdocs across both institutions informed the coordinators that they were subsequently contacted for advice or further discussion, with 2 postdocs stating that it helped them with job opportunities. This model can be easily adapted at other health sciences libraries to benefit their academic communities.

scholarly journals Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: a survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gowri Gopalakrishna ◽  
Gerben ter Riet ◽  
Maarten J.L.F. Cruyff ◽  
Gerko Vink ◽  
Ineke Stoop ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Explanatory Factors ◽  
Scientific Norm ◽  
Response Method

BackgroundPrevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers.Methods The National Survey on Research Integrity was aimed at all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. The survey enquired about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used a randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. Results6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95 % CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in ≥ 1 QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in ≥ 1 QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with lower odds of research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with higher odds of engaging frequently in ≥ 1 QRP (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30).ConclusionsWe found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the “publish or perish” incentive system can promote research integrity.

Senior Students’ Perceptions of Entering a Research Community

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doug Brent
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Paper ◽  
Research Community ◽  
First Year ◽  
First Year Students ◽  
University Of Calgary ◽  
The University ◽  
Senior Students ◽  
The Universe

Most of the literature on the assignment traditionally called the research paper focusses on first-year students, and often centers on what they don’t know or can’t do. This article seeks to expand the conversation to one about the skills and knowledge displayed by senior students, and about their perceptions of the universe of academic research and their place in it. It does so by means of a qualitative study of 13 senior students at the University of Calgary. Through interviews, I probe their understanding of their own research processes, how they think they learned to do what they do, and, most important, their understanding of what it means to conduct academic research.

On everyday academic research

2017 ◽  
pp. 98-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Tirole
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Economic Research ◽  
Relevant Research ◽  
The Common ◽  
Verification Of Models ◽  
Science And Research

In the fourth chapter of the book “The economy of the common good”, the nature of economics as a science and research practices in their theoretical and empirical aspects are discussed. The author considers the processes of modeling, empirical verification of models and evaluation of research quality. In addition, the features of economic cognition and the role of mathematics in economic research are analyzed, including the example of relevant research in game theory and information theory.

Towards an interdisciplinary knowledge exchange model

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Santiago DE FRANCISCO ◽  
Diego MAZO
Keyword(s):  
Design Research ◽  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Design Environment ◽  
Interdisciplinary Knowledge ◽  
One Year ◽  
The University ◽  
Common Situation

Universities and corporates, in Europe and the United States, have come to a win-win relationship to accomplish goals that serve research and industry. However, this is not a common situation in Latin America. Knowledge exchange and the co-creation of new projects by applying academic research to solve company problems does not happen naturally.To bridge this gap, the Design School of Universidad de los Andes, together with Avianca, are exploring new formats to understand the knowledge transfer impact in an open innovation network aiming to create fluid channels between different stakeholders. The primary goal was to help Avianca to strengthen their innovation department by apply design methodologies. First, allowing design students to proposed novel solutions for the traveller experience. Then, engaging Avianca employees to learn the design process. These explorations gave the opportunity to the university to apply design research and academic findings in a professional and commercial environment.After one year of collaboration and ten prototypes tested at the airport, we can say that Avianca’s innovation mindset has evolved by implementing a user-centric perspective in the customer experience touch points, building prototypes and quickly iterate. Furthermore, this partnership helped Avianca’s employees to experience a design environment in which they were actively interacting in the innovation process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document