Text (Instruction Step Text)
From The Embassy of Good Science
Describe the actions the user should take to experience the material (including preparation and follow up if any). Write in an active way.
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
5
Planetary health is not only a diagnostic concept but also a call to action. You will now explore concrete pathways on mitigation, adaptation, and restoration, as well as the ethical and justice-oriented shifts required to reframe how we promote health and well-being. +
Note the most important issues that might be affecting your research +
Please take a close look at the following slide show, which provides a brief introduction to what the 9R strategy is and what it aims to achieve.You can expand the slides to full screen by clicking the button in the '''bottom-right''' corner. +
[https://www.emissionimpossible.net/about-1 Annex VIII: Checklist strategize your communication]
[https://www.emissionimpossible.net/about-1 Annex IX: Template _ climate]
[https://nudging-for-sdgs.eu/nudges/ Nudging for SDGs: The self nudging tools]
[https://evir.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Suggestions-for-research-funders-to-promote-environmentally-friendly-conferences-241001-DRAFT.pdf Tips for organising environmentally friendly conferences]
[https://www.software.ac.uk/GreenDiSC Green digital sustainability certificate for teams] +
Please reflect on your experience with AI below. +
<div>
<span lang="EN-US">Most micromodules include short reflection tasks or applied exercises that allow learners to check their understanding of the content and to connect it to their own context. The responses and results of these tests are not collected by The Embassy. The completion of the tests via The Embassy is meant for self-assessment and not for certification. Teachers who want to use these resources in their trainings for the purpose of certification can embed the modules in their preferred learning management system.</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-US">If you are interested in following a formal course and obtaining a certification, please register your interest via the link below.</span>
https://mailchi.mp/embassy/re4green
https://mailchi.mp/embassy/re4green
</div> +
When training professors, trainers, mentors, and supervisors in research integrity, the aim is to equip them with the knowledge, skills, and resources to effectively train, mentor and guide their students and junior colleagues in conducting research with integrity.
Resources for professors and senior academics include (please see the last section of the BEYOND trainer guide for an overview of materials divided by topics and target groups):
*The [[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|VIRT2UE]] train the trainer course on research integrity and the training module introducing [[Instruction:D3ee617b-5d9b-4c47-a015-030b0354c9d2|supervision and mentorship practices]].
*The training materials to foster mentorship and supervision developed by [https://h2020integrity.eu/toolkit/tools-researchers-supervisors/ INTEGRITY].
*The training for supervisors and leaders ([https://www.researchethicstraining.net/leadershiplevel leadership level]) developed by the RID-SSISS project.
*The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge-module-for-supervisors/ module for supervisors] developed by [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge/ BRIDGE project].
Trainers can select one or more of the following tools for evaluating training effectiveness for Professors and Senior Academics:
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 7: BEYOND Tools for evaluating training effectiveness for academics and experts
!'''Tool for collecting learning outputs'''
!'''Details'''
!'''Analysis instrument **'''
|-
|'''Self-Reflection Form/Compass'''
|App under development, [https://forms.office.com/Pages/ShareFormPage.aspx?id=WXWumNwQiEKOLkWT5i_j7twYn7PlpvpDlgGDpz2LgIdUMk5XRTVYQTVKRFRDWDlHOUdGU1FHTUlFVi4u&sharetoken=03epmvYBRpmfXvpRg9os form] * (for copying and editing)
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Pre-post texts'''
|Collect a short text (e.g. a response to a case or short essay) before the training and after the training
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Learning diaries'''
|Ask learners keep a diary over a certain period, for each submission provide some guiding questions or topics
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Group reports'''
|Ask groups working together to provide a (short) group report (or provide a template with points to work on)
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Group discussions'''
|Monitor the group discussions to evaluate the level of understanding and content discussed (scaffold as appropriate)
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Retention check'''
|After a certain time (few weeks/months) ask learners to provide a short text (analysis of a case, short essay on an ethics topic/question). Compare the levels of understanding to another piece collected during or right after the training.
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Vignettes'''
|This can be used for measuring ethical sensitivity in (non-)training context.
|statistics, EASM (based on the SOLO taxonomy), content criteria
|-
|'''National surveys'''
|Can be used for analysing training-related content in reports and monitoring the display of REI leadership.
|statistics, REI leadership framework
|}
For instance, to measure participants’ reactions during or right after the training, Self-Reflection Form can be used. In addition, if learners worked in groups so their group discussions can be monitored, and if they provided a group-report or pre- and post-texts, the learning process can be evaluated based on the SOLO taxonomy to measure the levels of understanding. Moreover, if possible, a couple of months after the training an additional case study could be given to the same learners, and the content of their analysis could again be evaluated with the SOLO taxonomy. Analysing vignettes and participating in national REI surveys would be relevant for this target group. This kind of effectiveness measure would give a possibility to triangulate the measurement in different time points.
An example for implementation can be found here: [https://helsinkifi.sharepoint.com/:p:/r/sites/BEYONDHelsinkiteam/Shared%20Documents/ENERI%20CR%20material%20example.pptx?d=w41ec1fe12bbb495781dbe81d55a09d71&csf=1&web=1&e=yxKgSC ENERI CR material example.pptx]
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000016-QINU`"' The Self-Reflection Form link enables the facilitator to make a copy of the form, which they can then edit, and the data will accumulate on the facilitator’s cloud service (Google or Microsoft).
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000017-QINU`"' Analysis instruments are described in WP4.2, later available at the Embassy’s website.
When training professors, trainers, mentors, and supervisors in research integrity, the aim is to equip them with the knowledge, skills, and resources to effectively train, mentor and guide their students and junior colleagues in conducting research with integrity.
Resources for professors and senior academics include (please see the last section of the BEYOND trainer guide for an overview of materials divided by topics and target groups):
*The [[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|VIRT2UE]] train the trainer course on research integrity and the training module introducing [[Instruction:D3ee617b-5d9b-4c47-a015-030b0354c9d2|supervision and mentorship practices]].
*The training materials to foster mentorship and supervision developed by [https://h2020integrity.eu/toolkit/tools-researchers-supervisors/ INTEGRITY].
*The training for supervisors and leaders ([https://www.researchethicstraining.net/leadershiplevel leadership level]) developed by the RID-SSISS project.
*The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge-module-for-supervisors/ module for supervisors] developed by [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge/ BRIDGE project].
Trainers can select one or more of the following tools for evaluating training effectiveness for Professors and Senior Academics:
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 7: BEYOND Tools for evaluating training effectiveness for academics and experts
!'''Tool for collecting learning outputs'''
!'''Details'''
!'''Analysis instrument **'''
|-
|'''Self-Reflection Form/Compass'''
|App under development, [https://forms.office.com/Pages/ShareFormPage.aspx?id=WXWumNwQiEKOLkWT5i_j7twYn7PlpvpDlgGDpz2LgIdUMk5XRTVYQTVKRFRDWDlHOUdGU1FHTUlFVi4u&sharetoken=03epmvYBRpmfXvpRg9os form] * (for copying and editing)
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Pre-post texts'''
|Collect a short text (e.g. a response to a case or short essay) before the training and after the training
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Learning diaries'''
|Ask learners keep a diary over a certain period, for each submission provide some guiding questions or topics
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Group reports'''
|Ask groups working together to provide a (short) group report (or provide a template with points to work on)
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Group discussions'''
|Monitor the group discussions to evaluate the level of understanding and content discussed (scaffold as appropriate)
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Retention check'''
|After a certain time (few weeks/months) ask learners to provide a short text (analysis of a case, short essay on an ethics topic/question). Compare the levels of understanding to another piece collected during or right after the training.
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Vignettes'''
|This can be used for measuring ethical sensitivity in (non-)training context.
|statistics, EASM (based on the SOLO taxonomy), content criteria
|-
|'''National surveys'''
|Can be used for analysing training-related content in reports and monitoring the display of REI leadership.
|statistics, REI leadership framework
|}
For instance, to measure participants’ reactions during or right after the training, Self-Reflection Form can be used. In addition, if learners worked in groups so their group discussions can be monitored, and if they provided a group-report or pre- and post-texts, the learning process can be evaluated based on the SOLO taxonomy to measure the levels of understanding. Moreover, if possible, a couple of months after the training an additional case study could be given to the same learners, and the content of their analysis could again be evaluated with the SOLO taxonomy. Analysing vignettes and participating in national REI surveys would be relevant for this target group. This kind of effectiveness measure would give a possibility to triangulate the measurement in different time points.
An example for implementation can be found here: [https://helsinkifi.sharepoint.com/:p:/r/sites/BEYONDHelsinkiteam/Shared%20Documents/ENERI%20CR%20material%20example.pptx?d=w41ec1fe12bbb495781dbe81d55a09d71&csf=1&web=1&e=yxKgSC ENERI CR material example.pptx]
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000001E-QINU`"' The Self-Reflection Form link enables the facilitator to make a copy of the form, which they can then edit, and the data will accumulate on the facilitator’s cloud service (Google or Microsoft).
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000001F-QINU`"' Analysis instruments are described in WP4.2, later available at the Embassy’s website.
Bell, A., Kelton, J., McDonagh, N., Mladenovic, R., & Morrison, K. (2011). A critical evaluation of the usefulness of a coding scheme to categorise levels of reflective thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(7), 797-815.
Biggs, J. and Collis. K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (3rd ed.) Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Chejara, P., Prieto, L. P., Ruiz-Calleja, A., Rodríguez-Triana, M. J., Shankar, S. K. & Kasepalu, R. (2021). EFAR-MMLA: An Evaluation Framework to Assess and Report Generalizability of Machine Learning Models in MMLA. Sensors, 21(8), 2863.
Conqvist, M. (2024). Research ethics in Swedish dissertations in educational sciences – a matter of confusion. Nordic Conference of PhD Supervision, 2024. Karlstad, Sweden.
DeLozier, S. J., & Rhodes, M. G. (2017). Flipped classrooms: A review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educational psychology review, 29(1), 141-151.
Gibbs, P., Costley. C., Armsby, P. and Trakakis, A. (2007). Developing the ethics of worker-researchers through phronesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701278716
Hannula. M. S., Haataja, E., Löfström, E., Garcia Moreno-Esteva, E., Salminen-Saari, J., & Laine, A. (2022). Advancing video research methodology to capture the processes of social interaction and multimodality. ZDM Mathematics Education 54, 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01323-5
Jordan, J. (2007). Taking the first step towards a moral action: A review of moral sensitivity across domains. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168, 323–359.
Kember, David. 1999. Determining the level of reflective thinking from students' written journals using a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18(1), 18–30. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000002-QINU`"'.
Kember, D., Jones, A., Loke, A., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Tse, H., Webb, C., Wong, F., Wong, M., and Yeung, E. (1999). Determining the level of reflective thinking from students’ written journals using a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18(1), 18–30.
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., Jones, A., Loke, A. Y., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Tse, H., Webb, C., Wong, F. K. Y., Wong, M., and Yeung, E. (2000). Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 381–395. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000003-QINU`"'.
Kember, D., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., & Wong, F. K. Y. (2008). A four-category scheme for coding and assessing the level of reflection. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 369-379.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959). Techniques for evaluation training programs. Journal of American Society of Training Directions, 13, 21–26.
Kitchener, K. S. (1985). Ethical principles and ethical decisions in student affairs. In Applied ethics in student services: new directions for student services, number. 30 (pp. 17–29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Löfström, E., (2012) Students’ Ethical Awareness and Conceptions of Research Ethics. Ethics & Behavior,22(5), 349-361. DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2012.679136
Löfström, E. and Tammeleht, A. (2023). A pedagogy for teaching research ethics and integrity in the social sciences: case-based and collaborative learning. In Academic Integrity in the Social Sciences (pp.127−145).
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions in adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mustajoki, H. and Mustajoki, A. (2017). A new approach to research ethics: Using guided dialogue to strengthen research communities. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315545318 .
Parder, M.-L., Tammeleht, A., Rajando, K. and Simm, K. (2024). Using vignettes for assessing ethical sensitivity in the national research ethics and integrity study. Poster presentation at the World Conference of Research Integrity, 2024. Athens, Greece.
Praslova, L. (2010). Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four level model of training criteria to assessment of learning outcomes and program evaluation in Higher Education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22, 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9098-7
Salminen, A., & Pitkänen, L. (2020). Finnish research integrity barometer 2018. Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK publications, 2-2020.
Steele, L. M., Mulhearn, T. J., Medeiros, K. E., Watts, L. L., Connelly, S., and Mumford, M. D. (2016). How do we know what works? A review and critique of current practices in ethics training evaluation. Accountability in Research, 23(6), 319–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1186547 .
Stoesz, B. M. and Yudintseva, A. (2018). Effectiveness of tutorials for promoting educational integrity: a synthesis paper. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0030-0 .
Stolper, M. & Inguaggiato, G. (n.d.) Debate and Dialogue. [[Instruction:Ac206152-effd-475b-b8cd-7e5861cb65aa|https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:Ac206152-effd-475b-b8cd-7e5861cb65aa]]
Tammeleht, A., Rodríguez-Triana, M. J., Koort, K., & Löfström, E. (2019). Collaborative case-based learning process in research ethics. International Journal of Educational Integrity, 15(1), 6.
Tammeleht, A., Rodríguez-Triana, M.J., Koort, K., Löfström, E. (2020). Scaffolding collaborative case-based learning in research ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics 19, pages 229–252.
Tammeleht, A., Löfström, E. & Rodríguez-Triana, M. J. (2022). Facilitating development of research ethics leadership competencies. International Journal of Educational Integrity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-00102-3
Tammeleht, A. (2022). Facilitating the development of research ethics and integrity competencies through scaffolding and collaborative case-based problem-solving. Helsinki: Unigrafia OY, Helsinki Studies in Education.
Tammeleht, A., J. Antoniou, R. de La C. Bernabe, C. Chapin, S. van den Hooff, V. N. Mbanya, M.-L. Parder, A. Sairio, K. Videnoja, and E. Löfström. (submitted). Manifestations of research ethics and integrity leadership in national surveys - Cases of Estonia, Finland, Norway, France and the Netherlands.
Tammeleht, A., Parder, M.-L., Rajando, K., and Simm, K. (forthcoming). Using vignettes for assessing ethical sensitivity in the national research ethics and integrity survey – an example from Estonia.
Thorpe, K. (2004). Reflective learning journals: From concept to practice. Reflective Practice, 5(3), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/1462394042000270655 .
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education next, 12(1), 82-83.
Using an example from your own research, try to rewrite your research into a story of about 150 words.
Instead of thinking fully in technical terms, make sure your story includes:
1. A Situation the audience can understand
A story often begins with a situation: what is already happening, known, or understood before the research begins.
This helps the audience understand the context and why the research matters.
2. A Disruption or challenge
Stories introduce a disruption: a problem, gap, uncertainty, or unexpected observation that creates a need for investigation.
Why did the research become necessary? What changed or created tension?
3. A Response
Stories move forward through a response.
How did the researcher, research team, or others respond to the challenge? What actions were taken to investigate or better understand the issue?
4. An Outcome
Stories conclude with an outcome.
What changed as a result of the research? What new understanding emerged?
5. Perspective and emotional engagement
Stories are often told from a particular perspective and help audiences understand why events matter.
Consider whose perspective the story follows and whether emotions such as curiosity, uncertainty, frustration, concern, hope, or relief played a role in the research journey.
6. Try to make these elements visible in your story.
Avoid writing a summary of results. Instead, focus on how the research developed, the personal or human experiences involved, and why the research is meaningful. +
In podcasting, your voice is the main way you communicate meaning.
Without visuals, listeners rely on how something is said to understand and stay engaged.
As a result, delivery becomes just as important as content.
Listeners interpret meaning through pace, pauses, emphasis, and tone. Together, these elements shape how clearly a message is understood. If speech is too fast, unclear, or monotone, it becomes harder to follow. Clear and varied delivery helps listeners stay focused and understand key points.
To improve clarity, speakers often need to slow down more than they expect and use pauses between ideas. Emphasising key words helps listeners recognise what is important, while a natural and varied tone makes the content more engaging and easier to follow.
Even well-structured content can become difficult to follow if delivery is unclear. Good delivery helps maintain attention, highlight important ideas, and make complex information easier to understand. Podcasting is therefore not only about what you say, but also about how you say it. +
Incorporating gender, health, and climate justice in your research: A reflexive question card exercise +
Based on your previous reflections please revise or formulate a research question that integrates intersectional awareness. +
'''Futures literacy'''
Envision sustainable outcomes and identify possible actions, innovations, and/or policies that would support these outcomes. Anticipate ethical concerns of emerging technologies and their environmental and climate impacts. Employ techniques for futures thinking, such as scenario development or speculative design, in relation to a planned research or innovation project.
Align immediate research and innovation efforts with long-term sustainability visions, adaptively balancing present needs and long-term sustainability objectives
'''Adaptability'''
Consider emerging evidence on environmental harms caused by research and innovation, including the cumulative harms of all research and innovation activities. Monitor progress toward envisioned futures and adjust strategies based on new insights or changing circumstances. Mitigate against the environmental impact of research and innovation by considering alternate approaches (e.g., frugal innovation). Participate in continuous learning activities to ensure professional skills are applicable to changing ecological and social circumstances.
'''Exploratory thinking'''
Understand how alternative disciplinary and role-specific perspectives can complement one another. Respect local and traditional knowledges and methods to address sustainability in research and innovation
Engage with key ethical debates regarding the environmental and climate impacts of a research and innovation project. Integrate sustainability principles throughout research and innovation processes, drawing on systematic and creative forms of inquiry (for example, through an ethics by design approach) +
Optimizing algorithms improves efficiency by increasing speed and reducing memory usage. Since memory power consumption depends largely on the amount of memory allocated rather than used, minimizing peak memory requirements can significantly reduce energy consumption and support green computing. The Green Algorithms calculator can be used to estimate the carbon footprint of computational tasks and assess the environmental impact of different computing approaches.
[[File:Green Algorithms 1.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Figure 1: Green Algorithms calculator taken from [https://calculator.green-algorithms.org/ Green Algorithms (green- algorithms.org)]
'''Further Sustainability Recommendations'''
{| class="wikitable"
|+
Table content adapted from (Grealey et al., 2021) and https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202100707
!'''Recommendations'''
!'''Description'''
|-
|Reduce the Pragmatic Scaling Factor
|Limit the number of times algorithms are executed by minimizing unnecessary reruns, excessive parameter tuning, and debugging on full datasets.
'''Environmental benefits:''' decreases computational workload, energy use, and associated emissions.
|-
|Choose Efficient Data Centers
|Run computations in energy-efficient data centers located in regions with low-carbon electricity and low Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE).
'''Environmental benefits:''' Significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions from computational activities.
|-
|Offset Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
|Compensate unavoidable emissions through certified carbon offset projects such as renewable energy, reforestation, or clean cooking initiatives.
'''Environmental benefits:''' Helps achieve carbon neutrality and supports broader sustainability goals.
|} +
Doing research with communities affected by climate change: Climate-conscious methodologies matrix (for researchers and ethics reviewers) +
Use you own research to '''reflect on the cards''' questions
OR use the scenario described above to:
*'''Reflect''' on how the question applies in this setting.
*'''Identify''' possible tensions or risks (e.g., exclusion, harm, extractivism).
*'''Propose''' a climate-just, community-informed course of action. +
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.
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.
==== Fundamental principles of research integrity ====
''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.
These principles include:
* Reliability in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, methodology, analysis, and use of resources.
* Honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting, and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full, and unbiased way.
* Respect for colleagues, research participants, research subjects, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage, and the environment.
* Accountability for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision, and mentoring, and for its wider societal impacts.
==== Defining "Good Research Practices" ====
The European Code of Conduct also describes more action-oriented norms, categorized as good research practices in the following contexts:
* Research Environment
* Training, Supervision, and Mentoring
* Research Procedures
* Safeguards
* Data Practices and Management
* Collaborative Working
* Publication, Dissemination, and Authorship
* Reviewing and Assessment
[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]
"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."
Watch the video on An introduction to Open Access publishing from Taylor & Francis. +
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.
====COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers====
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.
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.
[1] COPE. (2017). Guidelines: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000000-QINU`"'Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource.
Click on [https://publicationethics.org/node/19886 Explore: Being a Reviewer – COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers] to open the resource. +
Well done! You have now learnt about various types (recyclable vs. replaceable) of plastics used in a lab setting and steps towards designing a plastic recycling pipeline for a more management of plastic wastes in a lab. It is obvious that the recycling pipeline suggested by Green Labs Austria has to be tailored to the specific conditions of each lab.
In sum, here are some guidelines that can be adopted for the successful development of a recycling pipeline: '''''(i) communication is key for enabling an easy and sensible sorting of plastic waste;(ii) recycling pipeline should be initially tested with a smaller group before being rolled out to a much larger group;(iii) strive for adaptability by substituting non-recyclable materials with recyclable alternatives.'''''
Moving forward, please use the questions below as a guide to reflect on your next steps. +
'''Questions to consider:'''
• Could my method, dataset or workflow become a template that others follow?
• Might my work normalise certain approaches in the field?
• Could downstream use of my outputs have environmental or climate implications beyond this project that I have not yet considered?
'''Example :''' A research project develops a model to compare cities or regions for policy or investment purposes based primarily on economic performance indicators, without integrating environmental or climate-related factors. While this may reflect methodological or data limitations, the model’s influence may extend beyond the project itself if it is reused by policymakers, consultants, or other researchers. In such cases, the model can contribute to decision-making frameworks that systematically prioritise economic metrics while downplaying climate risks such as heat exposure, environmental quality, or climate resilience. Reflecting on the project’s sphere of influence highlights the ethical responsibility to consider how research outputs may shape environmentally relevant decisions and priorities beyond their original research context. +
