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
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. +
This is a factual case. +
The aim of this study was to investigate students' views on plagiarism and to develop learning materials that would educate them to avoid plagiarism in their work. The study showed that students understand the concept of plagiarism and new learning materials turned out to be applicable to different disciplines, with numerous advantages over other methods of plagiarism reduction. +
In the second (face to face) group session trainers wrap up the training,foster a reflection on the experiences of trainees with the exercises and supervise trainees in practicing selected exercises again. The goals of the session are:
1) Trainees understand what a virtue-based approach to research integrity
2) Trainees practice again facilitating (part of) the exercises
3) Ideally, trainees leave the training feeling confident in facilitating the exercises
4) Trainees know the specific goals of the exercises and their contribution to the overall goals of the training
5) Trainees are aware of the possibility to adapt the training materials according the requirements of their own work context
6) Trainees know how to find all relevant materials and support for organizing a training themselves. +
In the second (face to face) group session trainees get together again for the last time and reflect back on the content of the training and on their experience in facilitating the exercises. In particular during the session trainees:
1) Reflect on their understanding of a virtue-based approach to research integrity and on how to enable a virtue ethics approach in people’s ways to think about and do research.
2) Practice again facilitating (part of) the exercises and address doubts and questions that might have arisen during the time in between the two face-to-face sessions.
3) Revise and reflect on the specific goals of the exercises and their contribution to the overall goals of the training.
4) Reflect on the possibility to adapt the training materials according the requirements of their own work context.
5) Lear how to find all relevant materials and support in organizing a training themselves. +
This is a factual case. +
This study has argued that Reflexive Principlism could become the best approach to developing ethical reasoning skill in engineering. This approach is a process of reflective, iterative and ethical-decision making and it aligns with the engineering design process.
<br /> +
Field research is essential for advancing knowledge of ecosystem processes and functions. However, if not carefully carried out, field research can lead to serious environmental and ethical consequences, including habitat disruption, heightened stress for wildlife, and a decline in biodiversity (Horváth et al. 2019; Keck et al. 2025), suggesting that the way we conduct field research matters as much as the findings themselves.
This micromodule provides practical guidance to minimize these impacts. Learners will explore strategies for safe, inclusive, and responsible field research activities and examine ethical considerations in wildlife research. Through examples and case studies, participants will gain tools to conduct research responsibly while supporting environmental sustainability and ethical standards. +
Replicability or replication in science refers to being able to repeat findings of another experiment. Successful replication supports the validity of a certain discovery, increases public trust in science and impacts public health. +
There is an ongoing discussion whether replicability is possible and even desirable in the humanities. While some scholars argue in favor of it, others criticize the idea and claim that replicability is neither possible or necessary in all of humanities. +
This study analyzes RCR instructors' goals for RCR education. The study findings on diversity of these goals suggest that effectiveness of RCR education should be improved. +
This study identifies responsible conduct of research (RCR) instructors’ goals for RCR education. The study findings suggest that there is a lack of consensus about these goals. +
