Archive – other sessions

PowerPoint Presentations of Other Sessions

Day 2: June 3, 2019
Symposium 1 (SY1)
René van Woudenberg: On the plurality of normative terms in codes of research conduct
Jillian Barr: Dissemination and implementation of the Australian Code
Ton Hol: New Dutch Code Hong Kong
Yu Shi: Introduction to China’s research integrity policy
 
Symposium 2 (SY2)
Charon Pierson: View from COPE – qualitative analysis of 134 authorship cases
Tracey Bretag: Responsible authorship: an institutional perspective
Siu-wai Leung: Responsible authorship
Trevor Lane: View from third parties
 
Symposium 3 (SY3)
Sabine Kleinert and Chris Graf: Preprints: Beneficial or harmful for research integrity and publication ethics
John Inglis: Getting up to speed with preprints: where we came from, where we are now
Heather Tierney: Preprints and ethics: thoughts from the Committee on publication ethics (COPE)
Debbie Sweet: Preprints are a boon for research integrity!
Howard Browman: Applying organized skepticism to preprints
 
Symposium 4 (SY4)
Michael Imperiale: Incentives and impediments to research integrity
Jianquan Guo: Responsible conducts of research: perspectives and practices of NSFC
 
Symposium 5 (SY5)
Ivan Oransky: A journalist’s view: what makes a story a story?
 
Focus Track 1 (FT1)
Daniel Barr and Maura Hiney: Ensuring integrity in innovation and impact
 
Focus Track 2 (FT2)
David Moher: How can we improve organizational assessment of researchers
 
Concurrent Sessions 1 (CC1)
Søren Holm: Research misconduct in non-empirical research – are there types of misconduct analogous to fabrication and falsification?
Mads P. Sørensen: Questionable research practices in the humanities. Evidence from a comprehensive focus group and survey study (the PRINT project)
Tetsuji Iseda: Possibility of redefining fabrication and falsification in humanities
Chet McLeskey: The humanities virtues project: bringing a virtue-based approach to responsible conduct of research training to the humanities
 
Concurrent Sessions 2 (CC2)
Twan Huybers: The ‘Singapore Statement on Research Integrity’ and academics’ perceptions of responsible research conduct
Yandong Zhao: Academic capitalism, self-efficacy, and the change of attitude towards scientific misconduct: surveys on Chinese PhD graduates
Chien Chou: Perception of research integrity on Taiwan university campuses: a comparison of administrators, faculties, and students
Bjorn Hofmann: Research integrity of PhD-candidates in the Scandinavian countries. Results from 6 years of surveys
Boosaree Titapiwatanaku: Opinion towards research integrity from researchers in Thailand: a cross-sectional survey
 
Concurrent Sessions 3 (CC3)
Dorota Goble: Ensuring value in research international funders’ collaboration and development forum guiding principles
Natalie Evans: Research integrity and research ethics experiences: a comparative study of Croatia, the Netherlands, and Spain
Geziena Cynthia Fekken: Sharing Information on the responsible conduct of research: a Canadian perspective
Rachel Douglas-Jones: Practicing the Danish code of conduct for research integrity
 
Concurrent Sessions 4 (CC4)
Nannan Yi: Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: an online survey in Europe and China
Lisa Winstanley: Reviewing the prevalence of visual plagiarism within visual arts tertiary education in south east Asia
Jerry Hoffman: Managing plagiarism and academic fraud in higher degree programmes
Debora Weber-Wulff: A breakdown in communication: journal reactions to information about plagiarism and duplicate publications
 
Concurrent Sessions 5 (CC5)
Robert Pennock: What traits of character do exemplary scientists value? Results from the scientific virtues survey
Michael Bang Petersen: A cross-national, cross-field study of researcher personality and questionable research practices
Dirnagl Ulrich: The QUEST Center in Berlin – a laboratory for behavior change in academic biomedicine
Annelein Stax: Funding research on research: addressing the need for greater relevance, scientific quality, integrity and efficiency in academic research
Guillaume Macor: Selecting replication studies for funding – a small window of opportunity
 
Concurrent Sessions 6 (CC6)
Matthew Herder: The public sector’s role in vaccine development: a case study of the ebola vaccine
Halil Kilicoglu: Annotating clinical trial publications to assess consort adherence: a feasibility study
Herm Lamberink: A high journal impact factor is associated with more changes in pre-registered outcome measures on ClinicalTrials.gov during or after study duration
Alison Avenell: Examining the impact of research misconduct, and delays to its correction, on vitamin K reviews and guidelines
Herm Lamberink: Assessment and prediction of questionable research practices in 163,000 randomized clinical trials
 
Concurrent Sessions 7 (CC7)
Nick Allum: The relationship between questionable research practices and the perceptions of working conditions among researchers
Jesper Schneider: Perceptions and prevalence of questionable research practices across research fields: findings from a large-scale multinational survey
Sophia Jui-An Pan: Taiwanese and US graduate students’ alternative concepts of responsible conduct of research: a comparison study
 
Concurrent Sessions 8 (CC8)
Daniel Barr: Research integrity around the pacific rim: developing the APEC guiding principles for research integrity
Jillian Barr: Strengthening research integrity in Australia
Sonja Ochsenfeld-Repp: Revision of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) white paper on safeguarding good scientific practice – embedding a new culture of research integrity
Sergey Konovalov: Research ethics in Russia: challenges for the Russian Science Foundation
Deyanira Duque Ortiz: Scientific integrity requires science to think of itself: the Colombian experience in the design of a policy on ethics of research, bioethics and scientific integrity
 
Concurrent Sessions 9 (CC9)
Weiping Yang: Integrity reminders – a new approach about research integrity education
Daniel Pizzolato: Will games kill off textbooks? Assessing existing research integrity educational resources within the European context
Nomar Alviar: Values-based learning modules on responsible conduct of research in undergraduate medical education
Ulf Toelch: Educational interventions support adoption of reproducible research practices
Joanna Johnson: A missing component of research integrity pedagogy: expanding RCR education to include writing scientific prose
 
Concurrent Sessions 10 (CC10)
Ulrike Felt: Implemeting a culture of integrity: styles in governing research integrity in university environments
Helga Nolte: Implementation of ombudspersons and improvement of their work: to dos and don’ts
Jochem Zuijderwijk: Managing responsible research? Ideals and evaluations of biomedicine at the institutional, research group and individual level
Anni Sairio: Investigating responsible research in Finland: research integrity barometer 2018 and the 2015-2019 surveys of (in)appropriate feedback
Torkild Vinther: ENRIO (European Network of Research Integrity Offices): recommendations on how to investigate research misconduct – a handbook
 
Concurrent Sessions 11 (CC11)
Christian Simon: Own it! Deliberating serious research misconduct at institutions where the misconduct occurred
Abdi Shila: Lessons from an analysis of 150 recent real life cases of research misconduct
Jos Kole: Personalising impersonal science – a narrative-ethical analysis of some integrity issues
Edwin Were: Self-reported occurrence and factors associated with research misconduct among HIV researchers in Kenya
Vasiliy Vlassov: Research misconduct in dissertations and scientific publications in Russia
 
Concurrent Sessions 12 (CC12)
Tamarinde Haven: Major and minor research misbehaviours according to academic researchers in Amsterdam – a mixed method study
Rafaelly Stavale: Research misconduct among health and life sciences publications: a systematic review of retracted articles from emerging institutions
Whitney Yoder: Measuring researcher allegiance in research on psychosocial interventions
Matthias Kaiser: The perceived FFP-QRP hierarchy – results from a large-scale survey among Norwegian researchers
De-Ming Chau: Effectiveness of active learning-based responsible conduct of research workshop in improving knowledge, attitude and behaviour among Malaysian researchers
 
Concurrent Sessions 13 (CC13)
Michael Kalichman: Research misconduct: disease or symptom?
Michael Reisig: The perceived prevalence, cause, and prevention of research misconduct: results from a survey of faculty at America’s top 100 universities
Sudarat Luepongpattana: Research quality development of the Thailand National Science and Technology Development Agency
Ignacio Baleztena: National practices in research integrity in EU member states & associated countries
Martina Baravalle and Karl-Gerhard Strassl: How to foster integrity with prevention – a European role model
 
Concurrent Sessions 14 (CC14)
Rick Anderson: Predators at the gates: citations to predatory journals in mainstream scientific literature
Donna Romyn: Confronting predatory publishers and conference organizers: a firsthand account
Miriam Urlings: Selective citation in biomedical sciences: an overview of six research fields
Eric Fong: The monetary returns of adding false investigators to grant proposals
Vivienne C. Bachelet: Author misrepresentation of institutional affiliations: exploratory cross-sectional case study on secondary individual data
 
Day 3: June 4, 2019
Symposium 6 (SY6)
Caroline Gans Combe: Enhance education achievement to enhance trust
Julia Prieß-Buchheit: Rotatory role-playing and role-models to enhance the research integrity culture
Mariëtte van den Hoven: Empowering students through evidence-based, scaffolded learning of responsible conduct in research (RCR)
Niels Mejlgaard: Standard operating procedures for research integrity
Guy Widdershoven: Integrity education: training virtues in institutions
 
Focus Track 1 (FT1)
Daniel Barr and Maura Hiney: Ensuring integrity in innovation and impact
 
Focus Track 2 (FT2)
David Moher: How can we improve organizational assessment of researchers
 
Concurrent Sessions 15 (CC15)
Rebecca Halligan: Benchmarking research related complaints in Australia – an exercise to increase transparency and build public trust
Johannes Hjellbrekke: The "Murky Waters" of questionable research practices
John Thomas: Perspective of the whistleblower
Gerben Ter Riet: Reflections of a passionate and almost excommunicated scientist
 
Concurrent Sessions 16 (CC16)
Lydia Liesegang: The impact of published incorrect scientific information on the knowledge production of scientific communities
Jochem Zuijderwijk: What do we know about reasons for retraction and academic career perspectives?
Liapeng Matsau: An analysis of retracted articles with African authors or co-authors: possible implications for training and awareness raising
Andrew Grey: Responses of institutions to wide-ranging concerns about research reported by a group of researchers with multiple retracted publications: a narrative review
Mariana Ribeiro: The views of a group of funders/reviewers about the influence of retractions in the evaluation of grant proposals
 
Concurrent Sessions 17 (CC17)
Michael Gommel: Back to basics: can early communication about good scientific practice help prevent misconduct?
Samuel Bruton: Testing an active intervention to reduce questionable research practices
Joeri Tijdink: How 2 survive academia – the self-help guide with evidence based interventions to become a responsible and happy researcher
Hjördis Czesnick: Supporting researchers in cases of conflict – how ombudspersons contribute to the prevention of scientific misconduct
 
Day 4: June 5, 2019
Symposium 7 (SY7)
Tracey Bretag: Transparency 2025: new ideas to promote transparency in research
Maura Hiney: Transparency in research 2025: a funders perspective
 
Symposium 8 (SY8)
Michael Willis: Essential areas for better peer review: Equipping research journals for change – ‘integrity first, then impact’
 
Symposium 9 (SY9)
Kwanchanok Yimtae: Fostering research integrity and social relevance of research findings: an experience from Thailand
Peta Ashworth: Fostering research integrity and social relevance of research findings: The Australian context
Francis Kombe: Fostering Research Integrity In Africa
Panagiotis Kavouras: Fostering RI and social relevance of research findings: a global perspective through intercultural dialogue
Isidoros Karatzas: There is no excellence without research integrity
 
Symposium 10 (SY10)
Tatjana Poplazarova and Francis Crawley: Data sharing and the responsible conduct of research: sharing industry experiences as part of the research transparency environment
 
Concurrent Sessions 18 (CC18)
Raymond De Vries: From RE to RI: exploring the similarities and differences between research integrity and research ethics
Rien Janssens: Roles and responsibilities in a medical research ethics committee – a qualitative research study among members of a Dutch Medical Research Ethics Committee
Judith ter Schure: Research waste: why we need to rethink meta-analysis
Michiel de Boer: Why we still use null hypothesis significance testing in empirical research
Noah van Dongen: Multiple perspectives on inference for two simple statistical scenarios
 
Concurrent Sessions 19 (CC19)
Sharon Freitag: Risks and benefits of data sharing from clinical trials: do participants see them the way an ethical review committee thinks they do?
Michele Leduc: Open science for publications and data: chances and risks for research integrity
Christopher Hunter: Data curation as a means to promote reproducibility and discoverability
Yusuf Ali: Effectiveness of data auditing as a tool to reinforce good research data management(RDM) practice
Mario Malicki: Transparency and openness in research: a survey among researchers, peer reviewers and editors across scientific disciplines
 
Concurrent Sessions 20 (CC20)
Farah Asif: Ensuring minimum standards for responsible conduct of research in a resource poor setting – low cost solutions towards research integrity at Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre (SKMCH&RC), Pakistan
Nicholas H Steneck: The use of embedded poll questions as a tool for assessing research integrity training and climate
Michael Bang Petersen: Using the “List Experiment” to identify bias in surveys on questionable research practices
Gowri Gopalakrishna: A pilot study of the randomized response as a method to be used in a nation-wide survey on research integrity in The Netherlands
Dena Plemmons: Institutional re-engineering of ethical discourse in STEM (iREDS): a randomized field trial of ethics interventions
 
Concurrent Sessions 21 (CC21)
Ana Jeroncic: History of scientific publishing requirements: a systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors
Michael Khor: Global trends in research integrity and research ethics analysed through bibliometrics analysis of publications
Harold Garner: Identifying and quantifying the level of questionable abstract publications at scientific meetings
Catriona Fennell: Estimated prevalence of citation manipulation by reviewers based on the citation patterns of 69,000 reviewers
Alexander Panchin: Concealed homeopathy: a natural test of peer-review quality
 
Concurrent Sessions 22 (CC22)
Helene Ingierd: On the relative importance of training in research ethics
Ružica Tokalić: Training for research integrity and research ethics: a scoping review
Giulia Inguaggiato: Developing a face-to-face train-the-trainers program for fostering virtues in research integrity
Michael Seadle: Seminars on research integrity
Armin Schmolmueller: Recognition of the precarious academic self – notes toward a performative virtue approach in professional RI training and its practical implications
 
Concurrent Sessions 23 (CC23)
Tom Arrison: Findings, conclusions, and recommendations from two U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s reports: reproducibility and replicability in science and open science by design
Thed van Leeuwen: Monitoring open science developments in Europe: the experience of the open science monitor
Lyn Horn: Ethical constraints on the implementation of institutional open research data management policy in a South African health research context: the push and pull
Olavo Amaral: The Brazilian reproducibility initiative: a multicenter systematic assessment of Brazilian biomedical science
Tobias Grimm: Best practice in assessing research excellence by public research funders – quality over quantity!
 
Concurrent Sessions 24 (CC24)
Renee Hoch: Impact of data availability on resolution of post-publication image concern cases
Thorsten Beck: An image integrity database
Jennifer Byrne: Semi-automated fact-checking of nucleotide sequence reagents in biomedical
research publications: the seek & blastn tool

 
Concurrent Sessions 25 (CC25)
Nathalie Percie du Sert: Use and impact of the ARRIVE guidelines: a survey of in vivo researchers worldwide
Joan Marsh: Improving diversity and inclusion in peer review at Lancet journals
Gearóid Ó Faoleán: Sharing valid research: case study of an open-access publisher
Sonia Vasconcelos: The role of corresponding authors in different research cultures
Tamara Bates Anic: Do the updated ICMJE authorship criteria make a difference?