Citi- Responsible Conduct Of Research (Rcr) Study Guide Material Guide

CITI- RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH (RCR) STUDY GUIDE MATERIAL GUIDE The main reason that the Royal Society of London developed the modern form of peer review was to: -Streamline the publication of conference proceedings. -Award grant funding. -Decide on promotions for researchers. -Control the quality of published papers. Which of the following statements most accurately describes the review process for grant proposals? -Once one federal agency has approved a grant proposal, the other agencies do not need to review it. -The peer review process is the same across all federal agencies. -Funding agencies usually have committees, often with external reviewers, that assess the quality of the proposal. -Applicants who submit grant proposals are informed in advance as to who will review their proposals. The two main criteria that the National Science Foundation (NSF) uses to evaluate grant proposals are: -Ethical integrity and legal compliance. -Sustainability and innovation. -Intellectual merit and broader impact. -Quality and quantity. Which of the following is true regarding the traditional peer review process: -Under double-blind review, the identity of the reviewer is revealed to the author. -Under double-blind review, the identity of the author is revealed to the reviewer. -Under single-blind review, the identity of the author is revealed to the reviewer. -Under single-blind review, the identity of the reviewer is revealed to the author. Reviewers have a responsibility to promote ethical peer review by: -Using the information contained in a reviewed manuscript to further their own research. -Revealing their identity to the authors of the manuscript or grant proposal. -Preserving the confidentiality of the submission. -Seeking the help of others in the research team to perform the review. Which of the following is the most appropriate step to take if authors believe that their manuscript was reviewed unfairly? -The author can contact the editor with their concerns. -The author should ask the editor to reveal the identities of the reviewers. -The author should contact the reviewers directly. -Nothing; by submitting to the peer review process, authors agree to accept the outcome. A reviewer's main responsibility is to: -Contact the authors when the review is completed. -Be friendly. -Behave professionally. -Avoid criticizing the work of other researchers. The main reason that grant proposal reviewers with a conflict of interest should remove themselves from the review process is because: -Having a conflict of interest means an individual does not have the relevant expertise to perform the review. -The author of the proposal may learn about the situation. -Their removal lessens the chance that bias will affect the review process. -Having a conflict of interest means an individual does not have the time to perform the review. Which of the following statements is true regarding the responsibilities of reviewers? -Reviewers should identify the positive and negative aspects of a manuscript, and indicate where improvements are needed. -Reviewers are not supposed to turn down opportunities to review manuscripts even if they lack the relevant expertise. -Reviewers should be an advocate for the author and to help convince the editor to publish the manuscript. -Reviewers can make use of the information in a manuscript before it is published, giving them an advantage over competitors. Proper paraphrasing of a sentence written by someone else may be accomplished by: -Changing a sentence's subject and predicate around. -Removing the first word and the last word and inserting two or three words elsewhere. -Changing present tense to past tense or changing from active to passive voice. -Using your own words and writing voice to express the idea conveyed in the sentence. Ethical writing and scholarship is based on an implicit contract between the author and readers, whereby readers assume that what they read is accurate, has been written by the author, and has: -Not been disseminated before unless noted otherwise. -Undergone double-blind peer review. -Followed traditional methods. -Been based on the collective efforts of other researchers