171 extractive question-and-answer pairs built from Final GARP Guilding Document Design.cdr, published by ugc.gov.in. Every answer is a verbatim span of text the source prints, and each row carries the passage it sits in, its offset in that passage, the source quote, the page and the location in the document, so any row can be checked against the original. 120 of the 171 pairs (70.2%) are explanatory questions and 51 restate a figure. 100.00% of rows pass the corpus quality gate.
Use the API URL with your free DD token in notebooks, scripts, and pipelines.
https://www.desidata.in/api/datasets/ugc-good-academic-research-practices-question-and-answer-dataset/downloadDataset downloads are free. For Python or API downloads, sign in once and create a free DD token; set it as DD_TOKEN or save it in your notebook's secrets. Requests are linked to your account so your download history and counts stay accurate.
# One-time install: pip install desidata
# Set DD_TOKEN in your environment first (create a free token in Profile & settings).
import desidata
df = desidata.load("ugc-good-academic-research-practices-question-and-answer-dataset")
df.head()Sign in with Google to download.
Usable for analysis, but expect some cleaning before you rely on it.
Vice-Chancellor Handbook - Question and Answer Dataset
Economy · 939 rows
Life Skills (Jeevan Kaushal) 2019 course - Question and Answer Dataset
Economy · 164 rows
MMTTP Guidelines - Question and Answer Dataset
Economy · 85 rows
Learning Outcomes-Based Curriculum Framework - Question and Answer Dataset
Economy · 74 rows
Annual Report 2015-16 by agriwelfare.gov.in - Question and Answer Dataset
Economy · 1,013 rows
Higher Education in India - Question and Answer Dataset
Economy · 1,594 rows
Gender Policy of NABARD - Question and Answer Dataset
Economy · 14 rows
ICAR Annual Report 2025-26 - Question and Answer Dataset
Economy · 1,101 rows
First 10 of 171 rows
| question | answer | context | answer_start | question_type | knowledge_quality_score | source_quote | source_page | source_location | confidence | validation_status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What principle is central to the value of impartiality in research? | Objectivity and lack of bias | The Office of Research Integrity, ORI, must promote the following values in the conduct and management of research: 4 Ethics: Research is conducted in an ethical manner ensuring dignity, rights, safety, and privacy within the researcher ecosys tem. 4 Rigour: Research ensures high quality design, reliable data, the appropriate use of methods, rigorous and careful analysis, and transparent reporting and interpreta- tion of the results. 4 Relevance: In the endeavour of expanding the knowledge-base and understanding the environment and ecosystem, research advances the short-and long-term goals of science and society. 4 Transparency: Honesty is promoted through transparency in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting, and communicating research in a fair, comprehensive, and unbiased fashion (All European Academies, 2017). 4 Respect: The process of research is aligned with the norms and traditions of society and its cultural heritage, with respect for colleagues, research participants, and the environment. 4 Impartiality: Objectivity and lack of bias are the core principles of research. | 1037 | definition | 1.000 | 4 Impartiality: Objectivity and lack of bias are the core principles of research. | 14 | page=14,block=0 | 0.700 | valid |
| What does a meaningful literature review include besides paper summaries? | using the ideas in the literature to ensure an understand- ing of earlier research, their methodological approach, and contributions | Careful planning and documentation also create an evidentiary trail that can to referred to in case of a dispute regarding the importance and timing of a researcher’s contributions to a scientific discovery. Describing the research questions and locating them properly in the existing litera- ture are important aspects of research plan- ning. A literature review involves searching and compiling the literature available on a specific topic. A meaningful literature review, however, is much more than a collection of summaries of papers or an annotated bibliogra- phy of research manuscripts. It involves using the ideas in the literature to ensure an understand- ing of earlier research, their methodological approach, and contributions. A literature review also serves the important function of preventing the duplication of research and redundant publication (Martyn, 1964; Garfield, 1993). | 606 | definition | 1.000 | It involves using the ideas in the literature to ensure an understand- ing of earlier research, their methodological approach, and contributions. | 17 | |||
| What does the common model of the scientific method focus on? | reducing research problems into manageable sub-problems | The prevalent model of the “scientific method” of reducing research problems into manageable sub-problems that has been so successful in advancing research in the physical and natural sciences and engineering does not always transfer effectively to addressing research problems in the social sciences and the humanities (Bhattacherjee, 2012; Donovan and Hoover, 2013; Latour and Woolgar, 1979). Social science research tends to leverage theory- building wherein a researcher observes events, establishes the relationships bet- ween events and associated factors influenc- ing the events, locates the common factor, verifies the explanation in various contexts to generalize the explanation and finally, con- firms the explanation as a theory. Theory- building is perhaps the most difficult aspect of social science research because of the | 50 | definition | 1.000 | The prevalent model of the “scientific method” of reducing research problems into manageable sub-problems that has been so successful in advancing research in the physical and natural sciences and engineering does not always transfer effectively to addressing research problems in the social sciences and the humanities (Bhattacherjee, 2012; Donovan and Hoover, 2013; Latour and Woolgar, 1979). | ||||
| What is the definition of research misconduct provided by the US Office of Science and Technology Policy? | fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results | According to the US Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results” (Federal Research Misconduct Policy, 2000). The terms fabrication, falsifica- tion, and plagiarism are defined as: “Fabrication: Making up data or results. 4 Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately repre- sented in the research record. 4 Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit (The Office of Research Integrity, 2020a). | 96 | definition | 1.000 | According to the US Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results” (Federal Research Misconduct Policy, 2000). | 22 | page=22,block=1 | ||
| What does fabrication refer to in research misconduct? | Making up data or results | According to the US Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results” (Federal Research Misconduct Policy, 2000). The terms fabrication, falsifica- tion, and plagiarism are defined as: “Fabrication: Making up data or results. 4 Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately repre- sented in the research record. 4 Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit (The Office of Research Integrity, 2020a). | 350 | definition | 1.000 | The terms fabrication, falsifica- tion, and plagiarism are defined as: “Fabrication: Making up data or results. | 22 | page=22,block=1 | 0.700 | valid |
| How is plagiarism described in the context of research misconduct? | The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit | According to the US Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results” (Federal Research Misconduct Policy, 2000). The terms fabrication, falsifica- tion, and plagiarism are defined as: “Fabrication: Making up data or results. 4 Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately repre- sented in the research record. 4 Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit (The Office of Research Integrity, 2020a). | 585 | definition | 1.000 | 4 Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit (The Office of Research Integrity, 2020a). | 22 | page=22,block=1 | 0.700 | valid |
| What does the JIF evaluate in academic publishing? | an important and objective measure of a journal’s contribu- tion to scholarly communication | The JIF provides an important and objective measure of a journal’s contribu- tion to scholarly communication. A confluence of motivations can result in various forms of malpractice ranging from biased reviews arising from conflicts of interest between reviewers and authors, citation coercion, and inflated author and journal self-citations. Building a strong culture of research integrity along with constant vigilance is necessary to curtail such misconduct. that is not enough. Here again, the ORI has an important role to play in educating and training researchers at all stages of their career. Education and training can be built upon guidance from COPE, the REAPPRAISED checklist, and the Johnson Report on scholarly and scientific publishing (Johnson, et al., 2018), among others (See Appendix 1). | 17 | definition | 1.000 | The JIF provides an important and objective measure of a journal’s contribu- tion to scholarly communication. | 30 | page=30,block=1 | 0.700 | valid |
| What does an apparent conflict of interest entail? | a reasonable person would think that the professional’s judgement is likely to be compromised | An appar- ent conflict of interest is one in which a reasonable person would think that the professional’s judgement is likely to be compromised. It is important to note that a conflict of interest exists whether or not decisions are affected by a personal interest; a conflict of interest implies only the poten- tial for bias, not a likelihood” (Conflict of Interest, 2020). In research, conflicts can arise in subtle and not so subtle ways. Conflicts often arise when a researcher is called upon to review a grant proposal or a research paper. A researcher is usually asked to serve as a reviewer when a paper or grant proposal is aligned with that researcher’s expertise. | 51 | definition | 1.000 | An appar- ent conflict of interest is one in which a reasonable person would think that the professional’s judgement is likely to be compromised. | 35 | page=35,block=1 | 0.700 | valid |
| What is an additional aspect of academic honesty besides trust? | the proper acknowledge- ment of contributions drawn from earlier research, fellow researchers, and collabora- tors | Partnering with researchers in participatory management of the ORI will inspire confidence in its leader- ship and help the managers of research achieve their goals in collaboration with researchers. Individual honesty yields trust, and trust is paramount for a research community. It applies to the whole research enterprise, including but not limited to: peer review of research and research proposals; defining research questions; seeking and allocating resources for research; conducting research; data collection, storage, and retrieval; inter- pretation; sharing data and results; present- ing and publishing results; training and mentoring students; and contributing to the professional community. Another aspect of academic honesty is the proper acknowledge- ment of contributions drawn from earlier research, fellow researchers, and collabora- tors. | 743 | definition | 1.000 | Another aspect of academic honesty is the proper acknowledge- ment of contributions drawn from earlier research, fellow researchers, and collabora- tors. | 40 | page=40,block=2 | ||
| What does Retraction Watch use retractions to explore? | retractions as a window into the scientific process of self-correction | 4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT, 2020) 4 University of Cambridge (University of Cambridge, 2020) 4 University of Cape Town (University of Cape Town, 2020) 4 The Clarivate Analytics journal selection criterion provides several criteria for determining journal quality (Clarivate Analytics, 2019) 4The Retraction Watch to examine retractions as a window into the scientific process of self-correction (Oransky, 2020) 4The Society of Research Administrators International offers certificate programmes on research integrity (SRA International, 2020) Good research practices guidelines have been made available by a variety of stake- holders including government, funders, associations and think tanks. | 341 | definition | 1.000 | 4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT, 2020) 4 University of Cambridge (University of Cambridge, 2020) 4 University of Cape Town (University of Cape Town, 2020) 4 The Clarivate Analytics journal selection criterion provides several criteria for determining journal quality (Clarivate Analytics, 2019) 4The Retraction Watch to examine retractions as a window into the scientific process of self-correction (Oransky, 2020) 4The Society of Research Administrators International offers certificate programmes on research integrity (SRA International, 2020) Good research practices guidelines have |
Read straight from the file — download or use the API URL for the full dataset.
| page=17,block=1 |
| 0.700 |
| valid |
| 19 |
| page=19,block=1 |
| 0.700 |
| valid |
| 0.700 |
| valid |
| 0.700 |
| valid |
| 45 |
| page=45,block=8 |
| 0.700 |
| valid |