ArticleScience and engineering ethics2015
A room with a view of integrity and professionalism: personal reflections on teaching responsible conduct of research in the neurosciences.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact and Assessment of Research Integrity Teaching: A Systematic Literature Review.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Pooled it
- Research Integrity Supervision Practices and Institutional Support: A Qualitative Study.Journal of academic ethics · 2022Article
- Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Valley of death: A proposal to build a "translational bridge" for the next generation.Neuroscience research · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neuroscientists are increasingly put into situations which demand critical reflection about the ethical and appropriate use of research tools and scientific knowledge. Students or trainees also have to know how to navigate the ethical domains of this context. At a time when neuroscience is expected to advance policy and practice outcomes, in the face of academic pressures and complex environments, the importance of scientific integrity comes into focus and with it the need for training at the graduate level in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). I describe my experience teaching RCR in a graduate neuroscience program and identify three personal reflections where further dialogue could be warranted: (1) mobilizing a common set of competencies and virtues standing for professionalism in the neurosciences; (2) tailoring RCR for the neurosciences and empowering students through the active engagement of mentors; (3) soliciting shared responsibility for RCR training between disciplines, institutions and governmental or funding agencies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24760542What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.