You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Only users who are logged in using ORCID can make a change or add a contribution. Please login here.

Back

Edit a module

With this form, you create a step-by-step module on research integrity or ethics. This can be used to provide instruction on a particular topic. You might want to use it for a tutorial, teaching material, case analysis tool, or an educational game.

Every single module is intended for just one type of user. That sets it apart. It might be that you write an instruction for a group session with a facilitator and participants. You would then need to write two pages, one with the steps for facilitators and one with the steps for participants.

Before you submit, please be aware of our community guidelines.

Do you want your training and project to be featured on the Embassy?

Feel free to contact us to discuss the options.

Module

These video lectures can be used independently or in conjunction with the [[Guide:E525ee0d-0d7e-4ba5-b19b-89e4a5029b2f|ROSiE Responsible Open Science training materials]]. The ROSiE training materials examine a variety of topics from multiple disciplinary perspectives, including humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, health and life sciences, and citizen science. The video lectures provide a concise introduction to ethical issues in Open Science, which may be followed by engagement with training materials for further exploration of discipline-specific topics.

Each lecture is organised into multiple segments, focusing on a distinct topic. Upon completion of a segment, participants are expected to complete a quiz covering the material discussed. Additionally, certain lectures include case studies that provide an opportunity to reflect on how the concepts learned can be applied to practical ethical issues in Open Science.

Finally, if you want to get more information on a particular topic, there is a list of further reading for each lecture.

Authors: Olivier Le Gall, Rosemarie Barnabe, Emmi Jennina Kaaya, Heidi Beate Bentzen, Søren Holm, Panagiotis Kavouras, Arild Johan Jansen, Elina Koivisto, Theodora Konach,  François Jost

Multimedia Content Developers: Christlin Joy Conanan, Kristiāna Kampare, Signe Mežinska, Ivars Neiders

[https://rosie-project.eu/ ROSiE] project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under GA No 101006430.

The ROSiE video lectures <span lang="EN-US">are available under the open-source license [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ CC BY-SA 4.0]</span>

Instructions for:ParticipantTrainer

Perspective Participant

What are the steps?

Interactive Content

In this lecture, Rosemarie Barnabe discusses how different stakeholders – researchers, the broader research community, and the general public – can benefit from Open Science. The lecture introduces components of Open Science and explains how these components benefit different stakeholders.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''

'''Further reading:'''

UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. (2021) https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546

Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review (5:632). F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3

Catalano, G., Delugas, E., & Vignetti, S. (2025). Costs and Benefits of Open Science: Contributing to the Development of a Rigorous Assessment Framework. In J. Gutleber & P. Charitos (Eds.), The Economics of Big Science 2.0: Essays by Leading Scientists and Policymakers (pp. 127–135). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60931-2_10

Arza, V., & Fressoli, M. (2017). Systematizing benefits of open science practices. Information Services and Use, 37(4), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-170861

Meskus, M., Marelli, L., & D’Agostino, G. (2017). Research Misconduct in the Age of Open Science: The Case of STAP Stem Cells. Science as Culture, 27(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2017.1316975 <div></div>

Interactive Content

In this lecture, Rosemarie Bernabe addresses the ethical challenges associated with implementing Open Science in practice. The lecture provides an overview through various examples of ethical and integrity issues encountered in Open Science practice. These include the risk of spreading misinformation, the emergence of new biases related to alternative metrics, among other concerns.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''

'''Further reading:'''

ROSiE General Guidelines on Responsible Open Science.  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10046520

UNESCO (2023). Open science outlook 1: status and trends around the world. https://doi.org/10.54677/GIIC6829

Kingsley, D. (2025, March 30). Show your working: How the ‘open science’ movement tackles scientific misconduct. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/show-your-working-how-the-open-science-movement-tackles-scientific-misconduct-249020

Düwell, M. (2019). Open science and ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 22(5), 1051-1053.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10053-3

Lindemann, T., & Häberlein, L. (2023). Contours of a research ethics and integrity perspective on open science. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 8, 1052353. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1052353

Laine, H. (2018). Open science and codes of conduct on research integrity. Informaatiotutkimus, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.23978/inf.77414

Interactive Content

In this lecture, Panagiotis Kavouras addresses the researcher's responsibility for the quality of data collection, processing, and storage. The first segment outlines the principles of responsibility and research quality. Subsequently, the lecture elaborates on the research cycle and highlights best practices critical to maintaining high standards in research.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''

'''Further reading:'''

Center for Open Science. “What is open science?” https://www.cos.io/open-science

Hofmann, B. (2022). Open Science Knowledge Production: Addressing Epistemological Challenges and Ethical Implications. Publications, 10(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030024

Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Struhl, M. K., Nuijten, M. B., Rohrer, J. M., Romero, F., Scheel, A. M., Scherer, L. D., Schönbrodt, F. D., & Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(Volume 73, 2022), 719–748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157

Interactive Content

In this lecture, Olivier Le Gall discusses the responsible preparation of open datasets. The lecture covers several key topics: initially, he examines what responsible data preparation entails and its significance. Subsequently, he addresses the issue of dual use, and finally, he explores the risks posed to third parties.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''

'''Further reading:'''

ROSiE General Guidelines on Responsible Open Science. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10046520

Open Research Europe, “Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines” https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/for-authors/data-guidelines/

Klein, O., Hardwicke, T. E., Aust, F., Breuer, J., Danielsson, H., Mohr, A. H., IJzerman, H., Nilsonne, G., Vanpaemel, W., & Frank, M. C. (2018). A Practical Guide for Transparency in Psychological Science. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.158

Berkowitz, H., & Delacour, H. (2022). Opening Research Data: What Does It Mean for Social Sciences?. M@n@gement, 25(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.v25.9123

Pernet, C., Svarer, C., Blair, R., Van Horn, J. D., & Poldrack, R. A. (2023). On the long-term archiving of research data. Neuroinformatics, 21(2), 243-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-023-09621-x

Gomes, D. G., Pottier, P., Crystal-Ornelas, R., Hudgins, E. J., Foroughirad, V., Sánchez-Reyes, L. L., ... & Gaynor, K. M. (2022). Why don't we share data and code? Perceived barriers and benefits to public archiving practices. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 289(1987), 20221113. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.1113

Interactive Content

In this lecture, Emmi Jennina Kaaya discusses informed consent in the context of Open Science. She first introduces the concept of informed consent, and then explains how Open Science challenges it. She also examines strategies for informing potential research participants and concludes with a summary of the key points.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''

'''Further reading:'''

The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647|Informed Consent]]”

Dove, E. S., & Chen, J. (2020). Should consent for data processing be privileged in health research? A comparative legal analysis. International Data Privacy Law, 10(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz023

Dyke, S. O. M., Connor, K., Nembaware, V., Munung, N. S., Reinold, K., Kerry, G., Mbiyavanga, M., Zass, L., Moldes, M., Das, S., Davis, J. M., De Argila, J. R., Spalding, J. D., Evans, A. C., Mulder, N., & Karamchandani, J. (2023). Consent Codes: Maintaining Consent in an Ever-expanding Open Science Ecosystem. Neuroinformatics, 21(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-022-09577-4

Fischer, C., Hirsbrunner, S. D., & Teckentrup, V. (2022). Producing open data. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 8, e86384. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.8.e86384

Florea, M. (2023). Withdrawal of consent for processing personal data in biomedical research. International Data Privacy Law, 13(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipad008

Hallinan, D., Boehm, F., Külpmann, A., & Elson, M. (2023). Information Provision for Informed Consent Procedures in Psychological Research Under the General Data Protection Regulation: A Practical Guide. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231151944

Interactive Content

In this lecture, Søren Holm outlines various practices to prevent research malpractice in Open Science. The first section of the lecture covers methods to avoid malpractice with open data, open code, and open materials and research sites. The second section examines Open Science beyond data and across borders. Lastly, the third section explores whether improved peer review practices can address issues related to research malpractice in Open Science.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''

'''Further reading:'''

Kingsley, D. (2025, March 30). Show your working: How the ‘open science’ movement tackles scientific misconduct. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/show-your-working-how-the-open-science-movement-tackles-scientific-misconduct-249020

Mabile, L., Shmagun, H., Erdmann, C., Cambon-Thomsen, A., Thomsen, M., & Grattarola, F. (2025). Recommendations on Open Science Rewards and Incentives: Guidance for Multiple Stakeholders in Research. Data Science Journal, 24. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2025-015

Interactive Content

In this lecture, Panagiotis Kavouras discusses trust and trustworthiness in Open Science. The first segment describes trust and its relevance to science and it argues that trustworthiness is a more pertinent concept in this context. Furthermore, it is  explained that transparency in research conduct is a condition of trustworthiness. The second segment examines how transparency relates to Open Science practices and how it can be viewed in the context of translational research innovation.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''

'''Further reading:'''

Peels, R., & Bouter, L. (2023). Replication and trustworthiness. Accountability in Research, 30(2), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1963708

Robert K. Merton, The Normative Structure of Science (1942). (n.d.). Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://www.panarchy.org/merton/science.html

Kerasidou, A. (2017). Trust me, I’m a researcher!: The role of trust in biomedical research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 20(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9721-6

Interactive Content

In this lecture, Olivier Le Gall examines open peer review, highlighting both its benefits and potential risks. The presentation starts by elucidating the rationale behind open peer review, and proceeds to discuss its benefits as well as the associated risks of opening it.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''

'''Further reading:'''

The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c|Open peer review - transparent way of gatekeeping science]]”

Schmidt, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., Edig, X. van, & Moylan, E. C. (2018). Ten considerations for open peer review (7:969). F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1

Ross-Hellauer, T., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2024). Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review. Research Evaluation, 33, rvae004. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae004

Henriquez, T. (2023). Open peer review, pros and cons from the perspective of an early career researcher. mBio, 14(5), e01948-23. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01948-23

Interactive Content

In this lecture, Elina Koivisto addresses the topics of open access, open access publishing, and predatory practices. The first segment of the lecture provides a definition of open access, showcases various types of open access, and elucidates their distinctions. The subsequent segment explores the advantages of open access as well as some negative consequences associated with publishing in general and open access publishing specifically. The concluding segment is dedicated to predatory practices; it defines these practices and offers guidance on how to avoid them.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''

'''Further reading:'''

The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:49d71148-0df2-4a78-93d4-c802b48bbdb7|Predatory publishing]]”

Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open access publishers. https://beallslist.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/criteria-2015.pdf

COPE Council (2019). COPE Discussion Document: Predatory Publishing. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.6

Interactive Content

In this lecture, Elina Koivisto elaborates on the application of Open Science principles in the assessment of research and researchers. The initial segment delineates the concepts of research and researcher assessment, as well as the contexts and circumstances in which these assessments are conducted. The subsequent segment addresses the notion of responsible researcher assessment, highlighting its significance. The concluding segment elucidates the incorporation of Open Science principles in research and researcher assessment, detailing their practical implications.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''

'''Further reading:'''

Hatch, A., & Curry, S. (2020). Changing how we evaluate research is difficult, but not impossible. eLife, 9, e58654. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58654

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission), Cabello Valdes, C., Rentier, B., Kaunismaa, E., Metcalfe, J., Esposito, F., McAllister, D., Maas, K., Vandevelde, K., & O’Carroll, C. (2017). Evaluation of research careers fully acknowledging Open Science practices: Rewards, incentives and/or recognition for researchers practicing Open Science. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/75255

Provost, L., & Xenou, Z. (2025). Reframing Research Assessment: Towards a comprehensive framework for Researcher Profiles. fteval Journal for Research and Technology Policy Evaluation, 57, Article 57. https://doi.org/10.22163/fteval.2025.693

CoARA – Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. (n.d.). Retrieved July 23, 2025, from https://coara.eu/

Leiden manifesto for research Metrics.  https://www.leidenmanifesto.org/

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. https://sfdora.org/read/

Interactive Content

In this lecture, Theodora Konach discusses intellectual property rights and how to use them in a responsible way within the Open Science framework. The first segment provides a brief introduction to intellectual property rights. Further, the next segment discusses principles of copyright and some other related basic concepts. The third segment outlines relevant exceptions and limitations to copyright. Finally, the fourth segment focuses on the public domain and open source as a resource of creativity and knowledge.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''

'''Further reading:'''

Aligning Intellectual Property Rights with Open Science. https://allea.org/portfolio-item/aligning-intellectual-property-rights-with-open-science

European Commission: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency, Your guide to IP and contracts – Stay ahead of the innovation game, Publications Office of the European Union, 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/607724

European Commission: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, Your guide to IP in Europe, Publications Office, 2019, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/94924

European Commission: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, European IP Helpdesk – Copyright, Publications Office of the European Union, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/128833

UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (2021) https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546

Unitary Patent. https://www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary/unitary-patent

Creative Commons Certificate Resources, Course Content 2021 and 2022; https://certificates.creativecommons.org/about/certificate-resources-cc-by/

WIPO, (2016), Understanding Copyright and Related Rights, (2nd ed.) Geneva, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_909_2016.pdf

European Commission: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, New Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market, Publications Office, 2019, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/429252

WIPO, Summary of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886). https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html

The Europeana Public Domain Charter. https://pro.europeana.eu/post/the-europeana-public-domain-charter

Statement of Principles on Copyright Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives (2009). https://www.ifla.org/publications/statement-of-principles-on-copyright-exceptions-and-limitations-for-libraries-and-archives-2009/

Ethics and Intangible Cultural Heritage—UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage. https://ich.unesco.org/en/ethics-and-ich-00866

Interactive Content

In this lecture, Søren Holm examines the appropriate methods for crediting the various contributions made by researchers and other participants in Open Science projects. The first segment concentrates on authorship and contributorship, while the second segment addresses the proper acknowledgement of contributions made by citizen scientists.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''

'''Further reading:'''

[https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#two ICMJE, Recommendations, Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors.]

[https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2322557 Hosseini, M., Holcombe, A. O., Kovacs, M., Zwart, H., Katz, D. S., & Holmes, K. (2025). Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges. Accountability in Research, 32(5), 762–784].

[https://credit.niso.org/ CRediT]. (n.d.). CRediT.

[https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00097 Larivière, V., Pontille, D., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2021). Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 111–128].

Interactive Content

In this lecture, François Jost discusses the responsibilities of citizen scientists. The first segment explains what citizen science is and addresses topics such as informed consent, data privacy and security, communication, and transparency. The second segment covers data accuracy and honesty, adherence to project guidance, the significance of training and education, and the role of Open Science in the democratisation of science.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''

'''Further reading:'''

[https://www.ecsa.ngo/10-principles/ Ten Principles of Citizen Science – European Citizen Science Association] (ECSA).

[https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/horizon-magazine/extreme-citizen-science-gives-voice-marginalised-remote-communities Extreme citizen science gives a voice to the marginalised in remote communities, Horizon Magazine]. (2022, April 5)

Elliott, K. C., & Rosenberg, J. (2019). [https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.155 Philosophical Foundations for Citizen Science. Citizen Science]: Theory and Practice, 4(1).

Balázs, B., Mooney, P., Nováková, E., Bastin, L., & Jokar Arsanjani, J. (2021). Data Quality in Citizen Science. In K. Vohland, A. Land-Zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, R. Samson, & K. Wagenknecht (Eds.), [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_8 The Science of Citizen Science] (pp. 139–157). Springer International Publishing.

Rasmussen, L. M. (2019). [https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.207 Confronting Research Misconduct in Citizen Science. Citizen Science]: Theory and Practice, 4(1).

Interactive Content

In this lecture, François Jost discusses the responsibilities of professional scientists towards citizen scientists. The first segment of the lecture covers the importance of recognising citizen scientists as partners, promoting inclusivity, and providing them with training. The second segment emphasises the need for open communication and transparency, open data management, and acknowledging the contributions and application of the citizen science approach.

'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''

'''Further reading:'''

Ten Principles of Citizen Science – European Citizen Science Association (ECSA). https://www.ecsa.ngo/10-principles/

Empowering citizens through science: The role of citizen science in Europe. https://data.europa.eu/en/news-events/news/empowering-citizens-through-science-role-citizen-science-europe

Herodotou, C., Scanlon, E., & Sharples, M. (2021). Methods of Promoting Learning and Data Quality in Citizen and Community Science. Frontiers in Climate, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.614567

Eleta, I., Clavell, G. G., Righi, V., & Balestrini, M. (2019). The Promise of Participation and Decision-Making Power in Citizen Science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.171

Interactive Content

Add another

Instruction Remarks Participant

Perspective Trainer

What are the steps?

Add another

Instruction Remarks Trainer

Related To

Edit Instruction: Instruction:0876d4da-0071-4caa-872f-68c5393a6c41

Edit a module