Registration for preconference workshops is on a first come first served basis. Interested participants can register for the preconference workshop via the Registration Page.
6-hours pre-conference workshop, June 2, 2019 (Sunday)
3-hours pre-conference workshop, June 2, 2019 (Sunday)
EQUATOR publication workshop: Secrets of success in writing and publishing research articles (WS1)
Initiatives to foster responsible research practices (WS2)
Superb supervision: An international perspective on research integrity training programs for PhD supervisors (WS3)
Using MCD as a tool to embed responsible conduct of research (WS4)
The Embassy of Good Science: Fostering creative online collaboration between scientists on research ethics and integrity (WS7)
How to investigate breaches of research integrity and research misconduct? (WS5)
Confidentiality, conflicts and content: Addressing three challenges in the management of responsible conduct of research (WS8)
New challenges in RCR training: Preparing and conducting your own RCR/GSP/RI lectures, courses and workshops (WS6)
New challenges in RCR training: Enriching and outreaching for global education (WS9)
Image integrity in scientific publication (WS10)
EQUATOR publication workshop: Secrets of success in writing and publishing research articles (WS1) (full-day session)
One challenge for research integrity is providing accurate, transparent, and complete reporting of research. Reporting guidelines such as CONSORT aimed to help researchers, journal editors, and others with guidance on high quality reporting. The EQUATOR website now hosts over 400 reporting guidelines for different types of research (though developed for biomedicine are relevant and adaptable to many other areas). This workshop will cover the range of writing and publishing issues, but using reporting guidelines as a framework. Attendees will learn about:
Using reporting guidelines such as CONSORT and STROBE to optimize the usability of your research;
Finding the perfect journal and navigating editorial systems; and
Giving and receiving constructive peer review
The workshop will also discuss what other disciplinary fields (social sciences, natural sciences, humanities) can learn from the experience with reporting guidelines in biomedicine.
Paul Glasziou, Bond University
Initiatives to foster responsible research practices (WS2) (full-day session)
This preconference activity builds on the INSPIRE project (Inventory in the Netherlands of Stakeholders Practices and Initiatives on Research integrity to set an Example: https://www.nrin.nl/ri-collection/ri-enterprises/research-consortia/inspire/). Among the project’s objectives is development of a checklist to assess and classify initiatives to foster responsible research practices (FRRP). Although INSPIRE relates to Dutch initiatives, the checklist will be applicable in a global context. The proposed preconference workshop seeks to engage attendees in discussion of the usefulness of the INSPIRE checklist in an international setting.
The workshop will consist of two parts. The first part focuses on applying the checklist to selected FRRP initiatives, and the second part on identifying factors that hinder or benefit implementation of the FRRP initiatives. Both parts consist of a plenary introduction, two rounds of parallel sessions and end with plenary feedback. Attendees are divided into four subgroups rotating four pre-selected cases in parallel rounds. An intermission is held after the second round for a short plenary reflection and collection of feedback, followed by a break (end of part 1). After the fourth and final round, subgroups gather to summarize the most relevant factors identified by attendees. The workshop closes with a short evaluation of achievement of its desired outcomes (end of part 2).
Fenneke Blom, Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre Amsterdam
Superb supervision: An international perspective on research integrity training programs for PhD
supervisors (WS3) (full-day session)
This workshop lets participants experience a variety of international initiatives on research integrity training for PhD supervisors. At the end of this workshop, participants will know which supervisor research integrity trainings exist and how to implement them. Trainers from different parts of the world demonstrate parts of their supervisor training exercises and materials. Below we briefly sketch what can be expected from each country/continent:
The Dutch training focuses on creating a responsible research environment, where role-modelling and different styles of mentoring are considered.
The USA-based training demonstrates the use of one of five different strategies developed to foster conversations about responsible conduct of research.
The Australian training from Queensland University of Technology where research integrity is part of a holistic approach to training of supervisors.
The last part will emphasize the practical support supervisors can give to help increase skills and reduce stress, such as support for grants writing and publication.
We wrap up with a world café where participants engage in discussions, around small tables, on several questions regarding how to maximize implementation of research integrity courses for supervisors throughout their institutions.
Tamarinde Haven and Joeri Tijdink, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Zoë Hammatt, Z Consulting, LLC
Michael Kalichman, University of California San Diego
Dena Plemmons, University of California Riverside
Paige Hilditch-Maguire, Mark Hooper and Anne Walsh, Queensland University of Technology
Tamarinde Haven and Joeri Tijdink, Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre Amsterdam
Louise Mennen, Mennen Training & Consultancy
3-hours Morning Workshops
Using MCD as a tool to embed responsible conduct of research (WS4) (am session)
Until now, initiatives to foster responsible research practices have focused on the development of codes of conduct for researchers and on education on responsible conduct of research. However, the availability of rules and guidelines is not sufficient for increasing awareness and changing practice. Rules and guidelines do not support researchers in dealing with moral dilemmas and questions regarding actual practice.
Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) is an established method to stimulate moral learning, making participants more aware of the moral dilemmas they encounter and conscious of different action strategies. MCD is a reflective dialogue in which, through a structured method, a concrete moral issue is analyzed in order to come to a shared moral understanding and a deepened insight as to which values and norms are relevant in the situation and which courses of action is preferable. The dialogue is moderated by a trained facilitator, who guides the joint reflection. The method is currently used in a course on research integrity for PhD students of the VU University Medical Center. Evaluations show it is highly appreciated by participants in the course.
Guy Widdershoven and Giulia Inguaggiato, Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre Amsterdam
How to investigate breaches of research integrity and research misconduct? (WS5) (am session)
Arguably, the overarching aim in addressing breaches of research integrity including research misconduct is to ensure the integrity and trustworthiness of research and of the research process. Institutions, publishers, and government oversight agencies play distinct and overlapping roles in addressing research misconduct towards this aim. These parties also have their own responsibilities, motivations, interests, and mandates that affect how they address breaches of research integrity towards this aim. Understanding these aspects may result in better practice.
This interactive workshop is based on a successful format that has been well received at the 4th and 5th WCRI events. It will feature engaging presentations that encourage audience participation with speakers from around the world. The workshop will outline some of the key principles involved in investigating breaches, and highlight areas where mistakes can be made. Scenarios will be used to help illustrate the principles and why they are critical to a successful investigation.
Daniel Barr, RMIT University
Antoine Hol, Utrecht University
New challenges in RCR training: Preparing and conducting your own RCR/GSP/RI lectures, courses and workshops (WS6) (am session)
In order to foster the responsible conduct of research, good scientific practice and research integrity, and to prevent scientific misconduct, researchers must be trained properly. Their training should include: education about rules and regulations; acquisition of knowledge about specific RCR/GSP/RI topics; and raising the researchers’ awareness of procedures to protect scientific integrity.
The participants of this preconference activity will receive information and instruction for creating content, form and goals of their lectures, courses and workshops on RCR/GSP/RI. They will be supported to identify their target audience, to define their teaching aims, to include relevant regulations, and to identify and use potential external resources.
Michael Gommel, Institut fuer systemische Medizin- und Organisationsethik
Gerlinde Sponholz, Michael Gommel and Julia Verse, Team Scientific Integrity, European Network of Research Integrity Offices
Helga Nolte, Ombudsstelle Universitaet Hamburg
3-hours Afternoon Workshops
The Embassy of Good Science: Fostering creative online collaboration between scientists on research ethics and integrity (WS7) (pm session)
The Embassy of Good Science is an online platform that makes knowledge and experience in research ethics and research integrity available and useable. The goals of the platform are to share experiences, and provide tools to improve researcher’s practice, the institutional research climate and the education of both junior and senior scientists, thus contributing to the development of good science.
The Embassy stands out by:
Being a global forum on research ethics and research integrity issues.
Being designed by researchers, for researchers.
Having a dedicated community of ambassadors who creatively collaborate on content.
Being based on open science principles and new semantic web technologies.
Making regulations, standards and good practices easy to find, use, and understand.
Containing cases and scenarios that focus on researchers’ day-to-day dilemmas
Providing teaching resources that are easily adaptable to context and audience.
The preconference session will give participants the opportunity to be the first users/ambassadors of The Embassy, and to collaboratively contribute to it live, by using key functionalities of the platform. During the session, participants will be split into three groups, each of them working on a specific kind of online interaction featured by the platform: investigating (1) a case online; (2) online trouble shooting; and (3) mapping normative differences.
A real and current case of misconduct will be explored in an example of online collaborative journalism. Following a predefined format, the participants elucidate the case in an online discussion.
A set of real-life scenarios and dilemmas will be made available on the platform. The participants offer their experience, insights, best practices and support in an online Q&A setting.
How are we doing across the world in terms of rules and regulations in research ethics and integrity? The participants analyze a set of nationally relevant documents hosted by the Embassy of Good Science, by pointing out differences in how issues are dealt with in different countries.
Guy Widdershoven, Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre Amsterdam
Natalie Evans, Marc van Hoof, Giulia Inguaggiato and Guy Widdershoven, Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre Amsterdam
Bert Gordijn, Dublin City University
Ana Marušić, University of Split
Kris Dierickx, KU Leuven
Raymond De Vries, University of Michigan
Confidentiality, conflicts and content: Addressing three challenges in the management of responsible conduct of research (WS8) (pm session)
This session will provide participants with guidance and considerations for addressing three key responsible conduct of research issues:
how to protect the confidentiality of RCR allegations for the benefit of both complainants and respondents – this will include a consideration of how to address anonymous complaints;
how to manage conflicts of interest (COI) – including consideration of both COI that is based on personal COI, such as favouring family members, as well as financial COI, such as blurring the line between private enterprise and academic research; and
determining the appropriate scope of RCR –this will include particular consideration of the benefits and challenges of a management system that takes a broad and inclusive approach to RCR versus one that focuses more on a narrow range of intentional (mis)conduct.
Panelists from three jurisdictions representing three different approaches to responsible conduct of research will discuss how these three issues are addressed from both a policy and a practical perspective. A blend of case studies and examples will be used to illustrate the complexities inherent in these issues and to draw out the cultural nuances that exist in different types of workplaces and/or countries.
Susan Zimmerman, Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research
Cynthia Fekken, Queen’s University
Lorraine Ferris, University of Toronto
Sonia Vasconcelos, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
James Parry, UK Research Integrity Office
New challenges in RCR training: Enriching and outreaching for global education (WS9) (pm session)
There is a global trend to include aspects of RCR training at the institutional level. This is necessary and essential to ensure young and seasoned researchers’ awareness of recent issues and challenges. However, the level of RCR training requirement and extend of training are variable. Some institutions are at the beginning stage and others are actively developing teaching material and programmes, aligning with local cultures but conforming global standards. These are challenging tasks, and it would be important for the educators across the globe to share their vision in the preparation of the teaching material, the approach taken and the effectiveness of the training programmes.
The aim of the workshop is to discuss ideas and review resources of existing programmes, and to bring in fresh ideas from the participants to explore development of a massive open online (MOOC) course as an educational programme for global outreach.
This workshop continues from an earlier morning workshop on “Preparing and conducting your own RCR/GSP/RI lectures, courses and workshops”.
Danny Chan, The University of Hong Kong
Danny Chan and Ricky Kwok, The University of Hong Kong
De-Ming Chau, Universiti Putra Malaysia
Chien Chou, National Chiao Tung University
Image integrity in scientific publication (WS10) (pm session)
Inappropriate image preparation and image manipulation are an indicator for negligence at best, and for unreliable data and potential misconduct at worst. In this pre--conference workshop, we will demonstrate the prevalence and increasingly sophisticated techniques of image manipulation in scientific publishing, including hard-to-detect image manipulations. We will present some image screening tools and the potential ambiguity of some of the typical issues encountered during routine pre-publication image screening.
This workshop will be conducted by an image data integrity analyst with many years of experience working for various biomedical and life science journals, and by researchers from the HEADT Centre (Humboldt-Elsevier Advanced Data and Text Centre in Berlin), who are creating infrastructures to test and improve computer-aided discovery, and to set up cooperation amongst researchers from the machine-learning community.
The HEADT Centre staff have created an Image Integrity Database using retracted images as a base to develop algorithms for image manipulation detection. This environment includes a rich set of metadata to allow for measuring and comparing the efficiency of image manipulation detection algorithms. Participants are encouraged to bring along problems and questions. We will look at some moral dilemmas and discuss possible further developments for the Image Integrity Database.
Jana Christopher, Federation of European Biological Societies
The minimum enrollment number for each preconference workshop is 6. Workshop with enrollment below this number will be cancelled, and fees paid will be refunded.