<!DOCTYPE html>

<html data-programme="Research Integrity" data-course="Good Research Conduct">

	<head>
		<title>Application</title>
		<meta charset="UTF-8">
		<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
		<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">

		<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/project.min.css">
		<link id="basic-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print.min.css" disabled>
		<link id="summary-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print_interactive.min.css">
	<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/SCORM_12_APIWrapper.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/courseFunctions.js"></script>
</head>

	<body onLoad="javascript:Initialize();" onUnload="javascript:Terminate();">
	  
		<div id="app" v-cloak>
			<base-container
				screen-id="rcr_1_70"
				current-module = "Good Research Conduct"
				page-title = "Application"
				screen-time = "2"
				screen-time-period = "mins">

				<page-container>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-sidebar>
							
							<!-- OPTIONAL COURSE EVALUATION START -->
							<pod variant="d" has-modal="true">
								<pod-heading>Module evaluation</pod-heading> <!-- pod title -->
								<pod-content></pod-content>
								<!-- pop-up pod content -->
								<pod-modal-heading>Module evaluation (optional)</pod-modal-heading>
								<pod-modal-content>
									<p><a href="https://www.epigeum.com/downloads/hosted_content/RI_INT/survey/ri_uk_survey.html" target="_blank">Click here</a> to help develop and improve this course by providing some brief feedback (anonymously, of course). Please note that completing this survey is entirely optional. However, your input would be very welcome.</p>
								</pod-modal-content>
							</pod>
							<!-- OPTIONAL COURSE EVALUATION END -->
							
						</page-content-sidebar>
						
						<page-content-main>
							
							<p>The main lesson to take away from this module is not complex. Researchers:</p>
							
							<ol>
								<li>Have responsibilities to their colleagues, employers and the public</li>
								<li>Are expected to be aware of, and live up to, the responsibilities and virtues of a good researcher</li>
								<li>Are not alone &ndash; your supervisor, mentor, institution and others are there to support you.</li>
							</ol>
							
							<p>To help you feel more confident in applying what you have learnt in this module, we have designed the following activity to describe a potential dilemma and provide advice on how it can be navigated responsibly.</p>
							
							<instructional-text><p>Work your way through the following scenario. Your goal is to make a responsible decision about what to do with seemingly inconsistent research findings.</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible><p>Work your way through the following scenario. Your goal is to make a responsible decision about what to do with seemingly inconsistent research findings.</p></instructional-text-accessible>
							
						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-wide>
							
							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<action-maze show-in-accessible-version="false">
								<!-- question 1 -->
								<action-panel panel="0">
									<action-question>
										<h3>Inconsistent findings</h3>
										<p>You have completed a research project and are pulling the results together for a poster presentation at a conference. Most of the information you collected supports the conclusions you would like to present, except for three seemingly inconsistent findings. When you ask a colleague for advice, the solution they offer seems simple and honest: drop the inconsistent findings, add a note of explanation, and submit the poster abstract to the conference organisers. Would you follow this advice?</p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link class="short" goto-panel="1"><p>Yes</p></action-link>
									<action-link class="short" goto-panel="2"><p>No</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 2 -->
								<action-panel panel="1">
									<action-question>
										<h3>Yes</h3>
										<p>Two months later, you are feeling confident that you made the right decision. Your poster abstract has been accepted and will be published in the conference programme next week. This must be why your supervisor left a message asking you to set up a time to meet. However, when you arrive at the meeting you discover that it was arranged to discuss an accusation of research misconduct.
										<br><br>Someone who is familiar with your work has reported a concern based on the fact that it is not proper to drop inconsistent findings in your field of research, even if you add a note of explanation. According to the complaint, your results are not reliable because you have intentionally and improperly manipulated your findings.
										<br><br><strong>How would you respond to the allegation?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="4"><p>Explain that you dropped the inconsistent findings on the advice of a colleague</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="7"><p>Explain why you feel it was appropriate to drop the findings and include a note of explanation</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 3 -->
								<action-panel panel="2">
									<action-question>
										<h3>No</h3>
										<p>A few days later, your supervisor asks about your research project, noting that you had said you were about to send off a poster abstract. You explain the problem with the inconsistent findings and ask for advice on what to do. In response, you are given the following advice: drop the anomalistic findings, add a note of explanation, and submit the abstract.
										<br><br><strong>Would you now follow the advice?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link class="short" goto-panel="3"><p>Yes</p></action-link>
									<action-link class="short" goto-panel="5"><p>No</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 4 -->
								<action-panel panel="3">
									<action-question>
										<h3>Yes</h3>
										<p>Two months later, you are feeling confident that you made the right decision based on your supervisor's advice. Your poster abstract was accepted and published. This must be why the conference organiser left a message asking you to call. However, when you call you discover that they want to discuss an accusation of research misconduct. 
										<br><br>Someone who is familiar with your work has reported a concern based on the fact that it is not proper to drop inconsistent findings in your field of research, even if you add a note of explanation. According to the complaint, your results are not reliable because you have intentionally and improperly manipulated your findings. The conference organiser suggests that your poster abstract be retracted.
										<br><br><strong>How would you respond to the allegation?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="4"><p>Explain that you dropped the inconsistent findings on the advice of your supervisor</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="7"><p>Turn to a reliable source of advice so you can explain why you felt it was appropriate to drop the inconsistent information</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 5 -->
								<action-panel panel="4">
									<action-question>
										<h3>Relying on the advice of others</h3>
										<p>No matter how important the person advising you is (even if they are your supervisor or another senior colleague), you are personally responsible for your decisions. If your decisions are called into question, you are personally responsible for justifying what you did, which brings us to the purpose of this opening module.
										<br><br><strong>Where would you expect to find the authoritative advice you need to assure others that the decision you made was a responsible one?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="8"><p>Professional guidelines</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="11"><p>Government laws and regulations</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="12"><p>Institutional policies</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 6 -->
								<action-panel panel="5">
									<action-question>
										<h3>No</h3>
										<p>You made a wise decision. No matter how important the person advising you is (even if they are your supervisor or another senior colleague), you are personally responsible for your decisions. If something you did is called into question, you are responsible for justifying your course of action.
										<br><br><strong>At the same time, you still have to decide what to do next. Which of the following two options would you choose?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="6"><p>Re-conduct the project or in some other way check the inconsistent information to make sure it is reliable </p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="7"><p>Find a reliable source that explains how to deal with situations such as this responsibly </p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 7 -->
								<action-panel panel="6">
									<action-question>
										<h3>Review or re-conduct</h3>
										<p>Re-conducting a project can be costly and time-consuming, and can amount to money and time wasted if there proves to have been no need to repeat your research. In reviewing results, it is also important to avoid looking for excuses for ignoring some information. You might find a reason to do so, but if you applied the same standards to your assumed 'consistent' information, would some of it turn out to be inconsistent?
										<br><br>Assuming you carried out your research as planned the first time, the best course of action would be to get authoritative advice on what to do, which brings us to the purpose of this opening module. 
										<br><br><strong>Where would you expect to find the authoritative advice you need?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="8"><p>Professional guidelines</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="11"><p>Government laws and regulations</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="12"><p>Institutional policies</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 8 -->
								<action-panel panel="7">
									<action-question>
										<h3>Reliable source of advice</h3>
										<p>The question of where to turn for authoritative advice &ndash; the advice you need to assure others you have followed best practices &ndash; brings us to the purpose of this opening module.
										<br><br><strong>Where would you expect to find the authoritative advice you need?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link goto-panel="8"><p>Professional guidelines</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="11"><p>Government laws and regulations</p></action-link>
									<action-link goto-panel="12"><p>Institutional policies</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- question 9 -->
								<action-panel panel="8">
									<action-question>
										<h3>Professional guidelines</h3>
										<p>Professional guidelines, set out in textbooks, journal articles and training courses, are the best place to look for advice. The way research should be conducted is defined first and foremost by the professionals in the field. They have the expertise to understand how research should be conducted and are responsible for ensuring that research in their field is properly conducted.
										<br><br>If the professionals in your field have lived up to this responsibility, you should be able to clarify whether you have made the right decision by checking basic textbooks, journal policies or even special articles that cover methods and reporting.
										<br><br><strong>If you find your professional guidelines support your decision to drop the inconsistent information with a note of explanation, can you rest assured that you have met your responsibilities?</strong></p>
									</action-question>
									<action-link class="short" goto-panel="9"><p>Yes</p></action-link>
									<action-link class="short" goto-panel="10"><p>No</p></action-link>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- feedback 10 -->
								<action-panel panel="9">
									<action-question>
										<h3>Yes</h3>
										<p>In all likelihood, professional advice should be sufficient to guide your decision-making, but there could be exceptions:</p>
										<ul>
											<li>Government regulations (such as clinical trial regulations) could preclude omitting inconsistent data from your analysis</li>
											<li>Your research could be subject to an institutional reporting agreement or contract that prohibits dropping inconsistent findings.</li>
										</ul>
										<p><strong>Final lesson.</strong> To be confident that you made the right decision in this situation, you should make sure you:</p>
										<ul>
											<li>Check all three sources of responsibility (professional, public and institutional) before reaching a decision</li>
											<li>Ask yourself whether you are living up to the basic virtues of personal responsibility in research.</li>
										</ul>
									</action-question>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- feedback 11 -->
								<action-panel panel="10">
									<action-question>
										<h3>No</h3>
										<p>Good choice. In all likelihood, professional advice should be sufficient to guide your decision-making, but there could be exceptions:</p>
										<ul>
											<li>Government regulations (such as clinical trial regulations) could preclude omitting inconsistent data from your analysis</li>
											<li>Your research could be subject to an institutional reporting agreement or contract that prohibits dropping inconsistent findings.</li>
										</ul>
										<p><strong>Final lesson.</strong> To be confident that you made the right decision in this situation, you should make sure you:</p>
										<ul>
											<li>Check all three sources of responsibility (professional, public and institutional) before reaching a decision</li>
											<li>Ask yourself whether you are living up to the basic virtues of personal responsibility in research.</li>
										</ul>
									</action-question>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- feedback 12 -->
								<action-panel panel="11">
									<action-question>
										<h3>Government</h3>
										<p>Government laws and regulations might provide some advice on how to handle inconsistent data, but, for the most part, decisions about methods are usually informed by the professional guidelines set out in textbooks, journal articles and methods courses. The way research should be conducted is defined, first and foremost, by the professionals in the field. They have the expertise necessary to understand how research should be conducted and are responsible for ensuring that research in their field is conducted to a high standard.
										<br><br>However, there could be exceptions:</p>
										<ul>
											<li>Government regulations (such as clinical trial regulations) could preclude omitting inconsistent data from your analysis</li>
											<li>Your research could be subject to an institutional reporting agreement or contract that prohibits dropping inconsistent findings.</li>
										</ul>
										<p><strong>Final lesson.</strong> To be confident that you made the right decision in this situation, you should make sure you:</p>
										<ul>
											<li>Check all three sources of responsibility (professional, public and institutional) before reaching a decision</li>
											<li>Ask yourself whether you are living up to the basic virtues of personal responsibility in research.</li>
										</ul>
									</action-question>
								</action-panel>
								<!-- feedback 13 -->
								<action-panel panel="12">
									<action-question>
										<h3>Institutional policies</h3>
										<p>Institutions might be able to provide some advice on how to handle inconsistent data, but, for the most part, decisions about methods are usually informed by the professional guidelines set out in textbooks, journal articles and some methods courses. The way research should be conducted is defined, first and foremost, by the professionals in the field. They have the expertise necessary to understand how research should be conducted and are responsible for ensuring that research in their field is conducted to a high standard.
										<br><br>However, there could be exceptions:</p>
										<ul>
											<li>Government regulations (such as clinical trial regulations) could preclude omitting inconsistent data from your analysis</li>
											<li>Your research could be subject to an institutional reporting agreement or contract that prohibits dropping inconsistent findings.</li>
										</ul>
										<p><strong>Final lesson.</strong> To be confident that you made the right decision in this situation, you should make sure you:</p>
										<ul>
											<li>Check all three sources of responsibility (professional, public and institutional) before reaching a decision</li>
											<li>Ask yourself whether you are living up to the basic virtues of personal responsibility in research.</li>
										</ul>
									</action-question>
								</action-panel>
							</action-maze>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE START -->
							<accessible-block>
								<h4>Question 1: Inconsistent findings</h4>
								<p>You have completed a research project and are pulling the results together for a poster presentation at a conference. Most of the information you collected supports the conclusions you would like to present, except for three seemingly inconsistent findings. When you ask a colleague for advice, the solution they offer seems simple and honest: drop the inconsistent findings, add a note of explanation, and submit the poster abstract to the conference organisers.</p>
								<p><strong>Would you follow this advice?</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 1: </strong>Yes <strong>[Proceed to Question 2]</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 2: </strong>No <strong>[Proceed to Question 3]</strong></p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 2: Yes</h4>
								<p>Two months later, you are feeling confident that you made the right decision. Your poster abstract has been accepted and will be published in the conference programme next week. This must be why your supervisor left a message asking you to set up a time to meet. However, when you arrive at the meeting you discover that it was arranged to discuss an accusation of research misconduct.</p>
								<p>Someone who is familiar with your work has reported a concern based on the fact that it is not proper to drop inconsistent findings in your field of research, even if you add a note of explanation. According to the complaint, your results are not reliable because you have intentionally and improperly manipulated your findings.</p>
								<p><strong>How would you respond to the allegation?</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 1: </strong>Explain that you dropped the inconsistent findings on the advice of a colleague <strong>[Proceed to Question 5]</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 2: </strong>Explain why you feel it was appropriate to drop the findings and include a note of explanation <strong>[Proceed to Question 8]</strong></p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 3: No</h4>
								<p>A few days later, your supervisor asks about your research project, noting that you had said you were about to send off a poster abstract. You explain the problem with the inconsistent findings and ask for advice on what to do. In response, you are given the following advice: drop the anomalistic findings, add a note of explanation, and submit the abstract.</p>
								<p><strong>Would you now follow the advice?</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 1: </strong>Yes <strong>[Proceed to Question 4]</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 2: </strong> No <strong>[Proceed to Question 6]</strong></p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 4: Yes</h4>
								<p>Two months later, you are feeling confident that you made the right decision based on your supervisor's advice. Your poster abstract was accepted and published. This must be why the conference organiser left a message asking you to call. However, when you call you discover that they want to discuss an accusation of research misconduct.</p>
								<p>Someone who is familiar with your work has reported a concern based on the fact that it is not proper to drop inconsistent findings in your field of research, even if you add a note of explanation. According to the complaint, your results are not reliable because you have intentionally and improperly manipulated your findings. The conference organiser suggests that your poster abstract be retracted.</p>
								<p><strong>How would you respond to the allegation?</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 1: </strong>Explain that you dropped the inconsistent findings on the advice of your supervisor <strong>[Proceed to Question 5]</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 2: </strong>Turn to a reliable source of advice so you can explain why you felt it was appropriate to drop the inconsistent information <strong>[Proceed to Question 8]</strong></p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 5: Relying on the advice of others</h4>
								<p>No matter how important the person advising you is (even if they are your supervisor or another senior colleague), you are personally responsible for your decisions. If your decisions are called into question, you are personally responsible for justifying what you did, which brings us to the purpose of this opening module.</p>
								<p><strong>Where would you expect to find the authoritative advice you need to assure others that the decision you made was a responsible one?</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 1: </strong>Professional guidelines <strong>[Proceed to Question 9]</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 2: </strong>Government laws and regulations <strong>[Proceed to Feedback 12]</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 3: </strong>Institutional policies <strong>[Proceed to Feedback 13]</strong></p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 6: No</h4>
								<p>You made a wise decision. No matter how important the person advising you is (even if they are your supervisor or another senior colleague), you are personally responsible for your decisions. If something you did is called into question, you are responsible for justifying your course of action.</p>
								<p><strong>At the same time, you still have to decide what to do next. Which of the following two options would you choose?</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 1: </strong>Re-conduct the project or in some other way check the inconsistent information to make sure it is reliable <strong>[Proceed to Question 7]</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 2: </strong>Find a reliable source that explains how to deal with situations such as this responsibly <strong>[Proceed to Question 8]</strong></p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 7: Review or re-conduct</h4>
								<p>Re-conducting a project can be costly and time-consuming, and can amount to money and time wasted if there proves to have been no need to repeat your research. In reviewing results, it is also important to avoid looking for excuses for ignoring some information. You might find a reason to do so, but if you applied the same standards to your assumed 'consistent' information, would some of it turn out to be inconsistent?</p>
								<p>Assuming you carried out your research as planned the first time, the best course of action would be to get authoritative advice on what to do, which brings us to the purpose of this opening module.</p>
								<p><strong>Where would you expect to find the authoritative advice you need?</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 1: </strong>Professional guidelines <strong>[Proceed to Question 9]</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 2: </strong>Government laws and regulations <strong>[Proceed to Feedback 12]</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 3: </strong>Institutional policies <strong>[Proceed to Feedback 13]</strong></p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 8: Reliable source of advice</h4>
								<p>The question of where to turn for authoritative advice &ndash; the advice you need to assure others you have followed best practices &ndash; brings us to the purpose of this opening module.</p>
								<p><strong>Where would you expect to find the authoritative advice you need?</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 1: </strong>Professional guidelines <strong>[Proceed to Question 9]</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 2: </strong>Government laws and regulations <strong>[Proceed to Feedback 12]</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 3: </strong>Institutional policies <strong>[Proceed to Feedback 13]</strong></p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 9: Professional guidelines</h4>
								<p>Professional guidelines, set out in textbooks, journal articles and training courses, are the best place to look for advice. The way research should be conducted is defined first and foremost by the professionals in the field. They have the expertise to understand how research should be conducted and are responsible for ensuring that research in their field is properly conducted.</p>
								<p>If the professionals in your field have lived up to this responsibility, you should be able to clarify whether you have made the right decision by checking basic textbooks, journal policies or even special articles that cover methods and reporting.</p>
								<p><strong>If you find your professional guidelines support your decision to drop the inconsistent information with a note of explanation, can you rest assured that you have met your responsibilities?</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 1: </strong>Yes <strong>[Proceed to Feedback 10]</strong></p>
								<p><strong>Answer 2: </strong>No <strong>[Proceed to Feedback 11]</strong></p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Feedback 10: Yes</h4>
								<p>In all likelihood, professional advice should be sufficient to guide your decision-making, but there could be exceptions:</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Government regulations (such as clinical trial regulations) could preclude omitting inconsistent data from your analysis</li>
									<li>Your research could be subject to an institutional reporting agreement or contract that prohibits dropping inconsistent findings.</li>
								</ul>
								<p><strong>Final lesson.</strong> To be confident that you made the right decision in this situation, you should make sure you:</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Check all three sources of responsibility (professional, public and institutional) before reaching a decision</li>
									<li>Ask yourself whether you are living up to the basic virtues of personal responsibility in research.</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Feedback 11: No</h4>
								<p>Good choice. In all likelihood, professional advice should be sufficient to guide your decision-making, but there could be exceptions:</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Government regulations (such as clinical trial regulations) could preclude omitting inconsistent data from your analysis</li>
									<li>Your research could be subject to an institutional reporting agreement or contract that prohibits dropping inconsistent findings. </li>
								</ul>
								<p><strong>Final lesson. </strong>To be confident that you made the right decision in this situation, you should make sure you:</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Check all three sources of responsibility (professional, public and institutional) before reaching a decision</li>
									<li>Ask yourself whether you are living up to the basic virtues of personal responsibility in research.</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Feedback 12: Government</h4>
								<p>Government laws and regulations might provide some advice on how to handle inconsistent data, but, for the most part, decisions about methods are usually informed by the professional guidelines set out in textbooks, journal articles and methods courses. The way research should be conducted is defined, first and foremost, by the professionals in the field. They have the expertise necessary to understand how research should be conducted and are responsible for ensuring that research in their field is conducted to a high standard.</p>
								<p>However, there could be exceptions:</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Government regulations (such as clinical trial regulations) could preclude omitting inconsistent data from your analysis</li>
									<li>Your research could be subject to an institutional reporting agreement or contract that prohibits dropping inconsistent findings.</li>
								</ul>
								<p><strong>Final lesson. </strong>To be confident that you made the right decision in this situation, you should make sure you:</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Check all three sources of responsibility (professional, public and institutional) before reaching a decision</li>
									<li>Ask yourself whether you are living up to the basic virtues of personal responsibility in research.</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Feedback 13: Institutional policies</h4>
								<p>Institutions might be able to provide some advice on how to handle inconsistent data, but, for the most part, decisions about methods are usually informed by the professional guidelines set out in textbooks, journal articles and some methods courses. The way research should be conducted is defined, first and foremost, by the professionals in the field. They have the expertise necessary to understand how research should be conducted and are responsible for ensuring that research in their field is conducted to a high standard.</p>
								<p>However, there could be exceptions:</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Government regulations (such as clinical trial regulations) could preclude omitting inconsistent data from your analysis</li>
									<li>Your research could be subject to an institutional reporting agreement or contract that prohibits dropping inconsistent findings. </li>
								</ul>
								<p><strong>Final lesson. </strong>To be confident that you made the right decision in this situation, you should make sure you:</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Check all three sources of responsibility (professional, public and institutional) before reaching a decision</li>
									<li>Ask yourself whether you are living up to the basic virtues of personal responsibility in research.</li>
								</ul>
							</accessible-block>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE END -->
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->
							
						</page-content-wide>
					</page-row>
					
				</page-container>
			</base-container>
		</div> <!-- END content wrapper -->
		
		<!-- scripts -->
		<script src="../js/vendor.min.js"></script>
		<script src="../js/vue-components.min.js"></script>
		<script>
			new Vue({
			  el: "#app",
			  data: {},
			  mounted: function () {
				var core = document.createElement('script');
				core.src = "../js/core.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(core);

				var project = document.createElement('script');
				project.src = "../js/project.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(project);
			  }
			});
		</script>

	</body>
</html>