The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Resource:7a8fed8d-ca9e-4983-aad4-466c816056f7

2025-10-31T09:47:34Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=POIESIS Recommendations 7, 8, 9: Science Communication and Chains of Mediation
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:9c741398-d980-40b8-9ba1-89eebf1c2c71
|Is About=This set recommendations (3 out of 9 POIESIS recommendations) examines how scientific information travels through different “chains of mediation” from researchers to communicators, journalists, policymakers, and the public and how these interactions affect trust in science. It calls for improved collaboration between scientists and professional communicators to ensure that research findings are presented accurately, clearly, and responsibly. The recommendation stresses the importance of transparency about uncertainty and limitations, especially in sensitive or politically charged areas such as health, environment, and technology. It also highlights the need for training scientists in communication skills and for supporting journalists in understanding complex research topics. By strengthening these communication chains, the goal is to prevent misinformation, misinterpretation, and oversimplification of science in media and policy contexts. The recommendation also promotes dialogue over one-way dissemination encouraging engagement that allows for questioning, reflection, and feedback. Ultimately, effective communication is seen as a cornerstone of trust, helping to sustain a well-informed public, a responsive scientific community, and sound evidence-based policymaking.
|Important Because=This recommendation matters because effective communication is the bridge between scientific discovery and societal understanding. Inaccurate, incomplete, or sensationalized reporting can easily distort research findings, leading to public confusion and mistrust. Strengthening communication across the entire chain from researchers to media to policymakers helps ensure that science is presented clearly, accurately, and transparently. When uncertainty and limitations are communicated honestly, it builds credibility rather than skepticism. Furthermore, well-trained communicators and scientists can jointly counter misinformation and foster a culture of open dialogue. In today’s complex information landscape, trustworthy science communication is essential for informed decision-making, resilient democratic debate, and maintaining confidence in the role of science within society.
|Important For=Educators and public engagement organizations; Policymakers who rely on scientific advice; Researchers and Research Institutions; Science communicators and media professionals
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://poiesis-project.eu/category/recommendations/science-communication-and-chains-of-mediation/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:03548286-0051-4694-8912-8983d823a5d6; Resource:73e11749-a4c6-4b2b-aa0d-63da269d778f; Resource:120fece1-850f-45cf-a2e2-211a49b213bd
}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:03548286-0051-4694-8912-8983d823a5d6

2025-10-31T09:46:24Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=POIESIS Recommendations 1, 2, 3: Research Integrity and the Organisation of Science
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:9c741398-d980-40b8-9ba1-89eebf1c2c71
|Is About=This set of recommendations (3 out of 9 POIESIS recommendations) focuses on strengthening research integrity through better institutional organization, governance, and culture. It calls for aligning the principles of integrity such as honesty, accountability, and transparency with actual research practices. This includes reforming incentive structures that may encourage questionable practices, supporting integrity training, and ensuring fair evaluation systems. The aim is to make integrity not just a formal requirement but an integral part of the daily research environment.
|Important Because=Scientific credibility depends on integrity. When institutional systems push for rapid results, high output, or competitive funding, they can unintentionally compromise ethical standards. Embedding integrity at all levels ensures trustworthy results and sustained public confidence in science.
|Important For=Funding bodies and policymakers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Institutions and Universities; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://poiesis-project.eu/category/recommendations/research-integrity-and-the-organisation-of-science/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:73e11749-a4c6-4b2b-aa0d-63da269d778f; Resource:7a8fed8d-ca9e-4983-aad4-466c816056f7; Resource:120fece1-850f-45cf-a2e2-211a49b213bd
}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:73e11749-a4c6-4b2b-aa0d-63da269d778f

2025-10-31T09:45:21Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=POIESIS Recommendations 4, 5, 6: Societal Integration and Public Engagement in Science
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:9c741398-d980-40b8-9ba1-89eebf1c2c71
|Is About=This set of recommendations (3 out of 9 POIESIS recommendations) focuses on strengthening the connection between science and society through active inclusion of citizens and stakeholders in the research process. It advocates for participatory and co-creative approaches that allow public concerns, local knowledge, and social values to inform research design, implementation, and dissemination. The aim is to move beyond viewing the public merely as recipients of scientific results and instead treat them as partners in shaping research agendas. POIESIS emphasizes that engagement should be genuine, continuous, and mutually beneficial not a token exercise. When citizens and communities are involved from the start, scientific outcomes become more relevant, legitimate, and socially responsive. This approach also helps researchers better understand diverse perspectives and address potential ethical, environmental, or social impacts early in the process. Strengthening societal integration promotes inclusivity, builds mutual understanding, and ensures that science serves collective well-being. By fostering open dialogue, this recommendation contributes to bridging the gap between scientific institutions and the wider public, ultimately enhancing societal trust in science.
|Important Because=This recommendation is crucial because public engagement enhances the social relevance, transparency, and legitimacy of science. When citizens and communities participate meaningfully in the research process, they feel ownership over its outcomes and are more likely to trust and support scientific initiatives. Inclusive and co-created research bridges the gap between expert knowledge and everyday experience, ensuring that research addresses real societal needs. It also helps counter misinformation and skepticism by fostering dialogue and shared understanding. By embedding public engagement within research design, science becomes more democratic, reflexive, and accountable to the people it serves. This approach ultimately strengthens mutual trust and ensures that innovation contributes to social well-being and sustainability.
|Important For=Civil society organizations and citizen groups; Policymakers designing science and innovation programs; Research Institutions and Universities; Researchers and project leaders conducting participatory research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://poiesis-project.eu/category/recommendations/societal-integration-and-public-engagement-in-science/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:03548286-0051-4694-8912-8983d823a5d6; Resource:7a8fed8d-ca9e-4983-aad4-466c816056f7; Resource:120fece1-850f-45cf-a2e2-211a49b213bd
}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:120fece1-850f-45cf-a2e2-211a49b213bd

2025-10-31T09:42:49Z

0000-0001-9615-8360: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=POIESIS Policy Recommendations for Promoting Trust in Science through Integrity, Integration, and Communication |Has Related Initia..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=POIESIS Policy Recommendations for Promoting Trust in Science through Integrity, Integration, and Communication
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:9c741398-d980-40b8-9ba1-89eebf1c2c71
|Is About=This report presents the final POIESIS policy recommendations which provide guidance on how European and national policymakers, research performing organisations, research funding organisations, researchers, and mediators can work to maintain trust in science and address current and future challenges. These recommendations address the three core areas of research integrity, societal integration in science, and science mediation, and build directly on the findings of the POIESIS project to provide robust empirically founded recommendations. Furthermore, all recommendations are accompanied by specific actions for relevant stakeholders, who are to be pivotal in ensuring societal trust in science.
|Important Because=POIESIS sets out to probe the impact of integrity and integration on societal trust in science. The project takes its departure in three widely held and intuitive assumptions on the relationship between science and society. First, that trust in science depends on scientists’ capacity to demonstrate high standards of research integrity and breaches to research integrity will lead to mistrust. Second, that citizen and civil society’s involvement in co-creating research and innovation agendas and contents makes research more relevant and responsive to society, strengthening co-ownership and trust. And finally, that institutions foster integrity and societal integration by enabling and supporting researchers to act responsibly. Crucially, POIESIS reaffirms that trust in science is high, but simultaneously identifies cracks in the relationship between science and society that should be kept in mind to ensure that trust in science is maintained or even strengthened. POIESIS provides a firmer understanding of how integrity, integration, and trust are connected, and provides directions for how challenges to these relationships can be addressed in future research and science policy.
|Important For=Academic institutions; Academic leaders (deans, department heads); All stakeholders in research; All stakeholders in science communication; Anyone interested in the broader culture of research integrity; Citizen Scientists; Educators and public engagement organizations; Funding Agencies and Policy Makers; Researchers and Scientists; Science communicators and media professionals; Policy Makers and Funding Agencies; research integrity researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://poiesis-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/POIESIS-Recommendations-Report-2.pdf
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:03548286-0051-4694-8912-8983d823a5d6; Resource:73e11749-a4c6-4b2b-aa0d-63da269d778f; Resource:7a8fed8d-ca9e-4983-aad4-466c816056f7
}}
{{Tags}}

Initiative:9c741398-d980-40b8-9ba1-89eebf1c2c71

2025-10-31T09:21:22Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Initiative
|Title=POIESIS
|Image=POIESIS_logo.png
|Has Link=https://poiesis-project.eu/
|Is About=POIESIS is a three-year Horizon Europe funded project dedicated to tackling the growing societal mistrust in science. It studies how research practices grounded in integrity, transparency, and active involvement of citizens and stakeholders throughout the research process can influence public trust in science, research, and innovation. By promoting collaboration between researchers and society, POIESIS has develop strong policy recommendations that enhance credibility, openness, and co-creation in scientific work. Ultimately, the project seeks to build a more trustworthy and participatory research ecosystem that reinforces the connection between science and society.
}}

Resource:73e11749-a4c6-4b2b-aa0d-63da269d778f

2025-10-31T09:20:20Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

Resource:7a8fed8d-ca9e-4983-aad4-466c816056f7

2025-10-31T09:19:08Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

Resource:73e11749-a4c6-4b2b-aa0d-63da269d778f

2025-10-31T09:16:30Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

Resource:03548286-0051-4694-8912-8983d823a5d6

2025-10-31T09:15:58Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

Resource:03548286-0051-4694-8912-8983d823a5d6

2025-10-31T09:15:11Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=POIESIS Recommendations 1, 2, 3: Research Integrity and the Organisation of Science
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:9c741398-d980-40b8-9ba1-89eebf1c2c71
|Is About=This set of recommendations (3 out of the 9 POIESIS recommendations) focuses on strengthening research integrity through better institutional organization, governance, and culture. It calls for aligning the principles of integrity such as honesty, accountability, and transparency with actual research practices. This includes reforming incentive structures that may encourage questionable practices, supporting integrity training, and ensuring fair evaluation systems. The aim is to make integrity not just a formal requirement but an integral part of the daily research environment.
|Important Because=Scientific credibility depends on integrity. When institutional systems push for rapid results, high output, or competitive funding, they can unintentionally compromise ethical standards. Embedding integrity at all levels ensures trustworthy results and sustained public confidence in science.
|Important For=Funding bodies and policymakers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Institutions and Universities; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://poiesis-project.eu/category/recommendations/research-integrity-and-the-organisation-of-science/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:73e11749-a4c6-4b2b-aa0d-63da269d778f

2025-10-31T09:13:57Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=POIESIS Recommendations 4, 5, 6: Societal Integration and Public Engagement in Science
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:9c741398-d980-40b8-9ba1-89eebf1c2c71
|Is About=This set of recommendations (3 out of the 9 POIESIS recommendations) focuses on strengthening the connection between science and society through active inclusion of citizens and stakeholders in the research process. It advocates for participatory and co-creative approaches that allow public concerns, local knowledge, and social values to inform research design, implementation, and dissemination. The aim is to move beyond viewing the public merely as recipients of scientific results and instead treat them as partners in shaping research agendas. POIESIS emphasizes that engagement should be genuine, continuous, and mutually beneficial not a token exercise. When citizens and communities are involved from the start, scientific outcomes become more relevant, legitimate, and socially responsive. This approach also helps researchers better understand diverse perspectives and address potential ethical, environmental, or social impacts early in the process. Strengthening societal integration promotes inclusivity, builds mutual understanding, and ensures that science serves collective well-being. By fostering open dialogue, this recommendation contributes to bridging the gap between scientific institutions and the wider public, ultimately enhancing societal trust in science.
|Important Because=This recommendation is crucial because public engagement enhances the social relevance, transparency, and legitimacy of science. When citizens and communities participate meaningfully in the research process, they feel ownership over its outcomes and are more likely to trust and support scientific initiatives. Inclusive and co-created research bridges the gap between expert knowledge and everyday experience, ensuring that research addresses real societal needs. It also helps counter misinformation and skepticism by fostering dialogue and shared understanding. By embedding public engagement within research design, science becomes more democratic, reflexive, and accountable to the people it serves. This approach ultimately strengthens mutual trust and ensures that innovation contributes to social well-being and sustainability.
|Important For=Civil society organizations and citizen groups; Policymakers designing science and innovation programs; Research Institutions and Universities; Researchers and project leaders conducting participatory research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://poiesis-project.eu/category/recommendations/societal-integration-and-public-engagement-in-science/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:03548286-0051-4694-8912-8983d823a5d6
}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:73e11749-a4c6-4b2b-aa0d-63da269d778f

2025-10-31T09:13:27Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Recommendations 4, 5, 6: Societal Integration and Public Engagement in Science
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:9c741398-d980-40b8-9ba1-89eebf1c2c71
|Is About=This set of recommendations (3 out of the 9 POIESIS recommendations) focuses on strengthening the connection between science and society through active inclusion of citizens and stakeholders in the research process. It advocates for participatory and co-creative approaches that allow public concerns, local knowledge, and social values to inform research design, implementation, and dissemination. The aim is to move beyond viewing the public merely as recipients of scientific results and instead treat them as partners in shaping research agendas. POIESIS emphasizes that engagement should be genuine, continuous, and mutually beneficial not a token exercise. When citizens and communities are involved from the start, scientific outcomes become more relevant, legitimate, and socially responsive. This approach also helps researchers better understand diverse perspectives and address potential ethical, environmental, or social impacts early in the process. Strengthening societal integration promotes inclusivity, builds mutual understanding, and ensures that science serves collective well-being. By fostering open dialogue, this recommendation contributes to bridging the gap between scientific institutions and the wider public, ultimately enhancing societal trust in science.
|Important Because=This recommendation is crucial because public engagement enhances the social relevance, transparency, and legitimacy of science. When citizens and communities participate meaningfully in the research process, they feel ownership over its outcomes and are more likely to trust and support scientific initiatives. Inclusive and co-created research bridges the gap between expert knowledge and everyday experience, ensuring that research addresses real societal needs. It also helps counter misinformation and skepticism by fostering dialogue and shared understanding. By embedding public engagement within research design, science becomes more democratic, reflexive, and accountable to the people it serves. This approach ultimately strengthens mutual trust and ensures that innovation contributes to social well-being and sustainability.
|Important For=Civil society organizations and citizen groups; Policymakers designing science and innovation programs; Research Institutions and Universities; Researchers and project leaders conducting participatory research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://poiesis-project.eu/category/recommendations/societal-integration-and-public-engagement-in-science/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:03548286-0051-4694-8912-8983d823a5d6
}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:03548286-0051-4694-8912-8983d823a5d6

2025-10-31T09:08:54Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Recommendations 1, 2, 3: Research Integrity and the Organisation of Science
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:9c741398-d980-40b8-9ba1-89eebf1c2c71
|Is About=This set of recommendations (3 out of the 9 POIESIS recommendations) focuses on strengthening research integrity through better institutional organization, governance, and culture. It calls for aligning the principles of integrity such as honesty, accountability, and transparency with actual research practices. This includes reforming incentive structures that may encourage questionable practices, supporting integrity training, and ensuring fair evaluation systems. The aim is to make integrity not just a formal requirement but an integral part of the daily research environment.
|Important Because=Scientific credibility depends on integrity. When institutional systems push for rapid results, high output, or competitive funding, they can unintentionally compromise ethical standards. Embedding integrity at all levels ensures trustworthy results and sustained public confidence in science.
|Important For=Funding bodies and policymakers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Institutions and Universities; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://poiesis-project.eu/category/recommendations/research-integrity-and-the-organisation-of-science/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:03548286-0051-4694-8912-8983d823a5d6

2025-10-31T09:06:32Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

Resource:03548286-0051-4694-8912-8983d823a5d6

2025-10-31T09:05:59Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Recommendations1, 2, 3: Research Integrity and the Organisation of Science
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:9c741398-d980-40b8-9ba1-89eebf1c2c71
|Is About=This set of recommendations (3 out of the 9 POIESIS recommendations) focuses on strengthening research integrity through better institutional organization, governance, and culture. It calls for aligning the principles of integrity such as honesty, accountability, and transparency with actual research practices. This includes reforming incentive structures that may encourage questionable practices, supporting integrity training, and ensuring fair evaluation systems. The aim is to make integrity not just a formal requirement but an integral part of the daily research environment.
|Important Because=Scientific credibility depends on integrity. When institutional systems push for rapid results, high output, or competitive funding, they can unintentionally compromise ethical standards. Embedding integrity at all levels ensures trustworthy results and sustained public confidence in science.
|Important For=Funding bodies and policymakers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Institutions and Universities; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://poiesis-project.eu/category/recommendations/research-integrity-and-the-organisation-of-science/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:03548286-0051-4694-8912-8983d823a5d6

2025-10-31T09:05:03Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

Resource:03548286-0051-4694-8912-8983d823a5d6

2025-10-31T08:58:22Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Recommendations 1, 2, 3,: Research Integrity and the Organisation of Science
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:9c741398-d980-40b8-9ba1-89eebf1c2c71
|Is About=This set of recommendations focuses on strengthening research integrity through better institutional organization, governance, and culture. It calls for aligning the principles of integrity such as honesty, accountability, and transparency with actual research practices. This includes reforming incentive structures that may encourage questionable practices, supporting integrity training, and ensuring fair evaluation systems. The aim is to make integrity not just a formal requirement but an integral part of the daily research environment.
|Important Because=Scientific credibility depends on integrity. When institutional systems push for rapid results, high output, or competitive funding, they can unintentionally compromise ethical standards. Embedding integrity at all levels ensures trustworthy results and sustained public confidence in science.
|Important For=Funding bodies and policymakers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Institutions and Universities; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://poiesis-project.eu/category/recommendations/research-integrity-and-the-organisation-of-science/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:E0384a98-fbfd-4df9-9caa-3fe4afa95951

2020-07-30T10:27:52Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
|Title=Publication bias (positive results)
|Is About=This article presents the definition, sources, and consequences as well as misconceptions in scientific understanding of data which result in publication bias in favor of positive results.
|Important Because=Publication bias is defined as a conscious or unconscious decision to publish or distribute a manuscript based on the study results . <ref>Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(8):1-193.</ref> Reviews of scientific literature point to the fact that papers with positive results are three times more likely to be published than the ones with negative results. Reasons for such practices are multiple. The most common one is that scientists simply do not submit studies with negative findings to journals. Unfortunately, a lot of negative findings are usually defined as those that do not reach the usual threshold of statistical significance of p<0.05. This issue was recently addressed in the American Statistical Association’s Statement on p value, which aims to steer future research away from p value as the most significant indicator. <ref>Yaddanapudi LN. The American Statistical Association statement on P-values explained: J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Oct-Dec;32(4):421-423. doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.194772.</ref> Also, a part of responsibility lies with editors and scientometric criteria, which, by their nature, favor studies with positive results. Two dire consequences of publication bias are resource waste and negative impact on meta-analyses. The former is the result of scientists doing experiments which have already been conducted by others but never published (because they had no positive results), and the latter simply means that meta-analyses will be oversaturated with positive results and skew the conclusions . <ref>Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337(8746):867-72.</ref> <ref>Dickersin K, Min YI. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993(50).</ref> <ref>Taragin MI. Learning from negative findings. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2019;8(1):019-0309.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Students; PhD students; Researchers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Journal editors; Junior researchers; Senior researchers
|Has Best Practice=Everybody who ever performed research probably experienced the sadness of getting a p value bigger than 0.05. Instead of critically looking at the data and results in the light of present knowledge and trying to figure out the impact of results, the hypothesis usually gets abandoned and another set of experiments gets initiated. There is some effort to change the existing practice. A new course in editorial policy for publication, which is considering only the methodological rigor, and not the direction of results, was set by PLOS some 20 years ago. Another praise worthy initiative is Journal of Negative Results which also considers methodological rigor as the only criteria for the publication of a manuscript.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331;Resource:38cabc43-2b53-4c98-80ea-89b97ef5107d;Resource:Aea9471a-e48b-4fe0-8df4-8013763c4b08
|Related To Theme=Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33;Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a;Instruction:C51a36cc-7c58-4740-99cd-cd596c210464;Instruction:3c96e5fc-8134-41ee-ad40-050e5cf684bc
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Objectivity; Precision; Reliability; Responsibility; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Bias; Non-publication; Publication ethics
}}

Theme:B96ef996-e262-4c0c-a62c-1ea1ef034f36

2020-07-30T10:16:37Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=Dilemma Game App, Erasmus University Rotterdam
|Is About=The Dilemma Game was originally designed as a card game: played in small groups, the participants received thought-provoking dilemma’s based on actual cases from different researchers relating to professionalism and integrity in research. With the aim to stimulate awareness and discussion on research integrity, the game has been widely used for training purposes in research integrity in a variety of organizations.

Recently, the developers have been revitalizing the well-known cardgame into an app, in order to make the dilemmas not only more accessible, but also more relevant to a rapidly changing research environment and available for different purposes. With this app, researchers and teachers can use it individually, in a classroom game-mode and in a lecture mode, by connecting in a group. Moreover, users are now more regularly confronted with integrity dilemmas through notifications, with new dilemma’s added each month and the invitation to share own research integrity dilemma’s.
|Important Because=This app is a great example of an inspiring initiative, since it serves different objectives: it is a usable tool for training purposes, creates ongoing awareness and supports research culture by facilitating discussion. Therefore the App is included in INSPIRE's spectrum of initiatives.

The final version will be launched in June 2020.
|Important For=Researchers; Teachers; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:313feb13-82bc-4489-be7a-387d3415c427
|Related To Theme=Theme:3c6a13ad-6861-4a5f-bf5b-491693ee6b6d
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:4e235a59-4819-40a1-b9d2-598565a69a49;Instruction:7c71b885-c536-4649-9afd-8a0efc09e973;Instruction:F2e6930f-933f-4ddf-b3e6-94339c610268;Instruction:1392bd81-b2e3-4cee-950f-b3dd5456966f
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
|Has Timepoint=2020
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Accuracy; Dignity; Honesty; Objectivity; Reliability; Respect; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethical Dilemma; Integrity; Good Practice; Mentoring; Misconduct; Moral reasoning; Power abuse; Professional standards; Research Integrity
}}

Resource:00b8b870-5d40-4bca-ad70-7f0f8e598de4

2020-07-30T10:09:05Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Assessing the educational literature in the responsible conduct of research for core content.
|Is About=This article provides a review of education materials in responsible conduct of research in biomedical and life sciences. Authors split their findings in several categories: data acquisition, management, sharing and ownership; mentor and trainee relationship; publication practices and responsible authorship; peer review; collaborative science; research on humans; research on laboratory animals; research misconduct; and conflict of interest. Authors hope this review will help raise awareness for responsible conduct of research among biomedical and life scientists.
|Important Because=Research integrity is increasingly considered a core instructional area. Proper education and training will contribute to the cultivation of responsible research culture while corresponding to the ethical, financial and legal requirements related to acceptance of funding.
|Important For=PhD students; Early career researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989620500217420
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:7fcb92c2-8d04-4106-875f-166af054c161;Resource:Ac0c4548-69f6-4595-9553-15b2f70f0ae8;Resource:707fea28-db9c-4bc1-b1f4-b346f62f8572;Resource:9c917ab2-c01d-446b-89c1-a9cd415afb00;Resource:05f04469-5834-4411-9217-c2551a0c745a;Resource:0bae8e4a-a4be-4f3f-89f2-65a3b8cc3395;Resource:36f9e532-df59-444a-92cc-0a96486e276f;Resource:735412b4-5e69-4cbe-a762-7d6d9f4f19e0;Resource:F099b32a-f559-4988-b5c6-26275b35197a;Resource:C37b2d3c-bd0c-443f-a646-cd814c8ee4af;Resource:D6170c22-aacb-43e4-9c65-54c204505c42;Resource:01564519-5c74-4a89-acb6-b212b235ac56
|Related To Theme=Theme:72c8ab8d-bbf8-4503-8b48-9de7eac37673;Theme:2446855b-0acc-4e28-817e-a65d7e00162e;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:C51a36cc-7c58-4740-99cd-cd596c210464;Instruction:3c96e5fc-8134-41ee-ad40-050e5cf684bc
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Elizabeth Heitman; Ruth Ellen Bulger
|Has Timepoint=2005
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Accountability; Objectivity; Responsibility; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research with Humans; Research with Animals; Peer review; Misconduct; Collaborative research; Conflict of interest
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Resource:43c4d969-6b45-47f1-b96b-a0da8fe7ef29

2020-07-30T09:25:45Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Anonymity Revisited
|Is About=This fictional case is about an applied medical anthropologist who wrote a series of articles when she was working in an urban black community in the United States. She wrote her articles in an anonymous way so that individuals and/or the community would not be harmed. However, members of the community started a discussion because they were surprised that the name of the community health center and the name of the town were not given.
|Important Because=Anthropological conventions specify the use of pseudonyms in certain types of anthropological reporting, specifically if there is any chance that individuals or a community might be harmed.
|Important For=Researchers; Early career researchers; Research subjects; research integrity researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.americananthro.org/LearnAndTeach/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=12923&RDtoken=16518&userID=5089&navItemNumber=731
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:887faa17-01f0-43b4-acde-a610054581c4;Resource:F7ed25ad-cfab-4040-b52f-596accc3c317;Resource:5fb837af-4817-4081-b7c5-4013c254f689;Resource:232ffbe0-b7fb-4d04-b605-493e10bc04c6;Resource:9c917ab2-c01d-446b-89c1-a9cd415afb00
|Related To Theme=Theme:540c9ba0-bc9c-4311-b3e1-7a650d2b9f0f;Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9;Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:4e235a59-4819-40a1-b9d2-598565a69a49;Instruction:7c71b885-c536-4649-9afd-8a0efc09e973;Instruction:52b40425-989f-42ff-80ea-86220459a8f8;Instruction:2e91b456-c300-4b69-9097-4f900978b04f
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Mary Jones
|Has Timepoint=1969-1972
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Privacy; Anonymity; Recognition
|Related To Research Area=Other humanities
}}

Resource:919c16ba-268c-4bf7-8a3a-2da003314524

2020-07-30T09:23:10Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Institutional Pathology and the Death of a Mentally Ill Young Man
|Is About=A case about a mentally ill young man who stabbed himself to death in an industry-sponsored drug study. This is a factual case.
|Important Because=Scientific research with participation of human beings should be done ethically. Recruiting procedures of the subjects, research oversight, adequate clinical care, and informed consent are of particular importance.
|Important For=Researchers; health care professionals; Principal investigators
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08989621.2016.1246969?journalCode=gacr20
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:E1f32efa-98f0-4036-857b-441c15bb39da;Resource:08657792-f22e-486e-a034-c78fb9a2f39f;Resource:97d7c2bf-daa8-4162-9bae-5c94c9917384;Resource:A5e7428e-3972-40b6-b410-cfde15e088d2;Resource:6f86286f-e078-48ae-915d-33fa0702d502;Resource:B97fb67b-be18-4049-bf34-6a82ca594c0f
|Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:D0ad4326-4faa-47bf-85ab-a3eb78cb6540;Theme:0bb5e4f7-9336-4ca8-92e3-c506413d1450;Theme:5e34933a-293e-447a-9ab4-9299a152e8a5
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Dan Markingson
|Has Timepoint=2003 - 2015
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability; Care; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Patient safety; REC approval; Consent; Drug Development; Misconduct Investigations; Research Misconduct Investigation
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine; SH 04.05 - Social and clinical psychology; LS 05 - Neurosciences and Neural Disorders; LS 05.12 - Psychiatric disorders (e.g. schizophrenia, autism, Tourette’s syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder); LS 07.11 - Medical ethics
}}

Resource:43c4d969-6b45-47f1-b96b-a0da8fe7ef29

2020-07-30T09:17:46Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Anonymity Revisited
|Is About=This fictional case is about an applied medical anthropologist who wrote a series of articles when she was working in an urban black community in the United States. She wrote her articles in an anonymous way so that individuals and/or the community would not be harmed. However, members of the community started a discussion because they were surprised that the name of the community health center and the name of the town were not given.
|Important Because=Anthropological conventions specify the use of pseudonyms in certain types of anthropological reporting, specifically if there is any chance that individuals or a community might be harmed.
|Important For=Researchers; Early career researchers; Research subjects; research integrity researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.americananthro.org/LearnAndTeach/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=12923&RDtoken=16518&userID=5089&navItemNumber=731
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:887faa17-01f0-43b4-acde-a610054581c4;Resource:F7ed25ad-cfab-4040-b52f-596accc3c317;Resource:5fb837af-4817-4081-b7c5-4013c254f689;Resource:232ffbe0-b7fb-4d04-b605-493e10bc04c6;Resource:9c917ab2-c01d-446b-89c1-a9cd415afb00
|Related To Theme=Theme:540c9ba0-bc9c-4311-b3e1-7a650d2b9f0f;Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9;Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:4e235a59-4819-40a1-b9d2-598565a69a49
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Mary Jones
|Has Timepoint=1969-1972
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Privacy; Anonymity; Recognition
|Related To Research Area=Other humanities
}}

Resource:919c16ba-268c-4bf7-8a3a-2da003314524

2020-07-30T08:50:41Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Institutional Pathology and the Death of a Mentally Ill Young Man
|Is About=A case about a mentally ill young man who stabbed himself to death in an industry-sponsored drug study. This is a factual case.
|Important Because=Scientific research with participation of human beings should be done ethically. Recruiting procedures of the subjects, research oversight, adequate clinical care, and informed consent are of particular importance.
|Important For=Researchers; health care professionals; Principal investigators
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08989621.2016.1246969?journalCode=gacr20
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:E1f32efa-98f0-4036-857b-441c15bb39da;Resource:08657792-f22e-486e-a034-c78fb9a2f39f;Resource:97d7c2bf-daa8-4162-9bae-5c94c9917384;Resource:A5e7428e-3972-40b6-b410-cfde15e088d2;Resource:6f86286f-e078-48ae-915d-33fa0702d502;Resource:B97fb67b-be18-4049-bf34-6a82ca594c0f
|Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:D0ad4326-4faa-47bf-85ab-a3eb78cb6540
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2003 - 2015
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability; Care; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Patient safety; REC approval; Consent; Drug Development; Misconduct Investigations; Research Misconduct Investigation
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine; SH 04.05 - Social and clinical psychology; LS 05 - Neurosciences and Neural Disorders; LS 05.12 - Psychiatric disorders (e.g. schizophrenia, autism, Tourette’s syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder); LS 07.11 - Medical ethics
}}

Resource:919c16ba-268c-4bf7-8a3a-2da003314524

2020-07-29T11:32:02Z

0000-0001-9615-8360:

User:0000-0001-9615-8360

2020-07-29T11:04:43Z

0000-0001-9615-8360: create user page