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
Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.
This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the links between '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063597#.X3cFmpNKjxQ research environments and research integrity]'''.
It focuses on issues regarding:
*Communication of the standards governing research integrity by universities and research organizations;*Environmental pressures to commit research misconduct;*Whistleblowing and the monitoring of research misconduct;*Barriers to reporting cases of research misconduct;*Power imbalances between students/early-career researchers and senior academics.
It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative. +
Ethical research conduct implies the application of fundamental ethical principles and legislation to scientific research in all possible domains of research – for example biomedical research, nature sciences, social sciences and humanities. The ethics review procedure of the EC including ethics screening and ethics assessment is explained. +
The website Research Ethics Compass offers an online course designed to strengthen researchers’ ethical decision-making capacity throughout the full research lifecycle from planning, to conducting, to disseminating, managing data, and guarding against misconduct. It begins at a “foundation level” where users reflect on what ethics means, why it matters in research, and how to apply ethical approaches and theories. The site features modular tasks , learning tools, an e-portfolio template, and directs participants onward to an advanced level after completion of the basics. The structure emphasises self-reflection and active engagement rather than merely reading codes of conduct. The course was developed under the LIFE programme in 2020 and is geared towards building confidence in making ethical research choices even when the answer isn’t obvious.
[[File:Ethics1.png|center|frameless|600x600px|alt=]] +
This module introduces a collection of research ethics and integrity games developed by EU funded initiatives to deepen engagement with and reflection on research ethics and integrity topics. The games presented here can be used within and/or outside of the academic environment. The games presented here have been developed by the following EU-funded initiatives: INTEGRITY, BRIDGE, and VIRT2UE. For each game developed by each project the target audience is indicated. +
The RE4GREEN project’s first policy brief, “Embedding Environmental and Climate Ethics in Research,” addresses a gap in how existing research ethics and integrity (RE&RI) frameworks often neglect environmental and climate considerations. Drawing on supporting deliverables and stakeholder engagement, the brief proposes six actionable recommendations directed at research institutions, ethics committees, curriculum developers, and researchers. It argues that RE&RI governance should evolve to integrate sustainability, justice, and the precautionary principle, thereby aligning research practices with the broader goals of the Green Transition. The brief outlines how institutions can reform policies, embed climate-conscious training, revise evaluation criteria, ensure transparency in environmental impacts, and foster accountability. Its development followed an iterative approach: evidence gathering, stakeholder consultations (including validation by the RE4GREEN Stakeholder Advisory Board), and workshops with partner projects. The brief was presented at the 2025 European Conference on Ethics and Integrity in Academia, and will feed into subsequent policy briefs (the next focusing on safeguarding scientific integrity in climate-related research). The document also reflects lessons learned and outlines paths for further institutional change. +
This is blog on research and publication ethics. As an example, it uses the factual case of a researcher who intentionally fabricated/falsified data and manipulated images. +
The paper presents the case of Zhejiang University in China where plagiarism, fabrication and falsification was discovered by the new president who is now educating about scientific integrity in China. This is a factual case. +
This MOOC will give you an introduction to research ethics. You will receive a comprehensive overview of the main ethical issues that researchers experience in doing research with human subjects.
The course will give you the tools to apply your moral reasoning in practical, real-life scenarios in research and challenge you to reflect on case studies and provide the tools you need to conduct your own ethical assessment of a research project. Most importantly, you will learn to identify and question your own ethical biases and to build new well-reasoned arguments for your position on different ethical scenarios.
The course offers a variety of materials to study effectively and interactively. You will learn using case studies, videos, interviews, and discussions. You will engage with the course materials and other participants through exercises and open discussion boards. +
The Austrian Science Fund (FWF) is the largest funding agency for basic research in Austria that contributes to cutting-edge research both in Austria and an international level. This organization aims to foster research that supports growth in different areas- scientific, economic and cultural. As a prominent research funding organization, the FWF plays a key role in encouraging and ensuring good research practice among researchers and research institutions. In this "roadmap" guideline meant for researchers and other stakeholders, they provide guidance in four areas: principles of research ethics and good research practice, good practices in the context of funding applications, statistics on research misconduct and responsible animal testing. +
Research integrity is the core focus area for the HEADT Centre. This includes the three aspects Plagiarism, Data falsification and Image manipulation. One research goal is to develop metrics to help distinguish between the various greyscale zones that detection tools reveal which can be seen in this resource. +
This report presents the results of a survey of Scientific Europe member organisations, undertaken in 2014 by the Working Group on Research Integrity. It maps existing policies, procedures and practices for promoting research integrity and builds upon this to make a number of key recommendations for improving research integrity including processes and policies, awareness raising, training, and collaboration. +
The case discusses the relevance of better conflict of interests regulations in accepting a research misconduct allegation. An argument is provided that the U.S. research misconduct regulations are flawed in requiring research misconduct assessors/experts/accused, but not accusers, to reveal possible conflicts of interest (COI) that could affect research misconduct allegations.
Rather than using peer-reviewed, scientific-journal literature to try to defend his account of hormesis against Shrader-Frechette’s scientific criticisms, on August 23, 2011 Calabrese instead filed RM charges against ShraderFrechette with her employer, the University of Notre Dame (UND). The UND Research Integrity Policy, like that of virtually all U.S. universities, is mandated by ORI. It requires that “upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct,” the university must “immediately assess the allegation.” Thus UND appointed a faculty committee to assess Calabrese’s allegations. +
This training accompanies the RE4GREEN Annex to the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC). The Annex provides interpretive guidance on how established research integrity principles — reliability, honesty, respect, and accountability — can be understood in relation to environmental and climate considerations.
Before completing this micromodule, learners are invited to read the Annex, which explores how environmental and climate considerations intersect with research integrity practices and potential violations. The exercises in this training are designed to support reflection on these issues in a concise and applied format. +
Research Integrity flashcards +
This theme addresses research integrity in retrospective clinical studies, with a particular focus on metodological transparency, responsible data use, and ethical considerations in everyday medical research.
Retrospective studies are widely used in clinical practice;however, they require careful attention to data accuracy, bias control, patient confidentiality, and transparent reporting. This theme aims to stimulate discussion on how to strengthen ethical standards and scientific rigor in routine clinical research. +
Research Integrity in trying times: a scenario on the presentation and dissemination of information +
This scenario focuses on how '''information is''' '''presented and disseminated,''' at different points of a research project. Other issues highlighted are:
· Research integrity and research ethics during a global emergency
· Excluding relevant information from a research proposal
· International and interdisciplinary collaborations
· Responsibility of researchers when communicating unreviewed information
· Author permissions before publication
· Researchers’ accountability for the integrity of the project
· Retraction practices
<br /> +
This is a series of lectures looking at different aspects of research integrity and their application in biomedical research. +
This blog presents the factual case of a post doc researcher who systematically sabotaged the experiments of a graduate student in his lab in order to ‘get ahead’. +
The sensational “reactome array” paper published in Science in 2009 was investigated in Spain by the Ethics Committee of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) after Science issued an editorial expression of concern. The paper was retracted in 2010 because of “skepticism” due to “errors” in chemistry. The “errors” were so profound that many readers expressed doubt that they were really errors, but part of an elaborate hoax. +
This online module provides information on Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). It is intended particularly for researchers in the early stages of their careers and trainers. The module contains multiple activities, such as games, quizzes, cases and possibilities for reflection. The aim of this module is to raise awareness, promote RCR and prepare young researchers to deal with challenges of their future careers . +
