https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=0000-0003-4416-1351 2026-09-13T11:26:00Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.11 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Guide:28e71fab-2a81-4448-9ed0-8c5714746b6c&diff=19569 2026-09-10T07:40:36Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Guide<br /> |Title=Introduction to research ethics and integrity<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Guide Goal=The overall goal of the introduction to Research Ethics and Integrity (REI) course is to introduce participants to the fundamental principles of responsible and ethical research, provide up-to-date knowledge on current practices, emerging developments, and new trends in Research Ethics and Integrity, and strengthen the practical skills needed to apply these principles effectively throughout the research process. This course was developed as part of the ETHICS project, with the support of the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA).<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Guide Step Trainee<br /> |Guide Step Type Trainee=Instruction<br /> |Guide Step Element=Instruction:A21c91d6-f376-4cb0-9b3a-27a18c25a064<br /> }}<br /> {{Guide Step Trainee<br /> |Guide Step Type Trainee=Instruction<br /> |Guide Step Element=Instruction:6f699046-a247-4f28-b5ce-d93dfae940cc<br /> }}<br /> {{Guide Step Trainee<br /> |Guide Step Type Trainee=Instruction<br /> |Guide Step Element=Instruction:Bf24c894-570a-43c0-9626-b79bf9399a62<br /> }}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainee Close}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainer Close}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Guide:28e71fab-2a81-4448-9ed0-8c5714746b6c&diff=19568 2026-09-09T19:38:48Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Guide<br /> |Title=Introduction to research ethics and integrity<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Guide Goal=The overall goal of the introduction to Research Ethics and Integrity (REI) course is to introduce participants to the fundamental principles of responsible and ethical research, provide up-to-date knowledge on current practices, emerging developments, and new trends in Research Ethics and Integrity, and strengthen the practical skills needed to apply these principles effectively throughout the research process. This course was developed as part of the ETHICS project, with the support of the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA).<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Guide Step Trainee<br /> |Guide Step Type Trainee=Instruction<br /> |Guide Step Element=Instruction:30f33e85-09ed-4ea7-9ac2-7fb26d27ae55<br /> }}<br /> {{Guide Step Trainee<br /> |Guide Step Type Trainee=Instruction<br /> |Guide Step Element=Instruction:6f699046-a247-4f28-b5ce-d93dfae940cc<br /> }}<br /> {{Guide Step Trainee<br /> |Guide Step Type Trainee=Instruction<br /> |Guide Step Element=Instruction:Bf24c894-570a-43c0-9626-b79bf9399a62<br /> }}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainee Close}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainer Close}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Guide:28e71fab-2a81-4448-9ed0-8c5714746b6c&diff=19567 2026-09-09T19:35:53Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Guide<br /> |Title=Introduction to research ethics and integrity<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Guide Goal=The overall goal of this section of the Research Ethics and Integrity (REI) course is to introduce participants to the fundamental principles of responsible and ethical research, provide up-to-date knowledge on current practices, emerging developments, and new trends in Research Ethics and Integrity, and strengthen the practical skills needed to apply these principles effectively throughout the research process. This introduction was developed as part of the ETHICS project, with the support of the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA).<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Guide Step Trainee<br /> |Guide Step Type Trainee=Instruction<br /> |Guide Step Element=Instruction:30f33e85-09ed-4ea7-9ac2-7fb26d27ae55<br /> }}<br /> {{Guide Step Trainee<br /> |Guide Step Type Trainee=Instruction<br /> |Guide Step Element=Instruction:6f699046-a247-4f28-b5ce-d93dfae940cc<br /> }}<br /> {{Guide Step Trainee<br /> |Guide Step Type Trainee=Instruction<br /> |Guide Step Element=Instruction:Bf24c894-570a-43c0-9626-b79bf9399a62<br /> }}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainee Close}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainer Close}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Guide:28e71fab-2a81-4448-9ed0-8c5714746b6c&diff=19566 2026-09-09T19:28:54Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Guide |Title=introduction to research ethics and integrity |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065 |Guide Goal=The overall goal of this secti...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Guide<br /> |Title=introduction to research ethics and integrity<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Guide Goal=The overall goal of this section of the REI course is to:<br /> <br /> # Inform about the key principles of &lt;span lang=&quot;EN-GB&quot;&gt;Research Ethics and Integrity.&lt;/span&gt;<br /> # Share useful information about current practices and new trends regarding Research Ethics and Integrity.<br /> # Enhance practical skills related to Research Ethics and Integrity.<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Guide Step Trainee<br /> |Guide Step Type Trainee=Instruction<br /> |Guide Step Element=Instruction:30f33e85-09ed-4ea7-9ac2-7fb26d27ae55<br /> }}<br /> {{Guide Step Trainee<br /> |Guide Step Type Trainee=Instruction<br /> |Guide Step Element=Instruction:6f699046-a247-4f28-b5ce-d93dfae940cc<br /> }}<br /> {{Guide Step Trainee<br /> |Guide Step Type Trainee=Instruction<br /> |Guide Step Element=Instruction:Bf24c894-570a-43c0-9626-b79bf9399a62<br /> }}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainee Close}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Guide List Wrapper Trainer Close}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:Bf24c894-570a-43c0-9626-b79bf9399a62&diff=19564 2026-09-09T10:06:23Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Ethics in publishing science<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, learners will be able to:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> *Define scientific publishing and explain its role in disseminating research findings to the academic community and beyond.<br /> *Understand the criteria for authorship in academic publications and the ethical considerations involved in assigning authorship credit.<br /> *Describe the principles of responsible peer review and the importance of maintaining confidentiality and impartiality in the peer-review process.<br /> *Identify and assess potential conflicts of interest in scientific publishing, including financial, personal, and professional conflicts.<br /> *Understand the different metrics used to evaluate scientific research, such as citation counts, impact factors, and altmetrics.<br /> *Explain the basics of copyright and licensing in scientific publishing and their implications for authors and readers.<br /> *Recognize the characteristics of predatory journals and publishers and the risks associated with publishing in these outlets.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Scientific Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Writing, publishing, and presenting science is one of the basic skills of a researcher and academic professional.<br /> <br /> A scientist/lecturer at a university who does not write or otherwise present (promote or defend) the results of his or her work in front of a professional community or wider public is a pre-extinction species that cannot withstand evolution.<br /> <br /> Writing a high-quality and highly valued professional text is a very demanding activity. Your writing skills improve with each paper you publish. Article writing is a skill that can be learned. The speed of mastering the writing of research articles is different for different individuals and depends on many factors.<br /> <br /> However, when it comes to scientific writing, there is only one acceptable approach: responsible scientific writing.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Authorship<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Authorship can refer to individuals or groups that create an idea or develop the publication that disseminates that intellectual or creative work; however, appropriately acknowledging roles and contributions is not always a simple task.<br /> <br /> In science and research, authorship is the currency by which academics are paid and thus is essential for tenure, promotion, and grant funding. What is clear is that authorship is a fluid, evolving concept, and as it evolves, so will the ethical challenges associated with it.<br /> <br /> ==== What constitutes authorship? ====<br /> Editorial or academic organisations within different specialties have set out criteria and guidelines that members could adopt in their consideration of authorship.<br /> <br /> For example, the [https://www.icmje.org/ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)], also known as the Vancouver group, developed the recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. The ICMJE states that an author should meet all four of the following criteria:<br /> <br /> # Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND<br /> # Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND<br /> # Final approval of the version to be published; AND<br /> # Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.<br /> <br /> ICMJE further states that contributors who do not meet all four criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should still be acknowledged.<br /> <br /> The recommendations are intended to guarantee that those who have made significant intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors while also ensuring that those credited as authors understand their responsibility and accountability for the published work.<br /> <br /> A selection of other definitions of authorship for different scientific disciplines is presented in COPE Discussion Document on [https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/authorship What constitutes authorship].<br /> <br /> ==== Who qualifies, and who does not – common scenarios ====<br /> Interested in expert opinions on common authorship issues? For example:<br /> <br /> * I am a junior researcher and did a lot of the basic work. My supervisor/department head wrote up the work and hasn’t included me as an author<br /> * My department head insists on being included as an author on any research paper that comes out of his/her department. But he/she only obtained the grant money. Is this fair?<br /> * In what order should we list the authors to demonstrate the relative contribution of each?<br /> * There are more than 100 authors on this paper. Is that feasible?<br /> * The “author” is a collaborative group. How does that work?<br /> <br /> Check out the common scenarios and the COPE authorship guidelines [https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/Authorship_DiscussionDocument_0_0.pdf here].<br /> <br /> ==== Handling authorship disputes ====<br /> Authorship sounds simple, but in reality, it often proves to be a source of frustration. To advice on how to deal with authorship issues, you can read the COPE guidelines on [https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1 How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers] written by Tim Albert and Elizabeth Wager.  <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2014): What constitutes authorship? COPE Discussion Document [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3<br /> <br /> [2] COPE. (2003): How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1<br /> <br /> [3] ICMJE. (2024). . Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/<br /> <br /> [4] UKRIO. (2017). Good practice in research: Authorship. https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Guidance-Note-Authorship-v1.0.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Infographic: Authorship Practices to Avoid Conflicts<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Discover the key to harmonious collaboration!<br /> <br /> Dive into this infographic on best [https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/Authorship%20Practices%20to%20Avoid%20Conflicts_Rasterized.pdf authorship practices to prevent conflicts] and foster successful partnerships.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Peer-Review<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality, and originality of articles for publication. Its main goal is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out articles that are invalid or of poor quality.<br /> <br /> ==== What do we mean by ‘peer review’? ====<br /> In academia, we keep referring to peer review as though it is something obvious, but it is not evident that there is a common definition. For journal publishers and universities, the most commonly used explanation is:<br /> <br /> ''“…the process of someone reading, checking, and giving his or her opinion about something that has been written by another scientist or expert working in the same subject area”'' (from [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peer-review Cambridge Dictionary, web edition])<br /> <br /> The review process should include comments from reviewers who are not on the editorial board and so can make objective decisions. Reviewers should focus on the academic quality of the work in question and check the methods used. Peer review does not involve language editing or copy editing, done to make the final article or book read well, but ensures that the research has been properly done according to discipline-specific and relevant research practices. Different types of peer review are suitable for different disciplines and research communities.<br /> <br /> A trustworthy journal should clearly and publicly define what type of peer review it uses. It is also recommended that journals follow the guidelines provided by the [https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)].<br /> <br /> ==== Models of peer review ====<br /> Different journals use different types or models of peer review, all of which have various advantages and disadvantages. The most common types of peer review include:<br /> <br /> * Single-blind: the peer reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report).<br /> * Double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (but if the research is published reviewers can eventually know the names of the authors).<br /> * Open: authors know who the reviewers are and the reviewers know who the authors are. In some journals, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the named review reports are also published alongside the article.<br /> * Transparent: similar to open peer review in that if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the content of the reviewer reports is openly available, however the reviewers are not named. <br /> <br /> Learn about the other types of peer review in the [https://publicationethics.org/node/34926 COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews]?<br /> <br /> ==== Fundamentals of peer review ====<br /> Interested to learn more about the peer review fundamentals? [https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review Elsevier's Researcher Academy] prepared a series of modules explaining why it is important to get involved in peer review and the many benefits it can bring. You will hear how carrying out peer review can sharpen your own writing skills and discover the ethics guidelines you should comply with. <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2024). Fundamentals of peer review. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review<br /> <br /> [3] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). What do we mean by ‘peer review’? https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/peer-review/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer reviewers are important for ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process assists editors in deciding whether the research is suitable for publication in their journal. Peer reviewers are key players in this process, but sometimes, they might not know what's expected of them.<br /> <br /> ====COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers====<br /> Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. COPE Peer review guidelines provide basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer review process in research publication. <br /> <br /> These guidelines are intended to be applied across disciplines. COPE Guidelines provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). Guidelines: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4&lt;nowiki/&gt;Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746 'Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the ethical and integrity standards governing peer review processes.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> * The integrity of peer review processes;<br /> * Institutional obligations to uphold the standards of good peer review practices;<br /> * Plagiarism.<br /> <br /> ===== Your task is to: =====<br /> <br /> # Read the narrative (Issue 1–2) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> # Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> # Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> <br /> [1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Conflict of Interest<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Conflict of interest occurs when a scientist's personal interests—such as financial gain, professional advancement, or personal relationships—could potentially influence or appear to influence their research findings and decision-making. These conflicts can compromise the objectivity and integrity of the publication, potentially affecting the credibility of the research itself.<br /> <br /> Scientists are guided by a genuine desire to pursue truth and impartial judgment, and by honesty in reporting and interpreting their research results. This means that scientific work should be as unbiased and objective as possible in the sense that non-scientific interests should not play any significant role in the way in which the research work is conducted and its results are interpreted and presented.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it? Defining conflict of interest ====<br /> Competing interests (also known as conflicts of interests — COIs) is defined as follows:<br /> <br /> “A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.” <br /> <br /> The generally understood principles are shared by many journals and publishers. Their interpretation into policy, however, varies journal by journal.<br /> <br /> Conflicts of interest can be:<br /> <br /> # financial or<br /> # non-financial (such as family and friendship relationships). <br /> <br /> More problematic forms of conflict of interest happen when researchers participate in the selection of a procurement contract with a company where they or their relatives have a financial interest, or when peer review panel members have a close family or professional relationship with one of the applicants to a position or a grant.<br /> <br /> ==== Dealing with Conflicts of Interest ====<br /> According to the [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests US Office of Research Integrity], “Having a conflict of interest is not in itself unethical, and some are unavoidable. Full transparency is always the best course of action, and, if in doubt, disclose.”<br /> <br /> Transparency and disclosure are the primary mechanisms for managing conflicts of interest in publishing. Authors are typically required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when submitting a manuscript. This includes financial interests (such as funding or stock ownership), affiliations, personal relationships, or intellectual biases that might affect the research.<br /> <br /> Further resources:<br /> <br /> Elsevier. (2019). [https://assets.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/5XCIR5PjsKLJMAh0ISkIzb/16f6a246e767446b75543d8d8671048c/Competing-Interests-factsheet-March-2019.pdf Factsheet: Competing Interests].<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2017). Ethics in Research &amp; Publication.<br /> <br /> [3] Integrity. Conflict of interest in research: what is it and why it matters? https://h2020integrity.eu/conflict-of-interest-in-research-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters/<br /> <br /> [4] Office of Research Integrity U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A brief overview on Conflict of Interests. [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-35]<br /> <br /> [4] The Embassy of Good Science. Conflict of interests. [[Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International%20Committee%20of%20Medical%20Journal%20Editors%20Conflict%20of%20Interest%20Disclosure%20Form|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International_Committee_of_Medical_Journal_Editors_Conflict_of_Interest_Disclosure_Form]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Metrics<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Metrics, sometimes known as research indicators, are intended to be a quantitative measure of the quality and/or importance of a research output (e.g. journal article, monograph). There is a range of metrics that measure different things.<br /> <br /> ==== Citation metrics ====<br /> <br /> * They measure different things and it is important to understand what they measure, the limits of what they interpret, and when [https://www.metrics-toolkit.org/ best to use them].<br /> * They are sometimes used to measure the citation impact of journals rather than the citation impact of individual research outputs.<br /> * They measure the amount of academic attention a research output has received. <br /> * The simplest citation metric is the number of times a research output has been cited.<br /> * Citation practices differ across academic disciplines so there are a variety of weightings and calculations to address that and ensure that citation metrics are comparable.<br /> <br /> The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used example of a citation metric. It calculates the average number of citations that articles published by a journal have received over the preceding two-year period.  The JIF and other metrics are problematic for a number of reasons. One cannot judge the academic or research value of a work merely on the number of times it has been downloaded, or the number of times it has been cited.<br /> <br /> Journal-level metrics are often used by researchers to make decisions about where to publish their work. They can be useful for identifying journals that have a track record for generating attention for the research outputs that they publish.<br /> <br /> Alternative metrics or altmetrics measure the amount of online attention a research output has received beyond typical citation metrics. This can include things like mentions on Twitter, coverage on news platforms and blogs, Wikipedia citations and lots more besides. Measuring this kind of attention can be used to demonstrate reach beyond academia, and can help to evidence research impact.<br /> <br /> ==== Responsible Metrics ====<br /> There has been a movement towards advocating for responsible metrics which provides guidance on how to use metrics responsibly, both for measuring research quality and as part of conversations about career progression. The [https://sfdora.org/read/ San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)] is a set of principles that institutions have signed up to, which includes a requirement to eliminate the use of journal-level metrics (like the Journal Impact Factor) in funding, appointment and promotion considerations.  In response, some universities have created statements of responsible metrics. [https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/ The Bibliomagician] has collated a number of examples from a variety of institutions.<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Metrics. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/metrics/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: The COPE website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Ethical dimensions in publishing are like the universe. The further we look, the more tangible ethical issues become.<br /> <br /> ===== Ready to do a task on your own? =====<br /> COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is committed to educating and supporting editors, publishers, universities, research institutes, and all those involved in publication ethics. COPE aims to move the culture of publishing towards one where ethical practices become a normal part of the culture itself.<br /> <br /> Your task is to explore the following website: COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).<br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/ Explore: The COPE website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Copyright and Licensing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=There are different rules surrounding copyright law for texts and images. Make sure that you have all the necessary rights and permissions in place before you publish.<br /> <br /> ==== Licensing of your material ====<br /> Any material you create and share with others can be licensed. The license is a message to the reader, or the user of the material, about how they can use or reuse the content.<br /> <br /> All material that you produce as a researcher, such as articles, book chapters, books, blog texts, working papers, conference papers or teaching material, can be licensed at the time of publication. The license should be visible on the title page or first page of the material you publish.<br /> <br /> ==== Copyright ====<br /> Copyright refers to the intellectual property of a work that has been made public by you or your organisation. Copyright law is different in each country, and there is no international law that can be applied overall. However, certain principles apply globally. The right to be recognised as the creator is intrinsic. This means that you, as the author and/or publisher of the material, own the right to decide how it will be used. Different terms apply depending on how copyright is managed by the publisher, and there is sometimes a charge applied for someone who wants to reproduce or share copyrighted material. <br /> <br /> Copyright is divided into two parts: <br /> <br /> * The ‘intellectual rights’ that are non-transferrable, meaning that you, as the creator of a work, always have to be recognised. <br /> * The economic rights that can, however, be transferred to a publisher or licensed for reuse.<br /> <br /> For academic purposes, it is common practice to allow works to be cited to a certain limit (usually about 250 words or 1–2 images or tables, as long as the original source is clearly stated). This can be referred to as “fair use”, “fair dealing”, or “citation rights” depending on which national law applies to the published material.<br /> <br /> ==== Academic articles ====<br /> The author of a journal article may, as part of a standard contract with the publisher, have limited rights to share their own work or may have signed away their economic rights entirely. Many publishers still allow articles to be made ​​freely available provided that certain conditions are met. If you want to know what applies to the journal where you have published your articles, please visit the journal’s publisher’s policy in [https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ SHERPA/RoMEO]. Authors are recommended to check that the publisher’s policy aligns with the policy of their institution and funder before signing any contracts.<br /> <br /> ==== Books and book chapters ====<br /> When publishing a book, or a chapter in a book, the terms of licensing and copyright will typically be included in a contract which you would have to agree with a publisher and which will specify the usage rights, the format(s) and length of time applied to the work.<br /> <br /> Book contracts vary from publisher to publisher, and can in some cases be complicated. If you are required to sign a contract with a publisher in order to publish your work you need to ensure that the contract covers your rights and that it takes into account the obligation you have to your employer and/or the funder of your research.<br /> <br /> If you want to publish a thesis or dissertation it is recommended that you contact your institution or department to make sure that you follow their policy for such publications.<br /> <br /> For more information on what to consider before publishing an Open Access book see the [https://oabooks-toolkit.org/lifecycle/3284351-book-contract-and-license/article/4492720-contracting-and-copyright Open Access Books Toolkit].<br /> <br /> ==== Images and copyright ====<br /> Artistic works, photographs, illustrations and diagrams have copyright protection specifying the use by someone without the author’s explicit permission. This protection is governed by the law of copyright for literary and artistic works in the country where your work is published. It is important that you consult the rightsholder if you would like to reproduce work from other sources in your book or article, unless the original work is openly licensed for reuse.<br /> <br /> Should you not get permission to use a picture in its electronic format, you can omit it and replace it with an explanatory text: “Because of copyright protection, this picture is missing in its electronic (or print) format.”<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> FOSTER. https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN//02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Access Licensing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Licenses can be applied to any material (e.g., sound, text, image, multimedia, software) where some exploitation or usage rights exist.<br /> <br /> ==== Open Access Licensing ====<br /> If you want to publish Open Access, you will still own the rights to your work. You control how it can be used and the credit you are given by choosing one of the [https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ Creative Commons] licenses. These open licenses are administered independently of any publisher and are internationally recognised. The licenses are applied as a legal code of practice, and can be seen as an addition to the intrinsic copyright applied in each country. Using an open license allows others to continue to build upon your work. There are currently [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ six types of Creative Commons licenses] available, each with slightly different permissions and requirements. All the licenses require that others using your work in any way must give you credit in the way you request, but not in a way that suggests that you endorse them in their use. There must always be a reference and a link to the original if the work is mentioned or reused. <br /> <br /> ==== What is a Creative Commons licence? ====<br /> Creative Commons, a global not-for-profit organisation which provides legal tools to promote the sharing and reuse of works of authorship, has produced a number of licences some of which meet the criteria for Open Access. These offer different levels of permission.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons offers licences readable at three different levels: legal, machine (the metadata) and human (non-legal descriptions). Creative Commons has a useful tool to help you determine the licence best for you. More restrictive CC licences are unlikely to meet Open Access requirements (e.g. because they impose restrictions on commercial use).<br /> <br /> What licence should be applied to the research data?<br /> <br /> It depends on what rights protect your research data, if at all.<br /> <br /> * If your research data qualifies as a work (literary work such as a journal article or a software), then CC BY 4.0 is usually the best choice. The use of the Share Alike (SA) is also compatible with the Open Access definition and reinforced in Plan S licensing guidance for publications. Non-commercial should be avoided as it is not Open Access compliant. Non-derivative is a tricky issue and should be avoided, especially if you do not know what you are doing. That said, it may not be incompatible with the Open Access definition.<br /> * If your research data is a database or a dataset (unstructured data that do not meet the database definition) usually the best option is a CC0, which waives all your rights in the database.<br /> <br /> Keep in mind that CC licences only deal with copyright and copyright related matter. Personal data are not included in CC and are analysed separately.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> FOSTER. https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN//02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html<br /> <br /> [1] OpenAIRE. Licenses for Research Data. https://www.openaire.eu/how-do-i-license-my-research-data<br /> <br /> [2] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Predatory journals and publishers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Over the past two decades, open-access publishing has rapidly grown into a global industry, making scholarly publications readily available to researchers, policymakers, and the general public. <br /> <br /> While this has generally been seen as a positive development, the predominant “Gold” open access route has also given rise to unforeseen challenges. The rise of open-access publishing, which often involves authors paying fees to make their work freely available, has unfortunately provided a fertile ground for predatory publishers. <br /> <br /> ==== What are predatory journals? ====<br /> Predatory journals and their publishers are “entities that prioritise self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterised by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices”.<br /> <br /> Many researchers are duped into choosing to publish with predatory journals because they are simply unaware of the difference between bogus and quality open-access journals. Early career researchers are at particular risk, as they may feel great pressure to publish but lack experience. Equally, these journals have disproportionately negative effects on researchers from low- and middle-income countries, who may not have the resources to identify those outlets and/or are seeking more affordable ways to publish.<br /> <br /> Falling prey to predatory publishers can damage a researcher's reputation, waste valuable resources, and contribute to the dissemination of potentially unreliable scientific information.<br /> <br /> ==== Identifying and promoting quality open-access journals ====<br /> There is currently no centralized global or European authentication of academic publishers and journals to certify that they meet the fundamental requirements of professionalism and financial transparency. Some specific recommendations of the ALLELA for researchers can be found below:<br /> <br /> * Searching the databases listed in the [https://doaj.org/ Directory of Open Access Journals] (DOAJ) (empowered by the global science community), and Web of Science (WoS) can be starting points for finding open access journals that follow good editorial practices. Additionally, [https://cabells.com/solutions/predatory-reports Cabells] provides a subscription service featuring a database of deceptive and predatory journals.<br /> * There are also several national and institutional resources that regularly evaluate and categorise scientific journals and publishers based on their editorial and publication standards. These can often also be accessed by external researchers, and could be extended and adopted for regional or European use.<br /> * The [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/ Think-Check-Submit] initiative provides tools to help researchers identify trusted journals in which to publish their research. The [https://www.coalition-s.org/journal-comparison-service/ Journal Comparison Service] by cOAlition S provides a platform that improves price transparency for researchers, libraries, and funding organisations.<br /> * Most academic libraries can advise researchers; they are encouraged to follow evidence-based characteristics of potential predatory journals and IAP-recommended markers for fraudulent, deceptive, or unacceptable journals.<br /> * In general, authors are recommended to keep full control over any published work by retaining their intellectual property rights. By doing so, authors will always be able to deposit a copy of the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) in a repository of their choice, and it allows them to re-use figures and tables from the publication in subsequent presentations or other works without having to seek permission from the publisher.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> There are various sources of information on predatory publishing, e.g., [https://zenodo.org/records/3738003 Predatory journals and open access: predators in the world of scientific publishing], where you can obtain additional information.<br /> <br /> For an alternative source of information that goes into more detail you may want to peak in [https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstreams/3c1b1ccb-e82b-49c3-96e5-7d4f3fcb9352/download Avoiding Predatory Journals and QuestionableConferences: A Resource Guide] (Eaton, 2018).<br /> <br /> [1] ALLELA. (2023). ALLEA statement on curbing predatory practices in open access scholarly publishing. https://doi.org/10.26356/PREDATORYPUBLISHING<br /> <br /> [2] Grudniewicz et al. (2019). “Predatory journals: no definition, no defence”. Nature 576, 210-212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Think. Check. Submit.<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Think. Check. Submit. helps researchers identify trusted journals and publishers for their research. Through a range of tools and practical resources, this international cross-sector initiative aims to educate researchers, promote integrity, and build trust in credible research and publications.<br /> <br /> The 3-step approach encourages academics to ‘Think’ about the problem posed by predatory or substandard conferences, ‘Check’ the conference against a set of criteria designed to highlight attributes of good and bad quality conferences, and ‘Attend’ only if the conference adheres to the criteria consistent with a legitimate conference.<br /> <br /> [[File:Et4.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ====Watch a video: Assessing the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher====<br /> Have you done your research and now you are ready to publish? Ensuring the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher is essential for researchers when sharing their work with the world. This video outlines some key steps and considerations to help researchers assess whether a journal or publisher is suitable for their research.<br /> <br /> ====Think. Check. Submit. checklist====<br /> The Think. Check. Submit. checklist is a tool that will help you discover what you need to know when assessing whether or not a publisher is suitable for your research.<br /> <br /> Follow the [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/books-and-chapters/ Book &amp; Chapters] or [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/ Journals] checklist to make sure you choose trusted journals and publishers for your research.<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). https://thinkchecksubmit.org/<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-645<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Paper-Mills problem<br /> |Instruction Step Text=With the increasing pressure on (young) researchers to publish, there is a growing concern over the proliferation of fake papers within the academic community. In science and research, a &quot;''paper mill''&quot; refers to a deceptive practice where manuscripts are fabricated or manipulated and then submitted to academic journals for publication.<br /> <br /> ==== What is a paper mill? ====<br /> The [https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/paper-mills-cope-stm-research-report.pdf Committee on Publication Ethics] defines paper mills as &quot;the process by which manufactured manuscripts are submitted to a journal for a fee on behalf of researchers with the purpose of providing an easy publication for them, or to offer authorship for sale.&quot;<br /> <br /> These manuscripts are often generated for the purpose of exploiting the academic publishing system, typically to boost publication records or to fulfill requirements for academic advancement, such as obtaining tenure or securing funding. Fake papers can be identified both during the submission process and after publication.<br /> <br /> Paper mills may involve the use of ghostwriters, falsified data, or plagiarized content. This unethical practice undermines the integrity of scholarly publishing and can have serious consequences for academic credibility and scientific progress.<br /> <br /> === Paper mills in the era of large language models (LLMs) ===<br /> The emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has raised concerns about an increase in paper mills. These tools can quickly generate fake papers and authorships, posing a significant threat to scientific publishing by blurring the line between genuine and fabricated research. <br /> <br /> This underscores worries in the scientific community about maintaining integrity in scholarly publishing and preventing the misuse of AI technology. It's crucial to recognize that attempting to pass off AI-generated text as one's own work constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty. <br /> <br /> Reading for fun:<br /> <br /> [https://publicationethics.org/resources/research/paper-mills-research Paper Mills Research report from COPE &amp; STM]<br /> <br /> Van Noorden, R. (2023). How big is science’s fake-paper problem? An unpublished analysis suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of bogus ‘paper-mill’ articles lurking in the literature. Nature, 623, 466-467. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x<br /> <br /> [1] COPE &amp; STM. Paper Mills — Research report from COPE &amp; STM. https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Ethics in publishing and research<br /> |Instruction Step Text=''Dr. Babor is Professor Emeritus and former head of the Department of Community Medicine and Health Care and directs an active research program. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.''<br /> <br /> In this lecture, Tom will describe the main traditions of scientific integrity and research ethics that have been developed over the past 80 years, beginning with the Helsinki Agreement and the development of modern ethical principles. The main part of the lecture will focus on the growth of addiction science in Europe and America, and the challenges of conducting basic, clinical, and policy research on alcohol and other psychoactive substances. Particular attention will be given to the different degrees of research misconduct and how to prevent them by means of ethical decision-making and institutional guidelines. Conflict of interest and the influence of powerful industries such as tobacco, alcohol, gambling and pharmaceuticals will also be discussed.<br /> <br /> This presentation is in English. <br /> <br /> It is a bit on the long side, though. :)<br /> <br /> Click on the video to open the resource.<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-646<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216 'Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative on the theme of Publication and Dissemination.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> *Dual submissions<br /> *Authorship lists<br /> *Plagiarism<br /> *Complaints procedures<br /> *Editorial decisions<br /> *Retraction<br /> <br /> =====Your task is to:=====<br /> <br /> #Read the narrative (Issue 1–4) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> #Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> #Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> [1] Jonathan Lewis. (2020). Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Practice the quice activity below.<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-650<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=We are proud to have you, our world-class colleagues in the field, and we dedicate this course to you.<br /> <br /> The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE<br /> <br /> [[File:Eth1.png|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:Bf24c894-570a-43c0-9626-b79bf9399a62&diff=19562 2026-09-09T09:56:33Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Ethics in publishing science<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, learners will be able to:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> *Define scientific publishing and explain its role in disseminating research findings to the academic community and beyond.<br /> *Understand the criteria for authorship in academic publications and the ethical considerations involved in assigning authorship credit.<br /> *Describe the principles of responsible peer review and the importance of maintaining confidentiality and impartiality in the peer-review process.<br /> *Identify and assess potential conflicts of interest in scientific publishing, including financial, personal, and professional conflicts.<br /> *Understand the different metrics used to evaluate scientific research, such as citation counts, impact factors, and altmetrics.<br /> *Explain the basics of copyright and licensing in scientific publishing and their implications for authors and readers.<br /> *Recognize the characteristics of predatory journals and publishers and the risks associated with publishing in these outlets.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Scientific Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Writing, publishing, and presenting science is one of the basic skills of a researcher and academic professional.<br /> <br /> A scientist/lecturer at a university who does not write or otherwise present (promote or defend) the results of his or her work in front of a professional community or wider public is a pre-extinction species that cannot withstand evolution.<br /> <br /> Writing a high-quality and highly valued professional text is a very demanding activity. Your writing skills improve with each paper you publish. Article writing is a skill that can be learned. The speed of mastering the writing of research articles is different for different individuals and depends on many factors.<br /> <br /> However, when it comes to scientific writing, there is only one acceptable approach: responsible scientific writing.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Authorship<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Authorship can refer to individuals or groups that create an idea or develop the publication that disseminates that intellectual or creative work; however, appropriately acknowledging roles and contributions is not always a simple task.<br /> <br /> In science and research, authorship is the currency by which academics are paid and thus is essential for tenure, promotion, and grant funding. What is clear is that authorship is a fluid, evolving concept, and as it evolves, so will the ethical challenges associated with it.<br /> <br /> ==== What constitutes authorship? ====<br /> Editorial or academic organisations within different specialties have set out criteria and guidelines that members could adopt in their consideration of authorship.<br /> <br /> For example, the [https://www.icmje.org/ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)], also known as the Vancouver group, developed the recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. The ICMJE states that an author should meet all four of the following criteria:<br /> <br /> # Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND<br /> # Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND<br /> # Final approval of the version to be published; AND<br /> # Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.<br /> <br /> ICMJE further states that contributors who do not meet all four criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should still be acknowledged.<br /> <br /> The recommendations are intended to guarantee that those who have made significant intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors while also ensuring that those credited as authors understand their responsibility and accountability for the published work.<br /> <br /> A selection of other definitions of authorship for different scientific disciplines is presented in COPE Discussion Document on [https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/authorship What constitutes authorship].<br /> <br /> ==== Who qualifies, and who does not – common scenarios ====<br /> Interested in expert opinions on common authorship issues? For example:<br /> <br /> * I am a junior researcher and did a lot of the basic work. My supervisor/department head wrote up the work and hasn’t included me as an author<br /> * My department head insists on being included as an author on any research paper that comes out of his/her department. But he/she only obtained the grant money. Is this fair?<br /> * In what order should we list the authors to demonstrate the relative contribution of each?<br /> * There are more than 100 authors on this paper. Is that feasible?<br /> * The “author” is a collaborative group. How does that work?<br /> <br /> Check out the common scenarios and the COPE authorship guidelines [https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/Authorship_DiscussionDocument_0_0.pdf here].<br /> <br /> ==== Handling authorship disputes ====<br /> Authorship sounds simple, but in reality, it often proves to be a source of frustration. To advice on how to deal with authorship issues, you can read the COPE guidelines on [https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1 How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers] written by Tim Albert and Elizabeth Wager.  <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2014): What constitutes authorship? COPE Discussion Document [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3<br /> <br /> [2] COPE. (2003): How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1<br /> <br /> [3] ICMJE. (2024). . Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/<br /> <br /> [4] UKRIO. (2017). Good practice in research: Authorship. https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Guidance-Note-Authorship-v1.0.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Infographic: Authorship Practices to Avoid Conflicts<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Discover the key to harmonious collaboration!<br /> <br /> Dive into this infographic on best [https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/Authorship%20Practices%20to%20Avoid%20Conflicts_Rasterized.pdf authorship practices to prevent conflicts] and foster successful partnerships.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Peer-Review<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality, and originality of articles for publication. Its main goal is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out articles that are invalid or of poor quality.<br /> <br /> ==== What do we mean by ‘peer review’? ====<br /> In academia, we keep referring to peer review as though it is something obvious, but it is not evident that there is a common definition. For journal publishers and universities, the most commonly used explanation is:<br /> <br /> ''“…the process of someone reading, checking, and giving his or her opinion about something that has been written by another scientist or expert working in the same subject area”'' (from [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peer-review Cambridge Dictionary, web edition])<br /> <br /> The review process should include comments from reviewers who are not on the editorial board and so can make objective decisions. Reviewers should focus on the academic quality of the work in question and check the methods used. Peer review does not involve language editing or copy editing, done to make the final article or book read well, but ensures that the research has been properly done according to discipline-specific and relevant research practices. Different types of peer review are suitable for different disciplines and research communities.<br /> <br /> A trustworthy journal should clearly and publicly define what type of peer review it uses. It is also recommended that journals follow the guidelines provided by the [https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)].<br /> <br /> ==== Models of peer review ====<br /> Different journals use different types or models of peer review, all of which have various advantages and disadvantages. The most common types of peer review include:<br /> <br /> * Single-blind: the peer reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report).<br /> * Double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (but if the research is published reviewers can eventually know the names of the authors).<br /> * Open: authors know who the reviewers are and the reviewers know who the authors are. In some journals, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the named review reports are also published alongside the article.<br /> * Transparent: similar to open peer review in that if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the content of the reviewer reports is openly available, however the reviewers are not named. <br /> <br /> Learn about the other types of peer review in the [https://publicationethics.org/node/34926 COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews]?<br /> <br /> ==== Fundamentals of peer review ====<br /> Interested to learn more about the peer review fundamentals? [https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review Elsevier's Researcher Academy] prepared a series of modules explaining why it is important to get involved in peer review and the many benefits it can bring. You will hear how carrying out peer review can sharpen your own writing skills and discover the ethics guidelines you should comply with. <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2024). Fundamentals of peer review. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review<br /> <br /> [3] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). What do we mean by ‘peer review’? https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/peer-review/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer reviewers are important for ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process assists editors in deciding whether the research is suitable for publication in their journal. Peer reviewers are key players in this process, but sometimes, they might not know what's expected of them.<br /> <br /> ====COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers====<br /> Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. COPE Peer review guidelines provide basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer review process in research publication. <br /> <br /> These guidelines are intended to be applied across disciplines. COPE Guidelines provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). Guidelines: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4&lt;nowiki/&gt;Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746 'Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the ethical and integrity standards governing peer review processes.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> * The integrity of peer review processes;<br /> * Institutional obligations to uphold the standards of good peer review practices;<br /> * Plagiarism.<br /> <br /> ===== Your task is to: =====<br /> <br /> # Read the narrative (Issue 1–2) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> # Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> # Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> <br /> [1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Conflict of Interest<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Conflict of interest occurs when a scientist's personal interests—such as financial gain, professional advancement, or personal relationships—could potentially influence or appear to influence their research findings and decision-making. These conflicts can compromise the objectivity and integrity of the publication, potentially affecting the credibility of the research itself.<br /> <br /> Scientists are guided by a genuine desire to pursue truth and impartial judgment, and by honesty in reporting and interpreting their research results. This means that scientific work should be as unbiased and objective as possible in the sense that non-scientific interests should not play any significant role in the way in which the research work is conducted and its results are interpreted and presented.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it? Defining conflict of interest ====<br /> Competing interests (also known as conflicts of interests — COIs) is defined as follows:<br /> <br /> “A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.” <br /> <br /> The generally understood principles are shared by many journals and publishers. Their interpretation into policy, however, varies journal by journal.<br /> <br /> Conflicts of interest can be:<br /> <br /> # financial or<br /> # non-financial (such as family and friendship relationships). <br /> <br /> More problematic forms of conflict of interest happen when researchers participate in the selection of a procurement contract with a company where they or their relatives have a financial interest, or when peer review panel members have a close family or professional relationship with one of the applicants to a position or a grant.<br /> <br /> ==== Dealing with Conflicts of Interest ====<br /> According to the [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests US Office of Research Integrity], “Having a conflict of interest is not in itself unethical, and some are unavoidable. Full transparency is always the best course of action, and, if in doubt, disclose.”<br /> <br /> Transparency and disclosure are the primary mechanisms for managing conflicts of interest in publishing. Authors are typically required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when submitting a manuscript. This includes financial interests (such as funding or stock ownership), affiliations, personal relationships, or intellectual biases that might affect the research.<br /> <br /> Further resources:<br /> <br /> Elsevier. (2019). [https://assets.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/5XCIR5PjsKLJMAh0ISkIzb/16f6a246e767446b75543d8d8671048c/Competing-Interests-factsheet-March-2019.pdf Factsheet: Competing Interests].<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2017). Ethics in Research &amp; Publication.<br /> <br /> [3] Integrity. Conflict of interest in research: what is it and why it matters? https://h2020integrity.eu/conflict-of-interest-in-research-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters/<br /> <br /> [4] Office of Research Integrity U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A brief overview on Conflict of Interests. [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-35]<br /> <br /> [4] The Embassy of Good Science. Conflict of interests. [[Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International%20Committee%20of%20Medical%20Journal%20Editors%20Conflict%20of%20Interest%20Disclosure%20Form|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International_Committee_of_Medical_Journal_Editors_Conflict_of_Interest_Disclosure_Form]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Metrics<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Metrics, sometimes known as research indicators, are intended to be a quantitative measure of the quality and/or importance of a research output (e.g. journal article, monograph). There is a range of metrics that measure different things.<br /> <br /> ==== Citation metrics ====<br /> <br /> * They measure different things and it is important to understand what they measure, the limits of what they interpret, and when [https://www.metrics-toolkit.org/ best to use them].<br /> * They are sometimes used to measure the citation impact of journals rather than the citation impact of individual research outputs.<br /> * They measure the amount of academic attention a research output has received. <br /> * The simplest citation metric is the number of times a research output has been cited.<br /> * Citation practices differ across academic disciplines so there are a variety of weightings and calculations to address that and ensure that citation metrics are comparable.<br /> <br /> The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used example of a citation metric. It calculates the average number of citations that articles published by a journal have received over the preceding two-year period.  The JIF and other metrics are problematic for a number of reasons. One cannot judge the academic or research value of a work merely on the number of times it has been downloaded, or the number of times it has been cited.<br /> <br /> Journal-level metrics are often used by researchers to make decisions about where to publish their work. They can be useful for identifying journals that have a track record for generating attention for the research outputs that they publish.<br /> <br /> Alternative metrics or altmetrics measure the amount of online attention a research output has received beyond typical citation metrics. This can include things like mentions on Twitter, coverage on news platforms and blogs, Wikipedia citations and lots more besides. Measuring this kind of attention can be used to demonstrate reach beyond academia, and can help to evidence research impact.<br /> <br /> ==== Responsible Metrics ====<br /> There has been a movement towards advocating for responsible metrics which provides guidance on how to use metrics responsibly, both for measuring research quality and as part of conversations about career progression. The [https://sfdora.org/read/ San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)] is a set of principles that institutions have signed up to, which includes a requirement to eliminate the use of journal-level metrics (like the Journal Impact Factor) in funding, appointment and promotion considerations.  In response, some universities have created statements of responsible metrics. [https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/ The Bibliomagician] has collated a number of examples from a variety of institutions.<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Metrics. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/metrics/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: The COPE website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Ethical dimensions in publishing are like the universe. The further we look, the more tangible ethical issues become.<br /> <br /> ===== Ready to do a task on your own? =====<br /> COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is committed to educating and supporting editors, publishers, universities, research institutes, and all those involved in publication ethics. COPE aims to move the culture of publishing towards one where ethical practices become a normal part of the culture itself.<br /> <br /> Your task is to explore the following website: COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).<br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/ Explore: The COPE website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Copyright and Licensing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=There are different rules surrounding copyright law for texts and images. Make sure that you have all the necessary rights and permissions in place before you publish.<br /> <br /> ==== Licensing of your material ====<br /> Any material you create and share with others can be licensed. The license is a message to the reader, or the user of the material, about how they can use or reuse the content.<br /> <br /> All material that you produce as a researcher, such as articles, book chapters, books, blog texts, working papers, conference papers or teaching material, can be licensed at the time of publication. The license should be visible on the title page or first page of the material you publish.<br /> <br /> ==== Copyright ====<br /> Copyright refers to the intellectual property of a work that has been made public by you or your organisation. Copyright law is different in each country, and there is no international law that can be applied overall. However, certain principles apply globally. The right to be recognised as the creator is intrinsic. This means that you, as the author and/or publisher of the material, own the right to decide how it will be used. Different terms apply depending on how copyright is managed by the publisher, and there is sometimes a charge applied for someone who wants to reproduce or share copyrighted material. <br /> <br /> Copyright is divided into two parts: <br /> <br /> * The ‘intellectual rights’ that are non-transferrable, meaning that you, as the creator of a work, always have to be recognised. <br /> * The economic rights that can, however, be transferred to a publisher or licensed for reuse.<br /> <br /> For academic purposes, it is common practice to allow works to be cited to a certain limit (usually about 250 words or 1–2 images or tables, as long as the original source is clearly stated). This can be referred to as “fair use”, “fair dealing”, or “citation rights” depending on which national law applies to the published material.<br /> <br /> ==== Academic articles ====<br /> The author of a journal article may, as part of a standard contract with the publisher, have limited rights to share their own work or may have signed away their economic rights entirely. Many publishers still allow articles to be made ​​freely available provided that certain conditions are met. If you want to know what applies to the journal where you have published your articles, please visit the journal’s publisher’s policy in [https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ SHERPA/RoMEO]. Authors are recommended to check that the publisher’s policy aligns with the policy of their institution and funder before signing any contracts.<br /> <br /> ==== Books and book chapters ====<br /> When publishing a book, or a chapter in a book, the terms of licensing and copyright will typically be included in a contract which you would have to agree with a publisher and which will specify the usage rights, the format(s) and length of time applied to the work.<br /> <br /> Book contracts vary from publisher to publisher, and can in some cases be complicated. If you are required to sign a contract with a publisher in order to publish your work you need to ensure that the contract covers your rights and that it takes into account the obligation you have to your employer and/or the funder of your research.<br /> <br /> If you want to publish a thesis or dissertation it is recommended that you contact your institution or department to make sure that you follow their policy for such publications.<br /> <br /> For more information on what to consider before publishing an Open Access book see the [https://oabooks-toolkit.org/lifecycle/3284351-book-contract-and-license/article/4492720-contracting-and-copyright Open Access Books Toolkit].<br /> <br /> ==== Images and copyright ====<br /> Artistic works, photographs, illustrations and diagrams have copyright protection specifying the use by someone without the author’s explicit permission. This protection is governed by the law of copyright for literary and artistic works in the country where your work is published. It is important that you consult the rightsholder if you would like to reproduce work from other sources in your book or article, unless the original work is openly licensed for reuse.<br /> <br /> Should you not get permission to use a picture in its electronic format, you can omit it and replace it with an explanatory text: “Because of copyright protection, this picture is missing in its electronic (or print) format.”<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> FOSTER. https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN//02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Access Licensing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Licenses can be applied to any material (e.g., sound, text, image, multimedia, software) where some exploitation or usage rights exist.<br /> <br /> ==== Open Access Licensing ====<br /> If you want to publish Open Access, you will still own the rights to your work. You control how it can be used and the credit you are given by choosing one of the [https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ Creative Commons] licenses. These open licenses are administered independently of any publisher and are internationally recognised. The licenses are applied as a legal code of practice, and can be seen as an addition to the intrinsic copyright applied in each country. Using an open license allows others to continue to build upon your work. There are currently [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ six types of Creative Commons licenses] available, each with slightly different permissions and requirements. All the licenses require that others using your work in any way must give you credit in the way you request, but not in a way that suggests that you endorse them in their use. There must always be a reference and a link to the original if the work is mentioned or reused. <br /> <br /> ==== What is a Creative Commons licence? ====<br /> Creative Commons, a global not-for-profit organisation which provides legal tools to promote the sharing and reuse of works of authorship, has produced a number of licences some of which meet the criteria for Open Access. These offer different levels of permission.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons offers licences readable at three different levels: legal, machine (the metadata) and human (non-legal descriptions). Creative Commons has a useful tool to help you determine the licence best for you. More restrictive CC licences are unlikely to meet Open Access requirements (e.g. because they impose restrictions on commercial use).<br /> <br /> What licence should be applied to the research data?<br /> <br /> It depends on what rights protect your research data, if at all.<br /> <br /> * If your research data qualifies as a work (literary work such as a journal article or a software), then CC BY 4.0 is usually the best choice. The use of the Share Alike (SA) is also compatible with the Open Access definition and reinforced in Plan S licensing guidance for publications. Non-commercial should be avoided as it is not Open Access compliant. Non-derivative is a tricky issue and should be avoided, especially if you do not know what you are doing. That said, it may not be incompatible with the Open Access definition.<br /> * If your research data is a database or a dataset (unstructured data that do not meet the database definition) usually the best option is a CC0, which waives all your rights in the database.<br /> <br /> Keep in mind that CC licences only deal with copyright and copyright related matter. Personal data are not included in CC and are analysed separately.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> FOSTER. https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN//02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html<br /> <br /> [1] OpenAIRE. Licenses for Research Data. https://www.openaire.eu/how-do-i-license-my-research-data<br /> <br /> [2] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Predatory journals and publishers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Over the past two decades, open-access publishing has rapidly grown into a global industry, making scholarly publications readily available to researchers, policymakers, and the general public. <br /> <br /> While this has generally been seen as a positive development, the predominant “Gold” open access route has also given rise to unforeseen challenges. The rise of open-access publishing, which often involves authors paying fees to make their work freely available, has unfortunately provided a fertile ground for predatory publishers. <br /> <br /> ==== What are predatory journals? ====<br /> Predatory journals and their publishers are “entities that prioritise self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterised by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices”.<br /> <br /> Many researchers are duped into choosing to publish with predatory journals because they are simply unaware of the difference between bogus and quality open-access journals. Early career researchers are at particular risk, as they may feel great pressure to publish but lack experience. Equally, these journals have disproportionately negative effects on researchers from low- and middle-income countries, who may not have the resources to identify those outlets and/or are seeking more affordable ways to publish.<br /> <br /> Falling prey to predatory publishers can damage a researcher's reputation, waste valuable resources, and contribute to the dissemination of potentially unreliable scientific information.<br /> <br /> ==== Identifying and promoting quality open-access journals ====<br /> There is currently no centralized global or European authentication of academic publishers and journals to certify that they meet the fundamental requirements of professionalism and financial transparency. Some specific recommendations of the ALLELA for researchers can be found below:<br /> <br /> * Searching the databases listed in the [https://doaj.org/ Directory of Open Access Journals] (DOAJ) (empowered by the global science community), and Web of Science (WoS) can be starting points for finding open access journals that follow good editorial practices. Additionally, [https://cabells.com/solutions/predatory-reports Cabells] provides a subscription service featuring a database of deceptive and predatory journals.<br /> * There are also several national and institutional resources that regularly evaluate and categorise scientific journals and publishers based on their editorial and publication standards. These can often also be accessed by external researchers, and could be extended and adopted for regional or European use.<br /> * The [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/ Think-Check-Submit] initiative provides tools to help researchers identify trusted journals in which to publish their research. The [https://www.coalition-s.org/journal-comparison-service/ Journal Comparison Service] by cOAlition S provides a platform that improves price transparency for researchers, libraries, and funding organisations.<br /> * Most academic libraries can advise researchers; they are encouraged to follow evidence-based characteristics of potential predatory journals and IAP-recommended markers for fraudulent, deceptive, or unacceptable journals.<br /> * In general, authors are recommended to keep full control over any published work by retaining their intellectual property rights. By doing so, authors will always be able to deposit a copy of the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) in a repository of their choice, and it allows them to re-use figures and tables from the publication in subsequent presentations or other works without having to seek permission from the publisher.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> There are various sources of information on predatory publishing, e.g., [https://zenodo.org/records/3738003 Predatory journals and open access: predators in the world of scientific publishing], where you can obtain additional information.<br /> <br /> For an alternative source of information that goes into more detail you may want to peak in [https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstreams/3c1b1ccb-e82b-49c3-96e5-7d4f3fcb9352/download Avoiding Predatory Journals and QuestionableConferences: A Resource Guide] (Eaton, 2018).<br /> <br /> [1] ALLELA. (2023). ALLEA statement on curbing predatory practices in open access scholarly publishing. https://doi.org/10.26356/PREDATORYPUBLISHING<br /> <br /> [2] Grudniewicz et al. (2019). “Predatory journals: no definition, no defence”. Nature 576, 210-212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Think. Check. Submit.<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Think. Check. Submit. helps researchers identify trusted journals and publishers for their research. Through a range of tools and practical resources, this international cross-sector initiative aims to educate researchers, promote integrity, and build trust in credible research and publications.<br /> <br /> The 3-step approach encourages academics to ‘Think’ about the problem posed by predatory or substandard conferences, ‘Check’ the conference against a set of criteria designed to highlight attributes of good and bad quality conferences, and ‘Attend’ only if the conference adheres to the criteria consistent with a legitimate conference.<br /> <br /> [[File:Et4.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ====Watch a video: Assessing the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher====<br /> Have you done your research and now you are ready to publish? Ensuring the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher is essential for researchers when sharing their work with the world. This video outlines some key steps and considerations to help researchers assess whether a journal or publisher is suitable for their research.<br /> <br /> ====Think. Check. Submit. checklist====<br /> The Think. Check. Submit. checklist is a tool that will help you discover what you need to know when assessing whether or not a publisher is suitable for your research.<br /> <br /> Follow the [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/books-and-chapters/ Book &amp; Chapters] or [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/ Journals] checklist to make sure you choose trusted journals and publishers for your research.<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). https://thinkchecksubmit.org/<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-645<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Paper-Mills problem<br /> |Instruction Step Text=With the increasing pressure on (young) researchers to publish, there is a growing concern over the proliferation of fake papers within the academic community. In science and research, a &quot;''paper mill''&quot; refers to a deceptive practice where manuscripts are fabricated or manipulated and then submitted to academic journals for publication.<br /> <br /> ==== What is a paper mill? ====<br /> The [https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/paper-mills-cope-stm-research-report.pdf Committee on Publication Ethics] defines paper mills as &quot;the process by which manufactured manuscripts are submitted to a journal for a fee on behalf of researchers with the purpose of providing an easy publication for them, or to offer authorship for sale.&quot;<br /> <br /> These manuscripts are often generated for the purpose of exploiting the academic publishing system, typically to boost publication records or to fulfill requirements for academic advancement, such as obtaining tenure or securing funding. Fake papers can be identified both during the submission process and after publication.<br /> <br /> Paper mills may involve the use of ghostwriters, falsified data, or plagiarized content. This unethical practice undermines the integrity of scholarly publishing and can have serious consequences for academic credibility and scientific progress.<br /> <br /> === Paper mills in the era of large language models (LLMs) ===<br /> The emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has raised concerns about an increase in paper mills. These tools can quickly generate fake papers and authorships, posing a significant threat to scientific publishing by blurring the line between genuine and fabricated research. <br /> <br /> This underscores worries in the scientific community about maintaining integrity in scholarly publishing and preventing the misuse of AI technology. It's crucial to recognize that attempting to pass off AI-generated text as one's own work constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty. <br /> <br /> Reading for fun:<br /> <br /> [https://publicationethics.org/resources/research/paper-mills-research Paper Mills Research report from COPE &amp; STM]<br /> <br /> Van Noorden, R. (2023). How big is science’s fake-paper problem? An unpublished analysis suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of bogus ‘paper-mill’ articles lurking in the literature. Nature, 623, 466-467. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x<br /> <br /> [1] COPE &amp; STM. Paper Mills — Research report from COPE &amp; STM. https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Ethics in publishing and research<br /> |Instruction Step Text=''Dr. Babor is Professor Emeritus and former head of the Department of Community Medicine and Health Care and directs an active research program. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.''<br /> <br /> In this lecture, Tom will describe the main traditions of scientific integrity and research ethics that have been developed over the past 80 years, beginning with the Helsinki Agreement and the development of modern ethical principles. The main part of the lecture will focus on the growth of addiction science in Europe and America, and the challenges of conducting basic, clinical, and policy research on alcohol and other psychoactive substances. Particular attention will be given to the different degrees of research misconduct and how to prevent them by means of ethical decision-making and institutional guidelines. Conflict of interest and the influence of powerful industries such as tobacco, alcohol, gambling and pharmaceuticals will also be discussed.<br /> <br /> This presentation is in English. <br /> <br /> It is a bit on the long side, though. :)<br /> <br /> Click on the video to open the resource.<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-646<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216 'Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative on the theme of Publication and Dissemination.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> *Dual submissions<br /> *Authorship lists<br /> *Plagiarism<br /> *Complaints procedures<br /> *Editorial decisions<br /> *Retraction<br /> <br /> =====Your task is to:=====<br /> <br /> #Read the narrative (Issue 1–4) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> #Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> #Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> [1] Jonathan Lewis. (2020). Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Practice the quice activity below.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=We are proud to have you, our world-class colleagues in the field, and we dedicate this course to you.<br /> <br /> The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE<br /> <br /> [[File:Eth1.png|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:6f699046-a247-4f28-b5ce-d93dfae940cc&diff=19561 2026-09-09T09:39:44Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Open Science, Open Access, FAIR Data<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, you will:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Understand the concept of open science and explain its importance in the context of modern research practices.<br /> * Explain the principles of open access and the benefits of making research outputs freely available to the public.<br /> * Develop a comprehensive research data management plan (DMP) that addresses the organization, storage, and sharing of research data.<br /> * Apply the FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) to ensure that research data is properly managed and shared.<br /> * Critically evaluate the impact of open science practices on research integrity, collaboration, and innovation.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Science represents a new approach to the scientific process based on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing knowledge by using digital technologies and new collaborative tools.<br /> <br /> ==== What is open science? ====<br /> Open Science is the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods ([https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/foster-taxonomy/open-science-definition FOSTER Open Science Definition]).<br /> <br /> According to the [https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/taxonomy/term/7 FOSTER taxonomy], &quot;Open science is the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society.&quot; It can be defined as a grouping of principles and practices:<br /> <br /> * Principles: Open Science is about increased transparency, re-use, participation, cooperation, accountability and reproducibility for research. It aims to improve the quality and reliability of research through principles like inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing. Open Science can be viewed as research simply done properly, and it extends across the Life and Physical Sciences, Engineering, Mathematics, Social Sciences, and Humanities ([https://opensciencemooc.eu/ Open Science MOOC]).<br /> * Practices: Open Science includes changes to the way science is done - including opening access to research publications, data-sharing, open notebooks, transparency in research evaluation, ensuring the reproducibility of research (where possible), transparency in research methods, open source code, software and infrastructure, citizen science and open educational resources.<br /> <br /> [[File:Et2.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==== What are the benefits? ====<br /> Open Science is about increased rigour, accountability, and reproducibility for research. It is based on the principles of inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing, and ultimately seeks to change the way research is done, who is involved and how it is valued. It aims to make research more open to participation, review/refutation, improvement and (re)use for the world to benefit.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it about? ====<br /> Open Science is not different from traditional science and applies to all research disciplines. It just means to carry out the research in a more transparent and collaborative way. Open Science is about extending the principles of openness to the whole research cycle, fostering sharing and collaboration as early as possible, thus entailing a systemic change to the way science and research are done.<br /> <br /> There are several definitions of &quot;''openness''&quot; with regards to various aspects of science; the [http://opendefinition.org/ Open Definition] defines it thus: &quot;Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose&quot;. Open Science encompasses a variety of practices, usually including areas like open access to publications, open research data, open source software/tools, open workflows, citizen science, open educational resources, and alternative methods for research evaluation, including open peer review.<br /> <br /> ==== The Open Science Training Handbook ====<br /> Want to learn more? FOSTER consortium created an open, living handbook on Open Science training – [https://book.fosteropenscience.eu/ The Open Science Training Handbook]. This book offers comprehensive guidance and resources for Open Science instructors and trainers, as well as anyone interested in improving levels of transparency and participation in research practices. The focus of the handbook is not only spreading the ideas of Open Science, but showing how to spread these ideas most effectively.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> The best thing you can do now to understand this particular issue better is to read this paper by Jean-Claude Burgelman and his colleagues: [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2019.00043/full Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century]. <br /> <br /> Just read. You don't have to do anything else.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). What is open science? https://zenodo.org/records/2629946<br /> <br /> [2] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science in Horizon Europe<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open science is a legal requirement under Horizon Europe. Its objective is to enhance transparency and trust, ultimately benefiting scientific research and EU citizens. In the EU, Open Science means enhancing research quality to ensure transparency and reproducibility, facilitating their utilization by both industry and society as a catalyst for growth.<br /> <br /> To learn about how to comply with open science principles when applying for EU funding and implementing the project, you can visit the [https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en#open-science-in-horizon-europe European Research Executive Agency's Q&amp;A webpage] or check out this leaflet on [https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9570017e-cd82-11eb-ac72-01aa75ed71a1 &quot;Horizon Europe: Open Science – Early Knowledge and Data Sharing&quot;] for a quick orientation.<br /> <br /> ==== Open Research Europe ====<br /> [https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/about/ Open Research Europe] is an open-access publishing platform for the publication of research stemming from European Commission funding across all subject areas, with no author fees. The platform makes it easy for European Commission beneficiaries to comply with the open access terms of their funding and offers researchers a publishing venue to share their results and insights rapidly and facilitate open, constructive research discussion. Open Research Europe operates under a continuous publication schedule.<br /> <br /> [1] European Research Executive Agency. (2024). Open science. Open science in Horizon Europe. https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Research Europe: The new EU open access publishing platform<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&quot;Meet the open-access publishing venue set up for Horizon Europe and Horizon 2020 beneficiaries. Open Research Europe will give everyone, researchers and citizens alike, immediate open access to your latest scientific discoveries. And at no cost to you.&quot; Watch the video below<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-642<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Introducing the Open Access<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Access to scientific publications is one of several other policies that will accelerate the move towards Open Science. <br /> <br /> Open Access to publications means that research publications like articles and books can be accessed online, free of charge by any user, with no technical obstacles (such as mandatory registration or login to specific platforms). At the very least, such publications can be read online, downloaded and printed. Ideally, additional rights such as the right to copy, distribute, search, link, crawl and mine should also be provided. <br /> <br /> Two routes of open access<br /> <br /> Open Access can be realised through two main non-exclusive routes:<br /> <br /> * Green Open Access (self-archiving): The published work or the final peer-reviewed manuscript that has been accepted for publication is made freely and openly accessible by the author, or a representative, in an online repository. Some publishers request that Open Access be granted only after an embargo period has elapsed. This embargo period can last anywhere between several months and several years. For publications that have been deposited in a repository but are under embargo, usually at least the metadata are openly accessible.<br /> * Gold Open Access (Open Access publishing): The published work is made available in Open Access mode by the publisher immediately upon publication. The most common business model is based on one-off payments by authors (commonly called APCs – article processing charges – or BPCs – book processing charges). Where Open Access content is combined with content that requires a subscription or purchase, in particular in the context of journals, conference proceedings and edited volumes, this is called hybrid Open Access.<br /> <br /> The choice of a journal or a publishing platform may affect the availability and accessibility of the research results.<br /> [[File:Et3.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> ==== Preprints – a new method of publication dissemination ====<br /> Preprints are widely used in physical sciences and now emerging in life sciences and other fields. Preprints are documents that have not been peer-reviewed but are considered complete scientific publication in the first stage. Some of the preprints servers include open peer review services and the availability to post new versions of the initial paper once reviewed by peers.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> ALLEA. (2013). [https://allea.org/portfolio-item/allea-statement-on-enhancement-of-open-access-to-scientific-publications-in-europe/ ALLEA statement on enhancement of open access to scientific publications in Europe]. <br /> <br /> [https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page Open Access Directory (OAD)] – a wiki where the open access (OA) community can create and support simple factual lists about open access to science and scholarship.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=An introduction to Open Access Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&quot;Gain an insight into open access and how it offers a further alternative for your research. Make your research freely available to everyone. Choose Open.&quot;<br /> <br /> Watch the video on An introduction to Open Access publishing from Taylor &amp; Francis.<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-643<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=cOAlition S and Plan S<br /> |Instruction Step Text=On 4 September 2018, a group of national research funding organisations, with the support of the European Commission and the European Research Council (ERC), announced the launch of cOAlition S, an initiative to make full and immediate Open Access to research publications a reality. It is built around Plan S, which consists of one target and 10 principles.<br /> <br /> cOAlition S signals the commitment to implement the necessary measures to fulfill its main principle:<br /> <br /> “With effect from 2021, all scholarly publications on the results from research funded by public or private grants provided by national, regional and international research councils and funding bodies, must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo.”<br /> <br /> ==== What is Plan S? ====<br /> The main ambition of Plan S is to accelerate the transition to full and immediate OA. The guiding principle behind Plan S is that research that has been paid with public money should not be locked behind paywalls.<br /> <br /> Plan S requires that, from 2021, recipients of research funding from cOAlition S organizations make the resulting publications available immediately (without embargoes) and under open licenses, either in quality OA platforms or journals or through immediate deposit in open repositories that fulfill the necessary conditions.<br /> <br /> Plan S is applicable to research funded by organizations (incl. all beneficiaries of Horizon Europe) who have signed up to Plan S. <br /> <br /> ==== How to comply with Plan S? ====<br /> cOAlition S released the [https://www.coalition-s.org/resources/journal-checker-tool-jct/ Journal Checker Tool (JCT)], a search engine that checks Plan S compliance. The JCT is a web-based tool which enables researchers to quickly identify journals or platforms that provide routes to compliance with Plan S.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> [https://erc.europa.eu/news/erc-supports-full-open-access Statement by the European Research Council] on the support of the cOAlition S initiative.<br /> <br /> [1] cOAlition S. (n.d.). What is cOAlition S? https://www.coalition-s.org/about/<br /> <br /> [2] cOAlition S. (n.d.). Plan S principles. https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles/<br /> <br /> [3] KU Leven. (n.d.). Plan S explained. https://www.kuleuven.be/open-science/what-is-open-science/scholarly-publishing-and-open-access/open-access-why-and-how/plan-s-explained<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Access in 60 Seconds<br /> |Instruction Step Text=What does open access mean? This video summarizes the main points: No costs and technical barriers for readers and libraries, but permanent access and possibilities for subsequent use, as well as the generation of new knowledge.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUpl03eO63M&amp;ab_channel=open-access.network Video: Open Access in 60 Seconds] to open the resource.&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-644<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research data<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Research data refers to the information collected, observed, or created for purposes of analysis to produce and validate original research results. Sharing and re-using data to reproduce research and build upon it, are a cornerstone of Open Science. The sustainability of research data refers to their long-term preservation, accessibility, and interoperability. <br /> <br /> Proper management, preservation, and sharing of research data are crucial for ensuring the replicability of research results, advancing further studies, and enhancing collaboration among scholars. <br /> <br /> ==== Types of research data ====<br /> Research data can come in various formats and types, depending on the field of study and the research methodology employed. Data can be quantitative (numerically based) or qualitative (non-numerical, such as words or images), and it may include, but is not limited to, numerical values, text, transcripts, images, video and audio recordings, software, algorithms, equations, and test responses.<br /> <br /> Research data can be raw or primary data (collected directly from experiments, surveys, or observations), processed or secondary data (which has been analyzed or manipulated in some way), or metadata (data about data, which provides information necessary to understand other data). <br /> <br /> ==== ALLEA recommendations on good data management practices ====<br /> The revised [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity] outlines a number of recommendations on &quot;Data Practices and Management&quot;:<br /> <br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure appropriate stewardship, curation, and preservation of all data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials for a reasonable and clearly stated period.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary, and where appropriate in line with the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) for data management.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations are transparent about how to access and gain permission to use data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials.<br /> * Researchers inform research participants about how their data will be used, reused, accessed, stored, and deleted, in compliance with GDPR.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organizations acknowledge data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials as legitimate and citable products of research.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that any contracts or agreements relating to research results include equitable and fair provisions for the management of their use, ownership, and protection under intellectual property rights.<br /> <br /> For the curious ones. There is a whole lot more to [https://openscience.cuni.cz/OSCIEN-48.html Data Management]. Go ahead and check it out.<br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research Data Management<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Data management plans (DMPs) are formal documents in which researchers describe how they plan to use data during and after the research. This helps researchers in sharing their data according to the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-useable), as recommended by the European Code of Conduct (ECoC).<br /> <br /> DPMs are becoming integral parts of grant applications and research organisations. They are usually short, and state which data will be created and how. DMPs also define the plans for data sharing and presentation, prescribe how the data will be stored, who will have access to it, what documentation and metadata will be created with it, and how it will be preserved. Creating DMPs provides several benefits for researchers, such as reducing the loss of data, monitoring the research progress, and preparing data for future use. Apart from that, they are also time saving.<br /> <br /> ==== Creating DMPs - the 'How to' guides ====<br /> <br /> * The [https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/how-guides Digital Curation Centre] (DCC), a leading centre in digital information curation that gives advice and help on how to store, manage, protect and share digital research data, provides resources, such as online tools, guidance and training. One of them is [https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/ DMP online], a free web-based tool that supports researchers in developing DMPs by providing them with templates and guidelines.<br /> * [https://cdlib.org/services/uc3/dmptool/ California Digital Library] has also developed DMPTool, an open and international source project, that helps researchers, institutions, and funders in the USA in creating DMPs.<br /> * [https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/sustainable-research-data/ Science Europe], an association of Research Funding Organisations and Research Performing Organisations, has developed [https://scienceeurope.org/our-resources/practical-guide-to-the-international-alignment-of-research-data-management/ Practical Guide to the International Alignment or Research Data Management]. The Guide provides a basis for development of data practices and management for organisations, disciplines, and individual researchers. Adaptable [https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/research-data-management/ DMP templates] are also available.<br /> <br /> There are a number of other useful tools available for creating DMPs. Check those listed below:<br /> <br /> * [https://ds-wizard.org/ Data Stewardship Wizard]. An open-source platform for collaborative and living data management plans.<br /> * [https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org/data_management_plan RDM kit.] The Research Data Management toolkit for Life Sciences<br /> <br /> [1] ELIXIR (2021) Research Data Management Kit. A deliverable from the EU-funded ELIXIR-CONVERGE project (grant agreement 871075). [https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org/ https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org]<br /> <br /> [2] Embassy of Good Science. Data management plans. [[Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fe|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fe]]<br /> <br /> [3] Science Europe. Sustainable research data. https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/sustainable-research-data/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=FAIR Data<br /> |Instruction Step Text=In 2016, the ‘FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship’ were published in Scientific Data. The authors intended to provide guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digital assets. <br /> <br /> The principles emphasise machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention) because humans increasingly rely on computational support to deal with data as a result of the increase in volume, complexity, and creation speed of data.<br /> <br /> ====What is FAIR data?====<br /> The FAIR principles describe how research outputs should be organised so they can be more easily accessed, understood, exchanged and reused. Major funding bodies, including the European Commission, promote FAIR data to maximise the integrity and impact of their research investment.<br /> <br /> The principles refer to three types of entities: data (or any digital object), metadata (information about that digital object), and infrastructure. <br /> <br /> FAIR principles enable researchers to maximize the value of their data, accelerating scientific progress and innovation. FAIR data is an important aspect of the Open Science policy of the European Commission.<br /> <br /> ====The FAIR guiding principles====<br /> '''Findable'''<br /> <br /> The first step in (re)using data is to find them. Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers. Machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services, so this is an essential component of the [https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/fairification-process/ FAIRification process].<br /> <br /> F1. (meta)data are assigned a globally unique and eternally persistent identifier.<br /> <br /> F2. data are described with rich metadata. <br /> <br /> F3. (meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource.<br /> <br /> F4. metadata specify the data identifier.<br /> <br /> =====Accessible=====<br /> Once the user finds the required data, she/he/they need to know how they can be accessed, possibly including authentication and authorisation.<br /> <br /> A1. (meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardized communications protocol.<br /> <br /> *A1.1. the protocol is open, free, and universally implementable.<br /> *A1.2. the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary.<br /> <br /> A2. metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available.<br /> <br /> =====Interoperable=====<br /> The data usually need to be integrated with other data. In addition, the data need to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing.<br /> <br /> I1. (meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation.<br /> <br /> I2. (meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles. <br /> <br /> I3. (meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data.<br /> <br /> =====Reusable=====<br /> The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimise the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings.<br /> <br /> R1. meta(data) have a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes.<br /> <br /> *R1.1. (meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license.<br /> *R1.2. (meta)data are associated with their provenance.<br /> *R1.3. (meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards.<br /> <br /> <br /> [1] GO FAIR. FAIR principles. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/<br /> <br /> [2] Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J. W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., Gonzalez-Beltran, A., … Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data, 3, 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=How to Make your Data FAIR<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Are you at the start of your project and planning to create research data? Read on to find out how to make it more findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable via the FAIR principles.<br /> <br /> ====How to GO FAIR – The Three-point FAIRification Framework====<br /> Since its beginning in early 2018, the GO FAIR community has been working towards implementations of the FAIR Guiding Principles. This collective effort has resulted in a three-point framework that formulates the essential steps towards the end goal, a global Internet of FAIR Data and Services where data are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) for machines.<br /> <br /> The [https://www.go-fair.org/how-to-go-fair/ Three-point FAIRification Framework] developed by the GO FAIR Initiative provides practical “how to” guidance to stakeholders seeking to go FAIR. The framework helps a broad spectrum of stakeholders to see what “going FAIR” means to them in practice, and to immerse themselves in the emerging FAIR landscape.<br /> <br /> FAIR self-assessment<br /> <br /> In order to assess the FAIRness of a dataset and determine how to enhance its FAIRness, you can use this [https://ardc.edu.au/resource/fair-data-self-assessment-tool/ FAIR Data Self Assessment Tool] developed by the ARDC - Australian Research Data Commons. <br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> OpenAIRE – [https://www.openaire.eu/how-to-make-your-data-fair How to make your data FAIR.] OpenAIRE Guide for Researchers. <br /> <br /> [1] GO FAIR. How to GO FAIR. https://www.go-fair.org/how-to-go-fair/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063648 scenario] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning data practices and data management and their links with research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> *Data protection and consent;<br /> *FAIR principles for data management and stewardship;<br /> *Data copyright and data citation;<br /> *Data for personal research use.<br /> <br /> =====Your task is to:=====<br /> <br /> #Read the narrative (Issue 1–3) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> #Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> #Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> [1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063648<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=click and exercise the quiz.<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-649<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=We are proud to have you, our world-class colleagues in the field, and we dedicate this course to you.<br /> <br /> The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE<br /> [[File:Eth1.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:Bf24c894-570a-43c0-9626-b79bf9399a62&diff=19559 2026-09-09T08:55:04Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Ethics in publishing science<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, will learners be able to:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> *Define scientific publishing and explain its role in disseminating research findings to the academic community and beyond.<br /> *Understand the criteria for authorship in academic publications and the ethical considerations involved in assigning authorship credit.<br /> *Describe the principles of responsible peer review and the importance of maintaining confidentiality and impartiality in the peer-review process.<br /> *Identify and assess potential conflicts of interest in scientific publishing, including financial, personal, and professional conflicts.<br /> *Understand the different metrics used to evaluate scientific research, such as citation counts, impact factors, and altmetrics.<br /> *Explain the basics of copyright and licensing in scientific publishing and their implications for authors and readers.<br /> *Recognize the characteristics of predatory journals and publishers and the risks associated with publishing in these outlets.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Scientific Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Writing, publishing, and presenting science is one of the basic skills of a researcher and academic professional.<br /> <br /> A scientist/lecturer at a university who does not write or otherwise present (promote or defend) the results of his or her work in front of a professional community or wider public is a pre-extinction species that cannot withstand evolution.<br /> <br /> Writing a high-quality and highly valued professional text is a very demanding activity. Your writing skills improve with each paper you publish. Article writing is a skill that can be learned. The speed of mastering the writing of research articles is different for different individuals and depends on many factors.<br /> <br /> However, when it comes to scientific writing, there is only one acceptable approach: responsible scientific writing.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Authorship<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Authorship can refer to individuals or groups that create an idea or develop the publication that disseminates that intellectual or creative work; however, appropriately acknowledging roles and contributions is not always a simple task.<br /> <br /> In science and research, authorship is the currency by which academics are paid and thus is essential for tenure, promotion, and grant funding. What is clear is that authorship is a fluid, evolving concept, and as it evolves, so will the ethical challenges associated with it.<br /> <br /> ==== What constitutes authorship? ====<br /> Editorial or academic organisations within different specialties have set out criteria and guidelines that members could adopt in their consideration of authorship.<br /> <br /> For example, the [https://www.icmje.org/ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)], also known as the Vancouver group, developed the recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. The ICMJE states that an author should meet all four of the following criteria:<br /> <br /> # Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND<br /> # Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND<br /> # Final approval of the version to be published; AND<br /> # Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.<br /> <br /> ICMJE further states that contributors who do not meet all four criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should still be acknowledged.<br /> <br /> The recommendations are intended to guarantee that those who have made significant intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors while also ensuring that those credited as authors understand their responsibility and accountability for the published work.<br /> <br /> A selection of other definitions of authorship for different scientific disciplines is presented in COPE Discussion Document on [https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/authorship What constitutes authorship].<br /> <br /> ==== Who qualifies, and who does not – common scenarios ====<br /> Interested in expert opinions on common authorship issues? For example:<br /> <br /> * I am a junior researcher and did a lot of the basic work. My supervisor/department head wrote up the work and hasn’t included me as an author<br /> * My department head insists on being included as an author on any research paper that comes out of his/her department. But he/she only obtained the grant money. Is this fair?<br /> * In what order should we list the authors to demonstrate the relative contribution of each?<br /> * There are more than 100 authors on this paper. Is that feasible?<br /> * The “author” is a collaborative group. How does that work?<br /> <br /> Check out the common scenarios and the COPE authorship guidelines [https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/Authorship_DiscussionDocument_0_0.pdf here].<br /> <br /> ==== Handling authorship disputes ====<br /> Authorship sounds simple, but in reality, it often proves to be a source of frustration. To advice on how to deal with authorship issues, you can read the COPE guidelines on [https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1 How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers] written by Tim Albert and Elizabeth Wager.  <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2014): What constitutes authorship? COPE Discussion Document [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3<br /> <br /> [2] COPE. (2003): How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1<br /> <br /> [3] ICMJE. (2024). . Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/<br /> <br /> [4] UKRIO. (2017). Good practice in research: Authorship. https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Guidance-Note-Authorship-v1.0.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Infographic: Authorship Practices to Avoid Conflicts<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Discover the key to harmonious collaboration!<br /> <br /> Dive into this infographic on best [https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/Authorship%20Practices%20to%20Avoid%20Conflicts_Rasterized.pdf authorship practices to prevent conflicts] and foster successful partnerships.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Peer-Review<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality, and originality of articles for publication. Its main goal is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out articles that are invalid or of poor quality.<br /> <br /> ==== What do we mean by ‘peer review’? ====<br /> In academia, we keep referring to peer review as though it is something obvious, but it is not evident that there is a common definition. For journal publishers and universities, the most commonly used explanation is:<br /> <br /> ''“…the process of someone reading, checking, and giving his or her opinion about something that has been written by another scientist or expert working in the same subject area”'' (from [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peer-review Cambridge Dictionary, web edition])<br /> <br /> The review process should include comments from reviewers who are not on the editorial board and so can make objective decisions. Reviewers should focus on the academic quality of the work in question and check the methods used. Peer review does not involve language editing or copy editing, done to make the final article or book read well, but ensures that the research has been properly done according to discipline-specific and relevant research practices. Different types of peer review are suitable for different disciplines and research communities.<br /> <br /> A trustworthy journal should clearly and publicly define what type of peer review it uses. It is also recommended that journals follow the guidelines provided by the [https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)].<br /> <br /> ==== Models of peer review ====<br /> Different journals use different types or models of peer review, all of which have various advantages and disadvantages. The most common types of peer review include:<br /> <br /> * Single-blind: the peer reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report).<br /> * Double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (but if the research is published reviewers can eventually know the names of the authors).<br /> * Open: authors know who the reviewers are and the reviewers know who the authors are. In some journals, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the named review reports are also published alongside the article.<br /> * Transparent: similar to open peer review in that if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the content of the reviewer reports is openly available, however the reviewers are not named. <br /> <br /> Learn about the other types of peer review in the [https://publicationethics.org/node/34926 COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews]?<br /> <br /> ==== Fundamentals of peer review ====<br /> Interested to learn more about the peer review fundamentals? [https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review Elsevier's Researcher Academy] prepared a series of modules explaining why it is important to get involved in peer review and the many benefits it can bring. You will hear how carrying out peer review can sharpen your own writing skills and discover the ethics guidelines you should comply with. <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2024). Fundamentals of peer review. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review<br /> <br /> [3] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). What do we mean by ‘peer review’? https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/peer-review/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer reviewers are important for ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process assists editors in deciding whether the research is suitable for publication in their journal. Peer reviewers are key players in this process, but sometimes, they might not know what's expected of them.<br /> <br /> ====COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers====<br /> Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. COPE Peer review guidelines provide basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer review process in research publication. <br /> <br /> These guidelines are intended to be applied across disciplines. COPE Guidelines provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). Guidelines: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4&lt;nowiki/&gt;Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746 'Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the ethical and integrity standards governing peer review processes.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> * The integrity of peer review processes;<br /> * Institutional obligations to uphold the standards of good peer review practices;<br /> * Plagiarism.<br /> <br /> ===== Your task is to: =====<br /> <br /> # Read the narrative (Issue 1–2) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> # Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> # Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> <br /> [1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Conflict of Interest<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Conflict of interest occurs when a scientist's personal interests—such as financial gain, professional advancement, or personal relationships—could potentially influence or appear to influence their research findings and decision-making. These conflicts can compromise the objectivity and integrity of the publication, potentially affecting the credibility of the research itself.<br /> <br /> Scientists are guided by a genuine desire to pursue truth and impartial judgment, and by honesty in reporting and interpreting their research results. This means that scientific work should be as unbiased and objective as possible in the sense that non-scientific interests should not play any significant role in the way in which the research work is conducted and its results are interpreted and presented.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it? Defining conflict of interest ====<br /> Competing interests (also known as conflicts of interests — COIs) is defined as follows:<br /> <br /> “A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.” <br /> <br /> The generally understood principles are shared by many journals and publishers. Their interpretation into policy, however, varies journal by journal.<br /> <br /> Conflicts of interest can be:<br /> <br /> # financial or<br /> # non-financial (such as family and friendship relationships). <br /> <br /> More problematic forms of conflict of interest happen when researchers participate in the selection of a procurement contract with a company where they or their relatives have a financial interest, or when peer review panel members have a close family or professional relationship with one of the applicants to a position or a grant.<br /> <br /> ==== Dealing with Conflicts of Interest ====<br /> According to the [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests US Office of Research Integrity], “Having a conflict of interest is not in itself unethical, and some are unavoidable. Full transparency is always the best course of action, and, if in doubt, disclose.”<br /> <br /> Transparency and disclosure are the primary mechanisms for managing conflicts of interest in publishing. Authors are typically required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when submitting a manuscript. This includes financial interests (such as funding or stock ownership), affiliations, personal relationships, or intellectual biases that might affect the research.<br /> <br /> Further resources:<br /> <br /> Elsevier. (2019). [https://assets.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/5XCIR5PjsKLJMAh0ISkIzb/16f6a246e767446b75543d8d8671048c/Competing-Interests-factsheet-March-2019.pdf Factsheet: Competing Interests].<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2017). Ethics in Research &amp; Publication.<br /> <br /> [3] Integrity. Conflict of interest in research: what is it and why it matters? https://h2020integrity.eu/conflict-of-interest-in-research-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters/<br /> <br /> [4] Office of Research Integrity U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A brief overview on Conflict of Interests. [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-35]<br /> <br /> [4] The Embassy of Good Science. Conflict of interests. [[Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International%20Committee%20of%20Medical%20Journal%20Editors%20Conflict%20of%20Interest%20Disclosure%20Form|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International_Committee_of_Medical_Journal_Editors_Conflict_of_Interest_Disclosure_Form]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Metrics<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Metrics, sometimes known as research indicators, are intended to be a quantitative measure of the quality and/or importance of a research output (e.g. journal article, monograph). There is a range of metrics that measure different things.<br /> <br /> ==== Citation metrics ====<br /> <br /> * They measure different things and it is important to understand what they measure, the limits of what they interpret, and when [https://www.metrics-toolkit.org/ best to use them].<br /> * They are sometimes used to measure the citation impact of journals rather than the citation impact of individual research outputs.<br /> * They measure the amount of academic attention a research output has received. <br /> * The simplest citation metric is the number of times a research output has been cited.<br /> * Citation practices differ across academic disciplines so there are a variety of weightings and calculations to address that and ensure that citation metrics are comparable.<br /> <br /> The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used example of a citation metric. It calculates the average number of citations that articles published by a journal have received over the preceding two-year period.  The JIF and other metrics are problematic for a number of reasons. One cannot judge the academic or research value of a work merely on the number of times it has been downloaded, or the number of times it has been cited.<br /> <br /> Journal-level metrics are often used by researchers to make decisions about where to publish their work. They can be useful for identifying journals that have a track record for generating attention for the research outputs that they publish.<br /> <br /> Alternative metrics or altmetrics measure the amount of online attention a research output has received beyond typical citation metrics. This can include things like mentions on Twitter, coverage on news platforms and blogs, Wikipedia citations and lots more besides. Measuring this kind of attention can be used to demonstrate reach beyond academia, and can help to evidence research impact.<br /> <br /> ==== Responsible Metrics ====<br /> There has been a movement towards advocating for responsible metrics which provides guidance on how to use metrics responsibly, both for measuring research quality and as part of conversations about career progression. The [https://sfdora.org/read/ San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)] is a set of principles that institutions have signed up to, which includes a requirement to eliminate the use of journal-level metrics (like the Journal Impact Factor) in funding, appointment and promotion considerations.  In response, some universities have created statements of responsible metrics. [https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/ The Bibliomagician] has collated a number of examples from a variety of institutions.<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Metrics. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/metrics/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: The COPE website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Ethical dimensions in publishing are like the universe. The further we look, the more tangible ethical issues become.<br /> <br /> ===== Ready to do a task on your own? =====<br /> COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is committed to educating and supporting editors, publishers, universities, research institutes, and all those involved in publication ethics. COPE aims to move the culture of publishing towards one where ethical practices become a normal part of the culture itself.<br /> <br /> Your task is to explore the following website: COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).<br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/ Explore: The COPE website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Copyright and Licensing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=There are different rules surrounding copyright law for texts and images. Make sure that you have all the necessary rights and permissions in place before you publish.<br /> <br /> ==== Licensing of your material ====<br /> Any material you create and share with others can be licensed. The license is a message to the reader, or the user of the material, about how they can use or reuse the content.<br /> <br /> All material that you produce as a researcher, such as articles, book chapters, books, blog texts, working papers, conference papers or teaching material, can be licensed at the time of publication. The license should be visible on the title page or first page of the material you publish.<br /> <br /> ==== Copyright ====<br /> Copyright refers to the intellectual property of a work that has been made public by you or your organisation. Copyright law is different in each country, and there is no international law that can be applied overall. However, certain principles apply globally. The right to be recognised as the creator is intrinsic. This means that you, as the author and/or publisher of the material, own the right to decide how it will be used. Different terms apply depending on how copyright is managed by the publisher, and there is sometimes a charge applied for someone who wants to reproduce or share copyrighted material. <br /> <br /> Copyright is divided into two parts: <br /> <br /> * The ‘intellectual rights’ that are non-transferrable, meaning that you, as the creator of a work, always have to be recognised. <br /> * The economic rights that can, however, be transferred to a publisher or licensed for reuse.<br /> <br /> For academic purposes, it is common practice to allow works to be cited to a certain limit (usually about 250 words or 1–2 images or tables, as long as the original source is clearly stated). This can be referred to as “fair use”, “fair dealing”, or “citation rights” depending on which national law applies to the published material.<br /> <br /> ==== Academic articles ====<br /> The author of a journal article may, as part of a standard contract with the publisher, have limited rights to share their own work or may have signed away their economic rights entirely. Many publishers still allow articles to be made ​​freely available provided that certain conditions are met. If you want to know what applies to the journal where you have published your articles, please visit the journal’s publisher’s policy in [https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ SHERPA/RoMEO]. Authors are recommended to check that the publisher’s policy aligns with the policy of their institution and funder before signing any contracts.<br /> <br /> ==== Books and book chapters ====<br /> When publishing a book, or a chapter in a book, the terms of licensing and copyright will typically be included in a contract which you would have to agree with a publisher and which will specify the usage rights, the format(s) and length of time applied to the work.<br /> <br /> Book contracts vary from publisher to publisher, and can in some cases be complicated. If you are required to sign a contract with a publisher in order to publish your work you need to ensure that the contract covers your rights and that it takes into account the obligation you have to your employer and/or the funder of your research.<br /> <br /> If you want to publish a thesis or dissertation it is recommended that you contact your institution or department to make sure that you follow their policy for such publications.<br /> <br /> For more information on what to consider before publishing an Open Access book see the [https://oabooks-toolkit.org/lifecycle/3284351-book-contract-and-license/article/4492720-contracting-and-copyright Open Access Books Toolkit].<br /> <br /> ==== Images and copyright ====<br /> Artistic works, photographs, illustrations and diagrams have copyright protection specifying the use by someone without the author’s explicit permission. This protection is governed by the law of copyright for literary and artistic works in the country where your work is published. It is important that you consult the rightsholder if you would like to reproduce work from other sources in your book or article, unless the original work is openly licensed for reuse.<br /> <br /> Should you not get permission to use a picture in its electronic format, you can omit it and replace it with an explanatory text: “Because of copyright protection, this picture is missing in its electronic (or print) format.”<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> FOSTER. https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN//02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Access Licensing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Licenses can be applied to any material (e.g., sound, text, image, multimedia, software) where some exploitation or usage rights exist.<br /> <br /> ==== Open Access Licensing ====<br /> If you want to publish Open Access, you will still own the rights to your work. You control how it can be used and the credit you are given by choosing one of the [https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ Creative Commons] licenses. These open licenses are administered independently of any publisher and are internationally recognised. The licenses are applied as a legal code of practice, and can be seen as an addition to the intrinsic copyright applied in each country. Using an open license allows others to continue to build upon your work. There are currently [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ six types of Creative Commons licenses] available, each with slightly different permissions and requirements. All the licenses require that others using your work in any way must give you credit in the way you request, but not in a way that suggests that you endorse them in their use. There must always be a reference and a link to the original if the work is mentioned or reused. <br /> <br /> ==== What is a Creative Commons licence? ====<br /> Creative Commons, a global not-for-profit organisation which provides legal tools to promote the sharing and reuse of works of authorship, has produced a number of licences some of which meet the criteria for Open Access. These offer different levels of permission.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons offers licences readable at three different levels: legal, machine (the metadata) and human (non-legal descriptions). Creative Commons has a useful tool to help you determine the licence best for you. More restrictive CC licences are unlikely to meet Open Access requirements (e.g. because they impose restrictions on commercial use).<br /> <br /> What licence should be applied to the research data?<br /> <br /> It depends on what rights protect your research data, if at all.<br /> <br /> * If your research data qualifies as a work (literary work such as a journal article or a software), then CC BY 4.0 is usually the best choice. The use of the Share Alike (SA) is also compatible with the Open Access definition and reinforced in Plan S licensing guidance for publications. Non-commercial should be avoided as it is not Open Access compliant. Non-derivative is a tricky issue and should be avoided, especially if you do not know what you are doing. That said, it may not be incompatible with the Open Access definition.<br /> * If your research data is a database or a dataset (unstructured data that do not meet the database definition) usually the best option is a CC0, which waives all your rights in the database.<br /> <br /> Keep in mind that CC licences only deal with copyright and copyright related matter. Personal data are not included in CC and are analysed separately.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> FOSTER. https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN//02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html<br /> <br /> [1] OpenAIRE. Licenses for Research Data. https://www.openaire.eu/how-do-i-license-my-research-data<br /> <br /> [2] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Predatory journals and publishers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Over the past two decades, open-access publishing has rapidly grown into a global industry, making scholarly publications readily available to researchers, policymakers, and the general public. <br /> <br /> While this has generally been seen as a positive development, the predominant “Gold” open access route has also given rise to unforeseen challenges. The rise of open-access publishing, which often involves authors paying fees to make their work freely available, has unfortunately provided a fertile ground for predatory publishers. <br /> <br /> ==== What are predatory journals? ====<br /> Predatory journals and their publishers are “entities that prioritise self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterised by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices”.<br /> <br /> Many researchers are duped into choosing to publish with predatory journals because they are simply unaware of the difference between bogus and quality open-access journals. Early career researchers are at particular risk, as they may feel great pressure to publish but lack experience. Equally, these journals have disproportionately negative effects on researchers from low- and middle-income countries, who may not have the resources to identify those outlets and/or are seeking more affordable ways to publish.<br /> <br /> Falling prey to predatory publishers can damage a researcher's reputation, waste valuable resources, and contribute to the dissemination of potentially unreliable scientific information.<br /> <br /> ==== Identifying and promoting quality open-access journals ====<br /> There is currently no centralized global or European authentication of academic publishers and journals to certify that they meet the fundamental requirements of professionalism and financial transparency. Some specific recommendations of the ALLELA for researchers can be found below:<br /> <br /> * Searching the databases listed in the [https://doaj.org/ Directory of Open Access Journals] (DOAJ) (empowered by the global science community), and Web of Science (WoS) can be starting points for finding open access journals that follow good editorial practices. Additionally, [https://cabells.com/solutions/predatory-reports Cabells] provides a subscription service featuring a database of deceptive and predatory journals.<br /> * There are also several national and institutional resources that regularly evaluate and categorise scientific journals and publishers based on their editorial and publication standards. These can often also be accessed by external researchers, and could be extended and adopted for regional or European use.<br /> * The [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/ Think-Check-Submit] initiative provides tools to help researchers identify trusted journals in which to publish their research. The [https://www.coalition-s.org/journal-comparison-service/ Journal Comparison Service] by cOAlition S provides a platform that improves price transparency for researchers, libraries, and funding organisations.<br /> * Most academic libraries can advise researchers; they are encouraged to follow evidence-based characteristics of potential predatory journals and IAP-recommended markers for fraudulent, deceptive, or unacceptable journals.<br /> * In general, authors are recommended to keep full control over any published work by retaining their intellectual property rights. By doing so, authors will always be able to deposit a copy of the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) in a repository of their choice, and it allows them to re-use figures and tables from the publication in subsequent presentations or other works without having to seek permission from the publisher.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> There are various sources of information on predatory publishing, e.g., [https://zenodo.org/records/3738003 Predatory journals and open access: predators in the world of scientific publishing], where you can obtain additional information.<br /> <br /> For an alternative source of information that goes into more detail you may want to peak in [https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstreams/3c1b1ccb-e82b-49c3-96e5-7d4f3fcb9352/download Avoiding Predatory Journals and QuestionableConferences: A Resource Guide] (Eaton, 2018).<br /> <br /> [1] ALLELA. (2023). ALLEA statement on curbing predatory practices in open access scholarly publishing. https://doi.org/10.26356/PREDATORYPUBLISHING<br /> <br /> [2] Grudniewicz et al. (2019). “Predatory journals: no definition, no defence”. Nature 576, 210-212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Think. Check. Submit.<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Think. Check. Submit. helps researchers identify trusted journals and publishers for their research. Through a range of tools and practical resources, this international cross-sector initiative aims to educate researchers, promote integrity, and build trust in credible research and publications.<br /> <br /> The 3-step approach encourages academics to ‘Think’ about the problem posed by predatory or substandard conferences, ‘Check’ the conference against a set of criteria designed to highlight attributes of good and bad quality conferences, and ‘Attend’ only if the conference adheres to the criteria consistent with a legitimate conference.<br /> <br /> [[File:Et4.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ====Watch a video: Assessing the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher====<br /> Have you done your research and now you are ready to publish? Ensuring the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher is essential for researchers when sharing their work with the world. This video outlines some key steps and considerations to help researchers assess whether a journal or publisher is suitable for their research.<br /> <br /> ====Think. Check. Submit. checklist====<br /> The Think. Check. Submit. checklist is a tool that will help you discover what you need to know when assessing whether or not a publisher is suitable for your research.<br /> <br /> Follow the [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/books-and-chapters/ Book &amp; Chapters] or [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/ Journals] checklist to make sure you choose trusted journals and publishers for your research.<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). https://thinkchecksubmit.org/<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-645<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Paper-Mills problem<br /> |Instruction Step Text=With the increasing pressure on (young) researchers to publish, there is a growing concern over the proliferation of fake papers within the academic community. In science and research, a &quot;''paper mill''&quot; refers to a deceptive practice where manuscripts are fabricated or manipulated and then submitted to academic journals for publication.<br /> <br /> ==== What is a paper mill? ====<br /> The [https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/paper-mills-cope-stm-research-report.pdf Committee on Publication Ethics] defines paper mills as &quot;the process by which manufactured manuscripts are submitted to a journal for a fee on behalf of researchers with the purpose of providing an easy publication for them, or to offer authorship for sale.&quot;<br /> <br /> These manuscripts are often generated for the purpose of exploiting the academic publishing system, typically to boost publication records or to fulfill requirements for academic advancement, such as obtaining tenure or securing funding. Fake papers can be identified both during the submission process and after publication.<br /> <br /> Paper mills may involve the use of ghostwriters, falsified data, or plagiarized content. This unethical practice undermines the integrity of scholarly publishing and can have serious consequences for academic credibility and scientific progress.<br /> <br /> === Paper mills in the era of large language models (LLMs) ===<br /> The emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has raised concerns about an increase in paper mills. These tools can quickly generate fake papers and authorships, posing a significant threat to scientific publishing by blurring the line between genuine and fabricated research. <br /> <br /> This underscores worries in the scientific community about maintaining integrity in scholarly publishing and preventing the misuse of AI technology. It's crucial to recognize that attempting to pass off AI-generated text as one's own work constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty. <br /> <br /> Reading for fun:<br /> <br /> [https://publicationethics.org/resources/research/paper-mills-research Paper Mills Research report from COPE &amp; STM]<br /> <br /> Van Noorden, R. (2023). How big is science’s fake-paper problem? An unpublished analysis suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of bogus ‘paper-mill’ articles lurking in the literature. Nature, 623, 466-467. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x<br /> <br /> [1] COPE &amp; STM. Paper Mills — Research report from COPE &amp; STM. https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Ethics in publishing and research<br /> |Instruction Step Text=''Dr. Babor is Professor Emeritus and former head of the Department of Community Medicine and Health Care and directs an active research program. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.''<br /> <br /> In this lecture, Tom will describe the main traditions of scientific integrity and research ethics that have been developed over the past 80 years, beginning with the Helsinki Agreement and the development of modern ethical principles. The main part of the lecture will focus on the growth of addiction science in Europe and America, and the challenges of conducting basic, clinical, and policy research on alcohol and other psychoactive substances. Particular attention will be given to the different degrees of research misconduct and how to prevent them by means of ethical decision-making and institutional guidelines. Conflict of interest and the influence of powerful industries such as tobacco, alcohol, gambling and pharmaceuticals will also be discussed.<br /> <br /> This presentation is in English. <br /> <br /> It is a bit on the long side, though. :)<br /> <br /> Click on the video to open the resource.<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-646<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216 'Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative on the theme of Publication and Dissemination.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> * Dual submissions<br /> * Authorship lists<br /> * Plagiarism<br /> * Complaints procedures<br /> * Editorial decisions<br /> * Retraction<br /> <br /> ===== Your task is to: =====<br /> <br /> # Read the narrative (Issue 1–4) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> # Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> # Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> <br /> ----[1] Jonathan Lewis. (2020). Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Practice the quice activity below.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=We are proud to have you, our world-class colleagues in the field, and we dedicate this course to you.<br /> <br /> The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE<br /> <br /> [[File:Eth1.png|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:6f699046-a247-4f28-b5ce-d93dfae940cc&diff=19558 2026-09-09T07:53:46Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Open Science, Open Access, FAIR Data<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, you will:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Understand the concept of open science and explain its importance in the context of modern research practices.<br /> * Explain the principles of open access and the benefits of making research outputs freely available to the public.<br /> * Develop a comprehensive research data management plan (DMP) that addresses the organization, storage, and sharing of research data.<br /> * Apply the FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) to ensure that research data is properly managed and shared.<br /> * Critically evaluate the impact of open science practices on research integrity, collaboration, and innovation.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Science represents a new approach to the scientific process based on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing knowledge by using digital technologies and new collaborative tools.<br /> <br /> ==== What is open science? ====<br /> Open Science is the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods ([https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/foster-taxonomy/open-science-definition FOSTER Open Science Definition]).<br /> <br /> According to the [https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/taxonomy/term/7 FOSTER taxonomy], &quot;Open science is the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society.&quot; It can be defined as a grouping of principles and practices:<br /> <br /> * Principles: Open Science is about increased transparency, re-use, participation, cooperation, accountability and reproducibility for research. It aims to improve the quality and reliability of research through principles like inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing. Open Science can be viewed as research simply done properly, and it extends across the Life and Physical Sciences, Engineering, Mathematics, Social Sciences, and Humanities ([https://opensciencemooc.eu/ Open Science MOOC]).<br /> * Practices: Open Science includes changes to the way science is done - including opening access to research publications, data-sharing, open notebooks, transparency in research evaluation, ensuring the reproducibility of research (where possible), transparency in research methods, open source code, software and infrastructure, citizen science and open educational resources.<br /> <br /> [[File:Et2.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==== What are the benefits? ====<br /> Open Science is about increased rigour, accountability, and reproducibility for research. It is based on the principles of inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing, and ultimately seeks to change the way research is done, who is involved and how it is valued. It aims to make research more open to participation, review/refutation, improvement and (re)use for the world to benefit.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it about? ====<br /> Open Science is not different from traditional science and applies to all research disciplines. It just means to carry out the research in a more transparent and collaborative way. Open Science is about extending the principles of openness to the whole research cycle, fostering sharing and collaboration as early as possible, thus entailing a systemic change to the way science and research are done.<br /> <br /> There are several definitions of &quot;''openness''&quot; with regards to various aspects of science; the [http://opendefinition.org/ Open Definition] defines it thus: &quot;Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose&quot;. Open Science encompasses a variety of practices, usually including areas like open access to publications, open research data, open source software/tools, open workflows, citizen science, open educational resources, and alternative methods for research evaluation, including open peer review.<br /> <br /> ==== The Open Science Training Handbook ====<br /> Want to learn more? FOSTER consortium created an open, living handbook on Open Science training – [https://book.fosteropenscience.eu/ The Open Science Training Handbook]. This book offers comprehensive guidance and resources for Open Science instructors and trainers, as well as anyone interested in improving levels of transparency and participation in research practices. The focus of the handbook is not only spreading the ideas of Open Science, but showing how to spread these ideas most effectively.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> The best thing you can do now to understand this particular issue better is to read this paper by Jean-Claude Burgelman and his colleagues: [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2019.00043/full Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century]. <br /> <br /> Just read. You don't have to do anything else.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). What is open science? https://zenodo.org/records/2629946<br /> <br /> [2] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science in Horizon Europe<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open science is a legal requirement under Horizon Europe. Its objective is to enhance transparency and trust, ultimately benefiting scientific research and EU citizens. In the EU, Open Science means enhancing research quality to ensure transparency and reproducibility, facilitating their utilization by both industry and society as a catalyst for growth.<br /> <br /> To learn about how to comply with open science principles when applying for EU funding and implementing the project, you can visit the [https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en#open-science-in-horizon-europe European Research Executive Agency's Q&amp;A webpage] or check out this leaflet on [https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9570017e-cd82-11eb-ac72-01aa75ed71a1 &quot;Horizon Europe: Open Science – Early Knowledge and Data Sharing&quot;] for a quick orientation.<br /> <br /> ==== Open Research Europe ====<br /> [https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/about/ Open Research Europe] is an open-access publishing platform for the publication of research stemming from European Commission funding across all subject areas, with no author fees. The platform makes it easy for European Commission beneficiaries to comply with the open access terms of their funding and offers researchers a publishing venue to share their results and insights rapidly and facilitate open, constructive research discussion. Open Research Europe operates under a continuous publication schedule.<br /> <br /> [1] European Research Executive Agency. (2024). Open science. Open science in Horizon Europe. https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Research Europe: The new EU open access publishing platform<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&quot;Meet the open-access publishing venue set up for Horizon Europe and Horizon 2020 beneficiaries. Open Research Europe will give everyone, researchers and citizens alike, immediate open access to your latest scientific discoveries. And at no cost to you.&quot; Watch the video below<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-642<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Introducing the Open Access<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Access to scientific publications is one of several other policies that will accelerate the move towards Open Science. <br /> <br /> Open Access to publications means that research publications like articles and books can be accessed online, free of charge by any user, with no technical obstacles (such as mandatory registration or login to specific platforms). At the very least, such publications can be read online, downloaded and printed. Ideally, additional rights such as the right to copy, distribute, search, link, crawl and mine should also be provided. <br /> <br /> Two routes of open access<br /> <br /> Open Access can be realised through two main non-exclusive routes:<br /> <br /> * Green Open Access (self-archiving): The published work or the final peer-reviewed manuscript that has been accepted for publication is made freely and openly accessible by the author, or a representative, in an online repository. Some publishers request that Open Access be granted only after an embargo period has elapsed. This embargo period can last anywhere between several months and several years. For publications that have been deposited in a repository but are under embargo, usually at least the metadata are openly accessible.<br /> * Gold Open Access (Open Access publishing): The published work is made available in Open Access mode by the publisher immediately upon publication. The most common business model is based on one-off payments by authors (commonly called APCs – article processing charges – or BPCs – book processing charges). Where Open Access content is combined with content that requires a subscription or purchase, in particular in the context of journals, conference proceedings and edited volumes, this is called hybrid Open Access.<br /> <br /> The choice of a journal or a publishing platform may affect the availability and accessibility of the research results.<br /> [[File:Et3.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> ==== Preprints – a new method of publication dissemination ====<br /> Preprints are widely used in physical sciences and now emerging in life sciences and other fields. Preprints are documents that have not been peer-reviewed but are considered complete scientific publication in the first stage. Some of the preprints servers include open peer review services and the availability to post new versions of the initial paper once reviewed by peers.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> ALLEA. (2013). [https://allea.org/portfolio-item/allea-statement-on-enhancement-of-open-access-to-scientific-publications-in-europe/ ALLEA statement on enhancement of open access to scientific publications in Europe]. <br /> <br /> [https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page Open Access Directory (OAD)] – a wiki where the open access (OA) community can create and support simple factual lists about open access to science and scholarship.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=An introduction to Open Access Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&quot;Gain an insight into open access and how it offers a further alternative for your research. Make your research freely available to everyone. Choose Open.&quot;<br /> <br /> Watch the video on An introduction to Open Access publishing from Taylor &amp; Francis.<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-643<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=cOAlition S and Plan S<br /> |Instruction Step Text=On 4 September 2018, a group of national research funding organisations, with the support of the European Commission and the European Research Council (ERC), announced the launch of cOAlition S, an initiative to make full and immediate Open Access to research publications a reality. It is built around Plan S, which consists of one target and 10 principles.<br /> <br /> cOAlition S signals the commitment to implement the necessary measures to fulfill its main principle:<br /> <br /> “With effect from 2021, all scholarly publications on the results from research funded by public or private grants provided by national, regional and international research councils and funding bodies, must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo.”<br /> <br /> ==== What is Plan S? ====<br /> The main ambition of Plan S is to accelerate the transition to full and immediate OA. The guiding principle behind Plan S is that research that has been paid with public money should not be locked behind paywalls.<br /> <br /> Plan S requires that, from 2021, recipients of research funding from cOAlition S organizations make the resulting publications available immediately (without embargoes) and under open licenses, either in quality OA platforms or journals or through immediate deposit in open repositories that fulfill the necessary conditions.<br /> <br /> Plan S is applicable to research funded by organizations (incl. all beneficiaries of Horizon Europe) who have signed up to Plan S. <br /> <br /> ==== How to comply with Plan S? ====<br /> cOAlition S released the [https://www.coalition-s.org/resources/journal-checker-tool-jct/ Journal Checker Tool (JCT)], a search engine that checks Plan S compliance. The JCT is a web-based tool which enables researchers to quickly identify journals or platforms that provide routes to compliance with Plan S.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> [https://erc.europa.eu/news/erc-supports-full-open-access Statement by the European Research Council] on the support of the cOAlition S initiative.<br /> <br /> [1] cOAlition S. (n.d.). What is cOAlition S? https://www.coalition-s.org/about/<br /> <br /> [2] cOAlition S. (n.d.). Plan S principles. https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles/<br /> <br /> [3] KU Leven. (n.d.). Plan S explained. https://www.kuleuven.be/open-science/what-is-open-science/scholarly-publishing-and-open-access/open-access-why-and-how/plan-s-explained<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Access in 60 Seconds<br /> |Instruction Step Text=What does open access mean? This video summarizes the main points: No costs and technical barriers for readers and libraries, but permanent access and possibilities for subsequent use, as well as the generation of new knowledge.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUpl03eO63M&amp;ab_channel=open-access.network Video: Open Access in 60 Seconds] to open the resource.&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-644<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research data<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Research data refers to the information collected, observed, or created for purposes of analysis to produce and validate original research results. Sharing and re-using data to reproduce research and build upon it, are a cornerstone of Open Science. The sustainability of research data refers to their long-term preservation, accessibility, and interoperability. <br /> <br /> Proper management, preservation, and sharing of research data are crucial for ensuring the replicability of research results, advancing further studies, and enhancing collaboration among scholars. <br /> <br /> ==== Types of research data ====<br /> Research data can come in various formats and types, depending on the field of study and the research methodology employed. Data can be quantitative (numerically based) or qualitative (non-numerical, such as words or images), and it may include, but is not limited to, numerical values, text, transcripts, images, video and audio recordings, software, algorithms, equations, and test responses.<br /> <br /> Research data can be raw or primary data (collected directly from experiments, surveys, or observations), processed or secondary data (which has been analyzed or manipulated in some way), or metadata (data about data, which provides information necessary to understand other data). <br /> <br /> ==== ALLEA recommendations on good data management practices ====<br /> The revised [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity] outlines a number of recommendations on &quot;Data Practices and Management&quot;:<br /> <br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure appropriate stewardship, curation, and preservation of all data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials for a reasonable and clearly stated period.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary, and where appropriate in line with the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) for data management.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations are transparent about how to access and gain permission to use data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials.<br /> * Researchers inform research participants about how their data will be used, reused, accessed, stored, and deleted, in compliance with GDPR.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organizations acknowledge data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials as legitimate and citable products of research.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that any contracts or agreements relating to research results include equitable and fair provisions for the management of their use, ownership, and protection under intellectual property rights.<br /> <br /> For the curious ones. There is a whole lot more to [https://openscience.cuni.cz/OSCIEN-48.html Data Management]. Go ahead and check it out.<br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research Data Management<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Data management plans (DMPs) are formal documents in which researchers describe how they plan to use data during and after the research. This helps researchers in sharing their data according to the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-useable), as recommended by the European Code of Conduct (ECoC).<br /> <br /> DPMs are becoming integral parts of grant applications and research organisations. They are usually short, and state which data will be created and how. DMPs also define the plans for data sharing and presentation, prescribe how the data will be stored, who will have access to it, what documentation and metadata will be created with it, and how it will be preserved. Creating DMPs provides several benefits for researchers, such as reducing the loss of data, monitoring the research progress, and preparing data for future use. Apart from that, they are also time saving.<br /> <br /> ==== Creating DMPs - the 'How to' guides ====<br /> <br /> * The [https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/how-guides Digital Curation Centre] (DCC), a leading centre in digital information curation that gives advice and help on how to store, manage, protect and share digital research data, provides resources, such as online tools, guidance and training. One of them is [https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/ DMP online], a free web-based tool that supports researchers in developing DMPs by providing them with templates and guidelines.<br /> * [https://cdlib.org/services/uc3/dmptool/ California Digital Library] has also developed DMPTool, an open and international source project, that helps researchers, institutions, and funders in the USA in creating DMPs.<br /> * [https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/sustainable-research-data/ Science Europe], an association of Research Funding Organisations and Research Performing Organisations, has developed [https://scienceeurope.org/our-resources/practical-guide-to-the-international-alignment-of-research-data-management/ Practical Guide to the International Alignment or Research Data Management]. The Guide provides a basis for development of data practices and management for organisations, disciplines, and individual researchers. Adaptable [https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/research-data-management/ DMP templates] are also available.<br /> <br /> There are a number of other useful tools available for creating DMPs. Check those listed below:<br /> <br /> * [https://ds-wizard.org/ Data Stewardship Wizard]. An open-source platform for collaborative and living data management plans.<br /> * [https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org/data_management_plan RDM kit.] The Research Data Management toolkit for Life Sciences<br /> <br /> [1] ELIXIR (2021) Research Data Management Kit. A deliverable from the EU-funded ELIXIR-CONVERGE project (grant agreement 871075). [https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org/ https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org]<br /> <br /> [2] Embassy of Good Science. Data management plans. [[Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fe|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fe]]<br /> <br /> [3] Science Europe. Sustainable research data. https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/sustainable-research-data/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=FAIR Data<br /> |Instruction Step Text=In 2016, the ‘FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship’ were published in Scientific Data. The authors intended to provide guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digital assets. <br /> <br /> The principles emphasise machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention) because humans increasingly rely on computational support to deal with data as a result of the increase in volume, complexity, and creation speed of data.<br /> <br /> ====What is FAIR data?====<br /> The FAIR principles describe how research outputs should be organised so they can be more easily accessed, understood, exchanged and reused. Major funding bodies, including the European Commission, promote FAIR data to maximise the integrity and impact of their research investment.<br /> <br /> The principles refer to three types of entities: data (or any digital object), metadata (information about that digital object), and infrastructure. <br /> <br /> FAIR principles enable researchers to maximize the value of their data, accelerating scientific progress and innovation. FAIR data is an important aspect of the Open Science policy of the European Commission.<br /> <br /> ====The FAIR guiding principles====<br /> '''Findable'''<br /> <br /> The first step in (re)using data is to find them. Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers. Machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services, so this is an essential component of the [https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/fairification-process/ FAIRification process].<br /> <br /> F1. (meta)data are assigned a globally unique and eternally persistent identifier.<br /> <br /> F2. data are described with rich metadata. <br /> <br /> F3. (meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource.<br /> <br /> F4. metadata specify the data identifier.<br /> <br /> =====Accessible=====<br /> Once the user finds the required data, she/he/they need to know how they can be accessed, possibly including authentication and authorisation.<br /> <br /> A1. (meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardized communications protocol.<br /> <br /> *A1.1. the protocol is open, free, and universally implementable.<br /> *A1.2. the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary.<br /> <br /> A2. metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available.<br /> <br /> =====Interoperable=====<br /> The data usually need to be integrated with other data. In addition, the data need to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing.<br /> <br /> I1. (meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation.<br /> <br /> I2. (meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles. <br /> <br /> I3. (meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data.<br /> <br /> =====Reusable=====<br /> The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimise the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings.<br /> <br /> R1. meta(data) have a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes.<br /> <br /> *R1.1. (meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license.<br /> *R1.2. (meta)data are associated with their provenance.<br /> *R1.3. (meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards.<br /> <br /> <br /> [1] GO FAIR. FAIR principles. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/<br /> <br /> [2] Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J. W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., Gonzalez-Beltran, A., … Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data, 3, 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=How to Make your Data FAIR<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Are you at the start of your project and planning to create research data? Read on to find out how to make it more findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable via the FAIR principles.<br /> <br /> ====How to GO FAIR – The Three-point FAIRification Framework====<br /> Since its beginning in early 2018, the GO FAIR community has been working towards implementations of the FAIR Guiding Principles. This collective effort has resulted in a three-point framework that formulates the essential steps towards the end goal, a global Internet of FAIR Data and Services where data are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) for machines.<br /> <br /> The [https://www.go-fair.org/how-to-go-fair/ Three-point FAIRification Framework] developed by the GO FAIR Initiative provides practical “how to” guidance to stakeholders seeking to go FAIR. The framework helps a broad spectrum of stakeholders to see what “going FAIR” means to them in practice, and to immerse themselves in the emerging FAIR landscape.<br /> <br /> FAIR self-assessment<br /> <br /> In order to assess the FAIRness of a dataset and determine how to enhance its FAIRness, you can use this [https://ardc.edu.au/resource/fair-data-self-assessment-tool/ FAIR Data Self Assessment Tool] developed by the ARDC - Australian Research Data Commons. <br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> OpenAIRE – [https://www.openaire.eu/how-to-make-your-data-fair How to make your data FAIR.] OpenAIRE Guide for Researchers. <br /> <br /> [1] GO FAIR. How to GO FAIR. https://www.go-fair.org/how-to-go-fair/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063648 scenario] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning data practices and data management and their links with research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> *Data protection and consent;<br /> *FAIR principles for data management and stewardship;<br /> *Data copyright and data citation;<br /> *Data for personal research use.<br /> <br /> =====Your task is to:=====<br /> <br /> #Read the narrative (Issue 1–3) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> #Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> #Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> [1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063648<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=click and exercise the quiz.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=We are proud to have you, our world-class colleagues in the field, and we dedicate this course to you.<br /> <br /> The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE<br /> [[File:Eth1.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:6f699046-a247-4f28-b5ce-d93dfae940cc&diff=19557 2026-09-09T07:52:25Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Open Science, Open Access, FAIR Data<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, you will:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Understand the concept of open science and explain its importance in the context of modern research practices.<br /> * Explain the principles of open access and the benefits of making research outputs freely available to the public.<br /> * Develop a comprehensive research data management plan (DMP) that addresses the organization, storage, and sharing of research data.<br /> * Apply the FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) to ensure that research data is properly managed and shared.<br /> * Critically evaluate the impact of open science practices on research integrity, collaboration, and innovation.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Science represents a new approach to the scientific process based on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing knowledge by using digital technologies and new collaborative tools.<br /> <br /> ==== What is open science? ====<br /> Open Science is the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods ([https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/foster-taxonomy/open-science-definition FOSTER Open Science Definition]).<br /> <br /> According to the [https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/taxonomy/term/7 FOSTER taxonomy], &quot;Open science is the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society.&quot; It can be defined as a grouping of principles and practices:<br /> <br /> * Principles: Open Science is about increased transparency, re-use, participation, cooperation, accountability and reproducibility for research. It aims to improve the quality and reliability of research through principles like inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing. Open Science can be viewed as research simply done properly, and it extends across the Life and Physical Sciences, Engineering, Mathematics, Social Sciences, and Humanities ([https://opensciencemooc.eu/ Open Science MOOC]).<br /> * Practices: Open Science includes changes to the way science is done - including opening access to research publications, data-sharing, open notebooks, transparency in research evaluation, ensuring the reproducibility of research (where possible), transparency in research methods, open source code, software and infrastructure, citizen science and open educational resources.<br /> <br /> [[File:Et2.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==== What are the benefits? ====<br /> Open Science is about increased rigour, accountability, and reproducibility for research. It is based on the principles of inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing, and ultimately seeks to change the way research is done, who is involved and how it is valued. It aims to make research more open to participation, review/refutation, improvement and (re)use for the world to benefit.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it about? ====<br /> Open Science is not different from traditional science and applies to all research disciplines. It just means to carry out the research in a more transparent and collaborative way. Open Science is about extending the principles of openness to the whole research cycle, fostering sharing and collaboration as early as possible, thus entailing a systemic change to the way science and research are done.<br /> <br /> There are several definitions of &quot;''openness''&quot; with regards to various aspects of science; the [http://opendefinition.org/ Open Definition] defines it thus: &quot;Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose&quot;. Open Science encompasses a variety of practices, usually including areas like open access to publications, open research data, open source software/tools, open workflows, citizen science, open educational resources, and alternative methods for research evaluation, including open peer review.<br /> <br /> ==== The Open Science Training Handbook ====<br /> Want to learn more? FOSTER consortium created an open, living handbook on Open Science training – [https://book.fosteropenscience.eu/ The Open Science Training Handbook]. This book offers comprehensive guidance and resources for Open Science instructors and trainers, as well as anyone interested in improving levels of transparency and participation in research practices. The focus of the handbook is not only spreading the ideas of Open Science, but showing how to spread these ideas most effectively.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> The best thing you can do now to understand this particular issue better is to read this paper by Jean-Claude Burgelman and his colleagues: [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2019.00043/full Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century]. <br /> <br /> Just read. You don't have to do anything else.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). What is open science? https://zenodo.org/records/2629946<br /> <br /> [2] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science in Horizon Europe<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open science is a legal requirement under Horizon Europe. Its objective is to enhance transparency and trust, ultimately benefiting scientific research and EU citizens. In the EU, Open Science means enhancing research quality to ensure transparency and reproducibility, facilitating their utilization by both industry and society as a catalyst for growth.<br /> <br /> To learn about how to comply with open science principles when applying for EU funding and implementing the project, you can visit the [https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en#open-science-in-horizon-europe European Research Executive Agency's Q&amp;A webpage] or check out this leaflet on [https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9570017e-cd82-11eb-ac72-01aa75ed71a1 &quot;Horizon Europe: Open Science – Early Knowledge and Data Sharing&quot;] for a quick orientation.<br /> <br /> ==== Open Research Europe ====<br /> [https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/about/ Open Research Europe] is an open-access publishing platform for the publication of research stemming from European Commission funding across all subject areas, with no author fees. The platform makes it easy for European Commission beneficiaries to comply with the open access terms of their funding and offers researchers a publishing venue to share their results and insights rapidly and facilitate open, constructive research discussion. Open Research Europe operates under a continuous publication schedule.<br /> <br /> [1] European Research Executive Agency. (2024). Open science. Open science in Horizon Europe. https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Research Europe: The new EU open access publishing platform<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&quot;Meet the open-access publishing venue set up for Horizon Europe and Horizon 2020 beneficiaries. Open Research Europe will give everyone, researchers and citizens alike, immediate open access to your latest scientific discoveries. And at no cost to you.&quot; Watch the video below<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-642<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Introducing the Open Access<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Access to scientific publications is one of several other policies that will accelerate the move towards Open Science. <br /> <br /> Open Access to publications means that research publications like articles and books can be accessed online, free of charge by any user, with no technical obstacles (such as mandatory registration or login to specific platforms). At the very least, such publications can be read online, downloaded and printed. Ideally, additional rights such as the right to copy, distribute, search, link, crawl and mine should also be provided. <br /> <br /> Two routes of open access<br /> <br /> Open Access can be realised through two main non-exclusive routes:<br /> <br /> * Green Open Access (self-archiving): The published work or the final peer-reviewed manuscript that has been accepted for publication is made freely and openly accessible by the author, or a representative, in an online repository. Some publishers request that Open Access be granted only after an embargo period has elapsed. This embargo period can last anywhere between several months and several years. For publications that have been deposited in a repository but are under embargo, usually at least the metadata are openly accessible.<br /> * Gold Open Access (Open Access publishing): The published work is made available in Open Access mode by the publisher immediately upon publication. The most common business model is based on one-off payments by authors (commonly called APCs – article processing charges – or BPCs – book processing charges). Where Open Access content is combined with content that requires a subscription or purchase, in particular in the context of journals, conference proceedings and edited volumes, this is called hybrid Open Access.<br /> <br /> The choice of a journal or a publishing platform may affect the availability and accessibility of the research results.<br /> [[File:Et3.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> ==== Preprints – a new method of publication dissemination ====<br /> Preprints are widely used in physical sciences and now emerging in life sciences and other fields. Preprints are documents that have not been peer-reviewed but are considered complete scientific publication in the first stage. Some of the preprints servers include open peer review services and the availability to post new versions of the initial paper once reviewed by peers.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> ALLEA. (2013). [https://allea.org/portfolio-item/allea-statement-on-enhancement-of-open-access-to-scientific-publications-in-europe/ ALLEA statement on enhancement of open access to scientific publications in Europe]. <br /> <br /> [https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page Open Access Directory (OAD)] – a wiki where the open access (OA) community can create and support simple factual lists about open access to science and scholarship.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=An introduction to Open Access Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&quot;Gain an insight into open access and how it offers a further alternative for your research. Make your research freely available to everyone. Choose Open.&quot;<br /> <br /> Watch the video on An introduction to Open Access publishing from Taylor &amp; Francis.<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-643<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=cOAlition S and Plan S<br /> |Instruction Step Text=On 4 September 2018, a group of national research funding organisations, with the support of the European Commission and the European Research Council (ERC), announced the launch of cOAlition S, an initiative to make full and immediate Open Access to research publications a reality. It is built around Plan S, which consists of one target and 10 principles.<br /> <br /> cOAlition S signals the commitment to implement the necessary measures to fulfill its main principle:<br /> <br /> “With effect from 2021, all scholarly publications on the results from research funded by public or private grants provided by national, regional and international research councils and funding bodies, must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo.”<br /> <br /> ==== What is Plan S? ====<br /> The main ambition of Plan S is to accelerate the transition to full and immediate OA. The guiding principle behind Plan S is that research that has been paid with public money should not be locked behind paywalls.<br /> <br /> Plan S requires that, from 2021, recipients of research funding from cOAlition S organizations make the resulting publications available immediately (without embargoes) and under open licenses, either in quality OA platforms or journals or through immediate deposit in open repositories that fulfill the necessary conditions.<br /> <br /> Plan S is applicable to research funded by organizations (incl. all beneficiaries of Horizon Europe) who have signed up to Plan S. <br /> <br /> ==== How to comply with Plan S? ====<br /> cOAlition S released the [https://www.coalition-s.org/resources/journal-checker-tool-jct/ Journal Checker Tool (JCT)], a search engine that checks Plan S compliance. The JCT is a web-based tool which enables researchers to quickly identify journals or platforms that provide routes to compliance with Plan S.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> [https://erc.europa.eu/news/erc-supports-full-open-access Statement by the European Research Council] on the support of the cOAlition S initiative.<br /> <br /> [1] cOAlition S. (n.d.). What is cOAlition S? https://www.coalition-s.org/about/<br /> <br /> [2] cOAlition S. (n.d.). Plan S principles. https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles/<br /> <br /> [3] KU Leven. (n.d.). Plan S explained. https://www.kuleuven.be/open-science/what-is-open-science/scholarly-publishing-and-open-access/open-access-why-and-how/plan-s-explained<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Access in 60 Seconds<br /> |Instruction Step Text=What does open access mean? This video summarizes the main points: No costs and technical barriers for readers and libraries, but permanent access and possibilities for subsequent use, as well as the generation of new knowledge.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUpl03eO63M&amp;ab_channel=open-access.network Video: Open Access in 60 Seconds] to open the resource.&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-644<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research data<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Research data refers to the information collected, observed, or created for purposes of analysis to produce and validate original research results. Sharing and re-using data to reproduce research and build upon it, are a cornerstone of Open Science. The sustainability of research data refers to their long-term preservation, accessibility, and interoperability. <br /> <br /> Proper management, preservation, and sharing of research data are crucial for ensuring the replicability of research results, advancing further studies, and enhancing collaboration among scholars. <br /> <br /> ==== Types of research data ====<br /> Research data can come in various formats and types, depending on the field of study and the research methodology employed. Data can be quantitative (numerically based) or qualitative (non-numerical, such as words or images), and it may include, but is not limited to, numerical values, text, transcripts, images, video and audio recordings, software, algorithms, equations, and test responses.<br /> <br /> Research data can be raw or primary data (collected directly from experiments, surveys, or observations), processed or secondary data (which has been analyzed or manipulated in some way), or metadata (data about data, which provides information necessary to understand other data). <br /> <br /> ==== ALLEA recommendations on good data management practices ====<br /> The revised [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity] outlines a number of recommendations on &quot;Data Practices and Management&quot;:<br /> <br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure appropriate stewardship, curation, and preservation of all data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials for a reasonable and clearly stated period.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary, and where appropriate in line with the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) for data management.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations are transparent about how to access and gain permission to use data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials.<br /> * Researchers inform research participants about how their data will be used, reused, accessed, stored, and deleted, in compliance with GDPR.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organizations acknowledge data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials as legitimate and citable products of research.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that any contracts or agreements relating to research results include equitable and fair provisions for the management of their use, ownership, and protection under intellectual property rights.<br /> <br /> For the curious ones. There is a whole lot more to [https://openscience.cuni.cz/OSCIEN-48.html Data Management]. Go ahead and check it out.<br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research Data Management<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Data management plans (DMPs) are formal documents in which researchers describe how they plan to use data during and after the research. This helps researchers in sharing their data according to the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-useable), as recommended by the European Code of Conduct (ECoC).<br /> <br /> DPMs are becoming integral parts of grant applications and research organisations. They are usually short, and state which data will be created and how. DMPs also define the plans for data sharing and presentation, prescribe how the data will be stored, who will have access to it, what documentation and metadata will be created with it, and how it will be preserved. Creating DMPs provides several benefits for researchers, such as reducing the loss of data, monitoring the research progress, and preparing data for future use. Apart from that, they are also time saving.<br /> <br /> ==== Creating DMPs - the 'How to' guides ====<br /> <br /> * The [https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/how-guides Digital Curation Centre] (DCC), a leading centre in digital information curation that gives advice and help on how to store, manage, protect and share digital research data, provides resources, such as online tools, guidance and training. One of them is [https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/ DMP online], a free web-based tool that supports researchers in developing DMPs by providing them with templates and guidelines.<br /> * [https://cdlib.org/services/uc3/dmptool/ California Digital Library] has also developed DMPTool, an open and international source project, that helps researchers, institutions, and funders in the USA in creating DMPs.<br /> * [https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/sustainable-research-data/ Science Europe], an association of Research Funding Organisations and Research Performing Organisations, has developed [https://scienceeurope.org/our-resources/practical-guide-to-the-international-alignment-of-research-data-management/ Practical Guide to the International Alignment or Research Data Management]. The Guide provides a basis for development of data practices and management for organisations, disciplines, and individual researchers. Adaptable [https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/research-data-management/ DMP templates] are also available.<br /> <br /> There are a number of other useful tools available for creating DMPs. Check those listed below:<br /> <br /> * [https://ds-wizard.org/ Data Stewardship Wizard]. An open-source platform for collaborative and living data management plans.<br /> * [https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org/data_management_plan RDM kit.] The Research Data Management toolkit for Life Sciences<br /> <br /> [1] ELIXIR (2021) Research Data Management Kit. A deliverable from the EU-funded ELIXIR-CONVERGE project (grant agreement 871075). [https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org/ https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org]<br /> <br /> [2] Embassy of Good Science. Data management plans. [[Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fe|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fe]]<br /> <br /> [3] Science Europe. Sustainable research data. https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/sustainable-research-data/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=FAIR Data<br /> |Instruction Step Text=In 2016, the ‘FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship’ were published in Scientific Data. The authors intended to provide guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digital assets. <br /> <br /> The principles emphasise machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention) because humans increasingly rely on computational support to deal with data as a result of the increase in volume, complexity, and creation speed of data.<br /> <br /> ====What is FAIR data?====<br /> The FAIR principles describe how research outputs should be organised so they can be more easily accessed, understood, exchanged and reused. Major funding bodies, including the European Commission, promote FAIR data to maximise the integrity and impact of their research investment.<br /> <br /> The principles refer to three types of entities: data (or any digital object), metadata (information about that digital object), and infrastructure. <br /> <br /> FAIR principles enable researchers to maximize the value of their data, accelerating scientific progress and innovation. FAIR data is an important aspect of the Open Science policy of the European Commission.<br /> <br /> ====The FAIR guiding principles====<br /> Findable<br /> <br /> The first step in (re)using data is to find them. Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers. Machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services, so this is an essential component of the [https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/fairification-process/ FAIRification process].<br /> <br /> F1. (meta)data are assigned a globally unique and eternally persistent identifier.<br /> <br /> F2. data are described with rich metadata. <br /> <br /> F3. (meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource.<br /> <br /> F4. metadata specify the data identifier.<br /> <br /> =====Accessible=====<br /> Once the user finds the required data, she/he/they need to know how they can be accessed, possibly including authentication and authorisation.<br /> <br /> A1. (meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardized communications protocol.<br /> <br /> *A1.1. the protocol is open, free, and universally implementable.<br /> *A1.2. the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary.<br /> <br /> A2. metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available.<br /> <br /> =====Interoperable=====<br /> The data usually need to be integrated with other data. In addition, the data need to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing.<br /> <br /> I1. (meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation.<br /> <br /> I2. (meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles. <br /> <br /> I3. (meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data.<br /> <br /> =====Reusable=====<br /> The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimise the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings.<br /> <br /> R1. meta(data) have a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes.<br /> <br /> *R1.1. (meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license.<br /> *R1.2. (meta)data are associated with their provenance.<br /> *R1.3. (meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards.<br /> <br /> <br /> [1] GO FAIR. FAIR principles. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/<br /> <br /> [2] Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J. W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., Gonzalez-Beltran, A., … Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data, 3, 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=How to Make your Data FAIR<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Are you at the start of your project and planning to create research data? Read on to find out how to make it more findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable via the FAIR principles.<br /> <br /> ====How to GO FAIR – The Three-point FAIRification Framework====<br /> Since its beginning in early 2018, the GO FAIR community has been working towards implementations of the FAIR Guiding Principles. This collective effort has resulted in a three-point framework that formulates the essential steps towards the end goal, a global Internet of FAIR Data and Services where data are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) for machines.<br /> <br /> The [https://www.go-fair.org/how-to-go-fair/ Three-point FAIRification Framework] developed by the GO FAIR Initiative provides practical “how to” guidance to stakeholders seeking to go FAIR. The framework helps a broad spectrum of stakeholders to see what “going FAIR” means to them in practice, and to immerse themselves in the emerging FAIR landscape.<br /> <br /> FAIR self-assessment<br /> <br /> In order to assess the FAIRness of a dataset and determine how to enhance its FAIRness, you can use this [https://ardc.edu.au/resource/fair-data-self-assessment-tool/ FAIR Data Self Assessment Tool] developed by the ARDC - Australian Research Data Commons. <br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> OpenAIRE – [https://www.openaire.eu/how-to-make-your-data-fair How to make your data FAIR.] OpenAIRE Guide for Researchers. <br /> <br /> [1] GO FAIR. How to GO FAIR. https://www.go-fair.org/how-to-go-fair/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063648 scenario] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning data practices and data management and their links with research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> *Data protection and consent;<br /> *FAIR principles for data management and stewardship;<br /> *Data copyright and data citation;<br /> *Data for personal research use.<br /> <br /> =====Your task is to:=====<br /> <br /> #Read the narrative (Issue 1–3) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> #Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> #Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> [1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063648<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=click and exercise the quiz.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=We are proud to have you, our world-class colleagues in the field, and we dedicate this course to you.<br /> <br /> The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE<br /> [[File:Eth1.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:6f699046-a247-4f28-b5ce-d93dfae940cc&diff=19556 2026-09-09T07:51:12Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Open Science, Open Access, FAIR Data<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, you will:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Understand the concept of open science and explain its importance in the context of modern research practices.<br /> * Explain the principles of open access and the benefits of making research outputs freely available to the public.<br /> * Develop a comprehensive research data management plan (DMP) that addresses the organization, storage, and sharing of research data.<br /> * Apply the FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) to ensure that research data is properly managed and shared.<br /> * Critically evaluate the impact of open science practices on research integrity, collaboration, and innovation.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Science represents a new approach to the scientific process based on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing knowledge by using digital technologies and new collaborative tools.<br /> <br /> ==== What is open science? ====<br /> Open Science is the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods ([https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/foster-taxonomy/open-science-definition FOSTER Open Science Definition]).<br /> <br /> According to the [https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/taxonomy/term/7 FOSTER taxonomy], &quot;Open science is the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society.&quot; It can be defined as a grouping of principles and practices:<br /> <br /> * Principles: Open Science is about increased transparency, re-use, participation, cooperation, accountability and reproducibility for research. It aims to improve the quality and reliability of research through principles like inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing. Open Science can be viewed as research simply done properly, and it extends across the Life and Physical Sciences, Engineering, Mathematics, Social Sciences, and Humanities ([https://opensciencemooc.eu/ Open Science MOOC]).<br /> * Practices: Open Science includes changes to the way science is done - including opening access to research publications, data-sharing, open notebooks, transparency in research evaluation, ensuring the reproducibility of research (where possible), transparency in research methods, open source code, software and infrastructure, citizen science and open educational resources.<br /> <br /> [[File:Et2.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==== What are the benefits? ====<br /> Open Science is about increased rigour, accountability, and reproducibility for research. It is based on the principles of inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing, and ultimately seeks to change the way research is done, who is involved and how it is valued. It aims to make research more open to participation, review/refutation, improvement and (re)use for the world to benefit.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it about? ====<br /> Open Science is not different from traditional science and applies to all research disciplines. It just means to carry out the research in a more transparent and collaborative way. Open Science is about extending the principles of openness to the whole research cycle, fostering sharing and collaboration as early as possible, thus entailing a systemic change to the way science and research are done.<br /> <br /> There are several definitions of &quot;''openness''&quot; with regards to various aspects of science; the [http://opendefinition.org/ Open Definition] defines it thus: &quot;Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose&quot;. Open Science encompasses a variety of practices, usually including areas like open access to publications, open research data, open source software/tools, open workflows, citizen science, open educational resources, and alternative methods for research evaluation, including open peer review.<br /> <br /> ==== The Open Science Training Handbook ====<br /> Want to learn more? FOSTER consortium created an open, living handbook on Open Science training – [https://book.fosteropenscience.eu/ The Open Science Training Handbook]. This book offers comprehensive guidance and resources for Open Science instructors and trainers, as well as anyone interested in improving levels of transparency and participation in research practices. The focus of the handbook is not only spreading the ideas of Open Science, but showing how to spread these ideas most effectively.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> The best thing you can do now to understand this particular issue better is to read this paper by Jean-Claude Burgelman and his colleagues: [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2019.00043/full Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century]. <br /> <br /> Just read. You don't have to do anything else.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). What is open science? https://zenodo.org/records/2629946<br /> <br /> [2] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science in Horizon Europe<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open science is a legal requirement under Horizon Europe. Its objective is to enhance transparency and trust, ultimately benefiting scientific research and EU citizens. In the EU, Open Science means enhancing research quality to ensure transparency and reproducibility, facilitating their utilization by both industry and society as a catalyst for growth.<br /> <br /> To learn about how to comply with open science principles when applying for EU funding and implementing the project, you can visit the [https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en#open-science-in-horizon-europe European Research Executive Agency's Q&amp;A webpage] or check out this leaflet on [https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9570017e-cd82-11eb-ac72-01aa75ed71a1 &quot;Horizon Europe: Open Science – Early Knowledge and Data Sharing&quot;] for a quick orientation.<br /> <br /> ==== Open Research Europe ====<br /> [https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/about/ Open Research Europe] is an open-access publishing platform for the publication of research stemming from European Commission funding across all subject areas, with no author fees. The platform makes it easy for European Commission beneficiaries to comply with the open access terms of their funding and offers researchers a publishing venue to share their results and insights rapidly and facilitate open, constructive research discussion. Open Research Europe operates under a continuous publication schedule.<br /> <br /> [1] European Research Executive Agency. (2024). Open science. Open science in Horizon Europe. https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Research Europe: The new EU open access publishing platform<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&quot;Meet the open-access publishing venue set up for Horizon Europe and Horizon 2020 beneficiaries. Open Research Europe will give everyone, researchers and citizens alike, immediate open access to your latest scientific discoveries. And at no cost to you.&quot; Watch the video below<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-642<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Introducing the Open Access<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Access to scientific publications is one of several other policies that will accelerate the move towards Open Science. <br /> <br /> Open Access to publications means that research publications like articles and books can be accessed online, free of charge by any user, with no technical obstacles (such as mandatory registration or login to specific platforms). At the very least, such publications can be read online, downloaded and printed. Ideally, additional rights such as the right to copy, distribute, search, link, crawl and mine should also be provided. <br /> <br /> Two routes of open access<br /> <br /> Open Access can be realised through two main non-exclusive routes:<br /> <br /> * Green Open Access (self-archiving): The published work or the final peer-reviewed manuscript that has been accepted for publication is made freely and openly accessible by the author, or a representative, in an online repository. Some publishers request that Open Access be granted only after an embargo period has elapsed. This embargo period can last anywhere between several months and several years. For publications that have been deposited in a repository but are under embargo, usually at least the metadata are openly accessible.<br /> * Gold Open Access (Open Access publishing): The published work is made available in Open Access mode by the publisher immediately upon publication. The most common business model is based on one-off payments by authors (commonly called APCs – article processing charges – or BPCs – book processing charges). Where Open Access content is combined with content that requires a subscription or purchase, in particular in the context of journals, conference proceedings and edited volumes, this is called hybrid Open Access.<br /> <br /> The choice of a journal or a publishing platform may affect the availability and accessibility of the research results.<br /> [[File:Et3.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> ==== Preprints – a new method of publication dissemination ====<br /> Preprints are widely used in physical sciences and now emerging in life sciences and other fields. Preprints are documents that have not been peer-reviewed but are considered complete scientific publication in the first stage. Some of the preprints servers include open peer review services and the availability to post new versions of the initial paper once reviewed by peers.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> ALLEA. (2013). [https://allea.org/portfolio-item/allea-statement-on-enhancement-of-open-access-to-scientific-publications-in-europe/ ALLEA statement on enhancement of open access to scientific publications in Europe]. <br /> <br /> [https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page Open Access Directory (OAD)] – a wiki where the open access (OA) community can create and support simple factual lists about open access to science and scholarship.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=An introduction to Open Access Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&quot;Gain an insight into open access and how it offers a further alternative for your research. Make your research freely available to everyone. Choose Open.&quot;<br /> <br /> Watch the video on An introduction to Open Access publishing from Taylor &amp; Francis.<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-643<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=cOAlition S and Plan S<br /> |Instruction Step Text=On 4 September 2018, a group of national research funding organisations, with the support of the European Commission and the European Research Council (ERC), announced the launch of cOAlition S, an initiative to make full and immediate Open Access to research publications a reality. It is built around Plan S, which consists of one target and 10 principles.<br /> <br /> cOAlition S signals the commitment to implement the necessary measures to fulfill its main principle:<br /> <br /> “With effect from 2021, all scholarly publications on the results from research funded by public or private grants provided by national, regional and international research councils and funding bodies, must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo.”<br /> <br /> ==== What is Plan S? ====<br /> The main ambition of Plan S is to accelerate the transition to full and immediate OA. The guiding principle behind Plan S is that research that has been paid with public money should not be locked behind paywalls.<br /> <br /> Plan S requires that, from 2021, recipients of research funding from cOAlition S organizations make the resulting publications available immediately (without embargoes) and under open licenses, either in quality OA platforms or journals or through immediate deposit in open repositories that fulfill the necessary conditions.<br /> <br /> Plan S is applicable to research funded by organizations (incl. all beneficiaries of Horizon Europe) who have signed up to Plan S. <br /> <br /> ==== How to comply with Plan S? ====<br /> cOAlition S released the [https://www.coalition-s.org/resources/journal-checker-tool-jct/ Journal Checker Tool (JCT)], a search engine that checks Plan S compliance. The JCT is a web-based tool which enables researchers to quickly identify journals or platforms that provide routes to compliance with Plan S.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> [https://erc.europa.eu/news/erc-supports-full-open-access Statement by the European Research Council] on the support of the cOAlition S initiative.<br /> <br /> [1] cOAlition S. (n.d.). What is cOAlition S? https://www.coalition-s.org/about/<br /> <br /> [2] cOAlition S. (n.d.). Plan S principles. https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles/<br /> <br /> [3] KU Leven. (n.d.). Plan S explained. https://www.kuleuven.be/open-science/what-is-open-science/scholarly-publishing-and-open-access/open-access-why-and-how/plan-s-explained<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Access in 60 Seconds<br /> |Instruction Step Text=What does open access mean? This video summarizes the main points: No costs and technical barriers for readers and libraries, but permanent access and possibilities for subsequent use, as well as the generation of new knowledge.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUpl03eO63M&amp;ab_channel=open-access.network Video: Open Access in 60 Seconds] to open the resource.&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research data<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Research data refers to the information collected, observed, or created for purposes of analysis to produce and validate original research results. Sharing and re-using data to reproduce research and build upon it, are a cornerstone of Open Science. The sustainability of research data refers to their long-term preservation, accessibility, and interoperability. <br /> <br /> Proper management, preservation, and sharing of research data are crucial for ensuring the replicability of research results, advancing further studies, and enhancing collaboration among scholars. <br /> <br /> ==== Types of research data ====<br /> Research data can come in various formats and types, depending on the field of study and the research methodology employed. Data can be quantitative (numerically based) or qualitative (non-numerical, such as words or images), and it may include, but is not limited to, numerical values, text, transcripts, images, video and audio recordings, software, algorithms, equations, and test responses.<br /> <br /> Research data can be raw or primary data (collected directly from experiments, surveys, or observations), processed or secondary data (which has been analyzed or manipulated in some way), or metadata (data about data, which provides information necessary to understand other data). <br /> <br /> ==== ALLEA recommendations on good data management practices ====<br /> The revised [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity] outlines a number of recommendations on &quot;Data Practices and Management&quot;:<br /> <br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure appropriate stewardship, curation, and preservation of all data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials for a reasonable and clearly stated period.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary, and where appropriate in line with the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) for data management.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations are transparent about how to access and gain permission to use data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials.<br /> * Researchers inform research participants about how their data will be used, reused, accessed, stored, and deleted, in compliance with GDPR.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organizations acknowledge data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials as legitimate and citable products of research.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that any contracts or agreements relating to research results include equitable and fair provisions for the management of their use, ownership, and protection under intellectual property rights.<br /> <br /> For the curious ones. There is a whole lot more to [https://openscience.cuni.cz/OSCIEN-48.html Data Management]. Go ahead and check it out.<br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research Data Management<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Data management plans (DMPs) are formal documents in which researchers describe how they plan to use data during and after the research. This helps researchers in sharing their data according to the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-useable), as recommended by the European Code of Conduct (ECoC).<br /> <br /> DPMs are becoming integral parts of grant applications and research organisations. They are usually short, and state which data will be created and how. DMPs also define the plans for data sharing and presentation, prescribe how the data will be stored, who will have access to it, what documentation and metadata will be created with it, and how it will be preserved. Creating DMPs provides several benefits for researchers, such as reducing the loss of data, monitoring the research progress, and preparing data for future use. Apart from that, they are also time saving.<br /> <br /> ==== Creating DMPs - the 'How to' guides ====<br /> <br /> * The [https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/how-guides Digital Curation Centre] (DCC), a leading centre in digital information curation that gives advice and help on how to store, manage, protect and share digital research data, provides resources, such as online tools, guidance and training. One of them is [https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/ DMP online], a free web-based tool that supports researchers in developing DMPs by providing them with templates and guidelines.<br /> * [https://cdlib.org/services/uc3/dmptool/ California Digital Library] has also developed DMPTool, an open and international source project, that helps researchers, institutions, and funders in the USA in creating DMPs.<br /> * [https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/sustainable-research-data/ Science Europe], an association of Research Funding Organisations and Research Performing Organisations, has developed [https://scienceeurope.org/our-resources/practical-guide-to-the-international-alignment-of-research-data-management/ Practical Guide to the International Alignment or Research Data Management]. The Guide provides a basis for development of data practices and management for organisations, disciplines, and individual researchers. Adaptable [https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/research-data-management/ DMP templates] are also available.<br /> <br /> There are a number of other useful tools available for creating DMPs. Check those listed below:<br /> <br /> * [https://ds-wizard.org/ Data Stewardship Wizard]. An open-source platform for collaborative and living data management plans.<br /> * [https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org/data_management_plan RDM kit.] The Research Data Management toolkit for Life Sciences<br /> <br /> [1] ELIXIR (2021) Research Data Management Kit. A deliverable from the EU-funded ELIXIR-CONVERGE project (grant agreement 871075). [https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org/ https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org]<br /> <br /> [2] Embassy of Good Science. Data management plans. [[Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fe|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fe]]<br /> <br /> [3] Science Europe. Sustainable research data. https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/sustainable-research-data/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=FAIR Data<br /> |Instruction Step Text=In 2016, the ‘FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship’ were published in Scientific Data. The authors intended to provide guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digital assets. <br /> <br /> The principles emphasise machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention) because humans increasingly rely on computational support to deal with data as a result of the increase in volume, complexity, and creation speed of data.<br /> <br /> ====What is FAIR data?====<br /> The FAIR principles describe how research outputs should be organised so they can be more easily accessed, understood, exchanged and reused. Major funding bodies, including the European Commission, promote FAIR data to maximise the integrity and impact of their research investment.<br /> <br /> The principles refer to three types of entities: data (or any digital object), metadata (information about that digital object), and infrastructure. <br /> <br /> FAIR principles enable researchers to maximize the value of their data, accelerating scientific progress and innovation. FAIR data is an important aspect of the Open Science policy of the European Commission.<br /> <br /> ====The FAIR guiding principles====<br /> Findable<br /> <br /> The first step in (re)using data is to find them. Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers. Machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services, so this is an essential component of the [https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/fairification-process/ FAIRification process].<br /> <br /> F1. (meta)data are assigned a globally unique and eternally persistent identifier.<br /> <br /> F2. data are described with rich metadata. <br /> <br /> F3. (meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource.<br /> <br /> F4. metadata specify the data identifier.<br /> <br /> =====Accessible=====<br /> Once the user finds the required data, she/he/they need to know how they can be accessed, possibly including authentication and authorisation.<br /> <br /> A1. (meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardized communications protocol.<br /> <br /> *A1.1. the protocol is open, free, and universally implementable.<br /> *A1.2. the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary.<br /> <br /> A2. metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available.<br /> <br /> =====Interoperable=====<br /> The data usually need to be integrated with other data. In addition, the data need to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing.<br /> <br /> I1. (meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation.<br /> <br /> I2. (meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles. <br /> <br /> I3. (meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data.<br /> <br /> =====Reusable=====<br /> The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimise the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings.<br /> <br /> R1. meta(data) have a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes.<br /> <br /> *R1.1. (meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license.<br /> *R1.2. (meta)data are associated with their provenance.<br /> *R1.3. (meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards.<br /> <br /> <br /> [1] GO FAIR. FAIR principles. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/<br /> <br /> [2] Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J. W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., Gonzalez-Beltran, A., … Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data, 3, 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=How to Make your Data FAIR<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Are you at the start of your project and planning to create research data? Read on to find out how to make it more findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable via the FAIR principles.<br /> <br /> ====How to GO FAIR – The Three-point FAIRification Framework====<br /> Since its beginning in early 2018, the GO FAIR community has been working towards implementations of the FAIR Guiding Principles. This collective effort has resulted in a three-point framework that formulates the essential steps towards the end goal, a global Internet of FAIR Data and Services where data are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) for machines.<br /> <br /> The [https://www.go-fair.org/how-to-go-fair/ Three-point FAIRification Framework] developed by the GO FAIR Initiative provides practical “how to” guidance to stakeholders seeking to go FAIR. The framework helps a broad spectrum of stakeholders to see what “going FAIR” means to them in practice, and to immerse themselves in the emerging FAIR landscape.<br /> <br /> FAIR self-assessment<br /> <br /> In order to assess the FAIRness of a dataset and determine how to enhance its FAIRness, you can use this [https://ardc.edu.au/resource/fair-data-self-assessment-tool/ FAIR Data Self Assessment Tool] developed by the ARDC - Australian Research Data Commons. <br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> OpenAIRE – [https://www.openaire.eu/how-to-make-your-data-fair How to make your data FAIR.] OpenAIRE Guide for Researchers. <br /> <br /> [1] GO FAIR. How to GO FAIR. https://www.go-fair.org/how-to-go-fair/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063648 scenario] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning data practices and data management and their links with research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> *Data protection and consent;<br /> *FAIR principles for data management and stewardship;<br /> *Data copyright and data citation;<br /> *Data for personal research use.<br /> <br /> =====Your task is to:=====<br /> <br /> #Read the narrative (Issue 1–3) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> #Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> #Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> [1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063648<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=click and exercise the quiz.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=We are proud to have you, our world-class colleagues in the field, and we dedicate this course to you.<br /> <br /> The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE<br /> [[File:Eth1.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:A21c91d6-f376-4cb0-9b3a-27a18c25a064&diff=19555 2026-09-09T07:19:42Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Introducing a Research Ethics and Integrity<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, learners will be able to:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Define research ethics and integrity and explain their importance in the context of academic research.<br /> * Identify and articulate the core principles of research integrity, including honesty, transparency, objectivity, and accountability.<br /> * Describe the key elements of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and how they apply to research practices.<br /> * Locate and utilize web-based resources to support and enhance research integrity in your academic work.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=On Being a Scientist<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Being a scientist entails a commitment to exploring the unknown, uncovering truths, and contributing to the collective understanding of the world. To become a scientist, one typically pursues higher education in a scientific field, such as obtaining a bachelor's degree, followed by a master's or doctoral degree. <br /> <br /> Beyond formal education, curiosity, critical thinking skills, and a passion for discovery are essential qualities. Scientists have a responsibility to conduct research ethically, with integrity, and to communicate their findings accurately. They must also engage in peer review, collaborate with others, and contribute to the scientific community's body of knowledge. Ultimately, being a scientist is not just a profession but a calling a dedication to advancing human understanding and improving the world through rigorous inquiry and discovery.<br /> <br /> ==== Skills, knowledge, responsibilities ====<br /> Any Scientist should be able to:<br /> <br /> * critically and responsibly review scientific results for research and education purposes, i.e., carry out various types of literature reviews, e.g., systematic, scoping, etc.; and know the differences between them,<br /> * publish the scientifically sound results of your work in domestic and international scientific journals (in English),<br /> * identify and solve key ethical dilemmas regarding scientific publishing,<br /> * provide scientifically sound reviews of scientific manuscripts,<br /> * conduct independent and ethically correct research, design basic or applied research in your field of expertise,<br /> * secure funding in a transparent way with a declared conflict of interest, and be able to write your own grant applications,<br /> * present the unbiased results of your scientific work at conferences, workshops, and scientific meetings with a declared conflict of interest,<br /> * assess new perspectives for paradigm shifts in your field of expertise, and<br /> * last but not least:<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research Ethics and Integrity Defined<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Research integrity aims to provide a comprehensive framework for scientists on how to carry out their work within accepted ethical frameworks and follow good scientific practices.<br /> <br /> ====Defining research ethics and integrity====<br /> There is no universally accepted definition of research integrity, although it is generally understood to relate to the performance of research to the highest standards of professionalism and rigor in an ethically robust manner.<br /> <br /> =====Research ethics=====<br /> Research ethics (also referred to as Scientific ethics) could be defined as &quot;ethical principles-driven decision-making in research based on potential impact on subjects of research and wider society&quot; (The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ European Network for Academic Integrity], 2018).<br /> <br /> =====Research integrity=====<br /> Research integrity (or Scientific integrity) is defined as &quot;compliance with ethical and professional principles, standards, and practices by individuals or institutions in research&quot; (The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ European Network for Academic Integrity], 2018).<br /> <br /> ====Why is it important?====<br /> Research integrity is crucial to preserving the trustworthiness of the research system and its results. It encompasses the basic responsibility of the research community to formulate the principles of research, define the criteria for proper research behavior, maximize the quality, reliability, and robustness of research and its results, and respond adequately to threats to or violations of good research practices. <br /> <br /> Research results in this context include, but are not limited to, publications, data, metadata, protocols, code, software, images, artifacts, and other research materials and methods.<br /> <br /> ====Glossary for Academic Integrity====<br /> Lost in terminology? Check the ENAI's [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/glossary/ Glossary for Academic Integrity], which was developed by an international team. The Glossary comprises more than two hundred terms related to academic integrity. The terms are presented in alphabetical order, along with a definition.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> The following paper sets out seven key reasons why [https://scienceeurope.org/ Science Europe] Member Organizations and research organizations, in general, should be concerned about promoting research integrity in their research communities.<br /> <br /> Science Europe. (2015). Seven reasons to care about integrity in research. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.5060023<br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition 2023. [http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC%C2%A0 http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC]<br /> <br /> [2] Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Glendinning, I., Kravjar, J., Ojsteršek, M., Ribeiro, L., Odiņeca, T., Marino, F., Cosentino, M., Sivasubramaniam, S., Foltýnek, T. (2018). [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/glossary/ Glossary for Academic Integrity]. ENAI<br /> <br /> [3] Science Europe. (2015). Briefing paper 'Research integrity: What it means, why it is important and how we might protect it'. https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-resources/briefing-paper-on-research-integrity-what-it-means-why-it-is-important-and-how-we-might-protect-it<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=What is research integrity?<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Click on the link below to watch a short video explaining research integrity made by the [https://h2020integrity.eu/integrity/ H2020 INTEGRITY project].<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-647<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Singapore Statement on Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The publication of the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity is intended to challenge governments, organizations, and researchers to develop more comprehensive standards, codes, and policies to promote research integrity both locally and globally.<br /> <br /> The [https://www.wcrif.org/statement principles and responsibilities] set out in the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity represent the first international effort to encourage the development of unified policies, guidelines, and codes of conduct, with the long-range goal of fostering greater integrity in research worldwide. The Statement is the product of the collective effort and insights of the 340 individuals from 51 countries who participated in the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity.<br /> <br /> The Statement applies to anyone who does research, to any organization that sponsors research, and to any country that uses research results in decision-making. Good research practices are expected of all researchers, government, corporate, and academic.<br /> <br /> ===== Principles: =====<br /> <br /> * Honesty in all aspects of research <br /> * Accountability in the conduct of research<br /> * Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others<br /> * Good stewardship of research on behalf of others<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [1] The World Conferences on Research Integrity. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. Background. https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] serves the European research community as a framework for self-regulation across all scientific and scholarly disciplines and for all research settings.<br /> <br /> The 2023 Revised Edition of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity has been updated to ensure that the European Code of Conduct remains fit for purpose and relevant to all disciplines, emerging areas of research, and new research practices. The European Commission recognizes the European Code of Conduct as the primary standard for upholding research integrity across all research projects funded by the EU.<br /> <br /> ==== Fundamental principles of research integrity ====<br /> ''Good research practices'' are based on fundamental principles of research integrity. The European Code of Conduct sets four principles to guide individuals, institutions, and organisations in their work as well as in their engagement with the practical, ethical, and intellectual challenges inherent in research.<br /> <br /> These principles include:<br /> <br /> * Reliability in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, methodology, analysis, and use of resources.<br /> * Honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting, and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full, and unbiased way.<br /> * Respect for colleagues, research participants, research subjects, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage, and the environment.<br /> * Accountability for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision, and mentoring, and for its wider societal impacts.<br /> <br /> ==== Defining &quot;Good Research Practices&quot; ====<br /> The European Code of Conduct also describes more action-oriented norms, categorized as good research practices in the following contexts:<br /> <br /> * Research Environment<br /> * Training, Supervision, and Mentoring<br /> * Research Procedures<br /> * Safeguards<br /> * Data Practices and Management<br /> * Collaborative Working<br /> * Publication, Dissemination, and Authorship<br /> * Reviewing and Assessment<br /> <br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition 2023. [http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC%C2%A0 http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC]<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Do the Task: The European Code of Conduct<br /> |Instruction Step Text=On the previous page, you familiarized yourself with [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]. Now, it is time to reflect on and apply your new knowledge.<br /> <br /> Your task is to choose one of the categories from the European Code of Conduct (e.g., research environment, training, supervision, etc.) and consider two examples:<br /> <br /> # What aspects of your current research align with the European Code of Conduct?<br /> # What aspects of your current research could be improved according to the European Code of Conduct?<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Ready to do a task on your own?<br /> |Instruction Step Text=''Science Europe'' is the organization representing major public organizations that fund or perform excellent, ground-breaking research in Europe. It brings together the expertise of some of the largest and most respected European research organizations to jointly push the frontiers of how scientific research is produced and delivers benefits to society.<br /> <br /> Your task is to browse Science Europe's website and get familiar with its content.<br /> <br /> Discover Science Europe’s comprehensive library of resources, including the most recent publications, briefings, and position statements. Learn what policy priorities Science Europe is currently addressing and what the key action areas are in the research policy landscape.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://scienceeurope.org/ Explore: Science Europe website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: ENAI website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The European Network for Academic Integrity is an association gathering educational institutions and individuals interested in maintaining and promoting academic integrity. Their mission is to support higher education institutions to work together in the field of academic integrity.<br /> <br /> Your task is to get familiar with the website of the European Network for Academic Integrity.<br /> <br /> Search the database of educational materials, check the guidelines on research integrity available, and get familiar with the self-evaluation tools.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ Explore: ENAI website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: The Embassy of Good Science website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=[[About|The Embassy of Good Science]] is a place where the community can share experiences and insights, deepening understanding, and continuously contribute to the development of good science.<br /> <br /> The Embassy is a community platform offering support in handling day-to-day research practices and dilemmas. The platform is a wiki – allowing users to contribute their knowledge and expertise.<br /> <br /> The Embassy is a unique ‘go to’ place, a public square where the community of researchers can gather to discuss ‘hot topics’, share knowledge, and find guidance and support to perform science responsibly and with integrity.<br /> <br /> Your task is to browse The Embassy of Good Science website and explore the platform's offerings.<br /> <br /> Search the database of educational materials, check the guidelines on research integrity available, and get familiar with the self-evaluation tools.<br /> <br /> Click on [[Main Page|Explore: The Embassy of Good Science website]] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Practice the multiple choice questions.<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-648<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE&lt;div&gt;[[File:Eth1.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]        &lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:A21c91d6-f376-4cb0-9b3a-27a18c25a064&diff=19526 2026-09-08T13:13:05Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Introducing a Research Ethics and Integrity<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, learners will be able to:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Define research ethics and integrity and explain their importance in the context of academic research.<br /> * Identify and articulate the core principles of research integrity, including honesty, transparency, objectivity, and accountability.<br /> * Describe the key elements of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and how they apply to research practices.<br /> * Locate and utilize web-based resources to support and enhance research integrity in your academic work.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=On Being a Scientist<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Being a scientist entails a commitment to exploring the unknown, uncovering truths, and contributing to the collective understanding of the world. To become a scientist, one typically pursues higher education in a scientific field, such as obtaining a bachelor's degree, followed by a master's or doctoral degree. <br /> <br /> Beyond formal education, curiosity, critical thinking skills, and a passion for discovery are essential qualities. Scientists have a responsibility to conduct research ethically, with integrity, and to communicate their findings accurately. They must also engage in peer review, collaborate with others, and contribute to the scientific community's body of knowledge. Ultimately, being a scientist is not just a profession but a calling a dedication to advancing human understanding and improving the world through rigorous inquiry and discovery.<br /> <br /> ==== Skills, knowledge, responsibilities ====<br /> Any Scientist should be able to:<br /> <br /> * critically and responsibly review scientific results for research and education purposes, i.e., carry out various types of literature reviews, e.g., systematic, scoping, etc.; and know the differences between them,<br /> * publish the scientifically sound results of your work in domestic and international scientific journals (in English),<br /> * identify and solve key ethical dilemmas regarding scientific publishing,<br /> * provide scientifically sound reviews of scientific manuscripts,<br /> * conduct independent and ethically correct research, design basic or applied research in your field of expertise,<br /> * secure funding in a transparent way with a declared conflict of interest, and be able to write your own grant applications,<br /> * present the unbiased results of your scientific work at conferences, workshops, and scientific meetings with a declared conflict of interest,<br /> * assess new perspectives for paradigm shifts in your field of expertise, and<br /> * last but not least:<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research Ethics and Integrity Defined<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Research integrity aims to provide a comprehensive framework for scientists on how to carry out their work within accepted ethical frameworks and follow good scientific practices.<br /> <br /> ====Defining research ethics and integrity====<br /> There is no universally accepted definition of research integrity, although it is generally understood to relate to the performance of research to the highest standards of professionalism and rigor in an ethically robust manner.<br /> <br /> =====Research ethics=====<br /> Research ethics (also referred to as Scientific ethics) could be defined as &quot;ethical principles-driven decision-making in research based on potential impact on subjects of research and wider society&quot; (The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ European Network for Academic Integrity], 2018).<br /> <br /> =====Research integrity=====<br /> Research integrity (or Scientific integrity) is defined as &quot;compliance with ethical and professional principles, standards, and practices by individuals or institutions in research&quot; (The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ European Network for Academic Integrity], 2018).<br /> <br /> ====Why is it important?====<br /> Research integrity is crucial to preserving the trustworthiness of the research system and its results. It encompasses the basic responsibility of the research community to formulate the principles of research, define the criteria for proper research behavior, maximize the quality, reliability, and robustness of research and its results, and respond adequately to threats to or violations of good research practices. <br /> <br /> Research results in this context include, but are not limited to, publications, data, metadata, protocols, code, software, images, artifacts, and other research materials and methods.<br /> <br /> ====Glossary for Academic Integrity====<br /> Lost in terminology? Check the ENAI's [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/glossary/ Glossary for Academic Integrity], which was developed by an international team. The Glossary comprises more than two hundred terms related to academic integrity. The terms are presented in alphabetical order, along with a definition.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> The following paper sets out seven key reasons why [https://scienceeurope.org/ Science Europe] Member Organizations and research organizations, in general, should be concerned about promoting research integrity in their research communities.<br /> <br /> Science Europe. (2015). Seven reasons to care about integrity in research. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.5060023<br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition 2023. [http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC%C2%A0 http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC]<br /> <br /> [2] Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Glendinning, I., Kravjar, J., Ojsteršek, M., Ribeiro, L., Odiņeca, T., Marino, F., Cosentino, M., Sivasubramaniam, S., Foltýnek, T. (2018). [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/glossary/ Glossary for Academic Integrity]. ENAI<br /> <br /> [3] Science Europe. (2015). Briefing paper 'Research integrity: What it means, why it is important and how we might protect it'. https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-resources/briefing-paper-on-research-integrity-what-it-means-why-it-is-important-and-how-we-might-protect-it<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=What is research integrity?<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Click on the link below to watch a short video explaining research integrity made by the [https://h2020integrity.eu/integrity/ H2020 INTEGRITY project].<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Singapore Statement on Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The publication of the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity is intended to challenge governments, organizations, and researchers to develop more comprehensive standards, codes, and policies to promote research integrity both locally and globally.<br /> <br /> The [https://www.wcrif.org/statement principles and responsibilities] set out in the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity represent the first international effort to encourage the development of unified policies, guidelines, and codes of conduct, with the long-range goal of fostering greater integrity in research worldwide. The Statement is the product of the collective effort and insights of the 340 individuals from 51 countries who participated in the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity.<br /> <br /> The Statement applies to anyone who does research, to any organization that sponsors research, and to any country that uses research results in decision-making. Good research practices are expected of all researchers, government, corporate, and academic.<br /> <br /> ===== Principles: =====<br /> <br /> * Honesty in all aspects of research <br /> * Accountability in the conduct of research<br /> * Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others<br /> * Good stewardship of research on behalf of others<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [1] The World Conferences on Research Integrity. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. Background. https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] serves the European research community as a framework for self-regulation across all scientific and scholarly disciplines and for all research settings.<br /> <br /> The 2023 Revised Edition of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity has been updated to ensure that the European Code of Conduct remains fit for purpose and relevant to all disciplines, emerging areas of research, and new research practices. The European Commission recognizes the European Code of Conduct as the primary standard for upholding research integrity across all research projects funded by the EU.<br /> <br /> ==== Fundamental principles of research integrity ====<br /> ''Good research practices'' are based on fundamental principles of research integrity. The European Code of Conduct sets four principles to guide individuals, institutions, and organisations in their work as well as in their engagement with the practical, ethical, and intellectual challenges inherent in research.<br /> <br /> These principles include:<br /> <br /> * Reliability in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, methodology, analysis, and use of resources.<br /> * Honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting, and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full, and unbiased way.<br /> * Respect for colleagues, research participants, research subjects, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage, and the environment.<br /> * Accountability for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision, and mentoring, and for its wider societal impacts.<br /> <br /> ==== Defining &quot;Good Research Practices&quot; ====<br /> The European Code of Conduct also describes more action-oriented norms, categorized as good research practices in the following contexts:<br /> <br /> * Research Environment<br /> * Training, Supervision, and Mentoring<br /> * Research Procedures<br /> * Safeguards<br /> * Data Practices and Management<br /> * Collaborative Working<br /> * Publication, Dissemination, and Authorship<br /> * Reviewing and Assessment<br /> <br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition 2023. [http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC%C2%A0 http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC]<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Do the Task: The European Code of Conduct<br /> |Instruction Step Text=On the previous page, you familiarized yourself with [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]. Now, it is time to reflect on and apply your new knowledge.<br /> <br /> Your task is to choose one of the categories from the European Code of Conduct (e.g., research environment, training, supervision, etc.) and consider two examples:<br /> <br /> # What aspects of your current research align with the European Code of Conduct?<br /> # What aspects of your current research could be improved according to the European Code of Conduct?<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Ready to do a task on your own?<br /> |Instruction Step Text=''Science Europe'' is the organization representing major public organizations that fund or perform excellent, ground-breaking research in Europe. It brings together the expertise of some of the largest and most respected European research organizations to jointly push the frontiers of how scientific research is produced and delivers benefits to society.<br /> <br /> Your task is to browse Science Europe's website and get familiar with its content.<br /> <br /> Discover Science Europe’s comprehensive library of resources, including the most recent publications, briefings, and position statements. Learn what policy priorities Science Europe is currently addressing and what the key action areas are in the research policy landscape.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://scienceeurope.org/ Explore: Science Europe website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: ENAI website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The European Network for Academic Integrity is an association gathering educational institutions and individuals interested in maintaining and promoting academic integrity. Their mission is to support higher education institutions to work together in the field of academic integrity.<br /> <br /> Your task is to get familiar with the website of the European Network for Academic Integrity.<br /> <br /> Search the database of educational materials, check the guidelines on research integrity available, and get familiar with the self-evaluation tools.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ Explore: ENAI website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: The Embassy of Good Science website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=[[About|The Embassy of Good Science]] is a place where the community can share experiences and insights, deepening understanding, and continuously contribute to the development of good science.<br /> <br /> The Embassy is a community platform offering support in handling day-to-day research practices and dilemmas. The platform is a wiki – allowing users to contribute their knowledge and expertise.<br /> <br /> The Embassy is a unique ‘go to’ place, a public square where the community of researchers can gather to discuss ‘hot topics’, share knowledge, and find guidance and support to perform science responsibly and with integrity.<br /> <br /> Your task is to browse The Embassy of Good Science website and explore the platform's offerings.<br /> <br /> Search the database of educational materials, check the guidelines on research integrity available, and get familiar with the self-evaluation tools.<br /> <br /> Click on [[Main Page|Explore: The Embassy of Good Science website]] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Practice the multiple choice questions.<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-648<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE&lt;div&gt;[[File:Eth1.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]        &lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:Bf24c894-570a-43c0-9626-b79bf9399a62&diff=19521 2026-09-08T12:53:52Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Ethics in publishing science<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, you will be able to:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Define scientific publishing and explain its role in disseminating research findings to the academic community and beyond.<br /> * Understand the criteria for authorship in academic publications and the ethical considerations involved in assigning authorship credit.<br /> * Describe the principles of responsible peer review and the importance of maintaining confidentiality and impartiality in the peer-review process.<br /> * Identify and assess potential conflicts of interest in scientific publishing, including financial, personal, and professional conflicts.<br /> * Understand the different metrics used to evaluate scientific research, such as citation counts, impact factors, and altmetrics.<br /> * Explain the basics of copyright and licensing in scientific publishing and their implications for authors and readers.<br /> * Recognize the characteristics of predatory journals and publishers and the risks associated with publishing in these outlets.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Scientific Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Writing, publishing, and presenting science is one of the basic skills of a researcher and academic professional.<br /> <br /> A scientist/lecturer at a university who does not write or otherwise present (promote or defend) the results of his or her work in front of a professional community or wider public is a pre-extinction species that cannot withstand evolution.<br /> <br /> Writing a high-quality and highly valued professional text is a very demanding activity. Your writing skills improve with each paper you publish. Article writing is a skill that can be learned. The speed of mastering the writing of research articles is different for different individuals and depends on many factors.<br /> <br /> However, when it comes to scientific writing, there is only one acceptable approach: responsible scientific writing.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Authorship<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Authorship can refer to individuals or groups that create an idea or develop the publication that disseminates that intellectual or creative work; however, appropriately acknowledging roles and contributions is not always a simple task.<br /> <br /> In science and research, authorship is the currency by which academics are paid and thus is essential for tenure, promotion, and grant funding. What is clear is that authorship is a fluid, evolving concept, and as it evolves, so will the ethical challenges associated with it.<br /> <br /> ==== What constitutes authorship? ====<br /> Editorial or academic organisations within different specialties have set out criteria and guidelines that members could adopt in their consideration of authorship.<br /> <br /> For example, the [https://www.icmje.org/ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)], also known as the Vancouver group, developed the recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. The ICMJE states that an author should meet all four of the following criteria:<br /> <br /> # Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND<br /> # Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND<br /> # Final approval of the version to be published; AND<br /> # Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.<br /> <br /> ICMJE further states that contributors who do not meet all four criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should still be acknowledged.<br /> <br /> The recommendations are intended to guarantee that those who have made significant intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors while also ensuring that those credited as authors understand their responsibility and accountability for the published work.<br /> <br /> A selection of other definitions of authorship for different scientific disciplines is presented in COPE Discussion Document on [https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/authorship What constitutes authorship].<br /> <br /> ==== Who qualifies, and who does not – common scenarios ====<br /> Interested in expert opinions on common authorship issues? For example:<br /> <br /> * I am a junior researcher and did a lot of the basic work. My supervisor/department head wrote up the work and hasn’t included me as an author<br /> * My department head insists on being included as an author on any research paper that comes out of his/her department. But he/she only obtained the grant money. Is this fair?<br /> * In what order should we list the authors to demonstrate the relative contribution of each?<br /> * There are more than 100 authors on this paper. Is that feasible?<br /> * The “author” is a collaborative group. How does that work?<br /> <br /> Check out the common scenarios and the COPE authorship guidelines [https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/Authorship_DiscussionDocument_0_0.pdf here].<br /> <br /> ==== Handling authorship disputes ====<br /> Authorship sounds simple, but in reality, it often proves to be a source of frustration. To advice on how to deal with authorship issues, you can read the COPE guidelines on [https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1 How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers] written by Tim Albert and Elizabeth Wager.  <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2014): What constitutes authorship? COPE Discussion Document [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3<br /> <br /> [2] COPE. (2003): How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1<br /> <br /> [3] ICMJE. (2024). . Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/<br /> <br /> [4] UKRIO. (2017). Good practice in research: Authorship. https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Guidance-Note-Authorship-v1.0.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Infographic: Authorship Practices to Avoid Conflicts<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Discover the key to harmonious collaboration!<br /> <br /> Dive into this infographic on best [https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/Authorship%20Practices%20to%20Avoid%20Conflicts_Rasterized.pdf authorship practices to prevent conflicts] and foster successful partnerships.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Peer-Review<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality, and originality of articles for publication. Its main goal is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out articles that are invalid or of poor quality.<br /> <br /> ==== What do we mean by ‘peer review’? ====<br /> In academia, we keep referring to peer review as though it is something obvious, but it is not evident that there is a common definition. For journal publishers and universities, the most commonly used explanation is:<br /> <br /> ''“…the process of someone reading, checking, and giving his or her opinion about something that has been written by another scientist or expert working in the same subject area”'' (from [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peer-review Cambridge Dictionary, web edition])<br /> <br /> The review process should include comments from reviewers who are not on the editorial board and so can make objective decisions. Reviewers should focus on the academic quality of the work in question and check the methods used. Peer review does not involve language editing or copy editing, done to make the final article or book read well, but ensures that the research has been properly done according to discipline-specific and relevant research practices. Different types of peer review are suitable for different disciplines and research communities.<br /> <br /> A trustworthy journal should clearly and publicly define what type of peer review it uses. It is also recommended that journals follow the guidelines provided by the [https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)].<br /> <br /> ==== Models of peer review ====<br /> Different journals use different types or models of peer review, all of which have various advantages and disadvantages. The most common types of peer review include:<br /> <br /> * Single-blind: the peer reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report).<br /> * Double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (but if the research is published reviewers can eventually know the names of the authors).<br /> * Open: authors know who the reviewers are and the reviewers know who the authors are. In some journals, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the named review reports are also published alongside the article.<br /> * Transparent: similar to open peer review in that if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the content of the reviewer reports is openly available, however the reviewers are not named. <br /> <br /> Learn about the other types of peer review in the [https://publicationethics.org/node/34926 COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews]?<br /> <br /> ==== Fundamentals of peer review ====<br /> Interested to learn more about the peer review fundamentals? [https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review Elsevier's Researcher Academy] prepared a series of modules explaining why it is important to get involved in peer review and the many benefits it can bring. You will hear how carrying out peer review can sharpen your own writing skills and discover the ethics guidelines you should comply with. <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2024). Fundamentals of peer review. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review<br /> <br /> [3] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). What do we mean by ‘peer review’? https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/peer-review/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer reviewers are important for ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process assists editors in deciding whether the research is suitable for publication in their journal. Peer reviewers are key players in this process, but sometimes, they might not know what's expected of them.<br /> <br /> ====COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers====<br /> Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. COPE Peer review guidelines provide basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer review process in research publication. <br /> <br /> These guidelines are intended to be applied across disciplines. COPE Guidelines provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). Guidelines: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4&lt;nowiki/&gt;Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746 'Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the ethical and integrity standards governing peer review processes.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> * The integrity of peer review processes;<br /> * Institutional obligations to uphold the standards of good peer review practices;<br /> * Plagiarism.<br /> <br /> ===== Your task is to: =====<br /> <br /> # Read the narrative (Issue 1–2) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> # Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> # Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> <br /> [1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Conflict of Interest<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Conflict of interest occurs when a scientist's personal interests—such as financial gain, professional advancement, or personal relationships—could potentially influence or appear to influence their research findings and decision-making. These conflicts can compromise the objectivity and integrity of the publication, potentially affecting the credibility of the research itself.<br /> <br /> Scientists are guided by a genuine desire to pursue truth and impartial judgment, and by honesty in reporting and interpreting their research results. This means that scientific work should be as unbiased and objective as possible in the sense that non-scientific interests should not play any significant role in the way in which the research work is conducted and its results are interpreted and presented.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it? Defining conflict of interest ====<br /> Competing interests (also known as conflicts of interests — COIs) is defined as follows:<br /> <br /> “A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.” <br /> <br /> The generally understood principles are shared by many journals and publishers. Their interpretation into policy, however, varies journal by journal.<br /> <br /> Conflicts of interest can be:<br /> <br /> # financial or<br /> # non-financial (such as family and friendship relationships). <br /> <br /> More problematic forms of conflict of interest happen when researchers participate in the selection of a procurement contract with a company where they or their relatives have a financial interest, or when peer review panel members have a close family or professional relationship with one of the applicants to a position or a grant.<br /> <br /> ==== Dealing with Conflicts of Interest ====<br /> According to the [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests US Office of Research Integrity], “Having a conflict of interest is not in itself unethical, and some are unavoidable. Full transparency is always the best course of action, and, if in doubt, disclose.”<br /> <br /> Transparency and disclosure are the primary mechanisms for managing conflicts of interest in publishing. Authors are typically required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when submitting a manuscript. This includes financial interests (such as funding or stock ownership), affiliations, personal relationships, or intellectual biases that might affect the research.<br /> <br /> Further resources:<br /> <br /> Elsevier. (2019). [https://assets.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/5XCIR5PjsKLJMAh0ISkIzb/16f6a246e767446b75543d8d8671048c/Competing-Interests-factsheet-March-2019.pdf Factsheet: Competing Interests].<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2017). Ethics in Research &amp; Publication.<br /> <br /> [3] Integrity. Conflict of interest in research: what is it and why it matters? https://h2020integrity.eu/conflict-of-interest-in-research-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters/<br /> <br /> [4] Office of Research Integrity U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A brief overview on Conflict of Interests. [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-35]<br /> <br /> [4] The Embassy of Good Science. Conflict of interests. [[Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International%20Committee%20of%20Medical%20Journal%20Editors%20Conflict%20of%20Interest%20Disclosure%20Form|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International_Committee_of_Medical_Journal_Editors_Conflict_of_Interest_Disclosure_Form]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Metrics<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Metrics, sometimes known as research indicators, are intended to be a quantitative measure of the quality and/or importance of a research output (e.g. journal article, monograph). There is a range of metrics that measure different things.<br /> <br /> ==== Citation metrics ====<br /> <br /> * They measure different things and it is important to understand what they measure, the limits of what they interpret, and when [https://www.metrics-toolkit.org/ best to use them].<br /> * They are sometimes used to measure the citation impact of journals rather than the citation impact of individual research outputs.<br /> * They measure the amount of academic attention a research output has received. <br /> * The simplest citation metric is the number of times a research output has been cited.<br /> * Citation practices differ across academic disciplines so there are a variety of weightings and calculations to address that and ensure that citation metrics are comparable.<br /> <br /> The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used example of a citation metric. It calculates the average number of citations that articles published by a journal have received over the preceding two-year period.  The JIF and other metrics are problematic for a number of reasons. One cannot judge the academic or research value of a work merely on the number of times it has been downloaded, or the number of times it has been cited.<br /> <br /> Journal-level metrics are often used by researchers to make decisions about where to publish their work. They can be useful for identifying journals that have a track record for generating attention for the research outputs that they publish.<br /> <br /> Alternative metrics or altmetrics measure the amount of online attention a research output has received beyond typical citation metrics. This can include things like mentions on Twitter, coverage on news platforms and blogs, Wikipedia citations and lots more besides. Measuring this kind of attention can be used to demonstrate reach beyond academia, and can help to evidence research impact.<br /> <br /> ==== Responsible Metrics ====<br /> There has been a movement towards advocating for responsible metrics which provides guidance on how to use metrics responsibly, both for measuring research quality and as part of conversations about career progression. The [https://sfdora.org/read/ San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)] is a set of principles that institutions have signed up to, which includes a requirement to eliminate the use of journal-level metrics (like the Journal Impact Factor) in funding, appointment and promotion considerations.  In response, some universities have created statements of responsible metrics. [https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/ The Bibliomagician] has collated a number of examples from a variety of institutions.<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Metrics. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/metrics/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: The COPE website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Ethical dimensions in publishing are like the universe. The further we look, the more tangible ethical issues become.<br /> <br /> ===== Ready to do a task on your own? =====<br /> COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is committed to educating and supporting editors, publishers, universities, research institutes, and all those involved in publication ethics. COPE aims to move the culture of publishing towards one where ethical practices become a normal part of the culture itself.<br /> <br /> Your task is to explore the following website: COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).<br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/ Explore: The COPE website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Copyright and Licensing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=There are different rules surrounding copyright law for texts and images. Make sure that you have all the necessary rights and permissions in place before you publish.<br /> <br /> ==== Licensing of your material ====<br /> Any material you create and share with others can be licensed. The license is a message to the reader, or the user of the material, about how they can use or reuse the content.<br /> <br /> All material that you produce as a researcher, such as articles, book chapters, books, blog texts, working papers, conference papers or teaching material, can be licensed at the time of publication. The license should be visible on the title page or first page of the material you publish.<br /> <br /> ==== Copyright ====<br /> Copyright refers to the intellectual property of a work that has been made public by you or your organisation. Copyright law is different in each country, and there is no international law that can be applied overall. However, certain principles apply globally. The right to be recognised as the creator is intrinsic. This means that you, as the author and/or publisher of the material, own the right to decide how it will be used. Different terms apply depending on how copyright is managed by the publisher, and there is sometimes a charge applied for someone who wants to reproduce or share copyrighted material. <br /> <br /> Copyright is divided into two parts: <br /> <br /> * The ‘intellectual rights’ that are non-transferrable, meaning that you, as the creator of a work, always have to be recognised. <br /> * The economic rights that can, however, be transferred to a publisher or licensed for reuse.<br /> <br /> For academic purposes, it is common practice to allow works to be cited to a certain limit (usually about 250 words or 1–2 images or tables, as long as the original source is clearly stated). This can be referred to as “fair use”, “fair dealing”, or “citation rights” depending on which national law applies to the published material.<br /> <br /> ==== Academic articles ====<br /> The author of a journal article may, as part of a standard contract with the publisher, have limited rights to share their own work or may have signed away their economic rights entirely. Many publishers still allow articles to be made ​​freely available provided that certain conditions are met. If you want to know what applies to the journal where you have published your articles, please visit the journal’s publisher’s policy in [https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ SHERPA/RoMEO]. Authors are recommended to check that the publisher’s policy aligns with the policy of their institution and funder before signing any contracts.<br /> <br /> ==== Books and book chapters ====<br /> When publishing a book, or a chapter in a book, the terms of licensing and copyright will typically be included in a contract which you would have to agree with a publisher and which will specify the usage rights, the format(s) and length of time applied to the work.<br /> <br /> Book contracts vary from publisher to publisher, and can in some cases be complicated. If you are required to sign a contract with a publisher in order to publish your work you need to ensure that the contract covers your rights and that it takes into account the obligation you have to your employer and/or the funder of your research.<br /> <br /> If you want to publish a thesis or dissertation it is recommended that you contact your institution or department to make sure that you follow their policy for such publications.<br /> <br /> For more information on what to consider before publishing an Open Access book see the [https://oabooks-toolkit.org/lifecycle/3284351-book-contract-and-license/article/4492720-contracting-and-copyright Open Access Books Toolkit].<br /> <br /> ==== Images and copyright ====<br /> Artistic works, photographs, illustrations and diagrams have copyright protection specifying the use by someone without the author’s explicit permission. This protection is governed by the law of copyright for literary and artistic works in the country where your work is published. It is important that you consult the rightsholder if you would like to reproduce work from other sources in your book or article, unless the original work is openly licensed for reuse.<br /> <br /> Should you not get permission to use a picture in its electronic format, you can omit it and replace it with an explanatory text: “Because of copyright protection, this picture is missing in its electronic (or print) format.”<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> FOSTER. https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN//02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Access Licensing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Licenses can be applied to any material (e.g., sound, text, image, multimedia, software) where some exploitation or usage rights exist.<br /> <br /> ==== Open Access Licensing ====<br /> If you want to publish Open Access, you will still own the rights to your work. You control how it can be used and the credit you are given by choosing one of the [https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ Creative Commons] licenses. These open licenses are administered independently of any publisher and are internationally recognised. The licenses are applied as a legal code of practice, and can be seen as an addition to the intrinsic copyright applied in each country. Using an open license allows others to continue to build upon your work. There are currently [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ six types of Creative Commons licenses] available, each with slightly different permissions and requirements. All the licenses require that others using your work in any way must give you credit in the way you request, but not in a way that suggests that you endorse them in their use. There must always be a reference and a link to the original if the work is mentioned or reused. <br /> <br /> ==== What is a Creative Commons licence? ====<br /> Creative Commons, a global not-for-profit organisation which provides legal tools to promote the sharing and reuse of works of authorship, has produced a number of licences some of which meet the criteria for Open Access. These offer different levels of permission.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons offers licences readable at three different levels: legal, machine (the metadata) and human (non-legal descriptions). Creative Commons has a useful tool to help you determine the licence best for you. More restrictive CC licences are unlikely to meet Open Access requirements (e.g. because they impose restrictions on commercial use).<br /> <br /> What licence should be applied to the research data?<br /> <br /> It depends on what rights protect your research data, if at all.<br /> <br /> * If your research data qualifies as a work (literary work such as a journal article or a software), then CC BY 4.0 is usually the best choice. The use of the Share Alike (SA) is also compatible with the Open Access definition and reinforced in Plan S licensing guidance for publications. Non-commercial should be avoided as it is not Open Access compliant. Non-derivative is a tricky issue and should be avoided, especially if you do not know what you are doing. That said, it may not be incompatible with the Open Access definition.<br /> * If your research data is a database or a dataset (unstructured data that do not meet the database definition) usually the best option is a CC0, which waives all your rights in the database.<br /> <br /> Keep in mind that CC licences only deal with copyright and copyright related matter. Personal data are not included in CC and are analysed separately.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> FOSTER. https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN//02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html<br /> <br /> [1] OpenAIRE. Licenses for Research Data. https://www.openaire.eu/how-do-i-license-my-research-data<br /> <br /> [2] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Predatory journals and publishers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Over the past two decades, open-access publishing has rapidly grown into a global industry, making scholarly publications readily available to researchers, policymakers, and the general public. <br /> <br /> While this has generally been seen as a positive development, the predominant “Gold” open access route has also given rise to unforeseen challenges. The rise of open-access publishing, which often involves authors paying fees to make their work freely available, has unfortunately provided a fertile ground for predatory publishers. <br /> <br /> ==== What are predatory journals? ====<br /> Predatory journals and their publishers are “entities that prioritise self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterised by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices”.<br /> <br /> Many researchers are duped into choosing to publish with predatory journals because they are simply unaware of the difference between bogus and quality open-access journals. Early career researchers are at particular risk, as they may feel great pressure to publish but lack experience. Equally, these journals have disproportionately negative effects on researchers from low- and middle-income countries, who may not have the resources to identify those outlets and/or are seeking more affordable ways to publish.<br /> <br /> Falling prey to predatory publishers can damage a researcher's reputation, waste valuable resources, and contribute to the dissemination of potentially unreliable scientific information.<br /> <br /> ==== Identifying and promoting quality open-access journals ====<br /> There is currently no centralized global or European authentication of academic publishers and journals to certify that they meet the fundamental requirements of professionalism and financial transparency. Some specific recommendations of the ALLELA for researchers can be found below:<br /> <br /> * Searching the databases listed in the [https://doaj.org/ Directory of Open Access Journals] (DOAJ) (empowered by the global science community), and Web of Science (WoS) can be starting points for finding open access journals that follow good editorial practices. Additionally, [https://cabells.com/solutions/predatory-reports Cabells] provides a subscription service featuring a database of deceptive and predatory journals.<br /> * There are also several national and institutional resources that regularly evaluate and categorise scientific journals and publishers based on their editorial and publication standards. These can often also be accessed by external researchers, and could be extended and adopted for regional or European use.<br /> * The [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/ Think-Check-Submit] initiative provides tools to help researchers identify trusted journals in which to publish their research. The [https://www.coalition-s.org/journal-comparison-service/ Journal Comparison Service] by cOAlition S provides a platform that improves price transparency for researchers, libraries, and funding organisations.<br /> * Most academic libraries can advise researchers; they are encouraged to follow evidence-based characteristics of potential predatory journals and IAP-recommended markers for fraudulent, deceptive, or unacceptable journals.<br /> * In general, authors are recommended to keep full control over any published work by retaining their intellectual property rights. By doing so, authors will always be able to deposit a copy of the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) in a repository of their choice, and it allows them to re-use figures and tables from the publication in subsequent presentations or other works without having to seek permission from the publisher.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> There are various sources of information on predatory publishing, e.g., [https://zenodo.org/records/3738003 Predatory journals and open access: predators in the world of scientific publishing], where you can obtain additional information.<br /> <br /> For an alternative source of information that goes into more detail you may want to peak in [https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstreams/3c1b1ccb-e82b-49c3-96e5-7d4f3fcb9352/download Avoiding Predatory Journals and QuestionableConferences: A Resource Guide] (Eaton, 2018).<br /> <br /> [1] ALLELA. (2023). ALLEA statement on curbing predatory practices in open access scholarly publishing. https://doi.org/10.26356/PREDATORYPUBLISHING<br /> <br /> [2] Grudniewicz et al. (2019). “Predatory journals: no definition, no defence”. Nature 576, 210-212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Think. Check. Submit.<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Think. Check. Submit. helps researchers identify trusted journals and publishers for their research. Through a range of tools and practical resources, this international cross-sector initiative aims to educate researchers, promote integrity, and build trust in credible research and publications.<br /> <br /> The 3-step approach encourages academics to ‘Think’ about the problem posed by predatory or substandard conferences, ‘Check’ the conference against a set of criteria designed to highlight attributes of good and bad quality conferences, and ‘Attend’ only if the conference adheres to the criteria consistent with a legitimate conference.<br /> <br /> [[File:Et4.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ====Watch a video: Assessing the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher====<br /> Have you done your research and now you are ready to publish? Ensuring the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher is essential for researchers when sharing their work with the world. This video outlines some key steps and considerations to help researchers assess whether a journal or publisher is suitable for their research.<br /> <br /> ====Think. Check. Submit. checklist====<br /> The Think. Check. Submit. checklist is a tool that will help you discover what you need to know when assessing whether or not a publisher is suitable for your research.<br /> <br /> Follow the [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/books-and-chapters/ Book &amp; Chapters] or [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/ Journals] checklist to make sure you choose trusted journals and publishers for your research.<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). https://thinkchecksubmit.org/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Paper-Mills problem<br /> |Instruction Step Text=With the increasing pressure on (young) researchers to publish, there is a growing concern over the proliferation of fake papers within the academic community. In science and research, a &quot;''paper mill''&quot; refers to a deceptive practice where manuscripts are fabricated or manipulated and then submitted to academic journals for publication.<br /> <br /> ==== What is a paper mill? ====<br /> The [https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/paper-mills-cope-stm-research-report.pdf Committee on Publication Ethics] defines paper mills as &quot;the process by which manufactured manuscripts are submitted to a journal for a fee on behalf of researchers with the purpose of providing an easy publication for them, or to offer authorship for sale.&quot;<br /> <br /> These manuscripts are often generated for the purpose of exploiting the academic publishing system, typically to boost publication records or to fulfill requirements for academic advancement, such as obtaining tenure or securing funding. Fake papers can be identified both during the submission process and after publication.<br /> <br /> Paper mills may involve the use of ghostwriters, falsified data, or plagiarized content. This unethical practice undermines the integrity of scholarly publishing and can have serious consequences for academic credibility and scientific progress.<br /> <br /> === Paper mills in the era of large language models (LLMs) ===<br /> The emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has raised concerns about an increase in paper mills. These tools can quickly generate fake papers and authorships, posing a significant threat to scientific publishing by blurring the line between genuine and fabricated research. <br /> <br /> This underscores worries in the scientific community about maintaining integrity in scholarly publishing and preventing the misuse of AI technology. It's crucial to recognize that attempting to pass off AI-generated text as one's own work constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty. <br /> <br /> Reading for fun:<br /> <br /> [https://publicationethics.org/resources/research/paper-mills-research Paper Mills Research report from COPE &amp; STM]<br /> <br /> Van Noorden, R. (2023). How big is science’s fake-paper problem? An unpublished analysis suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of bogus ‘paper-mill’ articles lurking in the literature. Nature, 623, 466-467. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x<br /> <br /> [1] COPE &amp; STM. Paper Mills — Research report from COPE &amp; STM. https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Ethics in publishing and research<br /> |Instruction Step Text=''Dr. Babor is Professor Emeritus and former head of the Department of Community Medicine and Health Care and directs an active research program. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.''<br /> <br /> In this lecture, Tom will describe the main traditions of scientific integrity and research ethics that have been developed over the past 80 years, beginning with the Helsinki Agreement and the development of modern ethical principles. The main part of the lecture will focus on the growth of addiction science in Europe and America, and the challenges of conducting basic, clinical, and policy research on alcohol and other psychoactive substances. Particular attention will be given to the different degrees of research misconduct and how to prevent them by means of ethical decision-making and institutional guidelines. Conflict of interest and the influence of powerful industries such as tobacco, alcohol, gambling and pharmaceuticals will also be discussed.<br /> <br /> This presentation is in English. <br /> <br /> It is a bit on the long side, though. :)<br /> <br /> Click on the video to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216 'Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative on the theme of Publication and Dissemination.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> * Dual submissions<br /> * Authorship lists<br /> * Plagiarism<br /> * Complaints procedures<br /> * Editorial decisions<br /> * Retraction<br /> <br /> ===== Your task is to: =====<br /> <br /> # Read the narrative (Issue 1–4) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> # Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> # Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> <br /> ----[1] Jonathan Lewis. (2020). Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Practice the quice activity below.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=We are proud to have you, our world-class colleagues in the field, and we dedicate this course to you.<br /> <br /> The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE<br /> <br /> [[File:Eth1.png|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:Bf24c894-570a-43c0-9626-b79bf9399a62&diff=19520 2026-09-08T12:53:03Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Ethics in publishing science<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, you will be able to:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Define scientific publishing and explain its role in disseminating research findings to the academic community and beyond.<br /> * Understand the criteria for authorship in academic publications and the ethical considerations involved in assigning authorship credit.<br /> * Describe the principles of responsible peer review and the importance of maintaining confidentiality and impartiality in the peer-review process.<br /> * Identify and assess potential conflicts of interest in scientific publishing, including financial, personal, and professional conflicts.<br /> * Understand the different metrics used to evaluate scientific research, such as citation counts, impact factors, and altmetrics.<br /> * Explain the basics of copyright and licensing in scientific publishing and their implications for authors and readers.<br /> * Recognize the characteristics of predatory journals and publishers and the risks associated with publishing in these outlets.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Scientific Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Writing, publishing, and presenting science is one of the basic skills of a researcher and academic professional.<br /> <br /> A scientist/lecturer at a university who does not write or otherwise present (promote or defend) the results of his or her work in front of a professional community or wider public is a pre-extinction species that cannot withstand evolution.<br /> <br /> Writing a high-quality and highly valued professional text is a very demanding activity. Your writing skills improve with each paper you publish. Article writing is a skill that can be learned. The speed of mastering the writing of research articles is different for different individuals and depends on many factors.<br /> <br /> However, when it comes to scientific writing, there is only one acceptable approach: responsible scientific writing.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Authorship<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Authorship can refer to individuals or groups that create an idea or develop the publication that disseminates that intellectual or creative work; however, appropriately acknowledging roles and contributions is not always a simple task.<br /> <br /> In science and research, authorship is the currency by which academics are paid and thus is essential for tenure, promotion, and grant funding. What is clear is that authorship is a fluid, evolving concept, and as it evolves, so will the ethical challenges associated with it.<br /> <br /> ==== What constitutes authorship? ====<br /> Editorial or academic organisations within different specialties have set out criteria and guidelines that members could adopt in their consideration of authorship.<br /> <br /> For example, the [https://www.icmje.org/ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)], also known as the Vancouver group, developed the recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. The ICMJE states that an author should meet all four of the following criteria:<br /> <br /> # Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND<br /> # Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND<br /> # Final approval of the version to be published; AND<br /> # Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.<br /> <br /> ICMJE further states that contributors who do not meet all four criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should still be acknowledged.<br /> <br /> The recommendations are intended to guarantee that those who have made significant intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors while also ensuring that those credited as authors understand their responsibility and accountability for the published work.<br /> <br /> A selection of other definitions of authorship for different scientific disciplines is presented in COPE Discussion Document on [https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/authorship What constitutes authorship].<br /> <br /> ==== Who qualifies, and who does not – common scenarios ====<br /> Interested in expert opinions on common authorship issues? For example:<br /> <br /> * I am a junior researcher and did a lot of the basic work. My supervisor/department head wrote up the work and hasn’t included me as an author<br /> * My department head insists on being included as an author on any research paper that comes out of his/her department. But he/she only obtained the grant money. Is this fair?<br /> * In what order should we list the authors to demonstrate the relative contribution of each?<br /> * There are more than 100 authors on this paper. Is that feasible?<br /> * The “author” is a collaborative group. How does that work?<br /> <br /> Check out the common scenarios and the COPE authorship guidelines [https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/Authorship_DiscussionDocument_0_0.pdf here].<br /> <br /> ==== Handling authorship disputes ====<br /> Authorship sounds simple, but in reality, it often proves to be a source of frustration. To advice on how to deal with authorship issues, you can read the COPE guidelines on [https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1 How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers] written by Tim Albert and Elizabeth Wager.  <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2014): What constitutes authorship? COPE Discussion Document [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3<br /> <br /> [2] COPE. (2003): How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1<br /> <br /> [3] ICMJE. (2024). . Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/<br /> <br /> [4] UKRIO. (2017). Good practice in research: Authorship. https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Guidance-Note-Authorship-v1.0.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Infographic: Authorship Practices to Avoid Conflicts<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Discover the key to harmonious collaboration!<br /> <br /> Dive into this infographic on best [https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/Authorship%20Practices%20to%20Avoid%20Conflicts_Rasterized.pdf authorship practices to prevent conflicts] and foster successful partnerships.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Peer-Review<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality, and originality of articles for publication. Its main goal is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out articles that are invalid or of poor quality.<br /> <br /> ==== What do we mean by ‘peer review’? ====<br /> In academia, we keep referring to peer review as though it is something obvious, but it is not evident that there is a common definition. For journal publishers and universities, the most commonly used explanation is:<br /> <br /> ''“…the process of someone reading, checking, and giving his or her opinion about something that has been written by another scientist or expert working in the same subject area”'' (from [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peer-review Cambridge Dictionary, web edition])<br /> <br /> The review process should include comments from reviewers who are not on the editorial board and so can make objective decisions. Reviewers should focus on the academic quality of the work in question and check the methods used. Peer review does not involve language editing or copy editing, done to make the final article or book read well, but ensures that the research has been properly done according to discipline-specific and relevant research practices. Different types of peer review are suitable for different disciplines and research communities.<br /> <br /> A trustworthy journal should clearly and publicly define what type of peer review it uses. It is also recommended that journals follow the guidelines provided by the [https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)].<br /> <br /> ==== Models of peer review ====<br /> Different journals use different types or models of peer review, all of which have various advantages and disadvantages. The most common types of peer review include:<br /> <br /> * Single-blind: the peer reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report).<br /> * Double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (but if the research is published reviewers can eventually know the names of the authors).<br /> * Open: authors know who the reviewers are and the reviewers know who the authors are. In some journals, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the named review reports are also published alongside the article.<br /> * Transparent: similar to open peer review in that if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the content of the reviewer reports is openly available, however the reviewers are not named. <br /> <br /> Learn about the other types of peer review in the [https://publicationethics.org/node/34926 COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews]?<br /> <br /> ==== Fundamentals of peer review ====<br /> Interested to learn more about the peer review fundamentals? [https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review Elsevier's Researcher Academy] prepared a series of modules explaining why it is important to get involved in peer review and the many benefits it can bring. You will hear how carrying out peer review can sharpen your own writing skills and discover the ethics guidelines you should comply with. <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2024). Fundamentals of peer review. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review<br /> <br /> [3] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). What do we mean by ‘peer review’? https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/peer-review/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer reviewers are important for ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process assists editors in deciding whether the research is suitable for publication in their journal. Peer reviewers are key players in this process, but sometimes, they might not know what's expected of them.<br /> <br /> ====COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers====<br /> Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. COPE Peer review guidelines provide basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer review process in research publication. <br /> <br /> These guidelines are intended to be applied across disciplines. COPE Guidelines provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). Guidelines: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4&lt;nowiki/&gt;Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746 'Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the ethical and integrity standards governing peer review processes.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> * The integrity of peer review processes;<br /> * Institutional obligations to uphold the standards of good peer review practices;<br /> * Plagiarism.<br /> <br /> ===== Your task is to: =====<br /> <br /> # Read the narrative (Issue 1–2) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> # Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> # Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> <br /> [1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Conflict of Interest<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Conflict of interest occurs when a scientist's personal interests—such as financial gain, professional advancement, or personal relationships—could potentially influence or appear to influence their research findings and decision-making. These conflicts can compromise the objectivity and integrity of the publication, potentially affecting the credibility of the research itself.<br /> <br /> Scientists are guided by a genuine desire to pursue truth and impartial judgment, and by honesty in reporting and interpreting their research results. This means that scientific work should be as unbiased and objective as possible in the sense that non-scientific interests should not play any significant role in the way in which the research work is conducted and its results are interpreted and presented.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it? Defining conflict of interest ====<br /> Competing interests (also known as conflicts of interests — COIs) is defined as follows:<br /> <br /> “A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.” <br /> <br /> The generally understood principles are shared by many journals and publishers. Their interpretation into policy, however, varies journal by journal.<br /> <br /> Conflicts of interest can be:<br /> <br /> # financial or<br /> # non-financial (such as family and friendship relationships). <br /> <br /> More problematic forms of conflict of interest happen when researchers participate in the selection of a procurement contract with a company where they or their relatives have a financial interest, or when peer review panel members have a close family or professional relationship with one of the applicants to a position or a grant.<br /> <br /> ==== Dealing with Conflicts of Interest ====<br /> According to the [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests US Office of Research Integrity], “Having a conflict of interest is not in itself unethical, and some are unavoidable. Full transparency is always the best course of action, and, if in doubt, disclose.”<br /> <br /> Transparency and disclosure are the primary mechanisms for managing conflicts of interest in publishing. Authors are typically required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when submitting a manuscript. This includes financial interests (such as funding or stock ownership), affiliations, personal relationships, or intellectual biases that might affect the research.<br /> <br /> Further resources:<br /> <br /> Elsevier. (2019). [https://assets.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/5XCIR5PjsKLJMAh0ISkIzb/16f6a246e767446b75543d8d8671048c/Competing-Interests-factsheet-March-2019.pdf Factsheet: Competing Interests].<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2017). Ethics in Research &amp; Publication.<br /> <br /> [3] Integrity. Conflict of interest in research: what is it and why it matters? https://h2020integrity.eu/conflict-of-interest-in-research-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters/<br /> <br /> [4] Office of Research Integrity U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A brief overview on Conflict of Interests. [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-35]<br /> <br /> [4] The Embassy of Good Science. Conflict of interests. [[Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International%20Committee%20of%20Medical%20Journal%20Editors%20Conflict%20of%20Interest%20Disclosure%20Form|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International_Committee_of_Medical_Journal_Editors_Conflict_of_Interest_Disclosure_Form]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Metrics<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Metrics, sometimes known as research indicators, are intended to be a quantitative measure of the quality and/or importance of a research output (e.g. journal article, monograph). There is a range of metrics that measure different things.<br /> <br /> ==== Citation metrics ====<br /> <br /> * They measure different things and it is important to understand what they measure, the limits of what they interpret, and when [https://www.metrics-toolkit.org/ best to use them].<br /> * They are sometimes used to measure the citation impact of journals rather than the citation impact of individual research outputs.<br /> * They measure the amount of academic attention a research output has received. <br /> * The simplest citation metric is the number of times a research output has been cited.<br /> * Citation practices differ across academic disciplines so there are a variety of weightings and calculations to address that and ensure that citation metrics are comparable.<br /> <br /> The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used example of a citation metric. It calculates the average number of citations that articles published by a journal have received over the preceding two-year period.  The JIF and other metrics are problematic for a number of reasons. One cannot judge the academic or research value of a work merely on the number of times it has been downloaded, or the number of times it has been cited.<br /> <br /> Journal-level metrics are often used by researchers to make decisions about where to publish their work. They can be useful for identifying journals that have a track record for generating attention for the research outputs that they publish.<br /> <br /> Alternative metrics or altmetrics measure the amount of online attention a research output has received beyond typical citation metrics. This can include things like mentions on Twitter, coverage on news platforms and blogs, Wikipedia citations and lots more besides. Measuring this kind of attention can be used to demonstrate reach beyond academia, and can help to evidence research impact.<br /> <br /> ==== Responsible Metrics ====<br /> There has been a movement towards advocating for responsible metrics which provides guidance on how to use metrics responsibly, both for measuring research quality and as part of conversations about career progression. The [https://sfdora.org/read/ San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)] is a set of principles that institutions have signed up to, which includes a requirement to eliminate the use of journal-level metrics (like the Journal Impact Factor) in funding, appointment and promotion considerations.  In response, some universities have created statements of responsible metrics. [https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/ The Bibliomagician] has collated a number of examples from a variety of institutions.<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Metrics. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/metrics/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: The COPE website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Ethical dimensions in publishing are like the universe. The further we look, the more tangible ethical issues become.<br /> <br /> ===== Ready to do a task on your own? =====<br /> COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is committed to educating and supporting editors, publishers, universities, research institutes, and all those involved in publication ethics. COPE aims to move the culture of publishing towards one where ethical practices become a normal part of the culture itself.<br /> <br /> Your task is to explore the following website: COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).<br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/ Explore: The COPE website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Copyright and Licensing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=There are different rules surrounding copyright law for texts and images. Make sure that you have all the necessary rights and permissions in place before you publish.<br /> <br /> ==== Licensing of your material ====<br /> Any material you create and share with others can be licensed. The license is a message to the reader, or the user of the material, about how they can use or reuse the content.<br /> <br /> All material that you produce as a researcher, such as articles, book chapters, books, blog texts, working papers, conference papers or teaching material, can be licensed at the time of publication. The license should be visible on the title page or first page of the material you publish.<br /> <br /> ==== Copyright ====<br /> Copyright refers to the intellectual property of a work that has been made public by you or your organisation. Copyright law is different in each country, and there is no international law that can be applied overall. However, certain principles apply globally. The right to be recognised as the creator is intrinsic. This means that you, as the author and/or publisher of the material, own the right to decide how it will be used. Different terms apply depending on how copyright is managed by the publisher, and there is sometimes a charge applied for someone who wants to reproduce or share copyrighted material. <br /> <br /> Copyright is divided into two parts: <br /> <br /> * The ‘intellectual rights’ that are non-transferrable, meaning that you, as the creator of a work, always have to be recognised. <br /> * The economic rights that can, however, be transferred to a publisher or licensed for reuse.<br /> <br /> For academic purposes, it is common practice to allow works to be cited to a certain limit (usually about 250 words or 1–2 images or tables, as long as the original source is clearly stated). This can be referred to as “fair use”, “fair dealing”, or “citation rights” depending on which national law applies to the published material.<br /> <br /> ==== Academic articles ====<br /> The author of a journal article may, as part of a standard contract with the publisher, have limited rights to share their own work or may have signed away their economic rights entirely. Many publishers still allow articles to be made ​​freely available provided that certain conditions are met. If you want to know what applies to the journal where you have published your articles, please visit the journal’s publisher’s policy in [https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ SHERPA/RoMEO]. Authors are recommended to check that the publisher’s policy aligns with the policy of their institution and funder before signing any contracts.<br /> <br /> ==== Books and book chapters ====<br /> When publishing a book, or a chapter in a book, the terms of licensing and copyright will typically be included in a contract which you would have to agree with a publisher and which will specify the usage rights, the format(s) and length of time applied to the work.<br /> <br /> Book contracts vary from publisher to publisher, and can in some cases be complicated. If you are required to sign a contract with a publisher in order to publish your work you need to ensure that the contract covers your rights and that it takes into account the obligation you have to your employer and/or the funder of your research.<br /> <br /> If you want to publish a thesis or dissertation it is recommended that you contact your institution or department to make sure that you follow their policy for such publications.<br /> <br /> For more information on what to consider before publishing an Open Access book see the [https://oabooks-toolkit.org/lifecycle/3284351-book-contract-and-license/article/4492720-contracting-and-copyright Open Access Books Toolkit].<br /> <br /> ==== Images and copyright ====<br /> Artistic works, photographs, illustrations and diagrams have copyright protection specifying the use by someone without the author’s explicit permission. This protection is governed by the law of copyright for literary and artistic works in the country where your work is published. It is important that you consult the rightsholder if you would like to reproduce work from other sources in your book or article, unless the original work is openly licensed for reuse.<br /> <br /> Should you not get permission to use a picture in its electronic format, you can omit it and replace it with an explanatory text: “Because of copyright protection, this picture is missing in its electronic (or print) format.”<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> FOSTER. https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN//02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Access Licensing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Licenses can be applied to any material (e.g., sound, text, image, multimedia, software) where some exploitation or usage rights exist.<br /> <br /> ==== Open Access Licensing ====<br /> If you want to publish Open Access, you will still own the rights to your work. You control how it can be used and the credit you are given by choosing one of the [https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ Creative Commons] licenses. These open licenses are administered independently of any publisher and are internationally recognised. The licenses are applied as a legal code of practice, and can be seen as an addition to the intrinsic copyright applied in each country. Using an open license allows others to continue to build upon your work. There are currently [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ six types of Creative Commons licenses] available, each with slightly different permissions and requirements. All the licenses require that others using your work in any way must give you credit in the way you request, but not in a way that suggests that you endorse them in their use. There must always be a reference and a link to the original if the work is mentioned or reused. <br /> <br /> ==== What is a Creative Commons licence? ====<br /> Creative Commons, a global not-for-profit organisation which provides legal tools to promote the sharing and reuse of works of authorship, has produced a number of licences some of which meet the criteria for Open Access. These offer different levels of permission.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons offers licences readable at three different levels: legal, machine (the metadata) and human (non-legal descriptions). Creative Commons has a useful tool to help you determine the licence best for you. More restrictive CC licences are unlikely to meet Open Access requirements (e.g. because they impose restrictions on commercial use).<br /> <br /> What licence should be applied to the research data?<br /> <br /> It depends on what rights protect your research data, if at all.<br /> <br /> * If your research data qualifies as a work (literary work such as a journal article or a software), then CC BY 4.0 is usually the best choice. The use of the Share Alike (SA) is also compatible with the Open Access definition and reinforced in Plan S licensing guidance for publications. Non-commercial should be avoided as it is not Open Access compliant. Non-derivative is a tricky issue and should be avoided, especially if you do not know what you are doing. That said, it may not be incompatible with the Open Access definition.<br /> * If your research data is a database or a dataset (unstructured data that do not meet the database definition) usually the best option is a CC0, which waives all your rights in the database.<br /> <br /> Keep in mind that CC licences only deal with copyright and copyright related matter. Personal data are not included in CC and are analysed separately.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> FOSTER. https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN//02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html<br /> <br /> [1] OpenAIRE. Licenses for Research Data. https://www.openaire.eu/how-do-i-license-my-research-data<br /> <br /> [2] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Predatory journals and publishers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Over the past two decades, open-access publishing has rapidly grown into a global industry, making scholarly publications readily available to researchers, policymakers, and the general public. <br /> <br /> While this has generally been seen as a positive development, the predominant “Gold” open access route has also given rise to unforeseen challenges. The rise of open-access publishing, which often involves authors paying fees to make their work freely available, has unfortunately provided a fertile ground for predatory publishers. <br /> <br /> ==== What are predatory journals? ====<br /> Predatory journals and their publishers are “entities that prioritise self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterised by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices”.<br /> <br /> Many researchers are duped into choosing to publish with predatory journals because they are simply unaware of the difference between bogus and quality open-access journals. Early career researchers are at particular risk, as they may feel great pressure to publish but lack experience. Equally, these journals have disproportionately negative effects on researchers from low- and middle-income countries, who may not have the resources to identify those outlets and/or are seeking more affordable ways to publish.<br /> <br /> Falling prey to predatory publishers can damage a researcher's reputation, waste valuable resources, and contribute to the dissemination of potentially unreliable scientific information.<br /> <br /> ==== Identifying and promoting quality open-access journals ====<br /> There is currently no centralized global or European authentication of academic publishers and journals to certify that they meet the fundamental requirements of professionalism and financial transparency. Some specific recommendations of the ALLELA for researchers can be found below:<br /> <br /> * Searching the databases listed in the [https://doaj.org/ Directory of Open Access Journals] (DOAJ) (empowered by the global science community), and Web of Science (WoS) can be starting points for finding open access journals that follow good editorial practices. Additionally, [https://cabells.com/solutions/predatory-reports Cabells] provides a subscription service featuring a database of deceptive and predatory journals.<br /> * There are also several national and institutional resources that regularly evaluate and categorise scientific journals and publishers based on their editorial and publication standards. These can often also be accessed by external researchers, and could be extended and adopted for regional or European use.<br /> * The [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/ Think-Check-Submit] initiative provides tools to help researchers identify trusted journals in which to publish their research. The [https://www.coalition-s.org/journal-comparison-service/ Journal Comparison Service] by cOAlition S provides a platform that improves price transparency for researchers, libraries, and funding organisations.<br /> * Most academic libraries can advise researchers; they are encouraged to follow evidence-based characteristics of potential predatory journals and IAP-recommended markers for fraudulent, deceptive, or unacceptable journals.<br /> * In general, authors are recommended to keep full control over any published work by retaining their intellectual property rights. By doing so, authors will always be able to deposit a copy of the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) in a repository of their choice, and it allows them to re-use figures and tables from the publication in subsequent presentations or other works without having to seek permission from the publisher.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> There are various sources of information on predatory publishing, e.g., [https://zenodo.org/records/3738003 Predatory journals and open access: predators in the world of scientific publishing], where you can obtain additional information.<br /> <br /> For an alternative source of information that goes into more detail you may want to peak in [https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstreams/3c1b1ccb-e82b-49c3-96e5-7d4f3fcb9352/download Avoiding Predatory Journals and QuestionableConferences: A Resource Guide] (Eaton, 2018).<br /> <br /> [1] ALLELA. (2023). ALLEA statement on curbing predatory practices in open access scholarly publishing. https://doi.org/10.26356/PREDATORYPUBLISHING<br /> <br /> [2] Grudniewicz et al. (2019). “Predatory journals: no definition, no defence”. Nature 576, 210-212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Think. Check. Submit.<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Think. Check. Submit. helps researchers identify trusted journals and publishers for their research. Through a range of tools and practical resources, this international cross-sector initiative aims to educate researchers, promote integrity, and build trust in credible research and publications.<br /> <br /> The 3-step approach encourages academics to ‘Think’ about the problem posed by predatory or substandard conferences, ‘Check’ the conference against a set of criteria designed to highlight attributes of good and bad quality conferences, and ‘Attend’ only if the conference adheres to the criteria consistent with a legitimate conference.<br /> <br /> [[File:Et4.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> ====Watch a video: Assessing the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher====<br /> Have you done your research and now you are ready to publish? Ensuring the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher is essential for researchers when sharing their work with the world. This video outlines some key steps and considerations to help researchers assess whether a journal or publisher is suitable for their research.<br /> <br /> ====Think. Check. Submit. checklist====<br /> The Think. Check. Submit. checklist is a tool that will help you discover what you need to know when assessing whether or not a publisher is suitable for your research.<br /> <br /> Follow the [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/books-and-chapters/ Book &amp; Chapters] or [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/ Journals] checklist to make sure you choose trusted journals and publishers for your research.<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). https://thinkchecksubmit.org/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Paper-Mills problem<br /> |Instruction Step Text=With the increasing pressure on (young) researchers to publish, there is a growing concern over the proliferation of fake papers within the academic community. In science and research, a &quot;''paper mill''&quot; refers to a deceptive practice where manuscripts are fabricated or manipulated and then submitted to academic journals for publication.<br /> <br /> ==== What is a paper mill? ====<br /> The [https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/paper-mills-cope-stm-research-report.pdf Committee on Publication Ethics] defines paper mills as &quot;the process by which manufactured manuscripts are submitted to a journal for a fee on behalf of researchers with the purpose of providing an easy publication for them, or to offer authorship for sale.&quot;<br /> <br /> These manuscripts are often generated for the purpose of exploiting the academic publishing system, typically to boost publication records or to fulfill requirements for academic advancement, such as obtaining tenure or securing funding. Fake papers can be identified both during the submission process and after publication.<br /> <br /> Paper mills may involve the use of ghostwriters, falsified data, or plagiarized content. This unethical practice undermines the integrity of scholarly publishing and can have serious consequences for academic credibility and scientific progress.<br /> <br /> === Paper mills in the era of large language models (LLMs) ===<br /> The emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has raised concerns about an increase in paper mills. These tools can quickly generate fake papers and authorships, posing a significant threat to scientific publishing by blurring the line between genuine and fabricated research. <br /> <br /> This underscores worries in the scientific community about maintaining integrity in scholarly publishing and preventing the misuse of AI technology. It's crucial to recognize that attempting to pass off AI-generated text as one's own work constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty. <br /> <br /> Reading for fun:<br /> <br /> [https://publicationethics.org/resources/research/paper-mills-research Paper Mills Research report from COPE &amp; STM]<br /> <br /> Van Noorden, R. (2023). How big is science’s fake-paper problem? An unpublished analysis suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of bogus ‘paper-mill’ articles lurking in the literature. Nature, 623, 466-467. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x<br /> <br /> [1] COPE &amp; STM. Paper Mills — Research report from COPE &amp; STM. https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Ethics in publishing and research<br /> |Instruction Step Text=''Dr. Babor is Professor Emeritus and former head of the Department of Community Medicine and Health Care and directs an active research program. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.''<br /> <br /> In this lecture, Tom will describe the main traditions of scientific integrity and research ethics that have been developed over the past 80 years, beginning with the Helsinki Agreement and the development of modern ethical principles. The main part of the lecture will focus on the growth of addiction science in Europe and America, and the challenges of conducting basic, clinical, and policy research on alcohol and other psychoactive substances. Particular attention will be given to the different degrees of research misconduct and how to prevent them by means of ethical decision-making and institutional guidelines. Conflict of interest and the influence of powerful industries such as tobacco, alcohol, gambling and pharmaceuticals will also be discussed.<br /> <br /> This presentation is in English. <br /> <br /> It is a bit on the long side, though. :)<br /> <br /> Click on the video to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216 'Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative on the theme of Publication and Dissemination.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> * Dual submissions<br /> * Authorship lists<br /> * Plagiarism<br /> * Complaints procedures<br /> * Editorial decisions<br /> * Retraction<br /> <br /> ===== Your task is to: =====<br /> <br /> # Read the narrative (Issue 1–4) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> # Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> # Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> <br /> ----[1] Jonathan Lewis. (2020). Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Practice the quice activity below.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=We are proud to have you, our world-class colleagues in the field, and we dedicate this course to you.<br /> <br /> The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE<br /> <br /> [[File:Eth1.png|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:Bf24c894-570a-43c0-9626-b79bf9399a62&diff=19519 2026-09-08T12:31:31Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Ethics in Publishing Science<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, you will be able to:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Define scientific publishing and explain its role in disseminating research findings to the academic community and beyond.<br /> * Understand the criteria for authorship in academic publications and the ethical considerations involved in assigning authorship credit.<br /> * Describe the principles of responsible peer review and the importance of maintaining confidentiality and impartiality in the peer-review process.<br /> * Identify and assess potential conflicts of interest in scientific publishing, including financial, personal, and professional conflicts.<br /> * Understand the different metrics used to evaluate scientific research, such as citation counts, impact factors, and altmetrics.<br /> * Explain the basics of copyright and licensing in scientific publishing and their implications for authors and readers.<br /> * Recognize the characteristics of predatory journals and publishers and the risks associated with publishing in these outlets.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Scientific Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Writing, publishing, and presenting science is one of the basic skills of a researcher and academic professional.<br /> <br /> A scientist/lecturer at a university who does not write or otherwise present (promote or defend) the results of his or her work in front of a professional community or wider public is a pre-extinction species that cannot withstand evolution.<br /> <br /> Writing a high-quality and highly valued professional text is a very demanding activity. Your writing skills improve with each paper you publish. Article writing is a skill that can be learned. The speed of mastering the writing of research articles is different for different individuals and depends on many factors.<br /> <br /> However, when it comes to scientific writing, there is only one acceptable approach: responsible scientific writing.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Authorship<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Authorship can refer to individuals or groups that create an idea or develop the publication that disseminates that intellectual or creative work; however, appropriately acknowledging roles and contributions is not always a simple task.<br /> <br /> In science and research, authorship is the currency by which academics are paid and thus is essential for tenure, promotion, and grant funding. What is clear is that authorship is a fluid, evolving concept, and as it evolves, so will the ethical challenges associated with it.<br /> <br /> ==== What constitutes authorship? ====<br /> Editorial or academic organisations within different specialties have set out criteria and guidelines that members could adopt in their consideration of authorship.<br /> <br /> For example, the [https://www.icmje.org/ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)], also known as the Vancouver group, developed the recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. The ICMJE states that an author should meet all four of the following criteria:<br /> <br /> # Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND<br /> # Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND<br /> # Final approval of the version to be published; AND<br /> # Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.<br /> <br /> ICMJE further states that contributors who do not meet all four criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should still be acknowledged.<br /> <br /> The recommendations are intended to guarantee that those who have made significant intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors while also ensuring that those credited as authors understand their responsibility and accountability for the published work.<br /> <br /> A selection of other definitions of authorship for different scientific disciplines is presented in COPE Discussion Document on [https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/authorship What constitutes authorship].<br /> <br /> ==== Who qualifies, and who does not – common scenarios ====<br /> Interested in expert opinions on common authorship issues? For example:<br /> <br /> * I am a junior researcher and did a lot of the basic work. My supervisor/department head wrote up the work and hasn’t included me as an author<br /> * My department head insists on being included as an author on any research paper that comes out of his/her department. But he/she only obtained the grant money. Is this fair?<br /> * In what order should we list the authors to demonstrate the relative contribution of each?<br /> * There are more than 100 authors on this paper. Is that feasible?<br /> * The “author” is a collaborative group. How does that work?<br /> <br /> Check out the common scenarios and the COPE authorship guidelines [https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/Authorship_DiscussionDocument_0_0.pdf here].<br /> <br /> ==== Handling authorship disputes ====<br /> Authorship sounds simple, but in reality, it often proves to be a source of frustration. To advice on how to deal with authorship issues, you can read the COPE guidelines on [https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1 How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers] written by Tim Albert and Elizabeth Wager.  <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2014): What constitutes authorship? COPE Discussion Document [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3<br /> <br /> [2] COPE. (2003): How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1<br /> <br /> [3] ICMJE. (2024). . Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/<br /> <br /> [4] UKRIO. (2017). Good practice in research: Authorship. https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Guidance-Note-Authorship-v1.0.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Infographic: Authorship Practices to Avoid Conflicts<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Discover the key to harmonious collaboration!<br /> <br /> Dive into this infographic on best [https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/Authorship%20Practices%20to%20Avoid%20Conflicts_Rasterized.pdf authorship practices to prevent conflicts] and foster successful partnerships.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Peer-Review<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality, and originality of articles for publication. Its main goal is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out articles that are invalid or of poor quality.<br /> <br /> ==== What do we mean by ‘peer review’? ====<br /> In academia, we keep referring to peer review as though it is something obvious, but it is not evident that there is a common definition. For journal publishers and universities, the most commonly used explanation is:<br /> <br /> ''“…the process of someone reading, checking, and giving his or her opinion about something that has been written by another scientist or expert working in the same subject area”'' (from [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peer-review Cambridge Dictionary, web edition])<br /> <br /> The review process should include comments from reviewers who are not on the editorial board and so can make objective decisions. Reviewers should focus on the academic quality of the work in question and check the methods used. Peer review does not involve language editing or copy editing, done to make the final article or book read well, but ensures that the research has been properly done according to discipline-specific and relevant research practices. Different types of peer review are suitable for different disciplines and research communities.<br /> <br /> A trustworthy journal should clearly and publicly define what type of peer review it uses. It is also recommended that journals follow the guidelines provided by the [https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)].<br /> <br /> ==== Models of peer review ====<br /> Different journals use different types or models of peer review, all of which have various advantages and disadvantages. The most common types of peer review include:<br /> <br /> * Single-blind: the peer reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report).<br /> * Double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (but if the research is published reviewers can eventually know the names of the authors).<br /> * Open: authors know who the reviewers are and the reviewers know who the authors are. In some journals, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the named review reports are also published alongside the article.<br /> * Transparent: similar to open peer review in that if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the content of the reviewer reports is openly available, however the reviewers are not named. <br /> <br /> Learn about the other types of peer review in the [https://publicationethics.org/node/34926 COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews]?<br /> <br /> ==== Fundamentals of peer review ====<br /> Interested to learn more about the peer review fundamentals? [https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review Elsevier's Researcher Academy] prepared a series of modules explaining why it is important to get involved in peer review and the many benefits it can bring. You will hear how carrying out peer review can sharpen your own writing skills and discover the ethics guidelines you should comply with. <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2024). Fundamentals of peer review. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review<br /> <br /> [3] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). What do we mean by ‘peer review’? https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/peer-review/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer reviewers are important for ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process assists editors in deciding whether the research is suitable for publication in their journal. Peer reviewers are key players in this process, but sometimes, they might not know what's expected of them.<br /> <br /> ====COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers====<br /> Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. COPE Peer review guidelines provide basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer review process in research publication. <br /> <br /> These guidelines are intended to be applied across disciplines. COPE Guidelines provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). Guidelines: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4&lt;nowiki/&gt;Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746 'Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the ethical and integrity standards governing peer review processes.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> * The integrity of peer review processes;<br /> * Institutional obligations to uphold the standards of good peer review practices;<br /> * Plagiarism.<br /> <br /> ===== Your task is to: =====<br /> <br /> # Read the narrative (Issue 1–2) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> # Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> # Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> <br /> [1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Conflict of Interest<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Conflict of interest occurs when a scientist's personal interests—such as financial gain, professional advancement, or personal relationships—could potentially influence or appear to influence their research findings and decision-making. These conflicts can compromise the objectivity and integrity of the publication, potentially affecting the credibility of the research itself.<br /> <br /> Scientists are guided by a genuine desire to pursue truth and impartial judgment, and by honesty in reporting and interpreting their research results. This means that scientific work should be as unbiased and objective as possible in the sense that non-scientific interests should not play any significant role in the way in which the research work is conducted and its results are interpreted and presented.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it? Defining conflict of interest ====<br /> Competing interests (also known as conflicts of interests — COIs) is defined as follows:<br /> <br /> “A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.” <br /> <br /> The generally understood principles are shared by many journals and publishers. Their interpretation into policy, however, varies journal by journal.<br /> <br /> Conflicts of interest can be:<br /> <br /> # financial or<br /> # non-financial (such as family and friendship relationships). <br /> <br /> More problematic forms of conflict of interest happen when researchers participate in the selection of a procurement contract with a company where they or their relatives have a financial interest, or when peer review panel members have a close family or professional relationship with one of the applicants to a position or a grant.<br /> <br /> ==== Dealing with Conflicts of Interest ====<br /> According to the [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests US Office of Research Integrity], “Having a conflict of interest is not in itself unethical, and some are unavoidable. Full transparency is always the best course of action, and, if in doubt, disclose.”<br /> <br /> Transparency and disclosure are the primary mechanisms for managing conflicts of interest in publishing. Authors are typically required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when submitting a manuscript. This includes financial interests (such as funding or stock ownership), affiliations, personal relationships, or intellectual biases that might affect the research.<br /> <br /> Further resources:<br /> <br /> Elsevier. (2019). [https://assets.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/5XCIR5PjsKLJMAh0ISkIzb/16f6a246e767446b75543d8d8671048c/Competing-Interests-factsheet-March-2019.pdf Factsheet: Competing Interests].<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2017). Ethics in Research &amp; Publication.<br /> <br /> [3] Integrity. Conflict of interest in research: what is it and why it matters? https://h2020integrity.eu/conflict-of-interest-in-research-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters/<br /> <br /> [4] Office of Research Integrity U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A brief overview on Conflict of Interests. [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-35]<br /> <br /> [4] The Embassy of Good Science. Conflict of interests. [[Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International%20Committee%20of%20Medical%20Journal%20Editors%20Conflict%20of%20Interest%20Disclosure%20Form|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International_Committee_of_Medical_Journal_Editors_Conflict_of_Interest_Disclosure_Form]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Metrics<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Metrics, sometimes known as research indicators, are intended to be a quantitative measure of the quality and/or importance of a research output (e.g. journal article, monograph). There is a range of metrics that measure different things.<br /> <br /> ==== Citation metrics ====<br /> <br /> * They measure different things and it is important to understand what they measure, the limits of what they interpret, and when [https://www.metrics-toolkit.org/ best to use them].<br /> * They are sometimes used to measure the citation impact of journals rather than the citation impact of individual research outputs.<br /> * They measure the amount of academic attention a research output has received. <br /> * The simplest citation metric is the number of times a research output has been cited.<br /> * Citation practices differ across academic disciplines so there are a variety of weightings and calculations to address that and ensure that citation metrics are comparable.<br /> <br /> The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used example of a citation metric. It calculates the average number of citations that articles published by a journal have received over the preceding two-year period.  The JIF and other metrics are problematic for a number of reasons. One cannot judge the academic or research value of a work merely on the number of times it has been downloaded, or the number of times it has been cited.<br /> <br /> Journal-level metrics are often used by researchers to make decisions about where to publish their work. They can be useful for identifying journals that have a track record for generating attention for the research outputs that they publish.<br /> <br /> Alternative metrics or altmetrics measure the amount of online attention a research output has received beyond typical citation metrics. This can include things like mentions on Twitter, coverage on news platforms and blogs, Wikipedia citations and lots more besides. Measuring this kind of attention can be used to demonstrate reach beyond academia, and can help to evidence research impact.<br /> <br /> ==== Responsible Metrics ====<br /> There has been a movement towards advocating for responsible metrics which provides guidance on how to use metrics responsibly, both for measuring research quality and as part of conversations about career progression. The [https://sfdora.org/read/ San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)] is a set of principles that institutions have signed up to, which includes a requirement to eliminate the use of journal-level metrics (like the Journal Impact Factor) in funding, appointment and promotion considerations.  In response, some universities have created statements of responsible metrics. [https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/ The Bibliomagician] has collated a number of examples from a variety of institutions.<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Metrics. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/metrics/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: The COPE website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Ethical dimensions in publishing are like the universe. The further we look, the more tangible ethical issues become.<br /> <br /> ===== Ready to do a task on your own? =====<br /> COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is committed to educating and supporting editors, publishers, universities, research institutes, and all those involved in publication ethics. COPE aims to move the culture of publishing towards one where ethical practices become a normal part of the culture itself.<br /> <br /> Your task is to explore the following website: COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).<br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/ Explore: The COPE website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Copyright and Licensing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=There are different rules surrounding copyright law for texts and images. Make sure that you have all the necessary rights and permissions in place before you publish.<br /> <br /> ==== Licensing of your material ====<br /> Any material you create and share with others can be licensed. The license is a message to the reader, or the user of the material, about how they can use or reuse the content.<br /> <br /> All material that you produce as a researcher, such as articles, book chapters, books, blog texts, working papers, conference papers or teaching material, can be licensed at the time of publication. The license should be visible on the title page or first page of the material you publish.<br /> <br /> ==== Copyright ====<br /> Copyright refers to the intellectual property of a work that has been made public by you or your organisation. Copyright law is different in each country, and there is no international law that can be applied overall. However, certain principles apply globally. The right to be recognised as the creator is intrinsic. This means that you, as the author and/or publisher of the material, own the right to decide how it will be used. Different terms apply depending on how copyright is managed by the publisher, and there is sometimes a charge applied for someone who wants to reproduce or share copyrighted material. <br /> <br /> Copyright is divided into two parts: <br /> <br /> * The ‘intellectual rights’ that are non-transferrable, meaning that you, as the creator of a work, always have to be recognised. <br /> * The economic rights that can, however, be transferred to a publisher or licensed for reuse.<br /> <br /> For academic purposes, it is common practice to allow works to be cited to a certain limit (usually about 250 words or 1–2 images or tables, as long as the original source is clearly stated). This can be referred to as “fair use”, “fair dealing”, or “citation rights” depending on which national law applies to the published material.<br /> <br /> ==== Academic articles ====<br /> The author of a journal article may, as part of a standard contract with the publisher, have limited rights to share their own work or may have signed away their economic rights entirely. Many publishers still allow articles to be made ​​freely available provided that certain conditions are met. If you want to know what applies to the journal where you have published your articles, please visit the journal’s publisher’s policy in [https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ SHERPA/RoMEO]. Authors are recommended to check that the publisher’s policy aligns with the policy of their institution and funder before signing any contracts.<br /> <br /> ==== Books and book chapters ====<br /> When publishing a book, or a chapter in a book, the terms of licensing and copyright will typically be included in a contract which you would have to agree with a publisher and which will specify the usage rights, the format(s) and length of time applied to the work.<br /> <br /> Book contracts vary from publisher to publisher, and can in some cases be complicated. If you are required to sign a contract with a publisher in order to publish your work you need to ensure that the contract covers your rights and that it takes into account the obligation you have to your employer and/or the funder of your research.<br /> <br /> If you want to publish a thesis or dissertation it is recommended that you contact your institution or department to make sure that you follow their policy for such publications.<br /> <br /> For more information on what to consider before publishing an Open Access book see the [https://oabooks-toolkit.org/lifecycle/3284351-book-contract-and-license/article/4492720-contracting-and-copyright Open Access Books Toolkit].<br /> <br /> ==== Images and copyright ====<br /> Artistic works, photographs, illustrations and diagrams have copyright protection specifying the use by someone without the author’s explicit permission. This protection is governed by the law of copyright for literary and artistic works in the country where your work is published. It is important that you consult the rightsholder if you would like to reproduce work from other sources in your book or article, unless the original work is openly licensed for reuse.<br /> <br /> Should you not get permission to use a picture in its electronic format, you can omit it and replace it with an explanatory text: “Because of copyright protection, this picture is missing in its electronic (or print) format.”<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> FOSTER. https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN//02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Access Licensing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Licenses can be applied to any material (e.g., sound, text, image, multimedia, software) where some exploitation or usage rights exist.<br /> <br /> ==== Open Access Licensing ====<br /> If you want to publish Open Access, you will still own the rights to your work. You control how it can be used and the credit you are given by choosing one of the [https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ Creative Commons] licenses. These open licenses are administered independently of any publisher and are internationally recognised. The licenses are applied as a legal code of practice, and can be seen as an addition to the intrinsic copyright applied in each country. Using an open license allows others to continue to build upon your work. There are currently [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ six types of Creative Commons licenses] available, each with slightly different permissions and requirements. All the licenses require that others using your work in any way must give you credit in the way you request, but not in a way that suggests that you endorse them in their use. There must always be a reference and a link to the original if the work is mentioned or reused. <br /> <br /> ==== What is a Creative Commons licence? ====<br /> Creative Commons, a global not-for-profit organisation which provides legal tools to promote the sharing and reuse of works of authorship, has produced a number of licences some of which meet the criteria for Open Access. These offer different levels of permission.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons offers licences readable at three different levels: legal, machine (the metadata) and human (non-legal descriptions). Creative Commons has a useful tool to help you determine the licence best for you. More restrictive CC licences are unlikely to meet Open Access requirements (e.g. because they impose restrictions on commercial use).<br /> <br /> What licence should be applied to the research data?<br /> <br /> It depends on what rights protect your research data, if at all.<br /> <br /> * If your research data qualifies as a work (literary work such as a journal article or a software), then CC BY 4.0 is usually the best choice. The use of the Share Alike (SA) is also compatible with the Open Access definition and reinforced in Plan S licensing guidance for publications. Non-commercial should be avoided as it is not Open Access compliant. Non-derivative is a tricky issue and should be avoided, especially if you do not know what you are doing. That said, it may not be incompatible with the Open Access definition.<br /> * If your research data is a database or a dataset (unstructured data that do not meet the database definition) usually the best option is a CC0, which waives all your rights in the database.<br /> <br /> Keep in mind that CC licences only deal with copyright and copyright related matter. Personal data are not included in CC and are analysed separately.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> FOSTER. https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN//02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html<br /> <br /> [1] OpenAIRE. Licenses for Research Data. https://www.openaire.eu/how-do-i-license-my-research-data<br /> <br /> [2] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Predatory Journals and Publishers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Over the past two decades, open-access publishing has rapidly grown into a global industry, making scholarly publications readily available to researchers, policymakers, and the general public. <br /> <br /> While this has generally been seen as a positive development, the predominant “Gold” open access route has also given rise to unforeseen challenges. The rise of open-access publishing, which often involves authors paying fees to make their work freely available, has unfortunately provided a fertile ground for predatory publishers. <br /> <br /> ==== What are predatory journals? ====<br /> Predatory journals and their publishers are “entities that prioritise self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterised by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices”.<br /> <br /> Many researchers are duped into choosing to publish with predatory journals because they are simply unaware of the difference between bogus and quality open-access journals. Early career researchers are at particular risk, as they may feel great pressure to publish but lack experience. Equally, these journals have disproportionately negative effects on researchers from low- and middle-income countries, who may not have the resources to identify those outlets and/or are seeking more affordable ways to publish.<br /> <br /> Falling prey to predatory publishers can damage a researcher's reputation, waste valuable resources, and contribute to the dissemination of potentially unreliable scientific information.<br /> <br /> ==== Identifying and promoting quality open-access journals ====<br /> There is currently no centralized global or European authentication of academic publishers and journals to certify that they meet the fundamental requirements of professionalism and financial transparency. Some specific recommendations of the ALLELA for researchers can be found below:<br /> <br /> * Searching the databases listed in the [https://doaj.org/ Directory of Open Access Journals] (DOAJ) (empowered by the global science community), and Web of Science (WoS) can be starting points for finding open access journals that follow good editorial practices. Additionally, [https://cabells.com/solutions/predatory-reports Cabells] provides a subscription service featuring a database of deceptive and predatory journals.<br /> * There are also several national and institutional resources that regularly evaluate and categorise scientific journals and publishers based on their editorial and publication standards. These can often also be accessed by external researchers, and could be extended and adopted for regional or European use.<br /> * The [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/ Think-Check-Submit] initiative provides tools to help researchers identify trusted journals in which to publish their research. The [https://www.coalition-s.org/journal-comparison-service/ Journal Comparison Service] by cOAlition S provides a platform that improves price transparency for researchers, libraries, and funding organisations.<br /> * Most academic libraries can advise researchers; they are encouraged to follow evidence-based characteristics of potential predatory journals and IAP-recommended markers for fraudulent, deceptive, or unacceptable journals.<br /> * In general, authors are recommended to keep full control over any published work by retaining their intellectual property rights. By doing so, authors will always be able to deposit a copy of the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) in a repository of their choice, and it allows them to re-use figures and tables from the publication in subsequent presentations or other works without having to seek permission from the publisher.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> There are various sources of information on predatory publishing, e.g., [https://zenodo.org/records/3738003 Predatory journals and open access: predators in the world of scientific publishing], where you can obtain additional information.<br /> <br /> For an alternative source of information that goes into more detail you may want to peak in [https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstreams/3c1b1ccb-e82b-49c3-96e5-7d4f3fcb9352/download Avoiding Predatory Journals and QuestionableConferences: A Resource Guide] (Eaton, 2018).<br /> <br /> [1] ALLELA. (2023). ALLEA statement on curbing predatory practices in open access scholarly publishing. https://doi.org/10.26356/PREDATORYPUBLISHING<br /> <br /> [2] Grudniewicz et al. (2019). “Predatory journals: no definition, no defence”. Nature 576, 210-212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Think. Check. Submit.<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Think. Check. Submit. helps researchers identify trusted journals and publishers for their research. Through a range of tools and practical resources, this international cross-sector initiative aims to educate researchers, promote integrity, and build trust in credible research and publications.<br /> <br /> The 3-step approach encourages academics to ‘Think’ about the problem posed by predatory or substandard conferences, ‘Check’ the conference against a set of criteria designed to highlight attributes of good and bad quality conferences, and ‘Attend’ only if the conference adheres to the criteria consistent with a legitimate conference.<br /> [[File:Et4.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> ==== Watch a video: Assessing the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher ====<br /> Have you done your research and now you are ready to publish? Ensuring the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher is essential for researchers when sharing their work with the world. This video outlines some key steps and considerations to help researchers assess whether a journal or publisher is suitable for their research.<br /> <br /> ==== Think. Check. Submit. checklist ====<br /> The Think. Check. Submit. checklist is a tool that will help you discover what you need to know when assessing whether or not a publisher is suitable for your research.<br /> <br /> Follow the [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/books-and-chapters/ Book &amp; Chapters] or [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/ Journals] checklist to make sure you choose trusted journals and publishers for your research.<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). https://thinkchecksubmit.org/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Paper-Mills Problem<br /> |Instruction Step Text=With the increasing pressure on (young) researchers to publish, there is a growing concern over the proliferation of fake papers within the academic community. In science and research, a &quot;''paper mill''&quot; refers to a deceptive practice where manuscripts are fabricated or manipulated and then submitted to academic journals for publication.<br /> <br /> ==== What is a paper mill? ====<br /> The [https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/paper-mills-cope-stm-research-report.pdf Committee on Publication Ethics] defines paper mills as &quot;the process by which manufactured manuscripts are submitted to a journal for a fee on behalf of researchers with the purpose of providing an easy publication for them, or to offer authorship for sale.&quot;<br /> <br /> These manuscripts are often generated for the purpose of exploiting the academic publishing system, typically to boost publication records or to fulfill requirements for academic advancement, such as obtaining tenure or securing funding. Fake papers can be identified both during the submission process and after publication.<br /> <br /> Paper mills may involve the use of ghostwriters, falsified data, or plagiarized content. This unethical practice undermines the integrity of scholarly publishing and can have serious consequences for academic credibility and scientific progress.<br /> <br /> === Paper mills in the era of large language models (LLMs) ===<br /> The emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has raised concerns about an increase in paper mills. These tools can quickly generate fake papers and authorships, posing a significant threat to scientific publishing by blurring the line between genuine and fabricated research. <br /> <br /> This underscores worries in the scientific community about maintaining integrity in scholarly publishing and preventing the misuse of AI technology. It's crucial to recognize that attempting to pass off AI-generated text as one's own work constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty. <br /> <br /> Reading for fun:<br /> <br /> [https://publicationethics.org/resources/research/paper-mills-research Paper Mills Research report from COPE &amp; STM]<br /> <br /> Van Noorden, R. (2023). How big is science’s fake-paper problem? An unpublished analysis suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of bogus ‘paper-mill’ articles lurking in the literature. Nature, 623, 466-467. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x<br /> <br /> [1] COPE &amp; STM. Paper Mills — Research report from COPE &amp; STM. https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Ethics in Publishing and Research<br /> |Instruction Step Text=''Dr. Babor is Professor Emeritus and former head of the Department of Community Medicine and Health Care and directs an active research program. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.''<br /> <br /> In this lecture, Tom will describe the main traditions of scientific integrity and research ethics that have been developed over the past 80 years, beginning with the Helsinki Agreement and the development of modern ethical principles. The main part of the lecture will focus on the growth of addiction science in Europe and America, and the challenges of conducting basic, clinical, and policy research on alcohol and other psychoactive substances. Particular attention will be given to the different degrees of research misconduct and how to prevent them by means of ethical decision-making and institutional guidelines. Conflict of interest and the influence of powerful industries such as tobacco, alcohol, gambling and pharmaceuticals will also be discussed.<br /> <br /> This presentation is in English. <br /> <br /> It is a bit on the long side, though. :)<br /> <br /> Click on the video to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216 'Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative on the theme of Publication and Dissemination.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> * Dual submissions<br /> * Authorship lists<br /> * Plagiarism<br /> * Complaints procedures<br /> * Editorial decisions<br /> * Retraction<br /> <br /> ===== Your task is to: =====<br /> <br /> # Read the narrative (Issue 1–4) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> # Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> # Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> <br /> ----[1] Jonathan Lewis. (2020). Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Practice the quice activity below.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=We are proud to have you, our world-class colleagues in the field, and we dedicate this course to you.<br /> <br /> The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE<br /> <br /> [[File:Eth1.png|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:6f699046-a247-4f28-b5ce-d93dfae940cc&diff=19518 2026-09-08T12:18:34Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Open Science, Open Access, FAIR Data<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, you will:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Understand the concept of open science and explain its importance in the context of modern research practices.<br /> * Explain the principles of open access and the benefits of making research outputs freely available to the public.<br /> * Develop a comprehensive research data management plan (DMP) that addresses the organization, storage, and sharing of research data.<br /> * Apply the FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) to ensure that research data is properly managed and shared.<br /> * Critically evaluate the impact of open science practices on research integrity, collaboration, and innovation.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Science represents a new approach to the scientific process based on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing knowledge by using digital technologies and new collaborative tools.<br /> <br /> ==== What is open science? ====<br /> Open Science is the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods ([https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/foster-taxonomy/open-science-definition FOSTER Open Science Definition]).<br /> <br /> According to the [https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/taxonomy/term/7 FOSTER taxonomy], &quot;Open science is the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society.&quot; It can be defined as a grouping of principles and practices:<br /> <br /> * Principles: Open Science is about increased transparency, re-use, participation, cooperation, accountability and reproducibility for research. It aims to improve the quality and reliability of research through principles like inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing. Open Science can be viewed as research simply done properly, and it extends across the Life and Physical Sciences, Engineering, Mathematics, Social Sciences, and Humanities ([https://opensciencemooc.eu/ Open Science MOOC]).<br /> * Practices: Open Science includes changes to the way science is done - including opening access to research publications, data-sharing, open notebooks, transparency in research evaluation, ensuring the reproducibility of research (where possible), transparency in research methods, open source code, software and infrastructure, citizen science and open educational resources.<br /> <br /> [[File:Et2.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==== What are the benefits? ====<br /> Open Science is about increased rigour, accountability, and reproducibility for research. It is based on the principles of inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing, and ultimately seeks to change the way research is done, who is involved and how it is valued. It aims to make research more open to participation, review/refutation, improvement and (re)use for the world to benefit.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it about? ====<br /> Open Science is not different from traditional science and applies to all research disciplines. It just means to carry out the research in a more transparent and collaborative way. Open Science is about extending the principles of openness to the whole research cycle, fostering sharing and collaboration as early as possible, thus entailing a systemic change to the way science and research are done.<br /> <br /> There are several definitions of &quot;''openness''&quot; with regards to various aspects of science; the [http://opendefinition.org/ Open Definition] defines it thus: &quot;Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose&quot;. Open Science encompasses a variety of practices, usually including areas like open access to publications, open research data, open source software/tools, open workflows, citizen science, open educational resources, and alternative methods for research evaluation, including open peer review.<br /> <br /> ==== The Open Science Training Handbook ====<br /> Want to learn more? FOSTER consortium created an open, living handbook on Open Science training – [https://book.fosteropenscience.eu/ The Open Science Training Handbook]. This book offers comprehensive guidance and resources for Open Science instructors and trainers, as well as anyone interested in improving levels of transparency and participation in research practices. The focus of the handbook is not only spreading the ideas of Open Science, but showing how to spread these ideas most effectively.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> The best thing you can do now to understand this particular issue better is to read this paper by Jean-Claude Burgelman and his colleagues: [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2019.00043/full Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century]. <br /> <br /> Just read. You don't have to do anything else.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). What is open science? https://zenodo.org/records/2629946<br /> <br /> [2] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science in Horizon Europe<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open science is a legal requirement under Horizon Europe. Its objective is to enhance transparency and trust, ultimately benefiting scientific research and EU citizens. In the EU, Open Science means enhancing research quality to ensure transparency and reproducibility, facilitating their utilization by both industry and society as a catalyst for growth.<br /> <br /> To learn about how to comply with open science principles when applying for EU funding and implementing the project, you can visit the [https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en#open-science-in-horizon-europe European Research Executive Agency's Q&amp;A webpage] or check out this leaflet on [https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9570017e-cd82-11eb-ac72-01aa75ed71a1 &quot;Horizon Europe: Open Science – Early Knowledge and Data Sharing&quot;] for a quick orientation.<br /> <br /> ==== Open Research Europe ====<br /> [https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/about/ Open Research Europe] is an open-access publishing platform for the publication of research stemming from European Commission funding across all subject areas, with no author fees. The platform makes it easy for European Commission beneficiaries to comply with the open access terms of their funding and offers researchers a publishing venue to share their results and insights rapidly and facilitate open, constructive research discussion. Open Research Europe operates under a continuous publication schedule.<br /> <br /> [1] European Research Executive Agency. (2024). Open science. Open science in Horizon Europe. https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Video: Open Research Europe: The new EU open access publishing platform<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&quot;Meet the open-access publishing venue set up for Horizon Europe and Horizon 2020 beneficiaries. Open Research Europe will give everyone, researchers and citizens alike, immediate open access to your latest scientific discoveries. And at no cost to you.&quot; Watch the video below<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Introducing the Open Access<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Access to scientific publications is one of several other policies that will accelerate the move towards Open Science. <br /> <br /> Open Access to publications means that research publications like articles and books can be accessed online, free of charge by any user, with no technical obstacles (such as mandatory registration or login to specific platforms). At the very least, such publications can be read online, downloaded and printed. Ideally, additional rights such as the right to copy, distribute, search, link, crawl and mine should also be provided. <br /> <br /> Two routes of open access<br /> <br /> Open Access can be realised through two main non-exclusive routes:<br /> <br /> * Green Open Access (self-archiving): The published work or the final peer-reviewed manuscript that has been accepted for publication is made freely and openly accessible by the author, or a representative, in an online repository. Some publishers request that Open Access be granted only after an embargo period has elapsed. This embargo period can last anywhere between several months and several years. For publications that have been deposited in a repository but are under embargo, usually at least the metadata are openly accessible.<br /> * Gold Open Access (Open Access publishing): The published work is made available in Open Access mode by the publisher immediately upon publication. The most common business model is based on one-off payments by authors (commonly called APCs – article processing charges – or BPCs – book processing charges). Where Open Access content is combined with content that requires a subscription or purchase, in particular in the context of journals, conference proceedings and edited volumes, this is called hybrid Open Access.<br /> <br /> The choice of a journal or a publishing platform may affect the availability and accessibility of the research results.<br /> [[File:Et3.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> ==== Preprints – a new method of publication dissemination ====<br /> Preprints are widely used in physical sciences and now emerging in life sciences and other fields. Preprints are documents that have not been peer-reviewed but are considered complete scientific publication in the first stage. Some of the preprints servers include open peer review services and the availability to post new versions of the initial paper once reviewed by peers.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> ALLEA. (2013). [https://allea.org/portfolio-item/allea-statement-on-enhancement-of-open-access-to-scientific-publications-in-europe/ ALLEA statement on enhancement of open access to scientific publications in Europe]. <br /> <br /> [https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page Open Access Directory (OAD)] – a wiki where the open access (OA) community can create and support simple factual lists about open access to science and scholarship.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=An introduction to Open Access Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&quot;Gain an insight into open access and how it offers a further alternative for your research. Make your research freely available to everyone. Choose Open.&quot;<br /> <br /> Watch the video on An introduction to Open Access publishing from Taylor &amp; Francis.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=cOAlition S and Plan S<br /> |Instruction Step Text=On 4 September 2018, a group of national research funding organisations, with the support of the European Commission and the European Research Council (ERC), announced the launch of cOAlition S, an initiative to make full and immediate Open Access to research publications a reality. It is built around Plan S, which consists of one target and 10 principles.<br /> <br /> cOAlition S signals the commitment to implement the necessary measures to fulfill its main principle:<br /> <br /> “With effect from 2021, all scholarly publications on the results from research funded by public or private grants provided by national, regional and international research councils and funding bodies, must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo.”<br /> <br /> ==== What is Plan S? ====<br /> The main ambition of Plan S is to accelerate the transition to full and immediate OA. The guiding principle behind Plan S is that research that has been paid with public money should not be locked behind paywalls.<br /> <br /> Plan S requires that, from 2021, recipients of research funding from cOAlition S organizations make the resulting publications available immediately (without embargoes) and under open licenses, either in quality OA platforms or journals or through immediate deposit in open repositories that fulfill the necessary conditions.<br /> <br /> Plan S is applicable to research funded by organizations (incl. all beneficiaries of Horizon Europe) who have signed up to Plan S. <br /> <br /> ==== How to comply with Plan S? ====<br /> cOAlition S released the [https://www.coalition-s.org/resources/journal-checker-tool-jct/ Journal Checker Tool (JCT)], a search engine that checks Plan S compliance. The JCT is a web-based tool which enables researchers to quickly identify journals or platforms that provide routes to compliance with Plan S.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> [https://erc.europa.eu/news/erc-supports-full-open-access Statement by the European Research Council] on the support of the cOAlition S initiative.<br /> <br /> [1] cOAlition S. (n.d.). What is cOAlition S? https://www.coalition-s.org/about/<br /> <br /> [2] cOAlition S. (n.d.). Plan S principles. https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles/<br /> <br /> [3] KU Leven. (n.d.). Plan S explained. https://www.kuleuven.be/open-science/what-is-open-science/scholarly-publishing-and-open-access/open-access-why-and-how/plan-s-explained<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Access in 60 Seconds<br /> |Instruction Step Text=What does open access mean? This video summarizes the main points: No costs and technical barriers for readers and libraries, but permanent access and possibilities for subsequent use, as well as the generation of new knowledge.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUpl03eO63M&amp;ab_channel=open-access.network Video: Open Access in 60 Seconds] to open the resource.&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research data<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Research data refers to the information collected, observed, or created for purposes of analysis to produce and validate original research results. Sharing and re-using data to reproduce research and build upon it, are a cornerstone of Open Science. The sustainability of research data refers to their long-term preservation, accessibility, and interoperability. <br /> <br /> Proper management, preservation, and sharing of research data are crucial for ensuring the replicability of research results, advancing further studies, and enhancing collaboration among scholars. <br /> <br /> ==== Types of research data ====<br /> Research data can come in various formats and types, depending on the field of study and the research methodology employed. Data can be quantitative (numerically based) or qualitative (non-numerical, such as words or images), and it may include, but is not limited to, numerical values, text, transcripts, images, video and audio recordings, software, algorithms, equations, and test responses.<br /> <br /> Research data can be raw or primary data (collected directly from experiments, surveys, or observations), processed or secondary data (which has been analyzed or manipulated in some way), or metadata (data about data, which provides information necessary to understand other data). <br /> <br /> ==== ALLEA recommendations on good data management practices ====<br /> The revised [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity] outlines a number of recommendations on &quot;Data Practices and Management&quot;:<br /> <br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure appropriate stewardship, curation, and preservation of all data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials for a reasonable and clearly stated period.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary, and where appropriate in line with the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) for data management.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations are transparent about how to access and gain permission to use data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials.<br /> * Researchers inform research participants about how their data will be used, reused, accessed, stored, and deleted, in compliance with GDPR.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organizations acknowledge data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials as legitimate and citable products of research.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that any contracts or agreements relating to research results include equitable and fair provisions for the management of their use, ownership, and protection under intellectual property rights.<br /> <br /> For the curious ones. There is a whole lot more to [https://openscience.cuni.cz/OSCIEN-48.html Data Management]. Go ahead and check it out.<br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research Data Management<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Data management plans (DMPs) are formal documents in which researchers describe how they plan to use data during and after the research. This helps researchers in sharing their data according to the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-useable), as recommended by the European Code of Conduct (ECoC).<br /> <br /> DPMs are becoming integral parts of grant applications and research organisations. They are usually short, and state which data will be created and how. DMPs also define the plans for data sharing and presentation, prescribe how the data will be stored, who will have access to it, what documentation and metadata will be created with it, and how it will be preserved. Creating DMPs provides several benefits for researchers, such as reducing the loss of data, monitoring the research progress, and preparing data for future use. Apart from that, they are also time saving.<br /> <br /> ==== Creating DMPs - the 'How to' guides ====<br /> <br /> * The [https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/how-guides Digital Curation Centre] (DCC), a leading centre in digital information curation that gives advice and help on how to store, manage, protect and share digital research data, provides resources, such as online tools, guidance and training. One of them is [https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/ DMP online], a free web-based tool that supports researchers in developing DMPs by providing them with templates and guidelines.<br /> * [https://cdlib.org/services/uc3/dmptool/ California Digital Library] has also developed DMPTool, an open and international source project, that helps researchers, institutions, and funders in the USA in creating DMPs.<br /> * [https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/sustainable-research-data/ Science Europe], an association of Research Funding Organisations and Research Performing Organisations, has developed [https://scienceeurope.org/our-resources/practical-guide-to-the-international-alignment-of-research-data-management/ Practical Guide to the International Alignment or Research Data Management]. The Guide provides a basis for development of data practices and management for organisations, disciplines, and individual researchers. Adaptable [https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/research-data-management/ DMP templates] are also available.<br /> <br /> There are a number of other useful tools available for creating DMPs. Check those listed below:<br /> <br /> * [https://ds-wizard.org/ Data Stewardship Wizard]. An open-source platform for collaborative and living data management plans.<br /> * [https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org/data_management_plan RDM kit.] The Research Data Management toolkit for Life Sciences<br /> <br /> [1] ELIXIR (2021) Research Data Management Kit. A deliverable from the EU-funded ELIXIR-CONVERGE project (grant agreement 871075). [https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org/ https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org]<br /> <br /> [2] Embassy of Good Science. Data management plans. [[Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fe|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fe]]<br /> <br /> [3] Science Europe. Sustainable research data. https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/sustainable-research-data/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=FAIR Data<br /> |Instruction Step Text=In 2016, the ‘FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship’ were published in Scientific Data. The authors intended to provide guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digital assets. <br /> <br /> The principles emphasise machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention) because humans increasingly rely on computational support to deal with data as a result of the increase in volume, complexity, and creation speed of data.<br /> <br /> ====What is FAIR data?====<br /> The FAIR principles describe how research outputs should be organised so they can be more easily accessed, understood, exchanged and reused. Major funding bodies, including the European Commission, promote FAIR data to maximise the integrity and impact of their research investment.<br /> <br /> The principles refer to three types of entities: data (or any digital object), metadata (information about that digital object), and infrastructure. <br /> <br /> FAIR principles enable researchers to maximize the value of their data, accelerating scientific progress and innovation. FAIR data is an important aspect of the Open Science policy of the European Commission.<br /> <br /> ====The FAIR guiding principles====<br /> Findable<br /> <br /> The first step in (re)using data is to find them. Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers. Machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services, so this is an essential component of the [https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/fairification-process/ FAIRification process].<br /> <br /> F1. (meta)data are assigned a globally unique and eternally persistent identifier.<br /> <br /> F2. data are described with rich metadata. <br /> <br /> F3. (meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource.<br /> <br /> F4. metadata specify the data identifier.<br /> <br /> =====Accessible=====<br /> Once the user finds the required data, she/he/they need to know how they can be accessed, possibly including authentication and authorisation.<br /> <br /> A1. (meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardized communications protocol.<br /> <br /> *A1.1. the protocol is open, free, and universally implementable.<br /> *A1.2. the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary.<br /> <br /> A2. metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available.<br /> <br /> =====Interoperable=====<br /> The data usually need to be integrated with other data. In addition, the data need to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing.<br /> <br /> I1. (meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation.<br /> <br /> I2. (meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles. <br /> <br /> I3. (meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data.<br /> <br /> =====Reusable=====<br /> The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimise the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings.<br /> <br /> R1. meta(data) have a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes.<br /> <br /> *R1.1. (meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license.<br /> *R1.2. (meta)data are associated with their provenance.<br /> *R1.3. (meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards.<br /> <br /> <br /> [1] GO FAIR. FAIR principles. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/<br /> <br /> [2] Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J. W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., Gonzalez-Beltran, A., … Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data, 3, 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=How to Make your Data FAIR<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Are you at the start of your project and planning to create research data? Read on to find out how to make it more findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable via the FAIR principles.<br /> <br /> ====How to GO FAIR – The Three-point FAIRification Framework====<br /> Since its beginning in early 2018, the GO FAIR community has been working towards implementations of the FAIR Guiding Principles. This collective effort has resulted in a three-point framework that formulates the essential steps towards the end goal, a global Internet of FAIR Data and Services where data are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) for machines.<br /> <br /> The [https://www.go-fair.org/how-to-go-fair/ Three-point FAIRification Framework] developed by the GO FAIR Initiative provides practical “how to” guidance to stakeholders seeking to go FAIR. The framework helps a broad spectrum of stakeholders to see what “going FAIR” means to them in practice, and to immerse themselves in the emerging FAIR landscape.<br /> <br /> FAIR self-assessment<br /> <br /> In order to assess the FAIRness of a dataset and determine how to enhance its FAIRness, you can use this [https://ardc.edu.au/resource/fair-data-self-assessment-tool/ FAIR Data Self Assessment Tool] developed by the ARDC - Australian Research Data Commons. <br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> OpenAIRE – [https://www.openaire.eu/how-to-make-your-data-fair How to make your data FAIR.] OpenAIRE Guide for Researchers. <br /> <br /> [1] GO FAIR. How to GO FAIR. https://www.go-fair.org/how-to-go-fair/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063648 scenario] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning data practices and data management and their links with research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> *Data protection and consent;<br /> *FAIR principles for data management and stewardship;<br /> *Data copyright and data citation;<br /> *Data for personal research use.<br /> <br /> =====Your task is to:=====<br /> <br /> #Read the narrative (Issue 1–3) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> #Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> #Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> [1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063648<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=click and exercise the quiz.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=We are proud to have you, our world-class colleagues in the field, and we dedicate this course to you.<br /> <br /> The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE<br /> [[File:Eth1.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:Bf24c894-570a-43c0-9626-b79bf9399a62&diff=19517 2026-09-08T12:15:35Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Ethics in Publishing Science<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, you will be able to:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Define scientific publishing and explain its role in disseminating research findings to the academic community and beyond.<br /> * Understand the criteria for authorship in academic publications and the ethical considerations involved in assigning authorship credit.<br /> * Describe the principles of responsible peer review and the importance of maintaining confidentiality and impartiality in the peer-review process.<br /> * Identify and assess potential conflicts of interest in scientific publishing, including financial, personal, and professional conflicts.<br /> * Understand the different metrics used to evaluate scientific research, such as citation counts, impact factors, and altmetrics.<br /> * Explain the basics of copyright and licensing in scientific publishing and their implications for authors and readers.<br /> * Recognize the characteristics of predatory journals and publishers and the risks associated with publishing in these outlets.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Scientific Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Writing, publishing, and presenting science is one of the basic skills of a researcher and academic professional.<br /> <br /> A scientist/lecturer at a university who does not write or otherwise present (promote or defend) the results of his or her work in front of a professional community or wider public is a pre-extinction species that cannot withstand evolution.<br /> <br /> Writing a high-quality and highly valued professional text is a very demanding activity. Your writing skills improve with each paper you publish. Article writing is a skill that can be learned. The speed of mastering the writing of research articles is different for different individuals and depends on many factors.<br /> <br /> However, when it comes to scientific writing, there is only one acceptable approach: responsible scientific writing.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Authorship<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Authorship can refer to individuals or groups that create an idea or develop the publication that disseminates that intellectual or creative work; however, appropriately acknowledging roles and contributions is not always a simple task.<br /> <br /> In science and research, authorship is the currency by which academics are paid and thus is essential for tenure, promotion, and grant funding. What is clear is that authorship is a fluid, evolving concept, and as it evolves, so will the ethical challenges associated with it.<br /> <br /> ==== What constitutes authorship? ====<br /> Editorial or academic organisations within different specialties have set out criteria and guidelines that members could adopt in their consideration of authorship.<br /> <br /> For example, the [https://www.icmje.org/ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)], also known as the Vancouver group, developed the recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. The ICMJE states that an author should meet all four of the following criteria:<br /> <br /> # Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND<br /> # Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND<br /> # Final approval of the version to be published; AND<br /> # Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.<br /> <br /> ICMJE further states that contributors who do not meet all four criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should still be acknowledged.<br /> <br /> The recommendations are intended to guarantee that those who have made significant intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors while also ensuring that those credited as authors understand their responsibility and accountability for the published work.<br /> <br /> A selection of other definitions of authorship for different scientific disciplines is presented in COPE Discussion Document on [https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/authorship What constitutes authorship].<br /> <br /> ==== Who qualifies, and who does not – common scenarios ====<br /> Interested in expert opinions on common authorship issues? For example:<br /> <br /> * I am a junior researcher and did a lot of the basic work. My supervisor/department head wrote up the work and hasn’t included me as an author<br /> * My department head insists on being included as an author on any research paper that comes out of his/her department. But he/she only obtained the grant money. Is this fair?<br /> * In what order should we list the authors to demonstrate the relative contribution of each?<br /> * There are more than 100 authors on this paper. Is that feasible?<br /> * The “author” is a collaborative group. How does that work?<br /> <br /> Check out the common scenarios and the COPE authorship guidelines [https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/Authorship_DiscussionDocument_0_0.pdf here].<br /> <br /> ==== Handling authorship disputes ====<br /> Authorship sounds simple, but in reality, it often proves to be a source of frustration. To advice on how to deal with authorship issues, you can read the COPE guidelines on [https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1 How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers] written by Tim Albert and Elizabeth Wager.  <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2014): What constitutes authorship? COPE Discussion Document [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3<br /> <br /> [2] COPE. (2003): How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1<br /> <br /> [3] ICMJE. (2024). . Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/<br /> <br /> [4] UKRIO. (2017). Good practice in research: Authorship. https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Guidance-Note-Authorship-v1.0.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Infographic: Authorship Practices to Avoid Conflicts<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Discover the key to harmonious collaboration!<br /> <br /> Dive into this infographic on best [https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/Authorship%20Practices%20to%20Avoid%20Conflicts_Rasterized.pdf authorship practices to prevent conflicts] and foster successful partnerships.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Peer-Review<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality, and originality of articles for publication. Its main goal is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out articles that are invalid or of poor quality.<br /> <br /> ==== What do we mean by ‘peer review’? ====<br /> In academia, we keep referring to peer review as though it is something obvious, but it is not evident that there is a common definition. For journal publishers and universities, the most commonly used explanation is:<br /> <br /> ''“…the process of someone reading, checking, and giving his or her opinion about something that has been written by another scientist or expert working in the same subject area”'' (from [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peer-review Cambridge Dictionary, web edition])<br /> <br /> The review process should include comments from reviewers who are not on the editorial board and so can make objective decisions. Reviewers should focus on the academic quality of the work in question and check the methods used. Peer review does not involve language editing or copy editing, done to make the final article or book read well, but ensures that the research has been properly done according to discipline-specific and relevant research practices. Different types of peer review are suitable for different disciplines and research communities.<br /> <br /> A trustworthy journal should clearly and publicly define what type of peer review it uses. It is also recommended that journals follow the guidelines provided by the [https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)].<br /> <br /> ==== Models of peer review ====<br /> Different journals use different types or models of peer review, all of which have various advantages and disadvantages. The most common types of peer review include:<br /> <br /> * Single-blind: the peer reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report).<br /> * Double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (but if the research is published reviewers can eventually know the names of the authors).<br /> * Open: authors know who the reviewers are and the reviewers know who the authors are. In some journals, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the named review reports are also published alongside the article.<br /> * Transparent: similar to open peer review in that if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the content of the reviewer reports is openly available, however the reviewers are not named. <br /> <br /> Learn about the other types of peer review in the [https://publicationethics.org/node/34926 COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews]?<br /> <br /> ==== Fundamentals of peer review ====<br /> Interested to learn more about the peer review fundamentals? [https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review Elsevier's Researcher Academy] prepared a series of modules explaining why it is important to get involved in peer review and the many benefits it can bring. You will hear how carrying out peer review can sharpen your own writing skills and discover the ethics guidelines you should comply with. <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2024). Fundamentals of peer review. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review<br /> <br /> [3] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). What do we mean by ‘peer review’? https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/peer-review/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer reviewers are important for ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process assists editors in deciding whether the research is suitable for publication in their journal. Peer reviewers are key players in this process, but sometimes, they might not know what's expected of them.<br /> <br /> ====COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers====<br /> Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. COPE Peer review guidelines provide basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer review process in research publication. <br /> <br /> These guidelines are intended to be applied across disciplines. COPE Guidelines provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). Guidelines: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4&lt;nowiki/&gt;Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746 'Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the ethical and integrity standards governing peer review processes.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> * The integrity of peer review processes;<br /> * Institutional obligations to uphold the standards of good peer review practices;<br /> * Plagiarism.<br /> <br /> ===== Your task is to: =====<br /> <br /> # Read the narrative (Issue 1–2) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> # Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> # Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> <br /> [1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Conflict of Interest<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Conflict of interest occurs when a scientist's personal interests—such as financial gain, professional advancement, or personal relationships—could potentially influence or appear to influence their research findings and decision-making. These conflicts can compromise the objectivity and integrity of the publication, potentially affecting the credibility of the research itself.<br /> <br /> Scientists are guided by a genuine desire to pursue truth and impartial judgment, and by honesty in reporting and interpreting their research results. This means that scientific work should be as unbiased and objective as possible in the sense that non-scientific interests should not play any significant role in the way in which the research work is conducted and its results are interpreted and presented.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it? Defining conflict of interest ====<br /> Competing interests (also known as conflicts of interests — COIs) is defined as follows:<br /> <br /> “A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.” <br /> <br /> The generally understood principles are shared by many journals and publishers. Their interpretation into policy, however, varies journal by journal.<br /> <br /> Conflicts of interest can be:<br /> <br /> # financial or<br /> # non-financial (such as family and friendship relationships). <br /> <br /> More problematic forms of conflict of interest happen when researchers participate in the selection of a procurement contract with a company where they or their relatives have a financial interest, or when peer review panel members have a close family or professional relationship with one of the applicants to a position or a grant.<br /> <br /> ==== Dealing with Conflicts of Interest ====<br /> According to the [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests US Office of Research Integrity], “Having a conflict of interest is not in itself unethical, and some are unavoidable. Full transparency is always the best course of action, and, if in doubt, disclose.”<br /> <br /> Transparency and disclosure are the primary mechanisms for managing conflicts of interest in publishing. Authors are typically required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when submitting a manuscript. This includes financial interests (such as funding or stock ownership), affiliations, personal relationships, or intellectual biases that might affect the research.<br /> <br /> Further resources:<br /> <br /> Elsevier. (2019). [https://assets.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/5XCIR5PjsKLJMAh0ISkIzb/16f6a246e767446b75543d8d8671048c/Competing-Interests-factsheet-March-2019.pdf Factsheet: Competing Interests].<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2017). Ethics in Research &amp; Publication.<br /> <br /> [3] Integrity. Conflict of interest in research: what is it and why it matters? https://h2020integrity.eu/conflict-of-interest-in-research-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters/<br /> <br /> [4] Office of Research Integrity U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A brief overview on Conflict of Interests. [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-35]<br /> <br /> [4] The Embassy of Good Science. Conflict of interests. [[Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International%20Committee%20of%20Medical%20Journal%20Editors%20Conflict%20of%20Interest%20Disclosure%20Form|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International_Committee_of_Medical_Journal_Editors_Conflict_of_Interest_Disclosure_Form]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Metrics<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Metrics, sometimes known as research indicators, are intended to be a quantitative measure of the quality and/or importance of a research output (e.g. journal article, monograph). There is a range of metrics that measure different things.<br /> <br /> ==== Citation metrics ====<br /> <br /> * They measure different things and it is important to understand what they measure, the limits of what they interpret, and when [https://www.metrics-toolkit.org/ best to use them].<br /> * They are sometimes used to measure the citation impact of journals rather than the citation impact of individual research outputs.<br /> * They measure the amount of academic attention a research output has received. <br /> * The simplest citation metric is the number of times a research output has been cited.<br /> * Citation practices differ across academic disciplines so there are a variety of weightings and calculations to address that and ensure that citation metrics are comparable.<br /> <br /> The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used example of a citation metric. It calculates the average number of citations that articles published by a journal have received over the preceding two-year period.  The JIF and other metrics are problematic for a number of reasons. One cannot judge the academic or research value of a work merely on the number of times it has been downloaded, or the number of times it has been cited.<br /> <br /> Journal-level metrics are often used by researchers to make decisions about where to publish their work. They can be useful for identifying journals that have a track record for generating attention for the research outputs that they publish.<br /> <br /> Alternative metrics or altmetrics measure the amount of online attention a research output has received beyond typical citation metrics. This can include things like mentions on Twitter, coverage on news platforms and blogs, Wikipedia citations and lots more besides. Measuring this kind of attention can be used to demonstrate reach beyond academia, and can help to evidence research impact.<br /> <br /> ==== Responsible Metrics ====<br /> There has been a movement towards advocating for responsible metrics which provides guidance on how to use metrics responsibly, both for measuring research quality and as part of conversations about career progression. The [https://sfdora.org/read/ San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)] is a set of principles that institutions have signed up to, which includes a requirement to eliminate the use of journal-level metrics (like the Journal Impact Factor) in funding, appointment and promotion considerations.  In response, some universities have created statements of responsible metrics. [https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/ The Bibliomagician] has collated a number of examples from a variety of institutions.<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Metrics. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/metrics/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: The COPE website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Ethical dimensions in publishing are like the universe. The further we look, the more tangible ethical issues become.<br /> <br /> ===== Ready to do a task on your own? =====<br /> COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is committed to educating and supporting editors, publishers, universities, research institutes, and all those involved in publication ethics. COPE aims to move the culture of publishing towards one where ethical practices become a normal part of the culture itself.<br /> <br /> Your task is to explore the following website: COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).<br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/ Explore: The COPE website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Copyright and Licensing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=There are different rules surrounding copyright law for texts and images. Make sure that you have all the necessary rights and permissions in place before you publish.<br /> <br /> ==== Licensing of your material ====<br /> Any material you create and share with others can be licensed. The license is a message to the reader, or the user of the material, about how they can use or reuse the content.<br /> <br /> All material that you produce as a researcher, such as articles, book chapters, books, blog texts, working papers, conference papers or teaching material, can be licensed at the time of publication. The license should be visible on the title page or first page of the material you publish.<br /> <br /> ==== Copyright ====<br /> Copyright refers to the intellectual property of a work that has been made public by you or your organisation. Copyright law is different in each country, and there is no international law that can be applied overall. However, certain principles apply globally. The right to be recognised as the creator is intrinsic. This means that you, as the author and/or publisher of the material, own the right to decide how it will be used. Different terms apply depending on how copyright is managed by the publisher, and there is sometimes a charge applied for someone who wants to reproduce or share copyrighted material. <br /> <br /> Copyright is divided into two parts: <br /> <br /> * The ‘intellectual rights’ that are non-transferrable, meaning that you, as the creator of a work, always have to be recognised. <br /> * The economic rights that can, however, be transferred to a publisher or licensed for reuse.<br /> <br /> For academic purposes, it is common practice to allow works to be cited to a certain limit (usually about 250 words or 1–2 images or tables, as long as the original source is clearly stated). This can be referred to as “fair use”, “fair dealing”, or “citation rights” depending on which national law applies to the published material.<br /> <br /> ==== Academic articles ====<br /> The author of a journal article may, as part of a standard contract with the publisher, have limited rights to share their own work or may have signed away their economic rights entirely. Many publishers still allow articles to be made ​​freely available provided that certain conditions are met. If you want to know what applies to the journal where you have published your articles, please visit the journal’s publisher’s policy in [https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ SHERPA/RoMEO]. Authors are recommended to check that the publisher’s policy aligns with the policy of their institution and funder before signing any contracts.<br /> <br /> ==== Books and book chapters ====<br /> When publishing a book, or a chapter in a book, the terms of licensing and copyright will typically be included in a contract which you would have to agree with a publisher and which will specify the usage rights, the format(s) and length of time applied to the work.<br /> <br /> Book contracts vary from publisher to publisher, and can in some cases be complicated. If you are required to sign a contract with a publisher in order to publish your work you need to ensure that the contract covers your rights and that it takes into account the obligation you have to your employer and/or the funder of your research.<br /> <br /> If you want to publish a thesis or dissertation it is recommended that you contact your institution or department to make sure that you follow their policy for such publications.<br /> <br /> For more information on what to consider before publishing an Open Access book see the [https://oabooks-toolkit.org/lifecycle/3284351-book-contract-and-license/article/4492720-contracting-and-copyright Open Access Books Toolkit].<br /> <br /> ==== Images and copyright ====<br /> Artistic works, photographs, illustrations and diagrams have copyright protection specifying the use by someone without the author’s explicit permission. This protection is governed by the law of copyright for literary and artistic works in the country where your work is published. It is important that you consult the rightsholder if you would like to reproduce work from other sources in your book or article, unless the original work is openly licensed for reuse.<br /> <br /> Should you not get permission to use a picture in its electronic format, you can omit it and replace it with an explanatory text: “Because of copyright protection, this picture is missing in its electronic (or print) format.”<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> FOSTER. https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN//02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Access Licensing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Licenses can be applied to any material (e.g., sound, text, image, multimedia, software) where some exploitation or usage rights exist.<br /> <br /> ==== Open Access Licensing ====<br /> If you want to publish Open Access, you will still own the rights to your work. You control how it can be used and the credit you are given by choosing one of the [https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ Creative Commons] licenses. These open licenses are administered independently of any publisher and are internationally recognised. The licenses are applied as a legal code of practice, and can be seen as an addition to the intrinsic copyright applied in each country. Using an open license allows others to continue to build upon your work. There are currently [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ six types of Creative Commons licenses] available, each with slightly different permissions and requirements. All the licenses require that others using your work in any way must give you credit in the way you request, but not in a way that suggests that you endorse them in their use. There must always be a reference and a link to the original if the work is mentioned or reused. <br /> <br /> ==== What is a Creative Commons licence? ====<br /> Creative Commons, a global not-for-profit organisation which provides legal tools to promote the sharing and reuse of works of authorship, has produced a number of licences some of which meet the criteria for Open Access. These offer different levels of permission.<br /> <br /> Creative Commons offers licences readable at three different levels: legal, machine (the metadata) and human (non-legal descriptions). Creative Commons has a useful tool to help you determine the licence best for you. More restrictive CC licences are unlikely to meet Open Access requirements (e.g. because they impose restrictions on commercial use).<br /> <br /> What licence should be applied to the research data?<br /> <br /> It depends on what rights protect your research data, if at all.<br /> <br /> * If your research data qualifies as a work (literary work such as a journal article or a software), then CC BY 4.0 is usually the best choice. The use of the Share Alike (SA) is also compatible with the Open Access definition and reinforced in Plan S licensing guidance for publications. Non-commercial should be avoided as it is not Open Access compliant. Non-derivative is a tricky issue and should be avoided, especially if you do not know what you are doing. That said, it may not be incompatible with the Open Access definition.<br /> * If your research data is a database or a dataset (unstructured data that do not meet the database definition) usually the best option is a CC0, which waives all your rights in the database.<br /> <br /> Keep in mind that CC licences only deal with copyright and copyright related matter. Personal data are not included in CC and are analysed separately.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> FOSTER. https://open-science-training-handbook.github.io/Open-Science-Training-Handbook_EN//02OpenScienceBasics/06OpenLicensingAndFileFormats.html<br /> <br /> [1] OpenAIRE. Licenses for Research Data. https://www.openaire.eu/how-do-i-license-my-research-data<br /> <br /> [2] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Copyright and Licensing for authors and editors. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/copyright-and-licensing/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Predatory Journals and Publishers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Over the past two decades, open-access publishing has rapidly grown into a global industry, making scholarly publications readily available to researchers, policymakers, and the general public. <br /> <br /> While this has generally been seen as a positive development, the predominant “Gold” open access route has also given rise to unforeseen challenges. The rise of open-access publishing, which often involves authors paying fees to make their work freely available, has unfortunately provided a fertile ground for predatory publishers. <br /> <br /> ==== What are predatory journals? ====<br /> Predatory journals and their publishers are “entities that prioritise self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterised by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices”.<br /> <br /> Many researchers are duped into choosing to publish with predatory journals because they are simply unaware of the difference between bogus and quality open-access journals. Early career researchers are at particular risk, as they may feel great pressure to publish but lack experience. Equally, these journals have disproportionately negative effects on researchers from low- and middle-income countries, who may not have the resources to identify those outlets and/or are seeking more affordable ways to publish.<br /> <br /> Falling prey to predatory publishers can damage a researcher's reputation, waste valuable resources, and contribute to the dissemination of potentially unreliable scientific information.<br /> <br /> ==== Identifying and promoting quality open-access journals ====<br /> There is currently no centralized global or European authentication of academic publishers and journals to certify that they meet the fundamental requirements of professionalism and financial transparency. Some specific recommendations of the ALLELA for researchers can be found below:<br /> <br /> * Searching the databases listed in the [https://doaj.org/ Directory of Open Access Journals] (DOAJ) (empowered by the global science community), and Web of Science (WoS) can be starting points for finding open access journals that follow good editorial practices. Additionally, [https://cabells.com/solutions/predatory-reports Cabells] provides a subscription service featuring a database of deceptive and predatory journals.<br /> * There are also several national and institutional resources that regularly evaluate and categorise scientific journals and publishers based on their editorial and publication standards. These can often also be accessed by external researchers, and could be extended and adopted for regional or European use.<br /> * The [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/ Think-Check-Submit] initiative provides tools to help researchers identify trusted journals in which to publish their research. The [https://www.coalition-s.org/journal-comparison-service/ Journal Comparison Service] by cOAlition S provides a platform that improves price transparency for researchers, libraries, and funding organisations.<br /> * Most academic libraries can advise researchers; they are encouraged to follow evidence-based characteristics of potential predatory journals and IAP-recommended markers for fraudulent, deceptive, or unacceptable journals.<br /> * In general, authors are recommended to keep full control over any published work by retaining their intellectual property rights. By doing so, authors will always be able to deposit a copy of the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) in a repository of their choice, and it allows them to re-use figures and tables from the publication in subsequent presentations or other works without having to seek permission from the publisher.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> There are various sources of information on predatory publishing, e.g., [https://zenodo.org/records/3738003 Predatory journals and open access: predators in the world of scientific publishing], where you can obtain additional information.<br /> <br /> For an alternative source of information that goes into more detail you may want to peak in [https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstreams/3c1b1ccb-e82b-49c3-96e5-7d4f3fcb9352/download Avoiding Predatory Journals and QuestionableConferences: A Resource Guide] (Eaton, 2018).<br /> <br /> [1] ALLELA. (2023). ALLEA statement on curbing predatory practices in open access scholarly publishing. https://doi.org/10.26356/PREDATORYPUBLISHING<br /> <br /> [2] Grudniewicz et al. (2019). “Predatory journals: no definition, no defence”. Nature 576, 210-212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Think. Check. Submit.<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Think. Check. Submit. helps researchers identify trusted journals and publishers for their research. Through a range of tools and practical resources, this international cross-sector initiative aims to educate researchers, promote integrity, and build trust in credible research and publications.<br /> <br /> The 3-step approach encourages academics to ‘Think’ about the problem posed by predatory or substandard conferences, ‘Check’ the conference against a set of criteria designed to highlight attributes of good and bad quality conferences, and ‘Attend’ only if the conference adheres to the criteria consistent with a legitimate conference.<br /> [[File:Et4.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> ==== Watch a video: Assessing the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher ====<br /> Have you done your research and now you are ready to publish? Ensuring the trustworthiness of a journal or publisher is essential for researchers when sharing their work with the world. This video outlines some key steps and considerations to help researchers assess whether a journal or publisher is suitable for their research.<br /> <br /> ==== Think. Check. Submit. checklist ====<br /> The Think. Check. Submit. checklist is a tool that will help you discover what you need to know when assessing whether or not a publisher is suitable for your research.<br /> <br /> Follow the [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/books-and-chapters/ Book &amp; Chapters] or [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/ Journals] checklist to make sure you choose trusted journals and publishers for your research.<br /> <br /> [1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). https://thinkchecksubmit.org/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Paper-Mills Problem<br /> |Instruction Step Text=With the increasing pressure on (young) researchers to publish, there is a growing concern over the proliferation of fake papers within the academic community. In science and research, a &quot;''paper mill''&quot; refers to a deceptive practice where manuscripts are fabricated or manipulated and then submitted to academic journals for publication.<br /> <br /> ==== What is a paper mill? ====<br /> The [https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/paper-mills-cope-stm-research-report.pdf Committee on Publication Ethics] defines paper mills as &quot;the process by which manufactured manuscripts are submitted to a journal for a fee on behalf of researchers with the purpose of providing an easy publication for them, or to offer authorship for sale.&quot;<br /> <br /> These manuscripts are often generated for the purpose of exploiting the academic publishing system, typically to boost publication records or to fulfill requirements for academic advancement, such as obtaining tenure or securing funding. Fake papers can be identified both during the submission process and after publication.<br /> <br /> Paper mills may involve the use of ghostwriters, falsified data, or plagiarized content. This unethical practice undermines the integrity of scholarly publishing and can have serious consequences for academic credibility and scientific progress.<br /> <br /> === Paper mills in the era of large language models (LLMs) ===<br /> The emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has raised concerns about an increase in paper mills. These tools can quickly generate fake papers and authorships, posing a significant threat to scientific publishing by blurring the line between genuine and fabricated research. <br /> <br /> This underscores worries in the scientific community about maintaining integrity in scholarly publishing and preventing the misuse of AI technology. It's crucial to recognize that attempting to pass off AI-generated text as one's own work constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty. <br /> <br /> Reading for fun:<br /> <br /> [https://publicationethics.org/resources/research/paper-mills-research Paper Mills Research report from COPE &amp; STM]<br /> <br /> Van Noorden, R. (2023). How big is science’s fake-paper problem? An unpublished analysis suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of bogus ‘paper-mill’ articles lurking in the literature. Nature, 623, 466-467. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x<br /> <br /> [1] COPE &amp; STM. Paper Mills — Research report from COPE &amp; STM. https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Ethics in Publishing and Research<br /> |Instruction Step Text=''Dr. Babor is Professor Emeritus and former head of the Department of Community Medicine and Health Care and directs an active research program. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.''<br /> <br /> In this lecture, Tom will describe the main traditions of scientific integrity and research ethics that have been developed over the past 80 years, beginning with the Helsinki Agreement and the development of modern ethical principles. The main part of the lecture will focus on the growth of addiction science in Europe and America, and the challenges of conducting basic, clinical, and policy research on alcohol and other psychoactive substances. Particular attention will be given to the different degrees of research misconduct and how to prevent them by means of ethical decision-making and institutional guidelines. Conflict of interest and the influence of powerful industries such as tobacco, alcohol, gambling and pharmaceuticals will also be discussed.<br /> <br /> This presentation is in English. <br /> <br /> It is a bit on the long side, though. :)<br /> <br /> Click on the video to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216 'Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative on the theme of Publication and Dissemination.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> * Dual submissions<br /> * Authorship lists<br /> * Plagiarism<br /> * Complaints procedures<br /> * Editorial decisions<br /> * Retraction<br /> <br /> ===== Your task is to: =====<br /> <br /> # Read the narrative (Issue 1–4) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> # Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> # Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> <br /> ----[1] Jonathan Lewis. (2020). Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4062216<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Practice the quice activity below.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=We are proud to have you, our world-class colleagues in the field, and we dedicate this course to you.<br /> <br /> The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE<br /> <br /> [[File:Eth1.png|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=File:Et4.png&diff=19516 2026-09-08T12:03:34Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>et4</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:Bf24c894-570a-43c0-9626-b79bf9399a62&diff=19515 2026-09-08T11:55:50Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Instruction |Title=Ethics in Publishing Science |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065 |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing th...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Ethics in Publishing Science<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, you will be able to:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Define scientific publishing and explain its role in disseminating research findings to the academic community and beyond.<br /> * Understand the criteria for authorship in academic publications and the ethical considerations involved in assigning authorship credit.<br /> * Describe the principles of responsible peer review and the importance of maintaining confidentiality and impartiality in the peer-review process.<br /> * Identify and assess potential conflicts of interest in scientific publishing, including financial, personal, and professional conflicts.<br /> * Understand the different metrics used to evaluate scientific research, such as citation counts, impact factors, and altmetrics.<br /> * Explain the basics of copyright and licensing in scientific publishing and their implications for authors and readers.<br /> * Recognize the characteristics of predatory journals and publishers and the risks associated with publishing in these outlets.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Scientific Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Writing, publishing, and presenting science is one of the basic skills of a researcher and academic professional.<br /> <br /> A scientist/lecturer at a university who does not write or otherwise present (promote or defend) the results of his or her work in front of a professional community or wider public is a pre-extinction species that cannot withstand evolution.<br /> <br /> Writing a high-quality and highly valued professional text is a very demanding activity. Your writing skills improve with each paper you publish. Article writing is a skill that can be learned. The speed of mastering the writing of research articles is different for different individuals and depends on many factors.<br /> <br /> However, when it comes to scientific writing, there is only one acceptable approach: responsible scientific writing.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Authorship<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Authorship can refer to individuals or groups that create an idea or develop the publication that disseminates that intellectual or creative work; however, appropriately acknowledging roles and contributions is not always a simple task.<br /> <br /> In science and research, authorship is the currency by which academics are paid and thus is essential for tenure, promotion, and grant funding. What is clear is that authorship is a fluid, evolving concept, and as it evolves, so will the ethical challenges associated with it.<br /> <br /> ==== What constitutes authorship? ====<br /> Editorial or academic organisations within different specialties have set out criteria and guidelines that members could adopt in their consideration of authorship.<br /> <br /> For example, the [https://www.icmje.org/ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)], also known as the Vancouver group, developed the recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. The ICMJE states that an author should meet all four of the following criteria:<br /> <br /> # Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND<br /> # Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND<br /> # Final approval of the version to be published; AND<br /> # Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.<br /> <br /> ICMJE further states that contributors who do not meet all four criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should still be acknowledged.<br /> <br /> The recommendations are intended to guarantee that those who have made significant intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors while also ensuring that those credited as authors understand their responsibility and accountability for the published work.<br /> <br /> A selection of other definitions of authorship for different scientific disciplines is presented in COPE Discussion Document on [https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/authorship What constitutes authorship].<br /> <br /> ==== Who qualifies, and who does not – common scenarios ====<br /> Interested in expert opinions on common authorship issues? For example:<br /> <br /> * I am a junior researcher and did a lot of the basic work. My supervisor/department head wrote up the work and hasn’t included me as an author<br /> * My department head insists on being included as an author on any research paper that comes out of his/her department. But he/she only obtained the grant money. Is this fair?<br /> * In what order should we list the authors to demonstrate the relative contribution of each?<br /> * There are more than 100 authors on this paper. Is that feasible?<br /> * The “author” is a collaborative group. How does that work?<br /> <br /> Check out the common scenarios and the COPE authorship guidelines [https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/Authorship_DiscussionDocument_0_0.pdf here].<br /> <br /> ==== Handling authorship disputes ====<br /> Authorship sounds simple, but in reality, it often proves to be a source of frustration. To advice on how to deal with authorship issues, you can read the COPE guidelines on [https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1 How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers] written by Tim Albert and Elizabeth Wager.  <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2014): What constitutes authorship? COPE Discussion Document [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3<br /> <br /> [2] COPE. (2003): How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1<br /> <br /> [3] ICMJE. (2024). . Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/<br /> <br /> [4] UKRIO. (2017). Good practice in research: Authorship. https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Guidance-Note-Authorship-v1.0.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Infographic: Authorship Practices to Avoid Conflicts<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Discover the key to harmonious collaboration!<br /> <br /> Dive into this infographic on best [https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/Authorship%20Practices%20to%20Avoid%20Conflicts_Rasterized.pdf authorship practices to prevent conflicts] and foster successful partnerships.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Peer-Review<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality, and originality of articles for publication. Its main goal is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out articles that are invalid or of poor quality.<br /> <br /> ==== What do we mean by ‘peer review’? ====<br /> In academia, we keep referring to peer review as though it is something obvious, but it is not evident that there is a common definition. For journal publishers and universities, the most commonly used explanation is:<br /> <br /> ''“…the process of someone reading, checking, and giving his or her opinion about something that has been written by another scientist or expert working in the same subject area”'' (from [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peer-review Cambridge Dictionary, web edition])<br /> <br /> The review process should include comments from reviewers who are not on the editorial board and so can make objective decisions. Reviewers should focus on the academic quality of the work in question and check the methods used. Peer review does not involve language editing or copy editing, done to make the final article or book read well, but ensures that the research has been properly done according to discipline-specific and relevant research practices. Different types of peer review are suitable for different disciplines and research communities.<br /> <br /> A trustworthy journal should clearly and publicly define what type of peer review it uses. It is also recommended that journals follow the guidelines provided by the [https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)].<br /> <br /> ==== Models of peer review ====<br /> Different journals use different types or models of peer review, all of which have various advantages and disadvantages. The most common types of peer review include:<br /> <br /> * Single-blind: the peer reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report).<br /> * Double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (but if the research is published reviewers can eventually know the names of the authors).<br /> * Open: authors know who the reviewers are and the reviewers know who the authors are. In some journals, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the named review reports are also published alongside the article.<br /> * Transparent: similar to open peer review in that if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the content of the reviewer reports is openly available, however the reviewers are not named. <br /> <br /> Learn about the other types of peer review in the [https://publicationethics.org/node/34926 COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews]?<br /> <br /> ==== Fundamentals of peer review ====<br /> Interested to learn more about the peer review fundamentals? [https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review Elsevier's Researcher Academy] prepared a series of modules explaining why it is important to get involved in peer review and the many benefits it can bring. You will hear how carrying out peer review can sharpen your own writing skills and discover the ethics guidelines you should comply with. <br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2024). Fundamentals of peer review. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review<br /> <br /> [3] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). What do we mean by ‘peer review’? https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/peer-review/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;<br /> Peer reviewers are important for ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process assists editors in deciding whether the research is suitable for publication in their journal. Peer reviewers are key players in this process, but sometimes, they might not know what's expected of them.<br /> <br /> ==== COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers ====<br /> Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. COPE Peer review guidelines provide basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer review process in research publication. <br /> <br /> These guidelines are intended to be applied across disciplines. COPE Guidelines provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). Guidelines: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4&lt;nowiki/&gt;Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This scenario on [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746 'Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity'] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the ethical and integrity standards governing peer review processes.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> * The integrity of peer review processes;<br /> * Institutional obligations to uphold the standards of good peer review practices;<br /> * Plagiarism.<br /> <br /> ===== Your task is to: =====<br /> <br /> # Read the narrative (Issue 1–2) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> # Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> # Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use the 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> <br /> [1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063746<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Conflict of Interest<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Conflict of interest occurs when a scientist's personal interests—such as financial gain, professional advancement, or personal relationships—could potentially influence or appear to influence their research findings and decision-making. These conflicts can compromise the objectivity and integrity of the publication, potentially affecting the credibility of the research itself.<br /> <br /> Scientists are guided by a genuine desire to pursue truth and impartial judgment, and by honesty in reporting and interpreting their research results. This means that scientific work should be as unbiased and objective as possible in the sense that non-scientific interests should not play any significant role in the way in which the research work is conducted and its results are interpreted and presented.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it? Defining conflict of interest ====<br /> Competing interests (also known as conflicts of interests — COIs) is defined as follows:<br /> <br /> “A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety.” <br /> <br /> The generally understood principles are shared by many journals and publishers. Their interpretation into policy, however, varies journal by journal.<br /> <br /> Conflicts of interest can be:<br /> <br /> # financial or<br /> # non-financial (such as family and friendship relationships). <br /> <br /> More problematic forms of conflict of interest happen when researchers participate in the selection of a procurement contract with a company where they or their relatives have a financial interest, or when peer review panel members have a close family or professional relationship with one of the applicants to a position or a grant.<br /> <br /> ==== Dealing with Conflicts of Interest ====<br /> According to the [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests US Office of Research Integrity], “Having a conflict of interest is not in itself unethical, and some are unavoidable. Full transparency is always the best course of action, and, if in doubt, disclose.”<br /> <br /> Transparency and disclosure are the primary mechanisms for managing conflicts of interest in publishing. Authors are typically required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when submitting a manuscript. This includes financial interests (such as funding or stock ownership), affiliations, personal relationships, or intellectual biases that might affect the research.<br /> <br /> Further resources:<br /> <br /> Elsevier. (2019). [https://assets.ctfassets.net/o78em1y1w4i4/5XCIR5PjsKLJMAh0ISkIzb/16f6a246e767446b75543d8d8671048c/Competing-Interests-factsheet-March-2019.pdf Factsheet: Competing Interests].<br /> <br /> [1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4<br /> <br /> [2] Elsevier. (2017). Ethics in Research &amp; Publication.<br /> <br /> [3] Integrity. Conflict of interest in research: what is it and why it matters? https://h2020integrity.eu/conflict-of-interest-in-research-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters/<br /> <br /> [4] Office of Research Integrity U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A brief overview on Conflict of Interests. [https://ori.hhs.gov/brief-overview-conflict-interests ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-35]<br /> <br /> [4] The Embassy of Good Science. Conflict of interests. [[Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International%20Committee%20of%20Medical%20Journal%20Editors%20Conflict%20of%20Interest%20Disclosure%20Form|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320#International_Committee_of_Medical_Journal_Editors_Conflict_of_Interest_Disclosure_Form]]<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:6f699046-a247-4f28-b5ce-d93dfae940cc&diff=19511 2026-09-08T10:24:26Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Open Science, Open Access, FAIR Data<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, you will:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Understand the concept of open science and explain its importance in the context of modern research practices.<br /> * Explain the principles of open access and the benefits of making research outputs freely available to the public.<br /> * Develop a comprehensive research data management plan (DMP) that addresses the organization, storage, and sharing of research data.<br /> * Apply the FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) to ensure that research data is properly managed and shared.<br /> * Critically evaluate the impact of open science practices on research integrity, collaboration, and innovation.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Science represents a new approach to the scientific process based on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing knowledge by using digital technologies and new collaborative tools.<br /> <br /> ==== What is open science? ====<br /> Open Science is the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods ([https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/foster-taxonomy/open-science-definition FOSTER Open Science Definition]).<br /> <br /> According to the [https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/taxonomy/term/7 FOSTER taxonomy], &quot;Open science is the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society.&quot; It can be defined as a grouping of principles and practices:<br /> <br /> * Principles: Open Science is about increased transparency, re-use, participation, cooperation, accountability and reproducibility for research. It aims to improve the quality and reliability of research through principles like inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing. Open Science can be viewed as research simply done properly, and it extends across the Life and Physical Sciences, Engineering, Mathematics, Social Sciences, and Humanities ([https://opensciencemooc.eu/ Open Science MOOC]).<br /> * Practices: Open Science includes changes to the way science is done - including opening access to research publications, data-sharing, open notebooks, transparency in research evaluation, ensuring the reproducibility of research (where possible), transparency in research methods, open source code, software and infrastructure, citizen science and open educational resources.<br /> <br /> [[File:Et2.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==== What are the benefits? ====<br /> Open Science is about increased rigour, accountability, and reproducibility for research. It is based on the principles of inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing, and ultimately seeks to change the way research is done, who is involved and how it is valued. It aims to make research more open to participation, review/refutation, improvement and (re)use for the world to benefit.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it about? ====<br /> Open Science is not different from traditional science and applies to all research disciplines. It just means to carry out the research in a more transparent and collaborative way. Open Science is about extending the principles of openness to the whole research cycle, fostering sharing and collaboration as early as possible, thus entailing a systemic change to the way science and research are done.<br /> <br /> There are several definitions of &quot;''openness''&quot; with regards to various aspects of science; the [http://opendefinition.org/ Open Definition] defines it thus: &quot;Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose&quot;. Open Science encompasses a variety of practices, usually including areas like open access to publications, open research data, open source software/tools, open workflows, citizen science, open educational resources, and alternative methods for research evaluation, including open peer review.<br /> <br /> ==== The Open Science Training Handbook ====<br /> Want to learn more? FOSTER consortium created an open, living handbook on Open Science training – [https://book.fosteropenscience.eu/ The Open Science Training Handbook]. This book offers comprehensive guidance and resources for Open Science instructors and trainers, as well as anyone interested in improving levels of transparency and participation in research practices. The focus of the handbook is not only spreading the ideas of Open Science, but showing how to spread these ideas most effectively.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> The best thing you can do now to understand this particular issue better is to read this paper by Jean-Claude Burgelman and his colleagues: [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2019.00043/full Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century]. <br /> <br /> Just read. You don't have to do anything else.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). What is open science? https://zenodo.org/records/2629946<br /> <br /> [2] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science in Horizon Europe<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open science is a legal requirement under Horizon Europe. Its objective is to enhance transparency and trust, ultimately benefiting scientific research and EU citizens. In the EU, Open Science means enhancing research quality to ensure transparency and reproducibility, facilitating their utilization by both industry and society as a catalyst for growth.<br /> <br /> To learn about how to comply with open science principles when applying for EU funding and implementing the project, you can visit the [https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en#open-science-in-horizon-europe European Research Executive Agency's Q&amp;A webpage] or check out this leaflet on [https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9570017e-cd82-11eb-ac72-01aa75ed71a1 &quot;Horizon Europe: Open Science – Early Knowledge and Data Sharing&quot;] for a quick orientation.<br /> <br /> ==== Open Research Europe ====<br /> [https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/about/ Open Research Europe] is an open-access publishing platform for the publication of research stemming from European Commission funding across all subject areas, with no author fees. The platform makes it easy for European Commission beneficiaries to comply with the open access terms of their funding and offers researchers a publishing venue to share their results and insights rapidly and facilitate open, constructive research discussion. Open Research Europe operates under a continuous publication schedule.<br /> <br /> [1] European Research Executive Agency. (2024). Open science. Open science in Horizon Europe. https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Video: Open Research Europe: The new EU open access publishing platform<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&quot;Meet the open-access publishing venue set up for Horizon Europe and Horizon 2020 beneficiaries. Open Research Europe will give everyone, researchers and citizens alike, immediate open access to your latest scientific discoveries. And at no cost to you.&quot; Watch the video below<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Introducing the Open Access<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Access to scientific publications is one of several other policies that will accelerate the move towards Open Science. <br /> <br /> Open Access to publications means that research publications like articles and books can be accessed online, free of charge by any user, with no technical obstacles (such as mandatory registration or login to specific platforms). At the very least, such publications can be read online, downloaded and printed. Ideally, additional rights such as the right to copy, distribute, search, link, crawl and mine should also be provided. <br /> <br /> Two routes of open access<br /> <br /> Open Access can be realised through two main non-exclusive routes:<br /> <br /> * Green Open Access (self-archiving): The published work or the final peer-reviewed manuscript that has been accepted for publication is made freely and openly accessible by the author, or a representative, in an online repository. Some publishers request that Open Access be granted only after an embargo period has elapsed. This embargo period can last anywhere between several months and several years. For publications that have been deposited in a repository but are under embargo, usually at least the metadata are openly accessible.<br /> * Gold Open Access (Open Access publishing): The published work is made available in Open Access mode by the publisher immediately upon publication. The most common business model is based on one-off payments by authors (commonly called APCs – article processing charges – or BPCs – book processing charges). Where Open Access content is combined with content that requires a subscription or purchase, in particular in the context of journals, conference proceedings and edited volumes, this is called hybrid Open Access.<br /> <br /> The choice of a journal or a publishing platform may affect the availability and accessibility of the research results.<br /> [[File:Et3.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> ==== Preprints – a new method of publication dissemination ====<br /> Preprints are widely used in physical sciences and now emerging in life sciences and other fields. Preprints are documents that have not been peer-reviewed but are considered complete scientific publication in the first stage. Some of the preprints servers include open peer review services and the availability to post new versions of the initial paper once reviewed by peers.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> ALLEA. (2013). [https://allea.org/portfolio-item/allea-statement-on-enhancement-of-open-access-to-scientific-publications-in-europe/ ALLEA statement on enhancement of open access to scientific publications in Europe]. <br /> <br /> [https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page Open Access Directory (OAD)] – a wiki where the open access (OA) community can create and support simple factual lists about open access to science and scholarship.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=An introduction to Open Access Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&quot;Gain an insight into open access and how it offers a further alternative for your research. Make your research freely available to everyone. Choose Open.&quot;<br /> <br /> Watch the video on An introduction to Open Access publishing from Taylor &amp; Francis.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=cOAlition S and Plan S<br /> |Instruction Step Text=On 4 September 2018, a group of national research funding organisations, with the support of the European Commission and the European Research Council (ERC), announced the launch of cOAlition S, an initiative to make full and immediate Open Access to research publications a reality. It is built around Plan S, which consists of one target and 10 principles.<br /> <br /> cOAlition S signals the commitment to implement the necessary measures to fulfill its main principle:<br /> <br /> “With effect from 2021, all scholarly publications on the results from research funded by public or private grants provided by national, regional and international research councils and funding bodies, must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo.”<br /> <br /> ==== What is Plan S? ====<br /> The main ambition of Plan S is to accelerate the transition to full and immediate OA. The guiding principle behind Plan S is that research that has been paid with public money should not be locked behind paywalls.<br /> <br /> Plan S requires that, from 2021, recipients of research funding from cOAlition S organizations make the resulting publications available immediately (without embargoes) and under open licenses, either in quality OA platforms or journals or through immediate deposit in open repositories that fulfill the necessary conditions.<br /> <br /> Plan S is applicable to research funded by organizations (incl. all beneficiaries of Horizon Europe) who have signed up to Plan S. <br /> <br /> ==== How to comply with Plan S? ====<br /> cOAlition S released the [https://www.coalition-s.org/resources/journal-checker-tool-jct/ Journal Checker Tool (JCT)], a search engine that checks Plan S compliance. The JCT is a web-based tool which enables researchers to quickly identify journals or platforms that provide routes to compliance with Plan S.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> [https://erc.europa.eu/news/erc-supports-full-open-access Statement by the European Research Council] on the support of the cOAlition S initiative.<br /> <br /> [1] cOAlition S. (n.d.). What is cOAlition S? https://www.coalition-s.org/about/<br /> <br /> [2] cOAlition S. (n.d.). Plan S principles. https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles/<br /> <br /> [3] KU Leven. (n.d.). Plan S explained. https://www.kuleuven.be/open-science/what-is-open-science/scholarly-publishing-and-open-access/open-access-why-and-how/plan-s-explained<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Access in 60 Seconds<br /> |Instruction Step Text=What does open access mean? This video summarizes the main points: No costs and technical barriers for readers and libraries, but permanent access and possibilities for subsequent use, as well as the generation of new knowledge.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUpl03eO63M&amp;ab_channel=open-access.network Video: Open Access in 60 Seconds] to open the resource.&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research data<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Research data refers to the information collected, observed, or created for purposes of analysis to produce and validate original research results. Sharing and re-using data to reproduce research and build upon it, are a cornerstone of Open Science. The sustainability of research data refers to their long-term preservation, accessibility, and interoperability. <br /> <br /> Proper management, preservation, and sharing of research data are crucial for ensuring the replicability of research results, advancing further studies, and enhancing collaboration among scholars. <br /> <br /> ==== Types of research data ====<br /> Research data can come in various formats and types, depending on the field of study and the research methodology employed. Data can be quantitative (numerically based) or qualitative (non-numerical, such as words or images), and it may include, but is not limited to, numerical values, text, transcripts, images, video and audio recordings, software, algorithms, equations, and test responses.<br /> <br /> Research data can be raw or primary data (collected directly from experiments, surveys, or observations), processed or secondary data (which has been analyzed or manipulated in some way), or metadata (data about data, which provides information necessary to understand other data). <br /> <br /> ==== ALLEA recommendations on good data management practices ====<br /> The revised [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity] outlines a number of recommendations on &quot;Data Practices and Management&quot;:<br /> <br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure appropriate stewardship, curation, and preservation of all data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials for a reasonable and clearly stated period.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary, and where appropriate in line with the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) for data management.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations are transparent about how to access and gain permission to use data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials.<br /> * Researchers inform research participants about how their data will be used, reused, accessed, stored, and deleted, in compliance with GDPR.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organizations acknowledge data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials as legitimate and citable products of research.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that any contracts or agreements relating to research results include equitable and fair provisions for the management of their use, ownership, and protection under intellectual property rights.<br /> <br /> For the curious ones. There is a whole lot more to [https://openscience.cuni.cz/OSCIEN-48.html Data Management]. Go ahead and check it out.<br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research Data Management<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Data management plans (DMPs) are formal documents in which researchers describe how they plan to use data during and after the research. This helps researchers in sharing their data according to the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-useable), as recommended by the European Code of Conduct (ECoC).<br /> <br /> DPMs are becoming integral parts of grant applications and research organisations. They are usually short, and state which data will be created and how. DMPs also define the plans for data sharing and presentation, prescribe how the data will be stored, who will have access to it, what documentation and metadata will be created with it, and how it will be preserved. Creating DMPs provides several benefits for researchers, such as reducing the loss of data, monitoring the research progress, and preparing data for future use. Apart from that, they are also time saving.<br /> <br /> ==== Creating DMPs - the 'How to' guides ====<br /> <br /> * The [https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/how-guides Digital Curation Centre] (DCC), a leading centre in digital information curation that gives advice and help on how to store, manage, protect and share digital research data, provides resources, such as online tools, guidance and training. One of them is [https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/ DMP online], a free web-based tool that supports researchers in developing DMPs by providing them with templates and guidelines.<br /> * [https://cdlib.org/services/uc3/dmptool/ California Digital Library] has also developed DMPTool, an open and international source project, that helps researchers, institutions, and funders in the USA in creating DMPs.<br /> * [https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/sustainable-research-data/ Science Europe], an association of Research Funding Organisations and Research Performing Organisations, has developed [https://scienceeurope.org/our-resources/practical-guide-to-the-international-alignment-of-research-data-management/ Practical Guide to the International Alignment or Research Data Management]. The Guide provides a basis for development of data practices and management for organisations, disciplines, and individual researchers. Adaptable [https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/research-data-management/ DMP templates] are also available.<br /> <br /> There are a number of other useful tools available for creating DMPs. Check those listed below:<br /> <br /> * [https://ds-wizard.org/ Data Stewardship Wizard]. An open-source platform for collaborative and living data management plans.<br /> * [https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org/data_management_plan RDM kit.] The Research Data Management toolkit for Life Sciences<br /> <br /> [1] ELIXIR (2021) Research Data Management Kit. A deliverable from the EU-funded ELIXIR-CONVERGE project (grant agreement 871075). [https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org/ https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org]<br /> <br /> [2] Embassy of Good Science. Data management plans. [[Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fe|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fe]]<br /> <br /> [3] Science Europe. Sustainable research data. https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/sustainable-research-data/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=FAIR Data<br /> |Instruction Step Text=In 2016, the ‘FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship’ were published in Scientific Data. The authors intended to provide guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digital assets. <br /> <br /> The principles emphasise machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention) because humans increasingly rely on computational support to deal with data as a result of the increase in volume, complexity, and creation speed of data.<br /> <br /> ====What is FAIR data?====<br /> The FAIR principles describe how research outputs should be organised so they can be more easily accessed, understood, exchanged and reused. Major funding bodies, including the European Commission, promote FAIR data to maximise the integrity and impact of their research investment.<br /> <br /> The principles refer to three types of entities: data (or any digital object), metadata (information about that digital object), and infrastructure. <br /> <br /> FAIR principles enable researchers to maximize the value of their data, accelerating scientific progress and innovation. FAIR data is an important aspect of the Open Science policy of the European Commission.<br /> <br /> ====The FAIR guiding principles====<br /> Findable<br /> <br /> The first step in (re)using data is to find them. Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers. Machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services, so this is an essential component of the [https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/fairification-process/ FAIRification process].<br /> <br /> F1. (meta)data are assigned a globally unique and eternally persistent identifier.<br /> <br /> F2. data are described with rich metadata. <br /> <br /> F3. (meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource.<br /> <br /> F4. metadata specify the data identifier.<br /> <br /> =====Accessible=====<br /> Once the user finds the required data, she/he/they need to know how they can be accessed, possibly including authentication and authorisation.<br /> <br /> A1. (meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardized communications protocol.<br /> <br /> *A1.1. the protocol is open, free, and universally implementable.<br /> *A1.2. the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary.<br /> <br /> A2. metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available.<br /> <br /> =====Interoperable=====<br /> The data usually need to be integrated with other data. In addition, the data need to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing.<br /> <br /> I1. (meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation.<br /> <br /> I2. (meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles. <br /> <br /> I3. (meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data.<br /> <br /> =====Reusable=====<br /> The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimise the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings.<br /> <br /> R1. meta(data) have a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes.<br /> <br /> *R1.1. (meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license.<br /> *R1.2. (meta)data are associated with their provenance.<br /> *R1.3. (meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards.<br /> <br /> <br /> [1] GO FAIR. FAIR principles. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/<br /> <br /> [2] Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J. W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., Gonzalez-Beltran, A., … Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data, 3, 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=How to Make your Data FAIR<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Are you at the start of your project and planning to create research data? Read on to find out how to make it more findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable via the FAIR principles.<br /> <br /> ====How to GO FAIR – The Three-point FAIRification Framework====<br /> Since its beginning in early 2018, the GO FAIR community has been working towards implementations of the FAIR Guiding Principles. This collective effort has resulted in a three-point framework that formulates the essential steps towards the end goal, a global Internet of FAIR Data and Services where data are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) for machines.<br /> <br /> The [https://www.go-fair.org/how-to-go-fair/ Three-point FAIRification Framework] developed by the GO FAIR Initiative provides practical “how to” guidance to stakeholders seeking to go FAIR. The framework helps a broad spectrum of stakeholders to see what “going FAIR” means to them in practice, and to immerse themselves in the emerging FAIR landscape.<br /> <br /> FAIR self-assessment<br /> <br /> In order to assess the FAIRness of a dataset and determine how to enhance its FAIRness, you can use this [https://ardc.edu.au/resource/fair-data-self-assessment-tool/ FAIR Data Self Assessment Tool] developed by the ARDC - Australian Research Data Commons. <br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> OpenAIRE – [https://www.openaire.eu/how-to-make-your-data-fair How to make your data FAIR.] OpenAIRE Guide for Researchers. <br /> <br /> [1] GO FAIR. How to GO FAIR. https://www.go-fair.org/how-to-go-fair/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063648 scenario] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning data practices and data management and their links with research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> *Data protection and consent;<br /> *FAIR principles for data management and stewardship;<br /> *Data copyright and data citation;<br /> *Data for personal research use.<br /> <br /> =====Your task is to:=====<br /> <br /> #Read the narrative (Issue 1–3) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> #Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> #Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> [1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063648<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=click and exercise the quiz.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:6f699046-a247-4f28-b5ce-d93dfae940cc&diff=19510 2026-09-08T10:22:05Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Open Science, Open Access, FAIR Data<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, you will:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Understand the concept of open science and explain its importance in the context of modern research practices.<br /> * Explain the principles of open access and the benefits of making research outputs freely available to the public.<br /> * Develop a comprehensive research data management plan (DMP) that addresses the organization, storage, and sharing of research data.<br /> * Apply the FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) to ensure that research data is properly managed and shared.<br /> * Critically evaluate the impact of open science practices on research integrity, collaboration, and innovation.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Science represents a new approach to the scientific process based on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing knowledge by using digital technologies and new collaborative tools.<br /> <br /> ==== What is open science? ====<br /> Open Science is the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods ([https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/foster-taxonomy/open-science-definition FOSTER Open Science Definition]).<br /> <br /> According to the [https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/taxonomy/term/7 FOSTER taxonomy], &quot;Open science is the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society.&quot; It can be defined as a grouping of principles and practices:<br /> <br /> * Principles: Open Science is about increased transparency, re-use, participation, cooperation, accountability and reproducibility for research. It aims to improve the quality and reliability of research through principles like inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing. Open Science can be viewed as research simply done properly, and it extends across the Life and Physical Sciences, Engineering, Mathematics, Social Sciences, and Humanities ([https://opensciencemooc.eu/ Open Science MOOC]).<br /> * Practices: Open Science includes changes to the way science is done - including opening access to research publications, data-sharing, open notebooks, transparency in research evaluation, ensuring the reproducibility of research (where possible), transparency in research methods, open source code, software and infrastructure, citizen science and open educational resources.<br /> <br /> [[File:Et2.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==== What are the benefits? ====<br /> Open Science is about increased rigour, accountability, and reproducibility for research. It is based on the principles of inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing, and ultimately seeks to change the way research is done, who is involved and how it is valued. It aims to make research more open to participation, review/refutation, improvement and (re)use for the world to benefit.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it about? ====<br /> Open Science is not different from traditional science and applies to all research disciplines. It just means to carry out the research in a more transparent and collaborative way. Open Science is about extending the principles of openness to the whole research cycle, fostering sharing and collaboration as early as possible, thus entailing a systemic change to the way science and research are done.<br /> <br /> There are several definitions of &quot;''openness''&quot; with regards to various aspects of science; the [http://opendefinition.org/ Open Definition] defines it thus: &quot;Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose&quot;. Open Science encompasses a variety of practices, usually including areas like open access to publications, open research data, open source software/tools, open workflows, citizen science, open educational resources, and alternative methods for research evaluation, including open peer review.<br /> <br /> ==== The Open Science Training Handbook ====<br /> Want to learn more? FOSTER consortium created an open, living handbook on Open Science training – [https://book.fosteropenscience.eu/ The Open Science Training Handbook]. This book offers comprehensive guidance and resources for Open Science instructors and trainers, as well as anyone interested in improving levels of transparency and participation in research practices. The focus of the handbook is not only spreading the ideas of Open Science, but showing how to spread these ideas most effectively.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> The best thing you can do now to understand this particular issue better is to read this paper by Jean-Claude Burgelman and his colleagues: [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2019.00043/full Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century]. <br /> <br /> Just read. You don't have to do anything else.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). What is open science? https://zenodo.org/records/2629946<br /> <br /> [2] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science in Horizon Europe<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open science is a legal requirement under Horizon Europe. Its objective is to enhance transparency and trust, ultimately benefiting scientific research and EU citizens. In the EU, Open Science means enhancing research quality to ensure transparency and reproducibility, facilitating their utilization by both industry and society as a catalyst for growth.<br /> <br /> To learn about how to comply with open science principles when applying for EU funding and implementing the project, you can visit the [https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en#open-science-in-horizon-europe European Research Executive Agency's Q&amp;A webpage] or check out this leaflet on [https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9570017e-cd82-11eb-ac72-01aa75ed71a1 &quot;Horizon Europe: Open Science – Early Knowledge and Data Sharing&quot;] for a quick orientation.<br /> <br /> ==== Open Research Europe ====<br /> [https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/about/ Open Research Europe] is an open-access publishing platform for the publication of research stemming from European Commission funding across all subject areas, with no author fees. The platform makes it easy for European Commission beneficiaries to comply with the open access terms of their funding and offers researchers a publishing venue to share their results and insights rapidly and facilitate open, constructive research discussion. Open Research Europe operates under a continuous publication schedule.<br /> <br /> [1] European Research Executive Agency. (2024). Open science. Open science in Horizon Europe. https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Video: Open Research Europe: The new EU open access publishing platform<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&quot;Meet the open-access publishing venue set up for Horizon Europe and Horizon 2020 beneficiaries. Open Research Europe will give everyone, researchers and citizens alike, immediate open access to your latest scientific discoveries. And at no cost to you.&quot; Watch the video below<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Introducing the Open Access<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Access to scientific publications is one of several other policies that will accelerate the move towards Open Science. <br /> <br /> Open Access to publications means that research publications like articles and books can be accessed online, free of charge by any user, with no technical obstacles (such as mandatory registration or login to specific platforms). At the very least, such publications can be read online, downloaded and printed. Ideally, additional rights such as the right to copy, distribute, search, link, crawl and mine should also be provided. <br /> <br /> Two routes of open access<br /> <br /> Open Access can be realised through two main non-exclusive routes:<br /> <br /> * Green Open Access (self-archiving): The published work or the final peer-reviewed manuscript that has been accepted for publication is made freely and openly accessible by the author, or a representative, in an online repository. Some publishers request that Open Access be granted only after an embargo period has elapsed. This embargo period can last anywhere between several months and several years. For publications that have been deposited in a repository but are under embargo, usually at least the metadata are openly accessible.<br /> * Gold Open Access (Open Access publishing): The published work is made available in Open Access mode by the publisher immediately upon publication. The most common business model is based on one-off payments by authors (commonly called APCs – article processing charges – or BPCs – book processing charges). Where Open Access content is combined with content that requires a subscription or purchase, in particular in the context of journals, conference proceedings and edited volumes, this is called hybrid Open Access.<br /> <br /> The choice of a journal or a publishing platform may affect the availability and accessibility of the research results.<br /> [[File:Et3.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> ==== Preprints – a new method of publication dissemination ====<br /> Preprints are widely used in physical sciences and now emerging in life sciences and other fields. Preprints are documents that have not been peer-reviewed but are considered complete scientific publication in the first stage. Some of the preprints servers include open peer review services and the availability to post new versions of the initial paper once reviewed by peers.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> ALLEA. (2013). [https://allea.org/portfolio-item/allea-statement-on-enhancement-of-open-access-to-scientific-publications-in-europe/ ALLEA statement on enhancement of open access to scientific publications in Europe]. <br /> <br /> [https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page Open Access Directory (OAD)] – a wiki where the open access (OA) community can create and support simple factual lists about open access to science and scholarship.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=An introduction to Open Access Publishing<br /> |Instruction Step Text=&quot;Gain an insight into open access and how it offers a further alternative for your research. Make your research freely available to everyone. Choose Open.&quot;<br /> <br /> Watch the video on An introduction to Open Access publishing from Taylor &amp; Francis.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=cOAlition S and Plan S<br /> |Instruction Step Text=On 4 September 2018, a group of national research funding organisations, with the support of the European Commission and the European Research Council (ERC), announced the launch of cOAlition S, an initiative to make full and immediate Open Access to research publications a reality. It is built around Plan S, which consists of one target and 10 principles.<br /> <br /> cOAlition S signals the commitment to implement the necessary measures to fulfill its main principle:<br /> <br /> “With effect from 2021, all scholarly publications on the results from research funded by public or private grants provided by national, regional and international research councils and funding bodies, must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo.”<br /> <br /> ==== What is Plan S? ====<br /> The main ambition of Plan S is to accelerate the transition to full and immediate OA. The guiding principle behind Plan S is that research that has been paid with public money should not be locked behind paywalls.<br /> <br /> Plan S requires that, from 2021, recipients of research funding from cOAlition S organizations make the resulting publications available immediately (without embargoes) and under open licenses, either in quality OA platforms or journals or through immediate deposit in open repositories that fulfill the necessary conditions.<br /> <br /> Plan S is applicable to research funded by organizations (incl. all beneficiaries of Horizon Europe) who have signed up to Plan S. <br /> <br /> ==== How to comply with Plan S? ====<br /> cOAlition S released the [https://www.coalition-s.org/resources/journal-checker-tool-jct/ Journal Checker Tool (JCT)], a search engine that checks Plan S compliance. The JCT is a web-based tool which enables researchers to quickly identify journals or platforms that provide routes to compliance with Plan S.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> [https://erc.europa.eu/news/erc-supports-full-open-access Statement by the European Research Council] on the support of the cOAlition S initiative.<br /> <br /> [1] cOAlition S. (n.d.). What is cOAlition S? https://www.coalition-s.org/about/<br /> <br /> [2] cOAlition S. (n.d.). Plan S principles. https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles/<br /> <br /> [3] KU Leven. (n.d.). Plan S explained. https://www.kuleuven.be/open-science/what-is-open-science/scholarly-publishing-and-open-access/open-access-why-and-how/plan-s-explained<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Access in 60 Seconds<br /> |Instruction Step Text=What does open access mean? This video summarizes the main points: No costs and technical barriers for readers and libraries, but permanent access and possibilities for subsequent use, as well as the generation of new knowledge.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUpl03eO63M&amp;ab_channel=open-access.network Video: Open Access in 60 Seconds] to open the resource.&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research data<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Research data refers to the information collected, observed, or created for purposes of analysis to produce and validate original research results. Sharing and re-using data to reproduce research and build upon it, are a cornerstone of Open Science. The sustainability of research data refers to their long-term preservation, accessibility, and interoperability. <br /> <br /> Proper management, preservation, and sharing of research data are crucial for ensuring the replicability of research results, advancing further studies, and enhancing collaboration among scholars. <br /> <br /> ==== Types of research data ====<br /> Research data can come in various formats and types, depending on the field of study and the research methodology employed. Data can be quantitative (numerically based) or qualitative (non-numerical, such as words or images), and it may include, but is not limited to, numerical values, text, transcripts, images, video and audio recordings, software, algorithms, equations, and test responses.<br /> <br /> Research data can be raw or primary data (collected directly from experiments, surveys, or observations), processed or secondary data (which has been analyzed or manipulated in some way), or metadata (data about data, which provides information necessary to understand other data). <br /> <br /> ==== ALLEA recommendations on good data management practices ====<br /> The revised [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity] outlines a number of recommendations on &quot;Data Practices and Management&quot;:<br /> <br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure appropriate stewardship, curation, and preservation of all data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials for a reasonable and clearly stated period.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary, and where appropriate in line with the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) for data management.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations are transparent about how to access and gain permission to use data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials.<br /> * Researchers inform research participants about how their data will be used, reused, accessed, stored, and deleted, in compliance with GDPR.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organizations acknowledge data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials as legitimate and citable products of research.<br /> * Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that any contracts or agreements relating to research results include equitable and fair provisions for the management of their use, ownership, and protection under intellectual property rights.<br /> <br /> For the curious ones. There is a whole lot more to [https://openscience.cuni.cz/OSCIEN-48.html Data Management]. Go ahead and check it out.<br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research Data Management<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Data management plans (DMPs) are formal documents in which researchers describe how they plan to use data during and after the research. This helps researchers in sharing their data according to the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-useable), as recommended by the European Code of Conduct (ECoC).<br /> <br /> DPMs are becoming integral parts of grant applications and research organisations. They are usually short, and state which data will be created and how. DMPs also define the plans for data sharing and presentation, prescribe how the data will be stored, who will have access to it, what documentation and metadata will be created with it, and how it will be preserved. Creating DMPs provides several benefits for researchers, such as reducing the loss of data, monitoring the research progress, and preparing data for future use. Apart from that, they are also time saving.<br /> <br /> ==== Creating DMPs - the 'How to' guides ====<br /> <br /> * The [https://www.dcc.ac.uk/guidance/how-guides Digital Curation Centre] (DCC), a leading centre in digital information curation that gives advice and help on how to store, manage, protect and share digital research data, provides resources, such as online tools, guidance and training. One of them is [https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/ DMP online], a free web-based tool that supports researchers in developing DMPs by providing them with templates and guidelines.<br /> * [https://cdlib.org/services/uc3/dmptool/ California Digital Library] has also developed DMPTool, an open and international source project, that helps researchers, institutions, and funders in the USA in creating DMPs.<br /> * [https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/sustainable-research-data/ Science Europe], an association of Research Funding Organisations and Research Performing Organisations, has developed [https://scienceeurope.org/our-resources/practical-guide-to-the-international-alignment-of-research-data-management/ Practical Guide to the International Alignment or Research Data Management]. The Guide provides a basis for development of data practices and management for organisations, disciplines, and individual researchers. Adaptable [https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/research-data-management/ DMP templates] are also available.<br /> <br /> There are a number of other useful tools available for creating DMPs. Check those listed below:<br /> <br /> * [https://ds-wizard.org/ Data Stewardship Wizard]. An open-source platform for collaborative and living data management plans.<br /> * [https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org/data_management_plan RDM kit.] The Research Data Management toolkit for Life Sciences<br /> <br /> [1] ELIXIR (2021) Research Data Management Kit. A deliverable from the EU-funded ELIXIR-CONVERGE project (grant agreement 871075). [https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org/ https://rdmkit.elixir-europe.org]<br /> <br /> [2] Embassy of Good Science. Data management plans. [[Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fe|https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:67a453dc-7fa0-4f58-a869-748fe]]<br /> <br /> [3] Science Europe. Sustainable research data. https://scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-data/sustainable-research-data/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=FAIR Data<br /> |Instruction Step Text=In 2016, the ‘FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship’ were published in Scientific Data. The authors intended to provide guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digital assets. <br /> <br /> The principles emphasise machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention) because humans increasingly rely on computational support to deal with data as a result of the increase in volume, complexity, and creation speed of data.<br /> <br /> ==== What is FAIR data? ====<br /> The FAIR principles describe how research outputs should be organised so they can be more easily accessed, understood, exchanged and reused. Major funding bodies, including the European Commission, promote FAIR data to maximise the integrity and impact of their research investment.<br /> <br /> The principles refer to three types of entities: data (or any digital object), metadata (information about that digital object), and infrastructure. <br /> <br /> FAIR principles enable researchers to maximize the value of their data, accelerating scientific progress and innovation. FAIR data is an important aspect of the Open Science policy of the European Commission.<br /> <br /> ==== The FAIR guiding principles ====<br /> Findable<br /> <br /> The first step in (re)using data is to find them. Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers. Machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services, so this is an essential component of the [https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/fairification-process/ FAIRification process].<br /> <br /> F1. (meta)data are assigned a globally unique and eternally persistent identifier.<br /> <br /> F2. data are described with rich metadata. <br /> <br /> F3. (meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource.<br /> <br /> F4. metadata specify the data identifier.<br /> <br /> ===== Accessible =====<br /> Once the user finds the required data, she/he/they need to know how they can be accessed, possibly including authentication and authorisation.<br /> <br /> A1. (meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardized communications protocol.<br /> <br /> * A1.1. the protocol is open, free, and universally implementable.<br /> * A1.2. the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary. <br /> <br /> A2. metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available.<br /> <br /> ===== Interoperable =====<br /> The data usually need to be integrated with other data. In addition, the data need to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing.<br /> <br /> I1. (meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation.<br /> <br /> I2. (meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles. <br /> <br /> I3. (meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data.<br /> <br /> ===== Reusable =====<br /> The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimise the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings.<br /> <br /> R1. meta(data) have a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes.<br /> <br /> * R1.1. (meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license.<br /> * R1.2. (meta)data are associated with their provenance.<br /> * R1.3. (meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards.<br /> <br /> ----[1] GO FAIR. FAIR principles. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/<br /> <br /> [2] Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J. W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., Gonzalez-Beltran, A., … Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data, 3, 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=How to Make your Data FAIR<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Are you at the start of your project and planning to create research data? Read on to find out how to make it more findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable via the FAIR principles.<br /> <br /> ==== How to GO FAIR – The Three-point FAIRification Framework ====<br /> Since its beginning in early 2018, the GO FAIR community has been working towards implementations of the FAIR Guiding Principles. This collective effort has resulted in a three-point framework that formulates the essential steps towards the end goal, a global Internet of FAIR Data and Services where data are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) for machines.<br /> <br /> The [https://www.go-fair.org/how-to-go-fair/ Three-point FAIRification Framework] developed by the GO FAIR Initiative provides practical “how to” guidance to stakeholders seeking to go FAIR. The framework helps a broad spectrum of stakeholders to see what “going FAIR” means to them in practice, and to immerse themselves in the emerging FAIR landscape.<br /> <br /> FAIR self-assessment<br /> <br /> In order to assess the FAIRness of a dataset and determine how to enhance its FAIRness, you can use this [https://ardc.edu.au/resource/fair-data-self-assessment-tool/ FAIR Data Self Assessment Tool] developed by the ARDC - Australian Research Data Commons. <br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> OpenAIRE – [https://www.openaire.eu/how-to-make-your-data-fair How to make your data FAIR.] OpenAIRE Guide for Researchers. <br /> <br /> [1] GO FAIR. How to GO FAIR. https://www.go-fair.org/how-to-go-fair/<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Discuss: Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Members of [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]] have developed a set of scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> The scenarios are designed to help researchers and other entities to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.<br /> <br /> This [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063648 scenario] presents a hypothetical narrative concerning data practices and data management and their links with research ethics and research integrity.<br /> <br /> It focuses on issues regarding:<br /> <br /> * Data protection and consent;<br /> * FAIR principles for data management and stewardship;<br /> * Data copyright and data citation;<br /> * Data for personal research use.<br /> <br /> ===== Your task is to: =====<br /> <br /> # Read the narrative (Issue 1–3) and questions for researchers related to the presented issues<br /> # Share your thoughts on research integrity issues raised by a narrative in a forum (at least one or two sentences per question; approx. 50 words)<br /> # Discuss the best research practice with other participants (use 'Discuss this topic' button; optional)<br /> <br /> ----[1] Péter Kakuk. (2020). Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063648<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=click and exercise the quiz.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=File:Et3.png&diff=19509 2026-09-08T10:04:28Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>et3</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:6f699046-a247-4f28-b5ce-d93dfae940cc&diff=19508 2026-09-08T08:27:33Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Instruction |Title=Open Science, Open Access, FAIR Data |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065 |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After compl...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Open Science, Open Access, FAIR Data<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, you will:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Understand the concept of open science and explain its importance in the context of modern research practices.<br /> * Explain the principles of open access and the benefits of making research outputs freely available to the public.<br /> * Develop a comprehensive research data management plan (DMP) that addresses the organization, storage, and sharing of research data.<br /> * Apply the FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) to ensure that research data is properly managed and shared.<br /> * Critically evaluate the impact of open science practices on research integrity, collaboration, and innovation.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Students; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Open Science<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Open Science represents a new approach to the scientific process based on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing knowledge by using digital technologies and new collaborative tools.<br /> <br /> ==== What is open science? ====<br /> Open Science is the practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods ([https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/foster-taxonomy/open-science-definition FOSTER Open Science Definition]).<br /> <br /> According to the [https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/taxonomy/term/7 FOSTER taxonomy], &quot;Open science is the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society.&quot; It can be defined as a grouping of principles and practices:<br /> <br /> * Principles: Open Science is about increased transparency, re-use, participation, cooperation, accountability and reproducibility for research. It aims to improve the quality and reliability of research through principles like inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing. Open Science can be viewed as research simply done properly, and it extends across the Life and Physical Sciences, Engineering, Mathematics, Social Sciences, and Humanities ([https://opensciencemooc.eu/ Open Science MOOC]).<br /> * Practices: Open Science includes changes to the way science is done - including opening access to research publications, data-sharing, open notebooks, transparency in research evaluation, ensuring the reproducibility of research (where possible), transparency in research methods, open source code, software and infrastructure, citizen science and open educational resources.<br /> <br /> [[File:Et2.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==== What are the benefits? ====<br /> Open Science is about increased rigour, accountability, and reproducibility for research. It is based on the principles of inclusion, fairness, equity, and sharing, and ultimately seeks to change the way research is done, who is involved and how it is valued. It aims to make research more open to participation, review/refutation, improvement and (re)use for the world to benefit.<br /> <br /> ==== What is it about? ====<br /> Open Science is not different from traditional science and applies to all research disciplines. It just means to carry out the research in a more transparent and collaborative way. Open Science is about extending the principles of openness to the whole research cycle, fostering sharing and collaboration as early as possible, thus entailing a systemic change to the way science and research are done.<br /> <br /> There are several definitions of &quot;''openness''&quot; with regards to various aspects of science; the [http://opendefinition.org/ Open Definition] defines it thus: &quot;Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose&quot;. Open Science encompasses a variety of practices, usually including areas like open access to publications, open research data, open source software/tools, open workflows, citizen science, open educational resources, and alternative methods for research evaluation, including open peer review.<br /> <br /> ==== The Open Science Training Handbook ====<br /> Want to learn more? FOSTER consortium created an open, living handbook on Open Science training – [https://book.fosteropenscience.eu/ The Open Science Training Handbook]. This book offers comprehensive guidance and resources for Open Science instructors and trainers, as well as anyone interested in improving levels of transparency and participation in research practices. The focus of the handbook is not only spreading the ideas of Open Science, but showing how to spread these ideas most effectively.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> The best thing you can do now to understand this particular issue better is to read this paper by Jean-Claude Burgelman and his colleagues: [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2019.00043/full Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century]. <br /> <br /> Just read. You don't have to do anything else.<br /> <br /> [1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). What is open science? https://zenodo.org/records/2629946<br /> <br /> [2] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=File:Et2.png&diff=19507 2026-09-08T08:25:43Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>et2</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:A21c91d6-f376-4cb0-9b3a-27a18c25a064&diff=19506 2026-09-08T08:14:58Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Introducing a Research Ethics and Integrity<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, learners will be able to:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Define research ethics and integrity and explain their importance in the context of academic research.<br /> * Identify and articulate the core principles of research integrity, including honesty, transparency, objectivity, and accountability.<br /> * Describe the key elements of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and how they apply to research practices.<br /> * Locate and utilize web-based resources to support and enhance research integrity in your academic work.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=On Being a Scientist<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Being a scientist entails a commitment to exploring the unknown, uncovering truths, and contributing to the collective understanding of the world. To become a scientist, one typically pursues higher education in a scientific field, such as obtaining a bachelor's degree, followed by a master's or doctoral degree. <br /> <br /> Beyond formal education, curiosity, critical thinking skills, and a passion for discovery are essential qualities. Scientists have a responsibility to conduct research ethically, with integrity, and to communicate their findings accurately. They must also engage in peer review, collaborate with others, and contribute to the scientific community's body of knowledge. Ultimately, being a scientist is not just a profession but a calling a dedication to advancing human understanding and improving the world through rigorous inquiry and discovery.<br /> <br /> ==== Skills, knowledge, responsibilities ====<br /> Any Scientist should be able to:<br /> <br /> * critically and responsibly review scientific results for research and education purposes, i.e., carry out various types of literature reviews, e.g., systematic, scoping, etc.; and know the differences between them,<br /> * publish the scientifically sound results of your work in domestic and international scientific journals (in English),<br /> * identify and solve key ethical dilemmas regarding scientific publishing,<br /> * provide scientifically sound reviews of scientific manuscripts,<br /> * conduct independent and ethically correct research, design basic or applied research in your field of expertise,<br /> * secure funding in a transparent way with a declared conflict of interest, and be able to write your own grant applications,<br /> * present the unbiased results of your scientific work at conferences, workshops, and scientific meetings with a declared conflict of interest,<br /> * assess new perspectives for paradigm shifts in your field of expertise, and<br /> * last but not least:<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research Ethics and Integrity Defined<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Research integrity aims to provide a comprehensive framework for scientists on how to carry out their work within accepted ethical frameworks and follow good scientific practices.<br /> <br /> ====Defining research ethics and integrity====<br /> There is no universally accepted definition of research integrity, although it is generally understood to relate to the performance of research to the highest standards of professionalism and rigor in an ethically robust manner.<br /> <br /> =====Research ethics=====<br /> Research ethics (also referred to as Scientific ethics) could be defined as &quot;ethical principles-driven decision-making in research based on potential impact on subjects of research and wider society&quot; (The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ European Network for Academic Integrity], 2018).<br /> <br /> =====Research integrity=====<br /> Research integrity (or Scientific integrity) is defined as &quot;compliance with ethical and professional principles, standards, and practices by individuals or institutions in research&quot; (The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ European Network for Academic Integrity], 2018).<br /> <br /> ====Why is it important?====<br /> Research integrity is crucial to preserving the trustworthiness of the research system and its results. It encompasses the basic responsibility of the research community to formulate the principles of research, define the criteria for proper research behavior, maximize the quality, reliability, and robustness of research and its results, and respond adequately to threats to or violations of good research practices. <br /> <br /> Research results in this context include, but are not limited to, publications, data, metadata, protocols, code, software, images, artifacts, and other research materials and methods.<br /> <br /> ====Glossary for Academic Integrity====<br /> Lost in terminology? Check the ENAI's [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/glossary/ Glossary for Academic Integrity], which was developed by an international team. The Glossary comprises more than two hundred terms related to academic integrity. The terms are presented in alphabetical order, along with a definition.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> The following paper sets out seven key reasons why [https://scienceeurope.org/ Science Europe] Member Organizations and research organizations, in general, should be concerned about promoting research integrity in their research communities.<br /> <br /> Science Europe. (2015). Seven reasons to care about integrity in research. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.5060023<br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition 2023. [http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC%C2%A0 http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC]<br /> <br /> [2] Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Glendinning, I., Kravjar, J., Ojsteršek, M., Ribeiro, L., Odiņeca, T., Marino, F., Cosentino, M., Sivasubramaniam, S., Foltýnek, T. (2018). [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/glossary/ Glossary for Academic Integrity]. ENAI<br /> <br /> [3] Science Europe. (2015). Briefing paper 'Research integrity: What it means, why it is important and how we might protect it'. https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-resources/briefing-paper-on-research-integrity-what-it-means-why-it-is-important-and-how-we-might-protect-it<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=What is research integrity?<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Click on the link below to watch a short video explaining research integrity made by the [https://h2020integrity.eu/integrity/ H2020 INTEGRITY project].<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Singapore Statement on Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The publication of the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity is intended to challenge governments, organizations, and researchers to develop more comprehensive standards, codes, and policies to promote research integrity both locally and globally.<br /> <br /> The [https://www.wcrif.org/statement principles and responsibilities] set out in the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity represent the first international effort to encourage the development of unified policies, guidelines, and codes of conduct, with the long-range goal of fostering greater integrity in research worldwide. The Statement is the product of the collective effort and insights of the 340 individuals from 51 countries who participated in the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity.<br /> <br /> The Statement applies to anyone who does research, to any organization that sponsors research, and to any country that uses research results in decision-making. Good research practices are expected of all researchers, government, corporate, and academic.<br /> <br /> ===== Principles: =====<br /> <br /> * Honesty in all aspects of research <br /> * Accountability in the conduct of research<br /> * Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others<br /> * Good stewardship of research on behalf of others<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [1] The World Conferences on Research Integrity. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. Background. https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] serves the European research community as a framework for self-regulation across all scientific and scholarly disciplines and for all research settings.<br /> <br /> The 2023 Revised Edition of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity has been updated to ensure that the European Code of Conduct remains fit for purpose and relevant to all disciplines, emerging areas of research, and new research practices. The European Commission recognizes the European Code of Conduct as the primary standard for upholding research integrity across all research projects funded by the EU.<br /> <br /> ==== Fundamental principles of research integrity ====<br /> ''Good research practices'' are based on fundamental principles of research integrity. The European Code of Conduct sets four principles to guide individuals, institutions, and organisations in their work as well as in their engagement with the practical, ethical, and intellectual challenges inherent in research.<br /> <br /> These principles include:<br /> <br /> * Reliability in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, methodology, analysis, and use of resources.<br /> * Honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting, and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full, and unbiased way.<br /> * Respect for colleagues, research participants, research subjects, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage, and the environment.<br /> * Accountability for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision, and mentoring, and for its wider societal impacts.<br /> <br /> ==== Defining &quot;Good Research Practices&quot; ====<br /> The European Code of Conduct also describes more action-oriented norms, categorized as good research practices in the following contexts:<br /> <br /> * Research Environment<br /> * Training, Supervision, and Mentoring<br /> * Research Procedures<br /> * Safeguards<br /> * Data Practices and Management<br /> * Collaborative Working<br /> * Publication, Dissemination, and Authorship<br /> * Reviewing and Assessment<br /> <br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition 2023. [http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC%C2%A0 http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC]<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Do the Task: The European Code of Conduct<br /> |Instruction Step Text=On the previous page, you familiarized yourself with [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]. Now, it is time to reflect on and apply your new knowledge.<br /> <br /> Your task is to choose one of the categories from the European Code of Conduct (e.g., research environment, training, supervision, etc.) and consider two examples:<br /> <br /> # What aspects of your current research align with the European Code of Conduct?<br /> # What aspects of your current research could be improved according to the European Code of Conduct?<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Ready to do a task on your own?<br /> |Instruction Step Text=''Science Europe'' is the organization representing major public organizations that fund or perform excellent, ground-breaking research in Europe. It brings together the expertise of some of the largest and most respected European research organizations to jointly push the frontiers of how scientific research is produced and delivers benefits to society.<br /> <br /> Your task is to browse Science Europe's website and get familiar with its content.<br /> <br /> Discover Science Europe’s comprehensive library of resources, including the most recent publications, briefings, and position statements. Learn what policy priorities Science Europe is currently addressing and what the key action areas are in the research policy landscape.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://scienceeurope.org/ Explore: Science Europe website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: ENAI website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The European Network for Academic Integrity is an association gathering educational institutions and individuals interested in maintaining and promoting academic integrity. Their mission is to support higher education institutions to work together in the field of academic integrity.<br /> <br /> Your task is to get familiar with the website of the European Network for Academic Integrity.<br /> <br /> Search the database of educational materials, check the guidelines on research integrity available, and get familiar with the self-evaluation tools.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ Explore: ENAI website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: The Embassy of Good Science website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=[[About|The Embassy of Good Science]] is a place where the community can share experiences and insights, deepening understanding, and continuously contribute to the development of good science.<br /> <br /> The Embassy is a community platform offering support in handling day-to-day research practices and dilemmas. The platform is a wiki – allowing users to contribute their knowledge and expertise.<br /> <br /> The Embassy is a unique ‘go to’ place, a public square where the community of researchers can gather to discuss ‘hot topics’, share knowledge, and find guidance and support to perform science responsibly and with integrity.<br /> <br /> Your task is to browse The Embassy of Good Science website and explore the platform's offerings.<br /> <br /> Search the database of educational materials, check the guidelines on research integrity available, and get familiar with the self-evaluation tools.<br /> <br /> Click on [[Main Page|Explore: The Embassy of Good Science website]] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Practice the multiple choice questions.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE&lt;div&gt;[[File:Eth1.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]        &lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:A21c91d6-f376-4cb0-9b3a-27a18c25a064&diff=19505 2026-09-08T08:12:33Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Introducing a Research Ethics and Integrity<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, learners will be able to:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Define research ethics and integrity and explain their importance in the context of academic research.<br /> * Identify and articulate the core principles of research integrity, including honesty, transparency, objectivity, and accountability.<br /> * Describe the key elements of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and how they apply to research practices.<br /> * Locate and utilize web-based resources to support and enhance research integrity in your academic work.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=On Being a Scientist<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Being a scientist entails a commitment to exploring the unknown, uncovering truths, and contributing to the collective understanding of the world. To become a scientist, one typically pursues higher education in a scientific field, such as obtaining a bachelor's degree, followed by a master's or doctoral degree. <br /> <br /> Beyond formal education, curiosity, critical thinking skills, and a passion for discovery are essential qualities. Scientists have a responsibility to conduct research ethically, with integrity, and to communicate their findings accurately. They must also engage in peer review, collaborate with others, and contribute to the scientific community's body of knowledge. Ultimately, being a scientist is not just a profession but a calling a dedication to advancing human understanding and improving the world through rigorous inquiry and discovery.<br /> <br /> ==== Skills, knowledge, responsibilities ====<br /> Any Scientist should be able to:<br /> <br /> * critically and responsibly review scientific results for research and education purposes, i.e., carry out various types of literature reviews, e.g., systematic, scoping, etc.; and know the differences between them,<br /> * publish the scientifically sound results of your work in domestic and international scientific journals (in English),<br /> * identify and solve key ethical dilemmas regarding scientific publishing,<br /> * provide scientifically sound reviews of scientific manuscripts,<br /> * conduct independent and ethically correct research, design basic or applied research in your field of expertise,<br /> * secure funding in a transparent way with a declared conflict of interest, and be able to write your own grant applications,<br /> * present the unbiased results of your scientific work at conferences, workshops, and scientific meetings with a declared conflict of interest,<br /> * assess new perspectives for paradigm shifts in your field of expertise, and<br /> * last but not least:<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research Ethics and Integrity Defined<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Research integrity aims to provide a comprehensive framework for scientists on how to carry out their work within accepted ethical frameworks and follow good scientific practices.<br /> <br /> ==== Defining research ethics and integrity ====<br /> There is no universally accepted definition of research integrity, although it is generally understood to relate to the performance of research to the highest standards of professionalism and rigor in an ethically robust manner.<br /> <br /> ===== Research ethics =====<br /> Research ethics (also referred to as Scientific ethics) could be defined as &quot;ethical principles-driven decision-making in research based on potential impact on subjects of research and wider society&quot; (The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ European Network for Academic Integrity], 2018).<br /> <br /> ===== Research integrity =====<br /> Research integrity (or Scientific integrity) is defined as &quot;compliance with ethical and professional principles, standards, and practices by individuals or institutions in research&quot; (The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ European Network for Academic Integrity], 2018).<br /> <br /> ==== Why is it important? ====<br /> Research integrity is crucial to preserving the trustworthiness of the research system and its results. It encompasses the basic responsibility of the research community to formulate the principles of research, define the criteria for proper research behavior, maximize the quality, reliability, and robustness of research and its results, and respond adequately to threats to or violations of good research practices. <br /> <br /> Research results in this context include, but are not limited to, publications, data, metadata, protocols, code, software, images, artifacts, and other research materials and methods.<br /> <br /> ==== Glossary for Academic Integrity ====<br /> Lost in terminology? Check the ENAI's [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/glossary/ Glossary for Academic Integrity], which was developed by an international team. The Glossary comprises more than two hundred terms related to academic integrity. The terms are presented in alphabetical order, along with a definition.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> The following paper sets out seven key reasons why [https://scienceeurope.org/ Science Europe] Member Organizations and research organizations, in general, should be concerned about promoting research integrity in their research communities.<br /> <br /> Science Europe. (2015). Seven reasons to care about integrity in research. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.5060023<br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition 2023. [http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC%C2%A0 http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC]<br /> <br /> [2] Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Glendinning, I., Kravjar, J., Ojsteršek, M., Ribeiro, L., Odiņeca, T., Marino, F., Cosentino, M., Sivasubramaniam, S., Foltýnek, T. (2018). [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/glossary/ Glossary for Academic Integrity]. ENAI<br /> <br /> [3] Science Europe. (2015). Briefing paper 'Research integrity: What it means, why it is important and how we might protect it'. https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-resources/briefing-paper-on-research-integrity-what-it-means-why-it-is-important-and-how-we-might-protect-it<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=What is research integrity?<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Click on the link below to watch a short video explaining research integrity made by the [https://h2020integrity.eu/integrity/ H2020 INTEGRITY project].<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Singapore Statement on Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The publication of the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity is intended to challenge governments, organizations, and researchers to develop more comprehensive standards, codes, and policies to promote research integrity both locally and globally.<br /> <br /> The [https://www.wcrif.org/statement principles and responsibilities] set out in the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity represent the first international effort to encourage the development of unified policies, guidelines, and codes of conduct, with the long-range goal of fostering greater integrity in research worldwide. The Statement is the product of the collective effort and insights of the 340 individuals from 51 countries who participated in the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity.<br /> <br /> The Statement applies to anyone who does research, to any organization that sponsors research, and to any country that uses research results in decision-making. Good research practices are expected of all researchers, government, corporate, and academic.<br /> <br /> ===== Principles: =====<br /> <br /> * Honesty in all aspects of research <br /> * Accountability in the conduct of research<br /> * Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others<br /> * Good stewardship of research on behalf of others<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [1] The World Conferences on Research Integrity. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. Background. https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] serves the European research community as a framework for self-regulation across all scientific and scholarly disciplines and for all research settings.<br /> <br /> The 2023 Revised Edition of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity has been updated to ensure that the European Code of Conduct remains fit for purpose and relevant to all disciplines, emerging areas of research, and new research practices. The European Commission recognizes the European Code of Conduct as the primary standard for upholding research integrity across all research projects funded by the EU.<br /> <br /> ==== Fundamental principles of research integrity ====<br /> ''Good research practices'' are based on fundamental principles of research integrity. The European Code of Conduct sets four principles to guide individuals, institutions, and organisations in their work as well as in their engagement with the practical, ethical, and intellectual challenges inherent in research.<br /> <br /> These principles include:<br /> <br /> * Reliability in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, methodology, analysis, and use of resources.<br /> * Honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting, and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full, and unbiased way.<br /> * Respect for colleagues, research participants, research subjects, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage, and the environment.<br /> * Accountability for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision, and mentoring, and for its wider societal impacts.<br /> <br /> ==== Defining &quot;Good Research Practices&quot; ====<br /> The European Code of Conduct also describes more action-oriented norms, categorized as good research practices in the following contexts:<br /> <br /> * Research Environment<br /> * Training, Supervision, and Mentoring<br /> * Research Procedures<br /> * Safeguards<br /> * Data Practices and Management<br /> * Collaborative Working<br /> * Publication, Dissemination, and Authorship<br /> * Reviewing and Assessment<br /> <br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition 2023. [http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC%C2%A0 http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC]<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Do the Task: The European Code of Conduct<br /> |Instruction Step Text=On the previous page, you familiarized yourself with [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]. Now, it is time to reflect on and apply your new knowledge.<br /> <br /> Your task is to choose one of the categories from the European Code of Conduct (e.g., research environment, training, supervision, etc.) and consider two examples:<br /> <br /> # What aspects of your current research align with the European Code of Conduct?<br /> # What aspects of your current research could be improved according to the European Code of Conduct?<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Ready to do a task on your own?<br /> |Instruction Step Text=''Science Europe'' is the organization representing major public organizations that fund or perform excellent, ground-breaking research in Europe. It brings together the expertise of some of the largest and most respected European research organizations to jointly push the frontiers of how scientific research is produced and delivers benefits to society.<br /> <br /> Your task is to browse Science Europe's website and get familiar with its content.<br /> <br /> Discover Science Europe’s comprehensive library of resources, including the most recent publications, briefings, and position statements. Learn what policy priorities Science Europe is currently addressing and what the key action areas are in the research policy landscape.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://scienceeurope.org/ Explore: Science Europe website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: ENAI website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The European Network for Academic Integrity is an association gathering educational institutions and individuals interested in maintaining and promoting academic integrity. Their mission is to support higher education institutions to work together in the field of academic integrity.<br /> <br /> Your task is to get familiar with the website of the European Network for Academic Integrity.<br /> <br /> Search the database of educational materials, check the guidelines on research integrity available, and get familiar with the self-evaluation tools.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ Explore: ENAI website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: The Embassy of Good Science website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=[[About|The Embassy of Good Science]] is a place where the community can share experiences and insights, deepening understanding, and continuously contribute to the development of good science.<br /> <br /> The Embassy is a community platform offering support in handling day-to-day research practices and dilemmas. The platform is a wiki – allowing users to contribute their knowledge and expertise.<br /> <br /> The Embassy is a unique ‘go to’ place, a public square where the community of researchers can gather to discuss ‘hot topics’, share knowledge, and find guidance and support to perform science responsibly and with integrity.<br /> <br /> Your task is to browse The Embassy of Good Science website and explore the platform's offerings.<br /> <br /> Search the database of educational materials, check the guidelines on research integrity available, and get familiar with the self-evaluation tools.<br /> <br /> Click on [[Main Page|Explore: The Embassy of Good Science website]] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Practice the multiple choice questions.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE&lt;div&gt;[[File:Eth1.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]        &lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=File:Eth1.png&diff=19504 2026-09-08T08:12:10Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>Et1</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:A21c91d6-f376-4cb0-9b3a-27a18c25a064&diff=19503 2026-09-08T08:08:30Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Instruction |Title=Introducing a Research Ethics and Integrity |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065 |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;Afte...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=Introducing a Research Ethics and Integrity<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:1feb24b0-415f-4b56-8a70-e8fb92417065<br /> |Instruction Goal=&lt;span lang=&quot;HR&quot;&gt;After completing this session, learners will be able to:&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> * Define research ethics and integrity and explain their importance in the context of academic research.<br /> * Identify and articulate the core principles of research integrity, including honesty, transparency, objectivity, and accountability.<br /> * Describe the key elements of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and how they apply to research practices.<br /> * Locate and utilize web-based resources to support and enhance research integrity in your academic work.<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=On Being a Scientist<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Being a scientist entails a commitment to exploring the unknown, uncovering truths, and contributing to the collective understanding of the world. To become a scientist, one typically pursues higher education in a scientific field, such as obtaining a bachelor's degree, followed by a master's or doctoral degree. <br /> <br /> Beyond formal education, curiosity, critical thinking skills, and a passion for discovery are essential qualities. Scientists have a responsibility to conduct research ethically, with integrity, and to communicate their findings accurately. They must also engage in peer review, collaborate with others, and contribute to the scientific community's body of knowledge. Ultimately, being a scientist is not just a profession but a calling a dedication to advancing human understanding and improving the world through rigorous inquiry and discovery.<br /> <br /> ==== Skills, knowledge, responsibilities ====<br /> Any Scientist should be able to:<br /> <br /> * critically and responsibly review scientific results for research and education purposes, i.e., carry out various types of literature reviews, e.g., systematic, scoping, etc.; and know the differences between them,<br /> * publish the scientifically sound results of your work in domestic and international scientific journals (in English),<br /> * identify and solve key ethical dilemmas regarding scientific publishing,<br /> * provide scientifically sound reviews of scientific manuscripts,<br /> * conduct independent and ethically correct research, design basic or applied research in your field of expertise,<br /> * secure funding in a transparent way with a declared conflict of interest, and be able to write your own grant applications,<br /> * present the unbiased results of your scientific work at conferences, workshops, and scientific meetings with a declared conflict of interest,<br /> * assess new perspectives for paradigm shifts in your field of expertise, and<br /> * last but not least:<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Research Ethics and Integrity Defined<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Research integrity aims to provide a comprehensive framework for scientists on how to carry out their work within accepted ethical frameworks and follow good scientific practices.<br /> <br /> ==== Defining research ethics and integrity ====<br /> There is no universally accepted definition of research integrity, although it is generally understood to relate to the performance of research to the highest standards of professionalism and rigor in an ethically robust manner.<br /> <br /> ===== Research ethics =====<br /> Research ethics (also referred to as Scientific ethics) could be defined as &quot;ethical principles-driven decision-making in research based on potential impact on subjects of research and wider society&quot; (The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ European Network for Academic Integrity], 2018).<br /> <br /> ===== Research integrity =====<br /> Research integrity (or Scientific integrity) is defined as &quot;compliance with ethical and professional principles, standards, and practices by individuals or institutions in research&quot; (The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ European Network for Academic Integrity], 2018).<br /> <br /> ==== Why is it important? ====<br /> Research integrity is crucial to preserving the trustworthiness of the research system and its results. It encompasses the basic responsibility of the research community to formulate the principles of research, define the criteria for proper research behavior, maximize the quality, reliability, and robustness of research and its results, and respond adequately to threats to or violations of good research practices. <br /> <br /> Research results in this context include, but are not limited to, publications, data, metadata, protocols, code, software, images, artifacts, and other research materials and methods.<br /> <br /> ==== Glossary for Academic Integrity ====<br /> Lost in terminology? Check the ENAI's [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/glossary/ Glossary for Academic Integrity], which was developed by an international team. The Glossary comprises more than two hundred terms related to academic integrity. The terms are presented in alphabetical order, along with a definition.<br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> The following paper sets out seven key reasons why [https://scienceeurope.org/ Science Europe] Member Organizations and research organizations, in general, should be concerned about promoting research integrity in their research communities.<br /> <br /> Science Europe. (2015). Seven reasons to care about integrity in research. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.5060023<br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition 2023. [http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC%C2%A0 http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC]<br /> <br /> [2] Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Glendinning, I., Kravjar, J., Ojsteršek, M., Ribeiro, L., Odiņeca, T., Marino, F., Cosentino, M., Sivasubramaniam, S., Foltýnek, T. (2018). [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/glossary/ Glossary for Academic Integrity]. ENAI<br /> <br /> [3] Science Europe. (2015). Briefing paper 'Research integrity: What it means, why it is important and how we might protect it'. https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-resources/briefing-paper-on-research-integrity-what-it-means-why-it-is-important-and-how-we-might-protect-it<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=What is research integrity?<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Click on the link below to watch a short video explaining research integrity made by the [https://h2020integrity.eu/integrity/ H2020 INTEGRITY project].<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Singapore Statement on Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The publication of the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity is intended to challenge governments, organizations, and researchers to develop more comprehensive standards, codes, and policies to promote research integrity both locally and globally.<br /> <br /> The [https://www.wcrif.org/statement principles and responsibilities] set out in the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity represent the first international effort to encourage the development of unified policies, guidelines, and codes of conduct, with the long-range goal of fostering greater integrity in research worldwide. The Statement is the product of the collective effort and insights of the 340 individuals from 51 countries who participated in the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity.<br /> <br /> The Statement applies to anyone who does research, to any organization that sponsors research, and to any country that uses research results in decision-making. Good research practices are expected of all researchers, government, corporate, and academic.<br /> <br /> ===== Principles: =====<br /> <br /> * Honesty in all aspects of research <br /> * Accountability in the conduct of research<br /> * Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others<br /> * Good stewardship of research on behalf of others<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [1] The World Conferences on Research Integrity. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. Background. https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] serves the European research community as a framework for self-regulation across all scientific and scholarly disciplines and for all research settings.<br /> <br /> The 2023 Revised Edition of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity has been updated to ensure that the European Code of Conduct remains fit for purpose and relevant to all disciplines, emerging areas of research, and new research practices. The European Commission recognizes the European Code of Conduct as the primary standard for upholding research integrity across all research projects funded by the EU.<br /> <br /> ==== Fundamental principles of research integrity ====<br /> ''Good research practices'' are based on fundamental principles of research integrity. The European Code of Conduct sets four principles to guide individuals, institutions, and organisations in their work as well as in their engagement with the practical, ethical, and intellectual challenges inherent in research.<br /> <br /> These principles include:<br /> <br /> * Reliability in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, methodology, analysis, and use of resources.<br /> * Honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting, and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full, and unbiased way.<br /> * Respect for colleagues, research participants, research subjects, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage, and the environment.<br /> * Accountability for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision, and mentoring, and for its wider societal impacts.<br /> <br /> ==== Defining &quot;Good Research Practices&quot; ====<br /> The European Code of Conduct also describes more action-oriented norms, categorized as good research practices in the following contexts:<br /> <br /> * Research Environment<br /> * Training, Supervision, and Mentoring<br /> * Research Procedures<br /> * Safeguards<br /> * Data Practices and Management<br /> * Collaborative Working<br /> * Publication, Dissemination, and Authorship<br /> * Reviewing and Assessment<br /> <br /> <br /> [1] ALLEA. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition 2023. [http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC%C2%A0 http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC]<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Do the Task: The European Code of Conduct<br /> |Instruction Step Text=On the previous page, you familiarized yourself with [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]. Now, it is time to reflect on and apply your new knowledge.<br /> <br /> Your task is to choose one of the categories from the European Code of Conduct (e.g., research environment, training, supervision, etc.) and consider two examples:<br /> <br /> # What aspects of your current research align with the European Code of Conduct?<br /> # What aspects of your current research could be improved according to the European Code of Conduct?<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Ready to do a task on your own?<br /> |Instruction Step Text=''Science Europe'' is the organization representing major public organizations that fund or perform excellent, ground-breaking research in Europe. It brings together the expertise of some of the largest and most respected European research organizations to jointly push the frontiers of how scientific research is produced and delivers benefits to society.<br /> <br /> Your task is to browse Science Europe's website and get familiar with its content.<br /> <br /> Discover Science Europe’s comprehensive library of resources, including the most recent publications, briefings, and position statements. Learn what policy priorities Science Europe is currently addressing and what the key action areas are in the research policy landscape.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://scienceeurope.org/ Explore: Science Europe website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: ENAI website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=The European Network for Academic Integrity is an association gathering educational institutions and individuals interested in maintaining and promoting academic integrity. Their mission is to support higher education institutions to work together in the field of academic integrity.<br /> <br /> Your task is to get familiar with the website of the European Network for Academic Integrity.<br /> <br /> Search the database of educational materials, check the guidelines on research integrity available, and get familiar with the self-evaluation tools.<br /> <br /> Click on [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ Explore: ENAI website] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Explore: The Embassy of Good Science website<br /> |Instruction Step Text=[[About|The Embassy of Good Science]] is a place where the community can share experiences and insights, deepening understanding, and continuously contribute to the development of good science.<br /> <br /> The Embassy is a community platform offering support in handling day-to-day research practices and dilemmas. The platform is a wiki – allowing users to contribute their knowledge and expertise.<br /> <br /> The Embassy is a unique ‘go to’ place, a public square where the community of researchers can gather to discuss ‘hot topics’, share knowledge, and find guidance and support to perform science responsibly and with integrity.<br /> <br /> Your task is to browse The Embassy of Good Science website and explore the platform's offerings.<br /> <br /> Search the database of educational materials, check the guidelines on research integrity available, and get familiar with the self-evaluation tools.<br /> <br /> Click on [[Main Page|Explore: The Embassy of Good Science website]] to open the resource.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Quiz<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Practice the multiple choice questions.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=The course was developed within the ETHICS project and with the support of the ''European Education and Culture Executive Agency'' No. 101 101082546 — ETHICS — ERASMUS-EDU-2022-CBHE&lt;div&gt;        &lt;/div&gt;<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Initiative:Df0d11b5-2efa-4b58-b94f-6845c6e83b11&diff=19500 2026-09-02T07:53:34Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Initiative<br /> |Title=CHANGER EU Project<br /> |Image=LOGO_CHANGER_RGB.jpg<br /> |Has Link=https://changer-project.eu/<br /> |Is About=CHAllenges and innovative chaNGes in research Ethics Reviews (CHANGER) is a three-year Coordination and Support Action (CSA) project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon WIDERA programme aiming to promote changes in research ethics reviews by strengthening the capacities of researchers to incorporate ethical judgements in the project design and implementation, and by supporting capacity building of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) to address new challenges posed by new technologies and new research practices.<br /> }}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:Ab216a50-b3f2-49a4-9a76-02dc50e2a452&diff=19499 2026-08-31T08:37:34Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Education |Title=Mapping Ethical Challenges in Emerging Technologies |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:Df0d11b5-2efa-4b58-b94f-6845c6e83b11 |Is Abou...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Education<br /> |Title=Mapping Ethical Challenges in Emerging Technologies<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:Df0d11b5-2efa-4b58-b94f-6845c6e83b11<br /> |Is About=As part of the Horizon project CHANGER (&lt;nowiki&gt;https://changer-project.eu/&lt;/nowiki&gt;) a scoping review was conducted, including 756 academic articles and 78 deliverables from EU-funded projects published between 2014 and 2024. The review followed the methodological frameworks of the Campbell Collaboration and the Joanna Briggs Institute. By combining AI-assisted text mining with manual expert verification, the review identified 18 key ethical challenges across nine technology domains. The findings have provided a structured overview of the ethical issues associated with emerging technologies and highlighted areas in which evidence, guidance or ethics review capacity remains limited. The results of the scoping review were synthesised into an interactive and dynamic Evidence and Gap Map (EGM). The EGM presents the available evidence on ethical challenges across the nine technology domains and makes it possible to identify both well-researched topics and areas in which significant knowledge gaps remain. It has been developed as a practical resource for researchers, Research Ethics Committees, policymakers and other stakeholders. By making the evidence easier to explore and compare, the EGM supports further research, capacity building and the development of more responsive approaches to research ethics governance.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Expert; Policy Maker / Regulator; Technology Developer / Engineer<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://metaresearch.mefst.hr/changer/egm<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:5370e211-9f6d-4874-8bfd-d51f46caee38&diff=19498 2026-08-25T12:08:28Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=The Stories Behind (the) Research, Ep 3. Beyond the Ivory Tower: The courage to feel when researching tough topics<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:Acbf72e8-0d39-418d-87ec-adda82883666<br /> |Instruction Goal=By the end of this module learners will be able to:<br /> <br /> * Reflect on the role of emotions and embodiment in research practice<br /> * Recognize moments of vulnerability, healing, and community as part of the research journey<br /> * Developing personal tools for navigating difficult conversations<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Early Career Researcher; Educator / Lecturer; PhD candidates; Research Supervisor / Mentor; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee<br /> |Is About=What happens when researchers allow their personal experiences to become part of their academic journey?<br /> <br /> In this episode of The Stories Behind the Research, host Giulia Inguaggiato speaks with Durwin Lynch, educator and transdisciplinary researcher at the Athena Institute - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, about the relationship between authenticity, healing, and meaningful research.<br /> <br /> Durwin shares how his personal background in Suriname and Curaçao, together with his interest in traditional healing and postcolonial communities, gradually shaped his research trajectory. Reflecting on a pivotal period in his career, he describes what it meant to step outside the academic “ivory tower” and engage more deeply with the communities whose experiences he seeks to understand.<br /> <br /> Together, they explore the emotional dimensions of research, the importance of listening before claiming expertise, and the role of courage, vulnerability, and community in navigating difficult conversations. They also discuss how reconnecting with the body, emotions, and personal experience can help researchers develop more meaningful and socially engaged forms of inquiry.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Listen<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Listen to the following podcast.<br /> |Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-641<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Reflect<br /> |Instruction Step Text=After listening to the podcast, reflect on the following questions:<br /> <br /> # Durwin shares his experience of vulnerability and dealing with difficult emotions while engaging in his research. Have you encountered similar moments in your own research, studies, or professional experiences?<br /> # How can you stay true to yourself while engaging in research, especially when working on emotionally challenging topics?<br /> # What strategies can help you recognize, process, and care for the emotions that emerge during research while maintaining meaningful engagement?<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=About the Guest<br /> <br /> Durwin Lynch is an educator and transdisciplinary researcher at the Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, currently focusing on meaningfully engaging postcolonial communities in achieving more inclusive and socially just societies.<br /> <br /> His work explores healing, dialogue, community engagement, and social transformation, with a particular focus on how societies can address the afterlives of colonialism and create more equitable futures.<br /> <br /> LinkedIn: [https://www.linkedin.com/in/durwin-lynch-06907627/ Durwin Lynch] <br /> <br /> You can find out more about the The Keti Koti Table [https://www.ketikotitafel.nl/keti-koti-table here]: <br /> <br /> Also find out more about Durwin’s research: [https://vu.nl/en/about-vu/research-institutes/athena-institute/more-about/re-presenting-europe-healing-the-afterlives-of-colonialism Re/Presenting Europe: Healing the Afterlives of Colonialism - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] <br /> <br /> == Credits ==<br /> Host: Giulia Inguaggiato<br /> <br /> Guest: Durwin Lynch<br /> <br /> Music: “Patchwork: Island 5&amp;6” — Ileana Termini &amp; Otilka Quartet, by Lisa Weyrauther and “Cosequencias: No.1 del amor” — Ileana Termini &amp; Otilka Quartet, by Giullermo Lago  (courtesy of the artists) [https://www.ileanatermini.com/ Ileana Termini - Classical Saxophonist],[https://otilkaquartet.nl/ ,Otilka] , [https://www.lisaweyrauther.com/ Lisa Weyrauther , Composer, Film Composer, Pianist] , [https://willemvanmerwijk.com/guillermo-lago/ Guillermo Lago] [https://open.spotify.com/album/7eTPYdtJ9mNbOBe5RXVte7?si=oVUXvGtKSoGWb5yooqdVxA , Nexus] <br /> <br /> Audio Editing:  [http://voicebooking.com Voicebooking.com]<br /> <br /> Production Support: Sasha Baker, Jusry Eshun<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:5370e211-9f6d-4874-8bfd-d51f46caee38&diff=19496 2026-08-25T11:14:44Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=The Stories Behind (the) Research, Ep 3. Beyond the Ivory Tower: The courage to feel when researching tough topics<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:Acbf72e8-0d39-418d-87ec-adda82883666<br /> |Instruction Goal=By the end of this module learners will be able to:<br /> <br /> * Reflect on the role of emotions and embodiment in research practice<br /> * Recognize moments of vulnerability, healing, and community as part of the research journey<br /> * Developing personal tools for navigating difficult conversations<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=Early Career Researcher; Educator / Lecturer; PhD candidates; Research Supervisor / Mentor; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee<br /> |Is About=What happens when researchers allow their personal experiences to become part of their academic journey?<br /> <br /> In this episode of The Stories Behind the Research, host Giulia Inguaggiato speaks with Durwin Lynch, educator and transdisciplinary researcher at the Athena Institute - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, about the relationship between authenticity, healing, and meaningful research.<br /> <br /> Durwin shares how his personal background in Suriname and Curaçao, together with his interest in traditional healing and postcolonial communities, gradually shaped his research trajectory. Reflecting on a pivotal period in his career, he describes what it meant to step outside the academic “ivory tower” and engage more deeply with the communities whose experiences he seeks to understand.<br /> <br /> Together, they explore the emotional dimensions of research, the importance of listening before claiming expertise, and the role of courage, vulnerability, and community in navigating difficult conversations. They also discuss how reconnecting with the body, emotions, and personal experience can help researchers develop more meaningful and socially engaged forms of inquiry.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Listen<br /> |Instruction Step Text=Listen to the following podcast.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Step Trainee<br /> |Instruction Step Title=Reflect<br /> |Instruction Step Text=After listening to the podcast, reflect on the following questions:<br /> <br /> # Durwin shares his experience of vulnerability and dealing with difficult emotions while engaging in his research. Have you encountered similar moments in your own research, studies, or professional experiences?<br /> # How can you stay true to yourself while engaging in research, especially when working on emotionally challenging topics?<br /> # What strategies can help you recognize, process, and care for the emotions that emerge during research while maintaining meaningful engagement?<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee<br /> |Has Remarks=About the Guest<br /> <br /> Durwin Lynch is an educator and transdisciplinary researcher at the Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, currently focusing on meaningfully engaging postcolonial communities in achieving more inclusive and socially just societies.<br /> <br /> His work explores healing, dialogue, community engagement, and social transformation, with a particular focus on how societies can address the afterlives of colonialism and create more equitable futures.<br /> <br /> LinkedIn: [https://www.linkedin.com/in/durwin-lynch-06907627/ Durwin Lynch] <br /> <br /> You can find out more about the The Keti Koti Table [https://www.ketikotitafel.nl/keti-koti-table here]: <br /> <br /> Also find out more about Durwin’s research: [https://vu.nl/en/about-vu/research-institutes/athena-institute/more-about/re-presenting-europe-healing-the-afterlives-of-colonialism Re/Presenting Europe: Healing the Afterlives of Colonialism - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] <br /> <br /> == Credits ==<br /> Host: Giulia Inguaggiato<br /> <br /> Guest: Durwin Lynch<br /> <br /> Music: “Patchwork: Island 5&amp;6” — Ileana Termini &amp; Otilka Quartet, by Lisa Weyrauther and “Cosequencias: No.1 del amor” — Ileana Termini &amp; Otilka Quartet, by Giullermo Lago  (courtesy of the artists) [https://www.ileanatermini.com/ Ileana Termini - Classical Saxophonist],[https://otilkaquartet.nl/ ,Otilka] , [https://www.lisaweyrauther.com/ Lisa Weyrauther , Composer, Film Composer, Pianist] , [https://willemvanmerwijk.com/guillermo-lago/ Guillermo Lago] [https://open.spotify.com/album/7eTPYdtJ9mNbOBe5RXVte7?si=oVUXvGtKSoGWb5yooqdVxA , Nexus] <br /> <br /> Audio Editing:  [http://voicebooking.com Voicebooking.com]<br /> <br /> Production Support: Sasha Baker, Jusry Eshun<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Instruction:5370e211-9f6d-4874-8bfd-d51f46caee38&diff=19495 2026-08-25T08:56:45Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Instruction |Title=The Stories Behind (the) Research, Ep 3. Beyond the Ivory Tower: The courage to feel when researching tough topics |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:Acbf...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Instruction<br /> |Title=The Stories Behind (the) Research, Ep 3. Beyond the Ivory Tower: The courage to feel when researching tough topics<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:Acbf72e8-0d39-418d-87ec-adda82883666<br /> |Instruction Goal=By the end of this module learners will be able to:<br /> <br /> * Reflect on the role of emotions and embodiment in research practice<br /> * Recognize moments of vulnerability, healing, and community as part of the research journey<br /> * Developing personal tools for navigating difficult conversations<br /> |Has Duration=1<br /> |Important For=PhD candidates; Researchers; Research Supervisor / Mentor; Educator / Lecturer; Early Career Researcher<br /> }}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainee<br /> |Is About=What happens when researchers allow their personal experiences to become part of their academic journey?<br /> <br /> In this episode of The Stories Behind the Research, host Giulia Inguaggiato speaks with Durwin Lynch, educator and transdisciplinary researcher at the Athena Institute - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, about the relationship between authenticity, healing, and meaningful research.<br /> <br /> Durwin shares how his personal background in Suriname and Curaçao, together with his interest in traditional healing and postcolonial communities, gradually shaped his research trajectory. Reflecting on a pivotal period in his career, he describes what it meant to step outside the academic “ivory tower” and engage more deeply with the communities whose experiences he seeks to understand.<br /> <br /> Together, they explore the emotional dimensions of research, the importance of listening before claiming expertise, and the role of courage, vulnerability, and community in navigating difficult conversations. They also discuss how reconnecting with the body, emotions, and personal experience can help researchers develop more meaningful and socially engaged forms of inquiry.<br /> }}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}<br /> {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}<br /> {{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}<br /> {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:D25cadfc-babe-4cf9-8674-06230717e2ef&diff=19494 2026-08-24T13:18:22Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Guidelines<br /> |Title=The wellcome environmental sustainability funding policy<br /> |Is About=The Wellcome Environmental Sustainability Funding Policy sets out Wellcome’s expectations for researchers and organisations receiving its funding to conduct research in an environmentally sustainable way. Wellcome recognises that health research is essential for addressing global health challenges, but that research itself can have a significant environmental impact through energy use, travel, equipment, materials, computing and waste. The policy asks researchers to consider sustainability when designing their projects, purchasing equipment and materials, travelling, managing research outputs and measuring environmental impacts. Researchers are encouraged to reduce, reuse and recycle resources, share equipment, use refurbished equipment where appropriate, reduce single-use plastics, minimise unnecessary travel and use sustainable approaches to computing and data-intensive research. It also places responsibilities on research organisations, including providing sustainability training, supporting environmental impact measurement and ensuring laboratories achieve recognised sustainability accreditation such as LEAF or My Green Lab.<br /> |Important Because=The policy is important because research has its own environmental footprint, and Wellcome wants the research it funds to contribute to solutions without unnecessarily increasing environmental damage. Laboratories can consume large amounts of energy and generate substantial plastic and hazardous waste, while fieldwork, conferences and computing can also produce significant emissions. The policy makes environmental sustainability part of the research funding process, encouraging researchers to consider environmental impacts from the beginning of a project. It also means that sustainability is not simply an institutional responsibility: researchers, universities and funders all have a role. Wellcome can fund sustainable equipment, materials, essential lower-carbon travel, sustainability training and environmental impact measurement as part of research grants.<br /> |Important For=Research Funding Organization; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://wellcome.org/research-funding/guidance/policies-grant-conditions/environmental-sustainability-funding-policy<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:D25cadfc-babe-4cf9-8674-06230717e2ef&diff=19493 2026-08-24T13:17:44Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=The Wellcome Environmental Sustainability Funding Policy |Is About=The Wellcome Environmental Sustainability Funding Policy sets ou...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Guidelines<br /> |Title=The Wellcome Environmental Sustainability Funding Policy<br /> |Is About=The Wellcome Environmental Sustainability Funding Policy sets out Wellcome’s expectations for researchers and organisations receiving its funding to conduct research in an environmentally sustainable way. Wellcome recognises that health research is essential for addressing global health challenges, but that research itself can have a significant environmental impact through energy use, travel, equipment, materials, computing and waste. The policy asks researchers to consider sustainability when designing their projects, purchasing equipment and materials, travelling, managing research outputs and measuring environmental impacts. Researchers are encouraged to reduce, reuse and recycle resources, share equipment, use refurbished equipment where appropriate, reduce single-use plastics, minimise unnecessary travel and use sustainable approaches to computing and data-intensive research. It also places responsibilities on research organisations, including providing sustainability training, supporting environmental impact measurement and ensuring laboratories achieve recognised sustainability accreditation such as LEAF or My Green Lab.<br /> |Important Because=The policy is important because research has its own environmental footprint, and Wellcome wants the research it funds to contribute to solutions without unnecessarily increasing environmental damage. Laboratories can consume large amounts of energy and generate substantial plastic and hazardous waste, while fieldwork, conferences and computing can also produce significant emissions. The policy makes environmental sustainability part of the research funding process, encouraging researchers to consider environmental impacts from the beginning of a project. It also means that sustainability is not simply an institutional responsibility: researchers, universities and funders all have a role. Wellcome can fund sustainable equipment, materials, essential lower-carbon travel, sustainability training and environmental impact measurement as part of research grants.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Research Funding Organization<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://wellcome.org/research-funding/guidance/policies-grant-conditions/environmental-sustainability-funding-policy<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:Cf23b20c-5168-4aa0-b42f-57a68204bf82&diff=19492 2026-08-24T13:14:39Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=The Global Research Council (GRC) Statement of Principles on Sustainable Research |Is About=The Global Research Council (GRC) State...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Guidelines<br /> |Title=The Global Research Council (GRC) Statement of Principles on Sustainable Research<br /> |Is About=The Global Research Council (GRC) Statement of Principles on Sustainable Research, adopted in 2024, provides a shared framework for research funding organisations to strengthen the contribution of research to sustainable development. It recognises that research can help address environmental, social and economic challenges, while also acknowledging that research itself needs to become more sustainable. The statement is organised around three main areas. The first is research for sustainable development, encouraging research aligned with societal needs and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, as well as interdisciplinary and international collaboration. The second is making research itself sustainable, including responsible travel, waste management, open science, sustainable research assessment, resource sharing and better research cultures. The third is making sustainability science matter, by strengthening dialogue between researchers, policymakers, communities and other stakeholders.<br /> |Important Because=The GRC principles are important because they recognise that research has a dual role in sustainability: it must generate knowledge and solutions for sustainable development, while also reducing the environmental and social impacts of research itself. The statement encourages research funders to use their influence to promote sustainable practices, including responsible travel, resource sharing, open science and sustainable research assessment. It also promotes collaboration across disciplines, countries and communities, recognising that complex sustainability challenges cannot be addressed by one discipline or organisation alone. Importantly, it encourages funders and researchers to focus on quality, long-term impact, inclusion and societal relevance, rather than simply producing more research outputs.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Research Funding Organization; Policy Maker / Regulator<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://globalresearchcouncil.org/fileadmin/user_upload/GRC_2024_Statement_of_Principles.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:B348128f-1865-4b7b-a8f5-56caa25e4b3a&diff=19491 2026-08-24T13:03:31Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=The Heidelberg Agreement on Environmental Sustainability in Research Funding |Is About=The Heidelberg Agreement on Environmental Su...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Guidelines<br /> |Title=The Heidelberg Agreement on Environmental Sustainability in Research Funding<br /> |Is About=The Heidelberg Agreement on Environmental Sustainability in Research Funding is a framework developed by European research funders, research organisations and sustainability experts to encourage more environmentally sustainable research. Published in October 2024, it focuses specifically on the role of research funders in changing research practices and making sustainability an integral part of research funding. The agreement identifies five key actions for funders. They should: take action on sustainability; set ambitious sustainability goals; develop shared principles based on innovation, experimentation, partnership, diversity and co-creation; include sustainability in funding schemes; and support tools for education, measurement and accreditation. It also encourages funders to involve researchers and research organisations in developing solutions. The agreement was developed through collaboration across nine European countries and has been endorsed by organisations including NWO, DFG, UKRI, Wellcome, EMBO and Cancer Research UK.<br /> |Important Because=The Heidelberg Agreement is important because research funding can influence how research is conducted. Funders have the ability to encourage researchers and institutions to reduce environmental impacts through funding requirements, evaluation criteria, incentives and practical support. Rather than asking individual researchers to act alone, the agreement promotes system-level change. It encourages funders to set clear sustainability goals, include environmental considerations in funding decisions, support measurement of research footprints and provide education and accreditation tools. It also promotes collaboration between funders, researchers and research organisations so that successful approaches can be shared and developed.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Research Funding Organization; Policy Maker / Regulator<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://zenodo.org/records/13938809<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:E2e7f04e-dd1d-495f-b4e2-b134e1b7caf4&diff=19490 2026-08-24T10:05:15Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=Cancer Research UK: Environmental Sustainability in Research Policy |Is About=Cancer Research UK’s Environmental Sustainability i...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Guidelines<br /> |Title=Cancer Research UK: Environmental Sustainability in Research Policy<br /> |Is About=Cancer Research UK’s Environmental Sustainability in Research Policy sets out requirements and expectations for reducing the environmental impact of cancer research. It recognises that research and innovation can consume significant amounts of energy, water, materials and equipment, and therefore aims to make research greener and more efficient. <br /> <br /> The policy asks researchers and host institutions to consider sustainability throughout the research process. Key actions include reducing energy and water consumption, sharing and reusing equipment and materials, reducing single-use plastics, recycling waste, and limiting unnecessary travel. Researchers are also encouraged to consider environmental sustainability when choosing equipment, consumables, computing resources and other project costs. <br /> <br /> From 1 January 2026, relevant lead and joint-lead applicants to Cancer Research UK response-mode funding must demonstrate laboratory sustainability certification, such as LEAF or My Green Lab Silver, with some exemptions. UK host institutions must also be signatories to the Environmental Sustainability Concordat.<br /> |Important Because=This policy is important because research itself has an environmental footprint. Laboratories can consume large amounts of energy and water, while research activities generate waste and require equipment, consumables and travel. Cancer Research UK therefore aims to reduce these impacts while maintaining high-quality research. The policy also makes sustainability part of research funding decisions. Researchers are encouraged to consider the environmental impact and long-term value of purchases rather than focusing only on the initial cost. This can encourage the use of refurbished equipment, sustainable materials, efficient computing and lower-emission travel. It also creates clearer expectations for research institutions and helps make sustainable research practices more systematic.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Health / Clinical Researcher; Research Funding Organization<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/for-researchers/apply-for-and-manage-your-funding/research-policies-and-guidance/environmental-sustainability-in-research<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:B1928888-dffb-4070-a1e9-62b2746268a4&diff=19489 2026-08-24T09:59:51Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=The Concordat for the Environmental Sustainability of Research and Innovation Practice |Is About=The Concordat for the Environmenta...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Guidelines<br /> |Title=The Concordat for the Environmental Sustainability of Research and Innovation Practice<br /> |Is About=The Concordat for the Environmental Sustainability of Research and Innovation Practice is a voluntary agreement developed by the UK research and innovation sector to make research and innovation more environmentally sustainable. It recognises that research has an important role in understanding and addressing climate change and biodiversity loss, but that research activities themselves also have environmental impacts. <br /> <br /> The Concordat provides a shared framework for organisations to reduce these impacts while continuing to deliver high-quality research. It covers environmental issues including carbon emissions, water, waste, resource use and biodiversity. It focuses on six priority areas: leadership and system change; sustainable infrastructure; sustainable procurement; business and academic travel; collaborations and partnerships; and environmental impact and reporting data. The aim is to encourage organisations to work collectively towards environmentally responsible research practices and support the transition towards net zero and greater environmental sustainability by 2050.<br /> |Important Because=The Concordat is important because research and innovation can contribute significantly to environmental challenges, but research itself can also require substantial energy, materials, equipment, travel and infrastructure. The Concordat encourages organisations to address these impacts without compromising research quality. It provides a common framework for universities, research institutes, funders and individual researchers to work towards more sustainable practices. It also encourages transparency, collaboration and sharing of good practice. Importantly, the Concordat promotes practical changes such as sustainable procurement, reducing travel emissions, using sustainable infrastructure and improving environmental impact data. This can help research organisations reduce their carbon footprint while continuing to produce high-quality, internationally impactful research.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Policy Maker / Regulator; Research Funding Organization<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://cms.wellcome.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/Concordat%20for%20the%20Environmental%20Sustainability%20of%20RI%20Practice.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:46bef848-8e0e-4966-b95d-bb7a0a514c26&diff=19488 2026-08-24T09:46:17Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=The NIHR Commitments to Climate, Health and Sustainability 2024–2026 |Is About=The NIHR Commitments to Climate, Health and Sustai...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Guidelines<br /> |Title=The NIHR Commitments to Climate, Health and Sustainability 2024–2026<br /> |Is About=The NIHR Commitments to Climate, Health and Sustainability 2024–2026 set out how the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) aims to address climate change while improving human health and making health and social care research more sustainable. The commitments recognise that climate change is a major threat to health and that research has an important role in helping health and care systems become more resilient and reach net zero. <br /> <br /> The strategy focuses on four key areas: reducing the environmental impact of NIHR operations; funding research on climate, health and sustainability; sharing research findings and knowledge; and building sustainability expertise and capacity among researchers. It also emphasises international and cross-sector partnerships and addressing health inequalities. Specific actions include measuring and reducing NIHR's carbon footprint, increasing funding for climate-related research, developing methods to measure research emissions, providing sustainability training, and strengthening collaboration across the research community.<br /> |Important Because=The commitments are important because climate change directly affects human health, while healthcare and research activities themselves contribute to environmental pressures. NIHR therefore recognises that research must both help society respond to climate change and become more environmentally sustainable. The commitments encourage researchers to develop evidence and innovations that can make healthcare more sustainable, resilient and capable of reaching net zero. They also promote measuring and reducing the carbon footprint of clinical research, sharing successful sustainable practices, and building researchers' knowledge and skills. Importantly, NIHR highlights health inequalities, recognising that climate change can disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Health / Clinical Researcher; Research Funding Organization; Policy Maker / Regulator<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.nihr.ac.uk/our-commitments-climate-health-and-sustainability-2024-2026<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:83482ae8-3218-41f0-b6df-cb9ff1125624&diff=19487 2026-08-24T09:37:30Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=Science Foundation Ireland (SFI): Climate Action Strategy 2024–2027 |Is About=The Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) Climate Action...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Guidelines<br /> |Title=Science Foundation Ireland (SFI): Climate Action Strategy 2024–2027<br /> |Is About=The Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) Climate Action Strategy 2024–2027 sets out how SFI will integrate climate action and environmental sustainability into its funding, research activities, partnerships and operations. Its overall aim is to support Ireland’s transition towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient and sustainable society. The strategy is organised around three pillars. The first focuses on funding excellent research that addresses climate change, sustainability and biodiversity, while developing the skills and talent needed for the future. The second focuses on moving research knowledge and expertise into society, government and industry so that decisions can be informed by evidence. The third focuses on conducting research itself more sustainably, including reducing the environmental impact of laboratories and research activities. The strategy also promotes collaboration, open research, knowledge sharing, sustainable practices and partnerships between academia, government, industry and society.<br /> |Important Because=The strategy is important because research itself has an environmental footprint, while research also provides essential knowledge and technologies for addressing climate change. SFI recognises that both aspects need attention: research should contribute to climate solutions while also being conducted in more sustainable ways. The strategy encourages researchers and institutions to reduce the environmental impact of research activities and supports areas such as renewable energy, circular economy, biodiversity, waste reduction and greenhouse-gas reduction. It also strengthens connections between researchers, policymakers and industry so that scientific knowledge can contribute to real-world climate action.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Research Funding Organization; Policy Maker / Regulator<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.sfi.ie/research-news/publications/SFI-Climate-Strategy.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:3b5e06c1-6faa-45bd-8603-6ee79d1d49b0&diff=19486 2026-08-24T09:24:17Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG): Sustainability Guide for Research Processes |Is About=The Sustainability Guide for Research...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Guidelines<br /> |Title=Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG): Sustainability Guide for Research Processes<br /> |Is About=The Sustainability Guide for Research Processes, developed by the German Research Foundation (DFG), is a practical framework that helps researchers consider environmental sustainability when planning and conducting research. It consists of guiding questions rather than strict rules, allowing researchers to identify opportunities to reduce emissions, waste and the consumption of resources while maintaining high-quality research. The guide focuses on four main areas: travel; methodology and research design; computing; and the procurement, operation and use of equipment. Researchers are encouraged to consider alternatives such as reducing air travel, reusing existing data and samples, sharing equipment, using energy-efficient technologies, and reducing computing-related energy consumption. It also encourages researchers to identify potential conflicts between sustainability and research goals and make informed decisions. The DFG emphasises that sustainability considerations should support not compromise scientific excellence.<br /> |Important Because=The guide is important because research can have a significant environmental impact through travel, energy consumption, laboratory materials, equipment, computing and waste. By considering these impacts during the planning stage, researchers can identify ways to conduct excellent research while using fewer resources and generating fewer emissions. It also helps make sustainability a normal part of research practice rather than something considered only afterwards. Since 2024, DFG funding proposals require applicants to reflect on ecological sustainability aspects in the planning and implementation of research projects. The guide therefore helps researchers understand what to consider and provides practical questions for making more sustainable research choices.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Research Supervisor / Mentor; Research Funding Organization<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.dfg.de/en/basics-topics/basics-and-principles-of-funding/sustainability-research-processes<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:A2b0f8e3-9ac8-4d31-8d84-d1296c642bac&diff=19438 2026-08-04T09:07:44Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Education |Title=CHANGER Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:Df0d11b5-2efa-4b58-b94f-6845c6e83b11 |Is About=The CH...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Education<br /> |Title=CHANGER Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:Df0d11b5-2efa-4b58-b94f-6845c6e83b11<br /> |Is About=The CHANGER MOOCs are free online courses developed as part of the European Union-funded CHANGER project, which aims to improve research ethics review and promote responsible research practices. The courses provide flexible, self-paced learning on key ethical issues that arise in modern research, particularly in areas involving emerging technologies and innovative research methods. They cover topics such as electronic informed consent, artificial intelligence, gene editing, organoid research, and ethics-by-design. The MOOCs are designed by experts from the CHANGER consortium and are available to learners worldwide at no cost. Participants gain practical knowledge, real-world examples, and tools to help them identify and address ethical challenges throughout the research process. The initiative supports researchers and Research Ethics Committees in building stronger ethical decision-making skills and fostering a culture of responsible, trustworthy, and human rights-based research.<br /> |Important Because=The CHANGER MOOCs are important because they help researchers and ethics professionals understand and respond to the ethical challenges created by rapidly evolving technologies and research practices. By providing accessible, high-quality training, the courses strengthen ethical decision-making, encourage responsible research, and promote the protection of human rights throughout the research process. They also support Research Ethics Committees by improving their capacity to evaluate complex research proposals consistently and effectively. Ultimately, the MOOCs contribute to increasing public trust in research, improving research quality, and ensuring that scientific innovation develops in a socially responsible and ethically sound manner across Europe and beyond.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committee Member; Students; Policy Maker / Regulator<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://changer-project.eu/changer-moocs-are-now-live-enrol-today/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:67daa9e8-7fe9-4285-a9c7-001c06157628&diff=19433 2026-07-28T08:20:15Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Education |Title=2030 Roadmap for Improving Institutional Research Cultures to Strengthen Research Ethics and Integrity in Europe |Has Related Initia...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Education<br /> |Title=2030 Roadmap for Improving Institutional Research Cultures to Strengthen Research Ethics and Integrity in Europe<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:667449ef-1c0a-4e06-8374-830c8ad68cb8<br /> |Is About=The BEYOND 2030 Roadmap is a strategic plan for improving research ethics and research integrity (RE/RI) and reducing research misconduct (RM) and contestable research practices (CRPs) by 2030. It responds to emerging challenges such as selective reporting, inappropriate authorship, poor data management, and misuse of AI tools. The Roadmap is organised around four main pillars: Research Governance Reform, Research Culture Transformation, Evolving RE/RI Education and Research, and Enhancing Public Trust and Societal Impact. It provides recommendations and actions for different stakeholders across three stages: establishing reforms by 2027, embedding and scaling them by 2028, and achieving mature, sustainable systems by 2030. The Roadmap was developed from 107 recommendations drawn from 12 BEYOND project deliverables and validated by the project’s Stakeholder Advisory Board.<br /> |Important Because=The Roadmap is important because it provides a long-term, practical direction for strengthening research integrity and reducing research misconduct. Rather than focusing only on individual wrongdoing, it addresses the wider research system, including governance, organisational culture, incentives, education, monitoring, reporting, and public trust. Its recommendations aim to establish secure whistleblowing systems, fair and transparent processes for handling misconduct, better research integrity training, stronger monitoring, and incentives that encourage responsible research. The Roadmap is also important because it provides a structured timeline for change, helping institutions move from establishing reforms to embedding them and eventually making them sustainable. By 2030, its intended outcomes include reducing misconduct and contestable research practices, improving investigations and training, strengthening whistleblower protection, and increasing public trust in science and academic research.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students; Policy Maker / Regulator; Research Ethics Committee Member<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://zenodo.org/records/20558226<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:1502c5ae-c9c9-487b-b82e-f58cabaadfc0&diff=19432 2026-07-28T07:45:12Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=BEYOND Best Practices Manual: a complement to the BEYOND Guidelines for Preventing and Addressing Research Misconduct |Has Relate...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Guidelines<br /> |Title=BEYOND Best Practices Manual: a complement to the BEYOND Guidelines for Preventing and Addressing Research Misconduct<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:667449ef-1c0a-4e06-8374-830c8ad68cb8<br /> |Is About=The BEYOND Best Practices Manual is a practical guide developed by the BEYOND project, “BEYOND BAD APPLES: Towards a Behavioural and Evidence-Based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Research Integrity in Europe.” It complements the BEYOND Guidelines for Preventing and Addressing Research Misconduct by turning their broad principles into practical, context-sensitive recommendations, tools, and examples. The Manual takes an ecosystem approach, recognising that research misconduct and contestable research practices are influenced not only by individual behaviour but also by organisational cultures, incentives, structural conditions, psychological factors, and wider research environments. It covers the causes and impacts of research misconduct, ways to prevent and address it, whistleblower protection, building supportive research cultures, restoring trust, and research ethics and integrity training. It also uses case examples and implementation tools to help stakeholders apply its recommendations in real situations. Overall, the Manual aims to promote responsible research, strengthen research integrity, and reduce misconduct across the research ecosystem.<br /> |Important Because=The Manual is important because research misconduct can have serious consequences for researchers, institutions, businesses, policymakers, and society. Misconduct can waste research funding, time, and effort, produce unreliable or misleading findings, damage researchers’ and institutions’ reputations, reduce public trust in science, and potentially cause harm to health and society. The Manual is particularly valuable because it does not treat misconduct simply as the result of individual “bad apples.” Instead, it shows how organisational culture, publication pressures, incentives, leadership, power relationships, weak oversight, unclear policies, and inadequate training can contribute to unethical research behaviour. It therefore provides practical ways to prevent misconduct by improving research environments, supporting researchers, strengthening reporting systems, protecting whistleblowers, and developing effective research ethics and integrity training.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Students; Policy Maker / Regulator; Research Funding Organization; Research Ethics Committee Member<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://zenodo.org/records/21098386<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:C846231c-d157-4bbf-a0b8-5c5e792f4a2d&diff=19431 2026-07-28T07:33:12Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Education |Title=Global MOOC on the Ethics of AI |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:Ce2c53d3-722d-48f5-8e0d-140306b56c6e |Is About=The Global MOOC on...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Education<br /> |Title=Global MOOC on the Ethics of AI<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:Ce2c53d3-722d-48f5-8e0d-140306b56c6e<br /> |Is About=The Global MOOC on the Ethics of AI is an online course developed by UNESCO in partnership with LG AI Research and offered through Coursera. It provides an intermediate-level introduction to the ethical, social, and governance challenges created by artificial intelligence. The course consists of 10 modules and can be completed in approximately one week, with around 10 hours of study. It covers important topics such as AI ethics foundations, human-AI interaction, safety and security, fairness and non-discrimination, privacy and data governance, transparency and accountability, environmental sustainability, proportionality and avoiding harm, human autonomy and meaningful work, and global AI governance. The course combines ethical principles with real-world case studies, practical frameworks, and tools that learners can apply to AI development and use. It is based partly on UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of AI and aims to help learners understand ethical risks and make AI more responsible, human-centred, safe, fair, and beneficial to society.<br /> |Important Because=The course is important because AI is increasingly influencing decisions and activities in areas such as employment, healthcare, education, finance, government, and everyday life. Without ethical principles and responsible governance, AI can create problems such as discrimination, privacy violations, unsafe decisions, lack of transparency, and environmental harm. This course helps learners understand these risks and provides practical approaches for developing and using AI in a safer, fairer, and more accountable way. It is particularly valuable because it connects ethical theory with real-world examples and practical tools, helping people make better decisions throughout the AI lifecycle. By promoting human rights, fairness, transparency, sustainability, and human oversight, the course supports the development of AI that benefits people while reducing potential harm.<br /> |Important For=IT / Technical Professional; Researchers; Students; Policy Maker / Regulator<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-mooc-on-the-ethics-of-ai<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags}}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:16b760ab-052e-423c-b924-951af867d268&diff=19430 2026-07-16T12:20:56Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=Good Scientific Practice Guidelines (Österreichische Agentur für wissenschaftliche Integrität (ÖAWI), 2026) |Is About=The 2026...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Guidelines<br /> |Title=Good Scientific Practice Guidelines (Österreichische Agentur für wissenschaftliche Integrität (ÖAWI), 2026)<br /> |Is About=The 2026 Guideline on Good Scientific Practice published by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (ÖAWI) establishes the principles, standards, and institutional responsibilities that promote integrity in research and teaching in Austria. It applies to all stages of the research process from the initial idea and study design to data management, publication, peer review, supervision, and communication of research findings. The guideline is based on four core principles: reliability, honesty, respect, and responsibility, aligning with the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA, 2023). <br /> <br /> The document defines best practices for conducting research, managing research data, determining authorship, collaborating across institutions, and carrying out fair peer review. It also provides updated guidance on the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI), emphasizing that researchers remain accountable for AI-assisted work and must disclose its use where appropriate. Additionally, the guideline identifies forms of research misconduct, including fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, misuse of AI, ghostwriting, and unethical authorship practices. Finally, it outlines the responsibilities of research institutions to provide training, establish research ethics structures, support research data management, and ensure fair procedures for investigating suspected misconduct.<br /> |Important Because=This guideline is important because it provides a comprehensive framework for ensuring trust, quality, and accountability in scientific research. It establishes clear principles and standards that support responsible research conduct, helping researchers produce reliable, transparent, and ethically sound results while protecting participants, collaborators, and society. The guideline also addresses emerging challenges by providing recommendations for the responsible and transparent use of artificial intelligence in research. Beyond individual researchers, it supports institutions by promoting education, mentoring, research ethics, effective research data management, and fair procedures for addressing allegations of misconduct. Together, these measures foster a culture of integrity, prevent unethical research practices, strengthen institutional responsibility, and enhance public confidence in science by promoting consistent standards of excellence across research and higher education institutions.&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> |Important For=Early Career Researcher; Researchers; Students; Policy Maker / Regulator; Journal Editor<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://zenodo.org/records/21256974<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Involves=Österreichische Agentur für wissenschaftliche Integrität (ÖAWI)<br /> |Has Timepoint=2026<br /> }}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:A944aee9-f461-4296-a2c0-fa77d9a90f75&diff=19388 2026-07-06T09:55:38Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Guidelines<br /> |Title=Policy brief “Ethical challenges of AI companions”<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:F4d945c9-461b-44f7-91ba-db70ca6332a1<br /> |Is About=The AIOLIA policy brief “Ethical Challenges of AI Companions” examines the ethical and regulatory issues arising from AI systems that build ongoing, emotionally engaging relationships with users. These AI companions include dedicated chatbot applications and general-purpose AI models that provide emotional support, personal coaching, entertainment, or advice through repeated interactions. Unlike traditional AI tools, AI companions can influence users' emotions, decisions, and behaviors over time, creating risks such as emotional dependency, manipulation, privacy loss, and reduced human autonomy. <br /> <br /> The brief argues that current European regulations, particularly the AI Act, focus mainly on transparency by requiring users to be informed that they are interacting with AI. However, this alone is insufficient because users may knowingly interact with AI while still becoming emotionally attached or behaviorally influenced over time. To address these emerging risks, the policy brief recommends four governance measures:<br /> <br /> (1) identifying and protecting users whose vulnerability develops during long-term interactions, <br /> <br /> (2) implementing longitudinal oversight that monitors patterns across repeated conversations rather than isolated exchanges, <br /> <br /> (3) designing AI systems with intentional &quot;friction,&quot; such as reflective prompts and breaks to reduce over-engagement, and <br /> <br /> (4) moving beyond simple disclosure by providing contextual transparency<br /> |Important Because=This policy brief is important because AI companions are becoming increasingly integrated into people's daily lives, offering emotional support, advice, and companionship. While these technologies provide significant benefits, they also introduce new ethical challenges that existing regulations do not adequately address. Long-term interactions can lead to emotional dependence, privacy risks, manipulation, and changes in user behavior that develop gradually rather than through isolated incidents. The brief provides practical recommendations for policymakers and AI developers to create safeguards that balance innovation with user protection. Its proposals help ensure that AI companions promote human well-being, preserve autonomy, and maintain trust in AI technologies as their use continues to expand.<br /> |Important For=Civil Society / NGO Representative; IT / Technical Professional; Policy Maker / Regulator; Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://aiolia.eu/index.php/policy-brief-ethical-challenges-of-ai-companions/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Integrity; Responsibility<br /> }}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:3bc368c1-c90d-4912-90a7-85cc31a0503c&diff=19387 2026-07-06T09:54:00Z

<p>0000-0003-4416-1351: Created page with &quot;{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=Policy brief “AI Ethics from Principles to Practice” |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:F4d945c9-461b-44f7-91ba-db70ca6332a1 |I...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Guidelines<br /> |Title=Policy brief “AI Ethics from Principles to Practice”<br /> |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:F4d945c9-461b-44f7-91ba-db70ca6332a1<br /> |Is About=The AIOLIA policy brief “AI Ethics: From Principles to Practice” focuses on bridging the gap between ethical AI principles and their practical implementation in organizations. While frameworks such as the EU AI Act and the Assessment List for Trustworthy AI (ALTAI) define ethical requirements, many organizations struggle to apply these principles consistently during the development and deployment of AI systems. The policy brief argues that ethical AI requires more than compliance with regulations; it must become part of an organization's governance, culture, and decision-making processes.<br /> <br /> Based on experiences from ten AI use cases across sectors including healthcare, human resources, security, automotive engineering, elderly care, and AI companions, the AIOLIA project developed practical methods to support responsible AI. These include 175 organizational and technical measures, 12 contextualized ethics principles, and six policy recommendations that help translate abstract ethical concepts into actionable practices. The brief also recommends improving implementation guidance, updating existing assessment tools, expanding regulatory sandboxes for innovation, encouraging collaboration between academia and industry, and investing in research on AI's long-term societal impacts. Overall, it promotes a practical, continuous approach to developing trustworthy and human-centered AI.<br /> |Important Because=This policy brief is important because many organizations struggle to convert ethical AI principles into everyday practice. Regulations such as the EU AI Act specify legal obligations but often lack practical implementation guidance, particularly for smaller organizations with limited resources. AIOLIA provides tested methods, governance processes, and practical measures that help organizations develop trustworthy AI while reducing legal, reputational, and operational risks. The recommendations also encourage collaboration between policymakers, researchers, and industry to create consistent standards and evidence-based governance. This supports responsible AI innovation while protecting human rights, transparency, accountability, and public trust in AI systems.<br /> |Important For=IT / Technical Professional; Policy Maker / Regulator; Researchers, Research Ethics Committee Member<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://aiolia.eu/index.php/policy-brief-ai-ethics-from-principles-to-practice/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Transparency; Responsibility; Accountability; Fairness; Trustworthiness<br /> }}</div>

0000-0003-4416-1351