Fix typos in the cluster descriptions and the glossary introduction

content/about/mission/about.md

@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ classtitle = ""
 
 <br>
 
-> *FORRT brings the open scholarship and reproducible science movements to teaching and mentoring, in the pursuit for the best conceivable practices in higher education. Our aspiration is to build, together with educators, a pathway towards the incremental adoption of open and reproducible science tenets in education. We believe the integration of these tenets should not be seen as an additional layer to existing proposals for reform but rather one that can unite them.*
+> *FORRT brings the open scholarship and reproducible science movements to teaching and mentoring, in the pursuit of the best conceivable practices in higher education. Our aspiration is to build, together with educators, a pathway towards the incremental adoption of open and reproducible science tenets in education. We believe the integration of these tenets should not be seen as an additional layer to existing proposals for reform but rather one that can unite them.*
 
 <br>
 

content/glossary/english/_index.md

@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ The list of terms we have drafted and reviewed can be found on the left if you a
 
 <br>
 
-We successfully arrived at the end of ***Phase 1*** 🎉. This means we managed to go from an ambitious idea to a full blown crowd-sourced project in which more than ***110 collaborators*** defined via consensus after much discussion and reviewed upwards of ***250 Open Scholarship terms***.  We published our manuscript at [***Nature Human Behavior***](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01269-4), where all contributors are co-authors. 🥳
+We successfully arrived at the end of ***Phase 1*** 🎉. This means we managed to go from an ambitious idea to a full blown crowd-sourced project in which more than ***110 collaborators*** defined via consensus after much discussion and reviewed upwards of ***250 Open Scholarship terms***.  We published our manuscript at [***Nature Human Behaviour***](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01269-4), where all contributors are co-authors. 🥳
 
 ### Phase 2 
 
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ We invite several specific contributions: _original draft preparation_, and _rev
 
 * Writing | Original Draft Preparation: We consider this contribution as, for example, writing at least one full glossary entry. If you wrote the original draft for an entry, please add your name to the “Drafted by” field and be sure to tick the “Original Draft Preparation” checkbox in the contributors spreadsheet.
 
-* Writing | Review & Editing: We consider this contribution as, for example, providing constructive comments, feedback, and approval, on more than 5 glossary entries (we acknowledge that towards the end of the project the main contribution will be checking definitions for agreement and so it may be difficult for some people to make large writing contributions. Please remember to add your name to the “Reviewed by” field and be sure to tick the “Review & Editing” checkbox in the contributors spreadsheet.
+* Writing | Review & Editing: We consider this contribution as, for example, providing constructive comments, feedback, and approval, on more than 5 glossary entries (we acknowledge that towards the end of the project the main contribution will be checking definitions for agreement and so it may be difficult for some people to make large writing contributions). Please remember to add your name to the “Reviewed by” field and be sure to tick the “Review & Editing” checkbox in the contributors spreadsheet.
 
 6. Template & Example
 
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ We invite several specific contributions: _original draft preparation_, and _rev
 
 **Term: CRediT**
 
-**Definition:**  The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT; https://credit.niso.org/) is a high-level taxonomy, including 14 roles, that can be used to indicate the roles typically adopted by contributors to scientific scholarly output. The roles describe each contributor’s specific contribution to the scholarly output. They can be assigned multiple times to different authors and one author can also be assigned multiple roles. CRediT includes the following roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. A description of the different roles can be found in the work of Brand et al., (2015).  
+**Definition:**  The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT; https://credit.niso.org/) is a high-level taxonomy, including 14 roles, that can be used to indicate the roles typically adopted by contributors to scientific scholarly output. The roles describe each contributor’s specific contribution to the scholarly output. They can be assigned multiple times to different authors and one author can also be assigned multiple roles. CRediT includes the following roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. A description of the different roles can be found in the work of Brand et al. (2015).  
 **Related terms:** Authorship  
 **Alternative definition:** (if applicable)  
 **Related terms to alternative definition:** (if applicable)  

data/clusters_v4.json

@@ -1236,7 +1236,7 @@
             },
             {
               "doi": "10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108",
-              "apa": "Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108",
+              "apa": "Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108",
               "auto_ref": true
             }
           ]
@@ -2695,7 +2695,7 @@
         },
         {
           "name": "Licenses and reuse",
-          "description": "Licensing determines how others may access, cite, remix, and redistribute your work. This section orients you to data/code/materials licenses (e.g., CC BY/CC0), data-use agreements, and rights/obligations that shape ethical, legally sound reuse, especially for qualitative and sensitive data",
+          "description": "Licensing determines how others may access, cite, remix, and redistribute your work. This section orients you to data/code/materials licenses (e.g., CC BY/CC0), data-use agreements, and rights/obligations that shape ethical, legally sound reuse, especially for qualitative and sensitive data.",
           "publications": [
             {
               "doi": "",
@@ -4605,7 +4605,7 @@
         },
         {
           "name": "Objectivity in Research",
-          "description": "Objectivity in scientific research refers to a truth or independent reality exists outside of any observation such that personal beliefs, interests, judgements, bias, bias or opinions should not affect the independent reality or truth. Here we discuss that readers understand that being objective in research is a myth.",
+          "description": "Objectivity in scientific research refers to a truth or independent reality that exists outside of any observation such that personal beliefs, interests, judgements, bias or opinions should not affect the independent reality or truth. Here we help readers understand that being objective in research is a myth.",
           "publications": [
             {
               "doi": "",
@@ -4996,7 +4996,7 @@
             },
             {
               "doi": "10.1098/rspb.2019.2047",
-              "apa": "Chapman, C. A., Bicca-Marques, J. C., Calvignac-Spencer, S., Fan, P., Fashing, P. J., Gogarten, J., Guo, S., Hemingway, C. A., Leendertz, F., Li, B., Matsuda, I., Hou, R., Serio-Silva, J. C., & Chr. Stenseth, N. (2019). Games academics play and their consequences: how authorship, h -index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1916), 20192047. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2047",
+              "apa": "Chapman, C. A., Bicca-Marques, J. C., Calvignac-Spencer, S., Fan, P., Fashing, P. J., Gogarten, J., Guo, S., Hemingway, C. A., Leendertz, F., Li, B., Matsuda, I., Hou, R., Serio-Silva, J. C., & Chr. Stenseth, N. (2019). Games academics play and their consequences: how authorship, h-index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1916), 20192047. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2047",
               "auto_ref": true
             },
             {
@@ -6398,7 +6398,7 @@
         },
         {
           "name": "Research Misconduct: Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism",
-          "description": "This sub-cluster focuses on the “cardinal sins” of research – intentional acts that grossly violate integrity. Research misconduct is formally defined (in many policies) as fabrication (making up data or results), falsification (manipulating research processes or data), and plagiarism (using others’ ideas or words without credit). These actions undermine the very foundation of science by injecting falsehoods and eroding trust. Students explore famous misconduct cases and their repercussions, as well as studies on how frequently scientists admit to misbehavior. Surveys suggest blatant misconduct is rare but not vanishingly so (on the order of 2%–4% of researchers, depending on field, have admitted to Fabrication, Fallisfication and Plagiarism (FFP) (Bouter, 2024), with higher percentages witnessing or suspecting it in others​ (Bouter, 2024)). Beyond statistics, readings discuss the causes and risk factors for misconduct – e.g. extreme publication pressure or inadequate oversight – and the systems in place to detect and deter FFP (institutional investigations, whistleblower protections, and sanctions like retractions). This sub-cluster sets a cautionary foundation: understanding what not to do in research, why such behavior occurs, and how the scientific community responds when the worst breaches of integrity come to light.",
+          "description": "This sub-cluster focuses on the “cardinal sins” of research – intentional acts that grossly violate integrity. Research misconduct is formally defined (in many policies) as fabrication (making up data or results), falsification (manipulating research processes or data), and plagiarism (using others’ ideas or words without credit). These actions undermine the very foundation of science by injecting falsehoods and eroding trust. Students explore famous misconduct cases and their repercussions, as well as studies on how frequently scientists admit to misbehavior. Surveys suggest blatant misconduct is rare but not vanishingly so (on the order of 2%–4% of researchers, depending on field, have admitted to Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism (FFP) (Bouter, 2024), with higher percentages witnessing or suspecting it in others​ (Bouter, 2024)). Beyond statistics, readings discuss the causes and risk factors for misconduct – e.g. extreme publication pressure or inadequate oversight – and the systems in place to detect and deter FFP (institutional investigations, whistleblower protections, and sanctions like retractions). This sub-cluster sets a cautionary foundation: understanding what not to do in research, why such behavior occurs, and how the scientific community responds when the worst breaches of integrity come to light.",
           "publications": [
             {
               "doi": "10.1080/08989621.2023.2189010",
@@ -6711,7 +6711,7 @@
         },
         {
           "name": "Publication, Peer Review, and Research Integrity",
-          "description": "This sub-cluster examines integrity issues in the dissemination phase of science – covering authorship ethics, peer review, and publication practices. It tackles questions like: Who deserves authorship and in what order? How to avoid ghost authorship (uncredited contributors) or gift/guest authorship (undeserved credit)? Students learn about authorship guidelines (e.g., International Committee of Medical Journal Editor ((ICMJE)) criteria) designed to ensure fair credit and accountability. We also discuss the role of peer review as a quality safeguard and the integrity challenges it faces – from biases in reviewer selection to cases of peer review fraud. The rise of predatory journals (which subvert quality standards for profit) is a contemporary integrity threat, potentially flooding literature with unvetted findings. Additionally, this sub-cluster emphasizes the importance of corrections and retractions as part of the self-correction mechanism of science. We explore whether increasing retraction rates signify improving vigilance or persistent problems​ (Bouter, 2024). Key themes include the responsibilities of journals (via ethics committees like the Committee on Publication Ethics ((COPE)) and editors in handling misconduct or honest errors, and emerging innovations like open peer review to improve transparency. By engaging with these topics, future researchers learn to navigate the publication process with integrity – ensuring proper attribution, objective review, and willingness to correct the record. Key Readings:",
+          "description": "This sub-cluster examines integrity issues in the dissemination phase of science – covering authorship ethics, peer review, and publication practices. It tackles questions like: Who deserves authorship and in what order? How to avoid ghost authorship (uncredited contributors) or gift/guest authorship (undeserved credit)? Students learn about authorship guidelines (e.g., International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria) designed to ensure fair credit and accountability. We also discuss the role of peer review as a quality safeguard and the integrity challenges it faces – from biases in reviewer selection to cases of peer review fraud. The rise of predatory journals (which subvert quality standards for profit) is a contemporary integrity threat, potentially flooding literature with unvetted findings. Additionally, this sub-cluster emphasizes the importance of corrections and retractions as part of the self-correction mechanism of science. We explore whether increasing retraction rates signify improving vigilance or persistent problems​ (Bouter, 2024). Key themes include the responsibilities of journals (via ethics committees like the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and editors in handling misconduct or honest errors, and emerging innovations like open peer review to improve transparency. By engaging with these topics, future researchers learn to navigate the publication process with integrity – ensuring proper attribution, objective review, and willingness to correct the record. Key Readings:",
           "publications": [
             {
               "doi": "10.1038/530027a",
@@ -6882,7 +6882,7 @@
         },
         {
           "name": "Education and Training in Research Integrity",
-          "description": "Fostering a culture of integrity requires education. This sub-cluster looks at how researchers are taught (and learn) responsible conduct. Many jurisdictions and funders mandate Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training for students and staff – covering topics from data management and mentoring to publication ethics and conflicts of interest. We evaluate the impact of these educational programs: what works, what doesn’t, and how to innovate. Early meta-analyses showed that standard ethics training has modest positive effects on knowledge and attitudes​ (Antes et al., 2009)​, especially when using interactive, case-based approaches rather than dry lectures​ (Antes et al., 2009). Contemporary efforts aim to go beyond simply knowing the rules – to shape researchers’ ethical decision-making skills and “virtue ethics” (instilling values like honesty and care). We discuss novel training interventions, such as engaging researchers in moral case deliberation on real dilemmas or training faculty to model and transmit RI principles (e.g. “train-the-trainer” programs for PhD supervisors​ (Bouter, 2024). Policy initiatives like the Cape Town Statement (2022) emphasize that RI education should be continuous, assessed, and supported by institutions, not a one-off workshop. Overall, this sub-cluster reinforces that integrity is a skill set and mindset that can be nurtured. By empowering researchers through education, the community can proactively prevent misconduct and normalize ethical best practices as the default mode of work.",
+          "description": "Fostering a culture of integrity requires education. This sub-cluster looks at how researchers are taught (and learn) responsible conduct. Many jurisdictions and funders mandate Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training for students and staff – covering topics from data management and mentoring to publication ethics and conflicts of interest. We evaluate the impact of these educational programs: what works, what doesn’t, and how to innovate. Early meta-analyses showed that standard ethics training has modest positive effects on knowledge and attitudes​ (Antes et al., 2009)​, especially when using interactive, case-based approaches rather than dry lectures​ (Antes et al., 2009). Contemporary efforts aim to go beyond simply knowing the rules – to shape researchers’ ethical decision-making skills and “virtue ethics” (instilling values like honesty and care). We discuss novel training interventions, such as engaging researchers in moral case deliberation on real dilemmas or training faculty to model and transmit RI principles (e.g. “train-the-trainer” programs for PhD supervisors​ (Bouter, 2024)). Policy initiatives like the Cape Town Statement (2022) emphasize that RI education should be continuous, assessed, and supported by institutions, not a one-off workshop. Overall, this sub-cluster reinforces that integrity is a skill set and mindset that can be nurtured. By empowering researchers through education, the community can proactively prevent misconduct and normalize ethical best practices as the default mode of work.",
           "publications": [
             {
               "doi": "10.1080/10508420903035380",