scholarly journals Ten simple rules in good research practice for early career researchers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Schwab ◽  
Perrine Janiaud ◽  
Michael Dayan ◽  
Valentin Amrhein ◽  
Radoslaw Panczak ◽  
...  

This paper aims to provide early-career researchers with a useful introduction to good research practices.

2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 365-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Stürmer ◽  
Aileen Oeberst ◽  
Roman Trötschel ◽  
Oliver Decker

Abstract. Young researchers of today will shape the field in the future. In light of current debates about social psychology’s research culture, this exploratory survey assessed early-career researchers’ beliefs (N = 88) about the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRPs), potential causes, and open science as a possible solution. While there was relative consensus that outright fraud is an exception, a majority of participants believed that some QRPs are moderately to highly prevalent what they attributed primarily to academic incentive structures. A majority of participants felt that open science is necessary to improve research practice. They indicated to consider some open science recommendations in the future, but they also indicated some reluctance. Limitation and implications of these findings are discussed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 125 (2) ◽  
pp. 1053-1075
Author(s):  
Cinzia Daraio ◽  
Alessio Vaccari

AbstractIn this paper, we propose the adoption of moral philosophy and in particular normative ethics, to clarify the concept of “good” evaluation of “research practices”. Using MacIntyre (1985)’s notion of a practice we argue that research is a form of social practice. As a result of this characterization, we claim that research practice typically requires three typologies of researcher: the leader, the good researcher and the honest researcher. Reflecting on what is a “good” research practice and on what is the role of researchers in it provides insight into some aspects of both the self-assessment process and how this promotes individual improvement. Moreover, this kind of reflection helps us to describe the functions (missions) of the research practices. A “good” evaluation should take into account all the building constituents of a “good” research practice and should be able to discriminate between good and bad research practices, while enforcing the functions of good research practices. We believe that these reflections may be the starting point for a paradigm shift in the evaluation of research practices which replaces an evaluation centred on products with an evaluation focused on the functions of these practices. In the last sections of the paper, we introduce and discuss an important aspect for the implementation of the proposed framework. This relates to the assessment of the virtues of researchers involved in a good research practice. Some examples of questions and preliminary items to include in a questionnaire for the assessment of Virtues in Research Practices are also provided.


2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 766-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nora Hangel ◽  
Jutta Schickore

Author(s):  
Andrew Herman ◽  
Annette Markham ◽  
M.E. Luka ◽  
Rebecca Carlson ◽  
Danielle Dilkes ◽  
...  

Global events like a pandemic or climate change are massive in scope but experienced at the local, lived, microscopic level. What sorts of methodologies and mindsets can help critical internet researchers, functioning as interventionists or activists, find traction by oscillating between these levels? How can we push (further) against the boundaries of research methods to build stronger coalitions and more impactful outcomes for social change among groups of scholars/researchers? This panel presents four papers addressing these questions based on a large scale online autoethnography in 2020. This “Massive/Micro” project simultaneously used and studied the angst and novelty of isolation during a pandemic, activating researchers, activists, and artists to explore the massive yet microscopic properties of COVID-19 as a “glocal” phenomenon. The challenge? Working independently and microscopically through intense focus on the Self but also working with distributed, largely unknown collaborators, in multiple platforms. The emerging shape of the project itself showcases the challenges and possibilities of how research projects at scale can (or don’t) reflect and build social movements. The panel’s four papers situate the project through a kaleidoscope of perspectives featuring participants from 7 countries, who variously explore: the value of the project for precarious or early career researchers, how MMS worked as both collaborative space and critical pedagogy, how non-institutional or playful experimentation in asynchronous collaborations can lead to new synergies; and how MMS developed an independent life of its own, beyond studying COVID to generating multiple communities of future digital research practice.


2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Göran Hermerén

AbstractDefinitions of fraud and misconduct are not ethically neutral, and they have implications for the process and procedure of investigations into cases of suspected fraud and misconduct. The aim of this paper is to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of some current definitions of fraud and misconduct, including disjunctive and parallel sets of definitions. Possible purposes of these definitions are explained. Since intention to deceive is difficult to prove, and word often stands against word, allegations may be difficult or impossible to substantiate. If the accused person is not proven guilty, this may be perceived as a signal to the research community that the accused was innocent - even though the work by the accused author contains many serious deviations from good research practice. It turns out that several distinctions need to be made between different kinds of fraud and misconduct, and that these have implications for how best to deal way with suspected scientific dishonesty.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e1008485
Author(s):  
Scott Rich ◽  
Andreea O. Diaconescu ◽  
John D. Griffiths ◽  
Milad Lankarany

The increased democratization of the creation, implementation, and attendance of academic conferences has been a serendipitous benefit of the movement toward virtual meetings. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated the transition to online conferences and, in parallel, their democratization, by necessity. This manifests not just in the mitigation of barriers to attending traditional physical conferences but also in the presentation of new, and more importantly attainable, opportunities for young scientists to carve out a niche in the landscape of academic meetings. Here, we describe an early “proof of principle” of this democratizing power via our experience organizing the Canadian Computational Neuroscience Spotlight (CCNS; crowdcast.io/e/CCNS), a free 2-day virtual meeting that was built entirely amid the pandemic using only virtual tools. While our experience was unique considering the obstacles faced in creating a conference during a pandemic, this was not the only factor differentiating both our experience and the resulting meeting from other contemporary online conferences. Specifically, CCNS was crafted entirely by early career researchers (ECRs) without any sponsors or partners, advertised primarily using social media and “word of mouth,” and designed specifically to highlight and engage trainees. From this experience, we have distilled “10 simple rules” as a blueprint for the design of new virtual academic meetings, especially in the absence of institutional support or partnerships, in this unprecedented environment. By highlighting the lessons learned in implementing our meeting under these arduous circumstances, we hope to encourage other young scientists to embrace this challenge, which would serve as a critical next step in further democratizing academic meetings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document