Abstract
For knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous, and transparent at all stages of design, execution, and reporting. Assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor, and transparency. We have developed the Hong Kong Principles (HKPs) as part of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity with a specific focus on the need to drive research improvement through ensuring that researchers are explicitly recognized and rewarded for behaviors that strengthen research integrity. We present five principles: responsible research practices; transparent reporting; open science (open research); valuing a diversity of types of research; and recognizing all contributions to research and scholarly activity. For each principle, we provide a rationale for its inclusion and provide examples where these principles are already being adopted.

Through a discussion board, students comment and respond to paper topics on the human impacts on sharks.

(Note: this resource was added to OER Commons as part of a batch upload of over 2,200 records. If you notice an issue with the quality of the metadata, please let us know by using the 'report' button and we will flag it for consideration.)

This freshman course explores the scientific publication cycle, primary vs. secondary sources, and online and in-print bibliographic databases; how to search, find, evaluate, and cite information; indexing and abstracting; using special resources (e.g. patents) and "grey literature" (e.g. technical reports and conference proceedings); conducting Web searches; and constructing literature reviews.

The following moodle archive and documents are used for a course entitled Research Desing in Political Science (or in french Séminaire du Travail Universitaire). The course structure is oriented to competencies rather than to knowledge (methodology class). In order to help students to acquire and practice those competencies, we organize 3 types of exercices: critical reading, critical writing and critical evaluation. In addition to the exercises, students have to pass a mutiple choice exam (MCQ) about a peer review of a research paper (they have to read the paper/article 72 hours before the exam) and answer to MCQ. Each course is a organized as the following: 30' of activity debriefing, 60' explaining main topics about research desing and 30' about outcomes for next exercise. For any information, just drop a mail: pierre.baudewyns@uclouvain.be

As part of the Worcester State University OER initiative in Spring 2017, Dr. Elizabeth Osborne created and translated course materials for her SP 322, Advanced Spanish Composition II, course. Materials have been divided into peer review (revisión por pares) handouts, close reading activities (actividades de lectura detallada) and other miscellaneous materials. The materials included here are by no means exhaustive, but they serve as a starting point to making education affordable and to filling the gap in Spanish-language OER for upper division courses.

The movement towards open science is a consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to affect those who carry out the research, usually early career researchers (ECRs). Here, we describe key benefits, including reputational gains, increased chances of publication, and a broader increase in the reliability of research. The increased chances of publication are supported by exploratory analyses indicating null findings are substantially more likely to be published via open registered reports in comparison to more conventional methods. These benefits are balanced by challenges that we have encountered and that involve increased costs in terms of flexibility, time, and issues with the current incentive structure, all of which seem to affect ECRs acutely. Although there are major obstacles to the early adoption of open science, overall open science practices should benefit both the ECR and improve the quality of research. We review 3 benefits and 3 challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices, which we believe scientists and institutions at all levels would do well to consider.

Once you have a draft of your oral presentation, this peer review worksheet can help you self-assess or get feedback.

This lesson included step-by-step directions for a peer review activity for a title analysis paper.

Journals are exploring new approaches to peer review in order to reduce bias, increase transparency and respond to author preferences. Funders are also getting involved. If you start reading about the subject of peer review, it won't be long before you encounter articles with titles like Can we trust peer review?, Is peer review just a crapshoot? and It's time to overhaul the secretive peer review process. Read some more and you will learn that despite its many shortcomings – it is slow, it is biased, and it lets flawed papers get published while rejecting work that goes on to win Nobel Prizes – the practice of having your work reviewed by your peers before it is published is still regarded as the 'gold standard' of scientific research. Carry on reading and you will discover that peer review as currently practiced is a relatively new phenomenon and that, ironically, there have been remarkably few peer-reviewed studies of peer review.

The Peer Review Kit: A Resource for Educators was developed by learning designers at ed2go, a Cengage company. The kit provides portable peer review content that can be repurposed and revised by educators to suit their specific online course needs. This lesson explains what peer review is, why it's important, and how to practice peer review in an online setting (both asynchronous and synchronous). Content is specific to creative writing, but can be easily modified to fit other subject areas. Quick true or false self-assessments, a multiple-choice quiz, sample peer review assignments, rubrics, discussion prompts, and resources for further learning are also provided. Peer review is a valuable communication skill that employers seek out in potential employees. Strategies for how to apply this soft skill to the job hunt are discussed within the lesson.

This is a guide for students to use as they provide feedback to their peers on a piece of writing. The activity was done in groups of 3.

International students are often unsure of how to help each other with their writing within an American academic context.  They might feel they do not have the expertise in the format or the content to improve each other's work.  In this type of targeted lesson, students feel empowered to make comments based on what they hear, and they are not required to make so many comments that it seems overwhelming.  In addition, because of the reading and listening aspects of the lesson, students are engaged in practicing different types of skills in the activity.  The goal is for students to come away with enough constructive criticism from their peers to move forward with the next draft of their written work but in an environment that is supportive and practical for their purposes.  Created by Aimee Weinstein, INTO George Mason University with support from Mason 4-VA. Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Many studies show that open access (OA) articles—articles from scholarly journals made freely available to readers without requiring subscription fees—are downloaded, and presumably read, more often than closed access/subscription-only articles. Assertions that OA articles are also cited more often generate more controversy. Confounding factors (authors may self-select only the best articles to make OA; absence of an appropriate control group of non-OA articles with which to compare citation figures; conflation of pre-publication vs. published/publisher versions of articles, etc.) make demonstrating a real citation difference difficult. This study addresses those factors and shows that an open access citation advantage as high as 19% exists, even when articles are embargoed during some or all of their prime citation years. Not surprisingly, better (defined as above median) articles gain more when made OA.

Background The p value obtained from a significance test provides no information about the magnitude or importance of the underlying phenomenon. Therefore, additional reporting of effect size is often recommended. Effect sizes are theoretically independent from sample size. Yet this may not hold true empirically: non-independence could indicate publication bias. Methods We investigate whether effect size is independent from sample size in psychological research. We randomly sampled 1,000 psychological articles from all areas of psychological research. We extracted p values, effect sizes, and sample sizes of all empirical papers, and calculated the correlation between effect size and sample size, and investigated the distribution of p values. Results We found a negative correlation of r = −.45 [95% CI: −.53; −.35] between effect size and sample size. In addition, we found an inordinately high number of p values just passing the boundary of significance. Additional data showed that neither implicit nor explicit power analysis could account for this pattern of findings. Conclusion The negative correlation between effect size and samples size, and the biased distribution of p values indicate pervasive publication bias in the entire field of psychology.

This electronic peer review exercise has students discuss the major volcanic hazards and risks to humans.

(Note: this resource was added to OER Commons as part of a batch upload of over 2,200 records. If you notice an issue with the quality of the metadata, please let us know by using the 'report' button and we will flag it for consideration.)

This webinar addresses questions related to writing, reviewing, editing, or funding a study using the Registered Report format, featuring Chris Chambers and ...

This activity walks through a real life Facebook Fight and walks through some processes of source evaluation. Using a familiar object such as Facebook, makes the source evaluation process relatable and tangible for students.

This course is designed to provide graduate students and postdoctoral associates with techniques that enhance both validity and responsible conduct in scientific practice. Lectures present practical steps for developing skills in scientific research and are combined with discussion of cases. The course covers study design, preparation of proposals and manuscripts, peer review, authorship, use of humans and non-human animals in research, allegations of misconduct, and intellectual property. Also discussed are mentoring relationships and career options. Aspects of responsible research conduct are integrated into lectures and case discussion as appropriate to the specific topic. This course also satisfies the training grant requirements of the NIH for education in the responsible conduct of research.
Beginning in Spring 2004, this course will be titled "Survival Skills for Researchers: The Responsible Conduct of Research."

Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Methodology/Principal Findings In this update, we review and summarise the evidence from cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias or outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Twenty studies were eligible of which four were newly identified in this update. Only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Fifteen of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40–62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Conclusions This update does not change the conclusions of the review in which 16 studies were included. Direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias is shown. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.