EQIPD - User contributions [en]

Talk:EQIPD Quality System

2025-06-23T08:18:06Z

Leonardo.Restivo: /* overall to do's */

On this page we can collect ideas and errors within the entire Wiki.

===New pages needed===
* Sex differences in animal research

===Errors on the pages===
https://www.eda.nc3rs.org.uk/ - link doesn't work

===Dedicated working groups===
====General====
* Checking incorrect items:
** Sara: Section 2
** Leo / Björn: Section 1
*** To clarify: Does the mission statement and the template still make sense? E.g. is it useful? https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/EQIPD/EVUTrgQRuNpKtpHkobdCOq4BhSTw1p3akXGKvI_MRgxYag?e=U3bWIn
*** Any thoughts for resources for the page [[1.3.1 Transparency]]
***Error
** René: Section 3
* Checking missing pages
**Everyone when screening though the website, with René as a contact
* Find mechanisms to keep it up-to-date
**Tbd

====Specific task forces formed already:====
* Quality culture and improvmenent
** Arnoud, Sandrine, Jonathan
* Antibodies and validation
** Harv, Marija
* Creating page on sex differences
** Christina, Vootele

====Orphans-Do not link to any other EQIPD pages:====
1.4.3.2 Quality in collaborative research - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/1.4.3.2_Quality_in_collaborative_research

EQIPD - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/EQIPD

EQIPD for Core Facilities - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/EQIPD_for_Core_Facilities

Examples of implementing a unique study ID - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Examples_of_implementing_a_unique_study_ID

Experimental Record - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Experimental_Record

Hauptseite - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Hauptseite

Performance Standards - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Performance_Standards

Spot checks - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Spot_checks

Why quality matters - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Why_quality_matters

====Glossary: might need extension====
SABV

FAIR (data)

====Pages needed ====
- Questionable Research Practices

- CoARA process, research evaluation

- protocols (reusable, reproducible, management)

- AI in research quality?

- feature Marten Kas as EQIPD use case examples

- data (format) community standards

- FAIR data, data repositories, DMP

- more reporting guidelines/recommendations, like RIVER (not just minimum standards)

====Pages with "to be added sections" ====

''(needs priorisation before adding content)''

1.3.1 Transparency

1.3.3 Promotion criteria within a research unit

1.4.1 Research ethics

1.4.2 Adherence to legal and regulatory considerations

1.4.2.7 Animal care and use

1.4.2.8 Human data protection

1.4.3.4 Academia-academia: Research as collaboration

1.5.2 Roles and responsibilities of involved personnel and organization

1.5.2.1 Organigram

1.5.2.2 Management

1.5.2.4 Principal investigators and study directors

1.5.2.5 Research team

1.5.2.6 Supporting team

1.5.2.7 Quality professionals

1.5.3 Management of resources

1.5.3.1 Personnel

1.5.3.2 Facilities

1.5.3.3 Laboratory and experimental equipment used for measurement

1.5.3.4 Electronic information system

1.5.3.5 Organization-specific know how

1.5.3.6 Documentation requirement for sample and material

1.5.3.7 Retained personnel records

1.5.4.1 Independence of internal compliance assessment

1.5.4.2 Internal assessment of the organizations' quality professionals

1.5.5 Sustainability

2.1.6 Sample size and power analysis

2.1.10 Plausibility check => resource: e.g. arrive guidelines + link with risk analysis?

2.2.2 Use of template for (manual) data recording

2.3.1.1 Converting non-electronic information into an electronic form

2.3.2 Primary analysis and evaluation of raw data

2.4 Reporting

2.4.1 Non-public reporting

3.2.1 General guidance on training

3.5.1 Animal and non-animal method and assay qualification

4.1.3 External assessment

4.2.1 Installation of solutions, actions and mitigation strategies

4.3.1.2 Deleting items

==== Dead links ====
2.1.11 Preregistration: https://openscience.bmj.com/

==== training resources needed to be embedded ====
https://go-eqipd.org/about-eqipd/webinar-2023/

https://go-eqipd.org/resources/eqipd-e-learning/

https://research.columbia.edu/ReaDI-program

find more more online templates

===proof reading===
- 2.1.11 Preregistration: example on timeline would be useful (to convince people to do it)

- 2.1.1: 2 pages with same content but different name: study protocol; study experimental plan

- 2.1 Plausibility check - suggestion for resource: ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0; text that can be used: Although the term plausibility check is not explicitly mentioned in the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, several of its key items promote similar quality practices. For example, sections on Study Design, Statistical Methods, and Interpretation encourage researchers to justify their choices, report results in context, and ensure that analyses are appropriate. These align closely with the goals of a plausibility check—namely, verifying whether assumptions, methods, and outcomes are biologically and methodologically credible.

2.2.3 Documentation of the experiment and deviations - link to 3.1.2.2 doesn't work; link to study protocol doesn't work

1.3.2 [LR] Section A should be rearranged so to have the last sentence as the top of the page, the first sentence is a repetition from the previous page, we could delete it. We could also add more recent resources (for example: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/140/2/1111/7997678)

1.3.3 [LR] The sentence it is often repeated in each section, at the beginning of the paragraph. I would rather place it at the end of the paragraph to improve the readability of the text. Also, following up on the comment from Sara, it would be nice to have a dedicated section in each page that links to the core requirements or other elements of the Quality System. in this case under this section we could write the sentence: "EQIPD does not expect any formal documents or analyses to be conducted."

1.3.5 [LR] Here is a list of proposed changes:
[1] change "highly desirable" to "strongly recommended"
[2] use '''bold font''' for key terms/ actions. this would help to skim through the text
[3] the whole page could be framed as a flow-chart using the same text, but structured in a different way. This would improve readability and usability of the page
[4] include the part about negative results in the list of key questions
[5] include a subsection (or paragraph title) for the list of questions ("key questions to consider")

3.4.1.2 [LR] Fix typos throughout the text and re-phrase the "do not forget" section.

3.4.1.3 [LR] '''Background & Definition''': Reduce redundant info. '''guidance & expectations''' use bold font for key term '''must'''.

3.4.1.4 [LR] Should we merge this section with the previous one? (i.e. merge animal environment with housing conditions). This would align the toolbox to other resources such as PREPARE and NC3Rs. In addition, we can include the link to the PREPARE section on housing and husbandry (https://norecopa.no/prepare/12-housing-and-husbandry/12a/general-principles/)

3.4.1.5 [LR] typos to fix. '''please do not forget''' section: add "bedding type".

===overall to do's===

- proof reading sections: look for errors, outdated information, broken links, plausibility?

- QUALITY (evaluation) aspects (criteria, checks, checklists, how-to) should be in focus and a priority..to generate products and data with secured high quality

- [LR] It would be good to leverage some of of Wikimedia's structures (semantic tagging, infoboxes, ...) to improve the "machine readability" of the whole resource.

Talk:EQIPD Quality System

2025-06-23T07:49:20Z

Leonardo.Restivo: /* proof reading */

Talk:EQIPD Quality System

2025-06-23T07:15:25Z

Leonardo.Restivo: /* proof reading */

On this page we can collect ideas and errors within the entire Wiki.

===New pages needed===
* Sex differences in animal research

===Errors on the pages===
https://www.eda.nc3rs.org.uk/ - link doesn't work

===Dedicated working groups===
====General====
* Checking incorrect items:
** Sara: Section 2
** Leo / Björn: Section 1
*** To clarify: Does the mission statement and the template still make sense? E.g. is it useful? https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/EQIPD/EVUTrgQRuNpKtpHkobdCOq4BhSTw1p3akXGKvI_MRgxYag?e=U3bWIn
*** Any thoughts for resources for the page [[1.3.1 Transparency]]
***Error
** René: Section 3
* Checking missing pages
**Everyone when screening though the website, with René as a contact
* Find mechanisms to keep it up-to-date
**Tbd

====Specific task forces formed already:====
* Quality culture and improvmenent
** Arnoud, Sandrine, Jonathan
* Antibodies and validation
** Harv, Marija
* Creating page on sex differences
** Christina, Vootele

====Orphans-Do not link to any other EQIPD pages:====
1.4.3.2 Quality in collaborative research - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/1.4.3.2_Quality_in_collaborative_research

EQIPD - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/EQIPD

EQIPD for Core Facilities - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/EQIPD_for_Core_Facilities

Examples of implementing a unique study ID - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Examples_of_implementing_a_unique_study_ID

Experimental Record - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Experimental_Record

Hauptseite - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Hauptseite

Performance Standards - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Performance_Standards

Spot checks - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Spot_checks

Why quality matters - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Why_quality_matters

====Glossary: might need extension====
SABV

FAIR (data)

====Pages needed ====
- Questionable Research Practices

- CoARA process, research evaluation

- protocols (reusable, reproducible, management)

- AI in research quality?

- feature Marten Kas as EQIPD use case examples

- data (format) community standards

- FAIR data, data repositories, DMP

- more reporting guidelines/recommendations, like RIVER (not just minimum standards)

====Pages with "to be added sections" ====

''(needs priorisation before adding content)''

1.3.1 Transparency

1.3.3 Promotion criteria within a research unit

1.4.1 Research ethics

1.4.2 Adherence to legal and regulatory considerations

1.4.2.7 Animal care and use

1.4.2.8 Human data protection

1.4.3.4 Academia-academia: Research as collaboration

1.5.2 Roles and responsibilities of involved personnel and organization

1.5.2.1 Organigram

1.5.2.2 Management

1.5.2.4 Principal investigators and study directors

1.5.2.5 Research team

1.5.2.6 Supporting team

1.5.2.7 Quality professionals

1.5.3 Management of resources

1.5.3.1 Personnel

1.5.3.2 Facilities

1.5.3.3 Laboratory and experimental equipment used for measurement

1.5.3.4 Electronic information system

1.5.3.5 Organization-specific know how

1.5.3.6 Documentation requirement for sample and material

1.5.3.7 Retained personnel records

1.5.4.1 Independence of internal compliance assessment

1.5.4.2 Internal assessment of the organizations' quality professionals

1.5.5 Sustainability

2.1.6 Sample size and power analysis

2.1.10 Plausibility check => resource: e.g. arrive guidelines + link with risk analysis?

2.2.2 Use of template for (manual) data recording

2.3.1.1 Converting non-electronic information into an electronic form

2.3.2 Primary analysis and evaluation of raw data

2.4 Reporting

2.4.1 Non-public reporting

3.2.1 General guidance on training

3.5.1 Animal and non-animal method and assay qualification

4.1.3 External assessment

4.2.1 Installation of solutions, actions and mitigation strategies

4.3.1.2 Deleting items

==== Dead links ====
2.1.11 Preregistration: https://openscience.bmj.com/

==== training resources needed to be embedded ====
https://go-eqipd.org/about-eqipd/webinar-2023/

https://go-eqipd.org/resources/eqipd-e-learning/

https://research.columbia.edu/ReaDI-program

find more more online templates

===proof reading===
- 2.1.11 Preregistration: example on timeline would be useful (to convince people to do it)

- 2.1.1: 2 pages with same content but different name: study protocol; study experimental plan

- 2.1 Plausibility check - suggestion for resource: ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0; text that can be used: Although the term plausibility check is not explicitly mentioned in the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, several of its key items promote similar quality practices. For example, sections on Study Design, Statistical Methods, and Interpretation encourage researchers to justify their choices, report results in context, and ensure that analyses are appropriate. These align closely with the goals of a plausibility check—namely, verifying whether assumptions, methods, and outcomes are biologically and methodologically credible.

2.2.3 Documentation of the experiment and deviations - link to 3.1.2.2 doesn't work; link to study protocol doesn't work

1.3.2 [LR] Section A should be rearranged so to have the last sentence as the top of the page, the first sentence is a repetition from the previous page, we could delete it. We could also add more recent resources (for example: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/140/2/1111/7997678)

1.3.3 [LR] The sentence it is often repeated in each section, at the beginning of the paragraph. I would rather place it at the end of the paragraph to improve the readability of the text. Also, following up on the comment from Sara, it would be nice to have a dedicated section in each page that links to the core requirements or other elements of the Quality System. in this case under this section we could write the sentence: "EQIPD does not expect any formal documents or analyses to be conducted."

1.3.5 [LR] Here is a list of proposed changes:
[1] change "highly desirable" to "strongly recommended"
[2] use '''bold font''' for key terms/ actions. this would help to skim through the text
[3] the whole page could be framed as a flow-chart using the same text, but structured in a different way. This would improve readability and usability of the page
[4] include the part about negative results in the list of key questions
[5] include a subsection (or paragraph title) for the list of questions ("key questions to consider")

===overall to do's===

- proof reading sections: look for errors, outdated information, broken links, plausibility?

- QUALITY (evaluation) aspects (criteria, checks, checklists, how-to) should be in focus and a priority..to generate products and data with secured high quality

Talk:EQIPD Quality System

2025-06-13T14:24:36Z

Leonardo.Restivo: /* proof reading */

On this page we can collect ideas and errors within the entire Wiki.

===New pages needed===
* Sex differences in animal research

===Errors on the pages===
https://www.eda.nc3rs.org.uk/ - link doesn't work

===Dedicated working groups===
====General====
* Checking incorrect items:
** Sara: Section 2
** Leo / Björn: Section 1
*** To clarify: Does the mission statement and the template still make sense? E.g. is it useful? https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/EQIPD/EVUTrgQRuNpKtpHkobdCOq4BhSTw1p3akXGKvI_MRgxYag?e=U3bWIn
*** Any thoughts for resources for the page [[1.3.1 Transparency]]
***Error
** René: Section 3
* Checking missing pages
**Everyone when screening though the website, with René as a contact
* Find mechanisms to keep it up-to-date
**Tbd

====Specific task forces formed already:====
* Quality culture and improvmenent
** Arnoud, Sandrine, Jonathan
* Antibodies and validation
** Harv, Marija
* Creating page on sex differences
** Christina, Vootele

====Orphans-Do not link to any other EQIPD pages:====
1.4.3.2 Quality in collaborative research - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/1.4.3.2_Quality_in_collaborative_research

EQIPD - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/EQIPD

EQIPD for Core Facilities - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/EQIPD_for_Core_Facilities

Examples of implementing a unique study ID - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Examples_of_implementing_a_unique_study_ID

Experimental Record - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Experimental_Record

Hauptseite - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Hauptseite

Performance Standards - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Performance_Standards

Spot checks - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Spot_checks

Why quality matters - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Why_quality_matters

====Glossary: might need extension====
SABV

FAIR (data)

====Pages needed ====
- Questionable Research Practices

- CoARA process, research evaluation

- protocols (reusable, reproducible, management)

- AI in research quality?

- feature Marten Kas as EQIPD use case examples

- data (format) community standards

- FAIR data, data repositories, DMP

- more reporting guidelines/recommendations, like RIVER (not just minimum standards)

====Pages with "to be added sections" ====

''(needs priorisation before adding content)''

1.3.1 Transparency

1.3.3 Promotion criteria within a research unit

1.4.1 Research ethics

1.4.2 Adherence to legal and regulatory considerations

1.4.2.7 Animal care and use

1.4.2.8 Human data protection

1.4.3.4 Academia-academia: Research as collaboration

1.5.2 Roles and responsibilities of involved personnel and organization

1.5.2.1 Organigram

1.5.2.2 Management

1.5.2.4 Principal investigators and study directors

1.5.2.5 Research team

1.5.2.6 Supporting team

1.5.2.7 Quality professionals

1.5.3 Management of resources

1.5.3.1 Personnel

1.5.3.2 Facilities

1.5.3.3 Laboratory and experimental equipment used for measurement

1.5.3.4 Electronic information system

1.5.3.5 Organization-specific know how

1.5.3.6 Documentation requirement for sample and material

1.5.3.7 Retained personnel records

1.5.4.1 Independence of internal compliance assessment

1.5.4.2 Internal assessment of the organizations' quality professionals

1.5.5 Sustainability

2.1.6 Sample size and power analysis

2.1.10 Plausibility check => resource: e.g. arrive guidelines + link with risk analysis?

2.2.2 Use of template for (manual) data recording

2.3.1.1 Converting non-electronic information into an electronic form

2.3.2 Primary analysis and evaluation of raw data

2.4 Reporting

2.4.1 Non-public reporting

3.2.1 General guidance on training

3.5.1 Animal and non-animal method and assay qualification

4.1.3 External assessment

4.2.1 Installation of solutions, actions and mitigation strategies

4.3.1.2 Deleting items

==== Dead links ====
2.1.11 Preregistration: https://openscience.bmj.com/

==== training resources needed to be embedded ====
https://go-eqipd.org/about-eqipd/webinar-2023/

https://go-eqipd.org/resources/eqipd-e-learning/

https://research.columbia.edu/ReaDI-program

find more more online templates

===proof reading===
- 2.1.11 Preregistration: example on timeline would be useful (to convince people to do it)

- 2.1.1: 2 pages with same content but different name: study protocol; study experimental plan

- 2.1 Plausibility check - suggestion for resource: ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0; text that can be used: Although the term plausibility check is not explicitly mentioned in the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, several of its key items promote similar quality practices. For example, sections on Study Design, Statistical Methods, and Interpretation encourage researchers to justify their choices, report results in context, and ensure that analyses are appropriate. These align closely with the goals of a plausibility check—namely, verifying whether assumptions, methods, and outcomes are biologically and methodologically credible.

2.2.3 Documentation of the experiment and deviations - link to 3.1.2.2 doesn't work; link to study protocol doesn't work

1.3.2 [LEO] Section A should be rearranged so to have the last sentence as the top of the page, the first sentence is a repetition from the previous page, we could delete it. We could also add more recent resources (for example: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/140/2/1111/7997678)

1.3.3 [LEO] The sentence it is often repeated in each section, at the beginning of the paragraph. I would rather place it at the end of the paragraph to improve the readability of the text. Also, following up on the comment from Sara, it would be nice to have a dedicated section in each page that links to the core requirements or other elements of the Quality System. in this case under this section we could write the sentence: "EQIPD does not expect any formal documents or analyses to be conducted."

===overall to do's===

- proof reading sections: look for errors, outdated information, broken links, plausibility?

- QUALITY (evaluation) aspects (criteria, checks, checklists, how-to) should be in focus and a priority..to generate products and data with secured high quality

Talk:EQIPD Quality System

2025-06-13T14:19:31Z

Leonardo.Restivo: /* proof reading */

On this page we can collect ideas and errors within the entire Wiki.

===New pages needed===
* Sex differences in animal research

===Errors on the pages===
https://www.eda.nc3rs.org.uk/ - link doesn't work

===Dedicated working groups===
====General====
* Checking incorrect items:
** Sara: Section 2
** Leo / Björn: Section 1
*** To clarify: Does the mission statement and the template still make sense? E.g. is it useful? https://paasp.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/EQIPD/EVUTrgQRuNpKtpHkobdCOq4BhSTw1p3akXGKvI_MRgxYag?e=U3bWIn
*** Any thoughts for resources for the page [[1.3.1 Transparency]]
***Error
** René: Section 3
* Checking missing pages
**Everyone when screening though the website, with René as a contact
* Find mechanisms to keep it up-to-date
**Tbd

====Specific task forces formed already:====
* Quality culture and improvmenent
** Arnoud, Sandrine, Jonathan
* Antibodies and validation
** Harv, Marija
* Creating page on sex differences
** Christina, Vootele

====Orphans-Do not link to any other EQIPD pages:====
1.4.3.2 Quality in collaborative research - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/1.4.3.2_Quality_in_collaborative_research

EQIPD - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/EQIPD

EQIPD for Core Facilities - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/EQIPD_for_Core_Facilities

Examples of implementing a unique study ID - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Examples_of_implementing_a_unique_study_ID

Experimental Record - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Experimental_Record

Hauptseite - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Hauptseite

Performance Standards - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Performance_Standards

Spot checks - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Spot_checks

Why quality matters - https://eqipd-toolbox.paasp.net/wiki/Why_quality_matters

====Glossary: might need extension====
SABV

FAIR (data)

====Pages needed ====
- Questionable Research Practices

- CoARA process, research evaluation

- protocols (reusable, reproducible, management)

- AI in research quality?

- feature Marten Kas as EQIPD use case examples

- data (format) community standards

- FAIR data, data repositories, DMP

- more reporting guidelines/recommendations, like RIVER (not just minimum standards)

====Pages with "to be added sections" ====

''(needs priorisation before adding content)''

1.3.1 Transparency

1.3.3 Promotion criteria within a research unit

1.4.1 Research ethics

1.4.2 Adherence to legal and regulatory considerations

1.4.2.7 Animal care and use

1.4.2.8 Human data protection

1.4.3.4 Academia-academia: Research as collaboration

1.5.2 Roles and responsibilities of involved personnel and organization

1.5.2.1 Organigram

1.5.2.2 Management

1.5.2.4 Principal investigators and study directors

1.5.2.5 Research team

1.5.2.6 Supporting team

1.5.2.7 Quality professionals

1.5.3 Management of resources

1.5.3.1 Personnel

1.5.3.2 Facilities

1.5.3.3 Laboratory and experimental equipment used for measurement

1.5.3.4 Electronic information system

1.5.3.5 Organization-specific know how

1.5.3.6 Documentation requirement for sample and material

1.5.3.7 Retained personnel records

1.5.4.1 Independence of internal compliance assessment

1.5.4.2 Internal assessment of the organizations' quality professionals

1.5.5 Sustainability

2.1.6 Sample size and power analysis

2.1.10 Plausibility check => resource: e.g. arrive guidelines + link with risk analysis?

2.2.2 Use of template for (manual) data recording

2.3.1.1 Converting non-electronic information into an electronic form

2.3.2 Primary analysis and evaluation of raw data

2.4 Reporting

2.4.1 Non-public reporting

3.2.1 General guidance on training

3.5.1 Animal and non-animal method and assay qualification

4.1.3 External assessment

4.2.1 Installation of solutions, actions and mitigation strategies

4.3.1.2 Deleting items

==== Dead links ====
2.1.11 Preregistration: https://openscience.bmj.com/

==== training resources needed to be embedded ====
https://go-eqipd.org/about-eqipd/webinar-2023/

https://go-eqipd.org/resources/eqipd-e-learning/

https://research.columbia.edu/ReaDI-program

find more more online templates

===proof reading===
- 2.1.11 Preregistration: example on timeline would be useful (to convince people to do it)

- 2.1.1: 2 pages with same content but different name: study protocol; study experimental plan

- 2.1 Plausibility check - suggestion for resource: ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0; text that can be used: Although the term plausibility check is not explicitly mentioned in the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, several of its key items promote similar quality practices. For example, sections on Study Design, Statistical Methods, and Interpretation encourage researchers to justify their choices, report results in context, and ensure that analyses are appropriate. These align closely with the goals of a plausibility check—namely, verifying whether assumptions, methods, and outcomes are biologically and methodologically credible.

2.2.3 Documentation of the experiment and deviations - link to 3.1.2.2 doesn't work; link to study protocol doesn't work

1.3.2 [LEO] Section A should be rearranged so to have the last sentence as the top of the page, the first sentence is a repetition from the previous page, we could delete it. We could also add more recent resources (for example: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/140/2/1111/7997678)

===overall to do's===

- proof reading sections: look for errors, outdated information, broken links, plausibility?

- QUALITY (evaluation) aspects (criteria, checks, checklists, how-to) should be in focus and a priority..to generate products and data with secured high quality

Talk:1.3.3 Promotion criteria within a research unit

2025-05-12T08:30:32Z

Leonardo.Restivo: Created page with "I am reading this sentence: "Non-transparent or unfair promotion practices are often ..." and I wonder whether it should be re-written as: "Non-transparent or unFAIR promotion..."

I am reading this sentence: "Non-transparent or unfair promotion practices are often ..." and I wonder whether it should be re-written as: "Non-transparent or unFAIR promotion practices are often ..."
Where the unFAIR holds a link to FAIR principles?

1.3.3 Promotion criteria within a research unit

2025-05-12T08:27:04Z

Leonardo.Restivo: minor typos

== A. Background & Definitions ==
EQIPD Quality System relies on and should become part of the overall organizational quality culture.

An essential element of the organizational quality culture is the promotion practices and criteria aligned with the overall quality objectives.

Non-transparent or unfair promotion practices are often an impactful source of bias-generating pressure.

== B. Guidance & Expectations ==
EQIPD does not expect any formal documents or analyses to be conducted. However, it is highly desirable that the Process Owner reviews the promotion practices and criteria and, if necessary, aligns them with the quality objectives:
* Is there a transparent description of Promotion criteria? (and, if so, corresponding section of the Dossier may be used to store relevant documents or links to such documents)
* Do the main criteria include adherence to Open Science and Good Research Practice principles?

'''PLEASE DO NOT FORGET'''

To discuss promotion criteria with the team members

== C. Resources ==
to be added

----------------
back to [[Toolbox]]

Next item: [[1.3.4 Performance criteria and assessment]]

Talk:1.1 Mission

2025-05-12T08:17:17Z

Leonardo.Restivo: Created page with "I think that some of the "PLEASE DO NOT FORGET" sections show some very important content that -in my opinion- should be highlighted. Would it make sense to have a box (or inf..."

I think that some of the "PLEASE DO NOT FORGET" sections show some very important content that -in my opinion- should be highlighted. Would it make sense to have a box (or infobox) dedicated to this type of sections?
you can see an example here below. the draw back is that it is no longer plain text (i.e. it requires formatting) so it less easy to maintain.

<div style="background-color: #ecfcf4; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em;">
<h3>PLEASE DO NOT FORGET</h3>
To make sure that an <b>incentive and award/reward structure</b> is aligned with the quality objectives (please refer to items 1.3.1-1.3.4 for more information). The following questions serve as examples of how such an alignment can be tested:

<ul>
<li>Do we encourage / support publication of "negative" or "null" results, i.e., findings that are different from those expected?</li>
<li>Do we encourage people to develop and implement risk-mitigating strategies and procedures? Do we recognize these efforts?</li>
<li>Do we encourage people not to rush experiments but to invest time and resources in developing/using robust methods, optimizing experimental set-ups and to conduct experiments properly according to high-quality standards (even if it takes more time than initially allocated)?</li>
<li>Do we review internal processes to make sure that there is no pressure to generate "positive results"? If there is such pressure, do we have processes to mitigate the risks?</li>
<li>When hiring new people, do we consider the quality and rigor of the applicants’ research?</li>
</ul>
</div>