Interagency Advisory Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research
Open-knowledge reference entry
The Interagency Advisory Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR) is a creation of the three research funding agencies of the Government of Canada: CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC.
The PRCR publishes the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research ("The Framework"). The PRCR collaborative objective is "to ensure a coherent and uniform approach for promoting responsible conduct of research and for addressing allegations of breaches of Tri-Agency Policies".
RCR Framework
The Framework document "describes policies and requirements related to applying for and managing Agency funds, performing research, and disseminating results, and the processes that institutions and agencies follow in the event of an allegation of a breach of an Agency policy." Recipient of Tri-Agency funding are required to adhere to this framework and apply its own RCR policies to all research conducted under its jurisdiction as well as provide training opportunities.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Interagency Advisory Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Interagency, Advisory and Panel, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 18, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q96382191. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Interagency Advisory Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Interagency Advisory Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research primary sources, Interagency Advisory Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research archive and Interagency research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Interagency Advisory Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Interagency Advisory Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.