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 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. +
Recommendation 2/2023 (17 October 2023) addresses how institutional affiliations should be declared in scientific publications to uphold research integrity, transparency, and fair attribution of research output. It defines affiliation as a formal relationship between a researcher and an institution at the time the research was conducted, typically based on employment or an official contractual link. The document stresses that affiliations must be declared honestly and should only include institutions that genuinely contributed resources, infrastructure, funding, or intellectual support to the research. While multiple affiliations may be listed, this should be limited (generally no more than two) and justified, with a clear primary affiliation indicating where most of the work was carried out. The recommendation also highlights the responsibility of institutions to provide clear guidance and oversight on affiliation practices. Finally, it cautions against misuse of affiliations for institutional rankings and encourages alignment with responsible research assessment principles such as DORA and CoARA. +
Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers (2018) is a international framework authored by nan, in english, targeting nan. Originating from International, it aims to formalise principles of research integrity and open practice. It emphasises honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust in research. The text covers responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, spelling out expectations for good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Common provisions include clear authorship criteria, proper citation and acknowledgement, management of conflicts of interest, transparency of methods and data, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It also establishes procedures for handling breaches of integrity, defining misconduct, and setting up investigation mechanisms that ensure due process, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities. By aligning with international standards, it connects local policy to global norms, reinforcing mobility of researchers and comparability of practices across borders. The document integrates the principle of education—training for students and staff on responsible conduct—ensuring that integrity is taught as a core skill rather than assumed knowledge. It also incorporates guidance on emerging issues such as data management, digital tools, open science, and new forms of dissemination, embedding integrity in contemporary workflows. Practical tools often include checklists, codes of behaviour, reporting templates, and FAQs, translating high-level principles into day-to-day actions. The intended audience spans researchers, supervisors, institutions, and policymakers, all of whom need clarity on their roles in safeguarding the credibility of research. Equity and diversity appear as cross-cutting themes, recognising that integrity involves creating inclusive environments free from discrimination, harassment, or exploitation.
Overall, the resource situates research integrity as both a personal commitment and an institutional responsibility, embedding it into the full research cycle from design to dissemination. Annexes may provide case studies, historical context, and references to international declarations such as Singapore or Montreal statements. Definitions and glossaries support consistent interpretation, and contact points or ombudsperson systems are described to lower barriers to reporting. These features help the resource serve not only as a policy but also as a practical handbook.
This document provides recommendations on how to integrate citizen science more effectively into policymaking at local, national, and European levels. It emphasizes the increasing role of citizens in generating data, contributing local knowledge, and supporting evidence-based decisions. The report identifies major barriers including limited awareness, inadequate funding, lack of standardized methods, and weak links between policymakers and citizen science practitioners and offers practical steps to address them. Key recommendations focus on establishing supportive legal and institutional frameworks, improving data quality and accessibility, and incorporating citizen-generated evidence into policies related to the environment, public health, urban planning, and sustainability. It urges policymakers to recognize citizen science as a credible source of scientific data, ensure long-term investment, and integrate participatory approaches into strategic agendas such as the European Green Deal and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
The document also highlights the importance of capacity-building, cross-sector collaboration, and harmonized methodologies to enhance data reliability. It calls for platforms that connect citizens, researchers, and institutions, and for incentives that encourage participation and recognition. Overall, the aim is to shift citizen science from isolated projects to a mainstream, systematic instrument that strengthens transparency, public engagement, and inclusive knowledge in policy development. +
The handbook, produced by ENRIO in cooperation with ENERI, offers practical, consensus-based guidelines and considerations for research institutions and national bodies tasked with investigating allegations of research misconduct or irresponsible practices. It supplements the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity by concentrating specifically on how to handle violations defining misconduct versus less severe practices, establishing investigative procedures, committee composition, transparency vs confidentiality, appeals, cross-boundary cases, sanctions, and systemic responses. It acknowledges that there is no single “one size fits all” model across Europe, due to differences in legal, institutional, cultural, and regulatory contexts. The handbook is meant as a living document, open to adaptation and revision over time as practices and norms evolve. +
The scope of this short guide is to help history educators teach sensitive and controversial issues. Recommendations, provided by a group of academic historians, social psychologists, history teachers, anthropologists, and curriculum experts from different European countries, are intended particularly for the history teaching of intergroup conflicts. +
The publication is called a Handbook. It is a kind of consensus document although representing different views on different topics reflecting a diversified European picture when it comes to experiences and lessons learned. The Handbook has a set of “practical step by step” recommendations or things to consider when dealing with possible research misconduct or unaccepted practices. +
''Recommendations for the Investigation of Research Misconduct'' provides practical guidance on how research institutions and integrity bodies should respond to and investigate allegations of research misconduct and other irresponsible practices. It supplements the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity by offering detailed, experience-based recommendations for defining misconduct, establishing and improving research integrity systems, and handling allegations fairly, transparently, and effectively. The handbook covers key topics such as identifying unacceptable practices, setting up investigation procedures, managing conflicts of interest, composing competent committees, balancing transparency with confidentiality, and addressing appeals and sanctions. It also discusses cross-boundary cases involving multiple institutions or countries and urges learning and harmonization across systems while respecting national and institutional differences. Importantly, it emphasises protecting those involved in investigations researchers, whistleblowers, and committee members to maintain trust and uphold integrity in research communities. +
Recommendations of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK for Research Integrity Advisers and related background organisations1 +
This guideline, created by TENK, describes the roles and duties of Research Integrity Advisers, the appointment of whom was pioneered by TENK. Their main duties are to promote research integrity, provide advice on preventing misconducts, and the early identification and handling of misconduct. +
Recommendations on the Preparation, Adaptation and Implementation of Academic Ethics Codes by Research and Higher Education Institutions +
The purpose of this guideline is to help Lithuanian research and higher education institutions (RHEI) to prepare thorough, relevant, comprehensive, and advanced codes of academic ethics in compliance with the international ethics requirements, and to encourage the RHEIs to review and update them regularly and to apply them appropriately. +
