What is this about? (Is About)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A short summary providing some details about the theme/resource (max. 75 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
R
The RDA Endorsed Recommendations & Outputs page presents the set of formally endorsed outputs developed by RDA Working and Interest Groups that have passed community review and approval. These outputs include technical standards, guidelines, schemas, workflows, and other infrastructure tools that solve concrete challenges in data sharing, interoperability, and reuse. The page offers filters (by output type, status, domain, region) to explore these endorsed outputs, alongside metadata (authors, review status, working group origin). Each endorsed output comes with a level of endorsement, licensing (CC BY 4.0), and deposit in open repositories like Zenodo, making them accessible and reusable by the broader community. +
Environmental and climate-related challenges are global and reach all sectors of society. However, research and innovation (R&I) activities that address these challenges, may carry substantial unintended implications. RE4GREEN aims to contribute to a European Research Area ethics and integrity framework for R&I activities designed to reduce the risk from such implications and to support the transition to a sustainable economy and society as envisioned by the European Green Deal. RE4GREEN will reflect diverse stakeholder views and relate them to cross-cutting environmental and climate ethics issues by applying a bottom-up social lab methodology. RE4GREEN’s framework will consist of operational research ethics and integrity guidelines, recommendations, and training materials for researchers, ethics and integrity experts and advisors, and ethics reviewers to ensure R&I activities support the Green Transition. +
This resource helps supervisors to foster a strong culture of research integrity. Participants learn how their everyday actions — both visible and subtle — shape ethical behaviour, explore practical strategies for guiding responsible research, and strengthen their ethical decision-making competence. By the end, they are prepared to lead by example and confidently support integrity throughout their research communities.
Supervisors are invited to elevate their impact as the pillars of research integrity, and to apply practical practices that build trust and transparency. With the training they can enhance ethical decision-making with proven frameworks and step confidently into the role of REI leader: by creating psychological safety, setting clear expectations, inspiring accountability, and shaping a culture that drives excellent, responsible research across teams.
The training utilises the conversation format described in the posters and includes 6 steps. These can be used to structure group conversations among colleagues, team-members, etc.). +
RETHINK #scicomm was a Horizon 2020 project that reimagined science communication in Europe by studying how digital platforms have reshaped the field and how citizens make sense of science in that environment. It created local “Rethinkerspaces” in seven countries to map who communicates about science, how, and why. Through action-research with these hubs, the project developed quality criteria, strategies, and training to strengthen openness, reflexivity, and trust in science communication. RETHINK produced policy recommendations, training resources, and reflective frameworks to foster deeper, more inclusive, and adaptive dialogue between science and society. +
The Researcher Identity Development: Strengthening Science in Society Strategies (RID-SSISS) project aims not only at helping Early Career Researchers (ECRs), that is doctoral students and postdocs, to develop as researchers.
It also seeks to provide them with the educational resources for acquiring the high-level competences and skills they need to act as researchers in a complex, highly competitive and interdisciplinary context. Such context calls for a new conceptualization of research and a new researcher profile. The RID-SSISS aims to contribute in this direction through the design, implementation and dissemination of training and resources. Moreover, the project has the added value of promoting participatory research and innovative proposals that foster transdisciplinary research among doctoral students and early career researchers. +
ROSIE General Guidelines on Responsible Open Science (2023), Responsible Open Science in Europe (ROSiE) +
The ROSIE General Guidelines on Responsible Open Science (2023), produced by Responsible Open Science in Europe, provide practical guidance for open science across EU member states. Openness is framed as the default while respecting ethics, privacy, IP, and security, linking it to research quality, reproducibility, and equitable access. The guidelines cover open access publishing, FAIR data, data management plans, persistent identifiers, and repository use, while outlining responsibilities for researchers and institutions, justified embargoes, and exceptions for sensitive data. They emphasize enabling infrastructure, alignment with initiatives like Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud, and monitoring through compliance checks. Equity, inclusion, and responsible openness are central, with safeguards for personal or Indigenous data and support for publisher-agnostic, community-owned platforms. Implementation assigns clear roles to researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers, making the guidelines a coherent reference that connects European practice to global standards. +
ROSiE is a three-year project funded by HORIZON2020. Its mission is to co-create with all related stakeholders novel practical tools to foster a responsible open science and citizen science. +
These are the field-specific guidelines that complement the [https://old.embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=ROSiE_General_Guidelines_on_Responsible_Open_Science&action=edit&redlink=1 ROSiE General Guidelines on Responsible Open Science]. These guidelines cover the following fields: health and life sciences, social sciences, natural sciences, and the humanities. +
These general guidelines on responsible open science contain principles relevant to researchers and other stakeholders that utilize an open science approach. The principles are meant to ensure that open science practices are ethical and equitable. These general guidelines also act as the foundation for the field-specific guidelines on responsible open science.
The guidelines were drafted by the Responsible Open Science in Europe project, a Horizon 2020 project tasked to produce a responsible open science complement to the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. +
The video lectures provide a concise introduction to ethical issues in Open Science. 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. +
Lecture 1.1.: Emerging, History & Justifications of Open Science (Olivier Le Gall)
In this lecture, Olivier Le Gall articulates the foundational principles of Open Science. The initial segment of the lecture addresses the rationale for opening science and provides a comprehensive overview of its concept. The subsequent segment delves into the core values and guiding principles underpinning Open Science. Finally, the concluding segment elucidates the anticipated social benefits derived from the implementation of Open Science +
The European Commission funded project RRI tools has an extensive collection of resources on Responsible Research and Innovation in its 'toolkit'. +
A postdoctoral researcher finds herself struggling to meet the unrealistic expectations of her mentor. +
ROUTE-TO-PA is a multidisciplinary innovation project that includes research in fields of e-government, computer science, learning science and economy. It aims to improve the impact of ICT-based technology platforms for transparency towards citizens. +
This factual case is about two journals that were involved in plagiarizing scientific articles. Both journals republished open-access articles, in some cases without the original authors knowing, and did not properly refer to the original publication. Furthermore, the journals listed the names of various researchers as if they were members of their editorial boards. However, these researchers never agreed to these positions or did not have any editorial tasks, suggesting that the journal was merely using their name. +
This study aims to give an overview of the use of randomized consent designs. It provides information that these consent designs have often been misused. With regard to that, the authors advise trialists and physicians to be aware of the appropriate indication for the use of these designs. +
Two post-docs, a man and a woman, are both working on new major proposals under the supervision of their professor. Only one of the proposals can be submitted. After much discussion, the professor selects the proposal of the female post-doc and invites the male post-doc to be co-PI with him. Being co-PI is major career opportunity. The question arises, why did the professor select the proposal of one post-doc (the female) and invite the other (the male) to be his co-PI? +
The aim of the ENERI e-Community is to create an Open Database of Research Ethics and Research Integrity (RE&RI) experts and a space for discussion and exchange. The e-community is hosted by SINAPSE, The European Commission’s web communication platform. +
The article presents a hybrid Machine Learning approach for recognizing scientific artifacts - hypotheses, background, motivation, objectives and findings - in biomedical research publications. The aim is to automatically create argumentative discourse networks across multiple publications. +
Recommendation 1/2023 (16 May 2023) addresses concerns about the '''practice of declaring multiple institutional affiliations in scientific publications''', especially when such affiliations may not reflect where the research was actually conducted, supported, or formally authorised. It was issued by the Committee for the Integrity of Research in Catalonia (CIR-CAT) following referrals about some high-profile researchers who appeared to list affiliations with foreign institutions without clear evidence that those institutions provided substantial research support, possibly for reputational or ranking advantages. The committee emphasises that affiliation and authorship are integral to scientific publications and should truthfully represent formal ties and contributions. Misleading or fraudulent affiliations can undermine good scientific practice, distort institutional credit, and damage trust in research. The recommendation calls on institutions to investigate reported cases internally, ensure compliance with contractual and legal obligations, engage with journals to correct unjustified affiliations, and strengthen internal policies and communication on ethical affiliation practices. +
