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
This is a factual case.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000000-QINU`"' +
Science Europe published a comprehensive review of developments in research integrity across Europe and the US. Research integrity is about "the performance of research to the highest standards of professionalism and rigour, in an ethically robust manner", says the report. +
This short checklist consists of a table divided into three columns. The first column provides a list of different aspects of research integrity, such as authorship, conflict of interest and data management. The second column suggests specific actions for each of these aspects. The third colmun provides available resources /web links related to these issues. +
Research metrics, or Bibliometrics, refers to the statistical analysis of published articles and journals and their citations. Analysis of research metrics can be at a journal level, article level or author level.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' Altmetrics is an alternative approach to research metrics. It adopts an online approach, utilising social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000002-QINU`"' +
This online training consists of three modules concerning research misconduct. The first provides information on what is misconduct, how to report it and how institutions can cope with it. The second aims to help researchers and students identify questionable practices and prevent them, offering 28 guidelines. The third provides information regarding image processing. I contains guidelines, case studies and quizzes among others. +
What is research misconduct? Which practices are considered ‘misconduct’ and which might be labelled a less serious ‘misbehavior’ or ‘questionable research practice’? For some, misconduct is synonymous with ‘FFP’ - Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'– whereas others consider a failure to meet ethical, legal and professional obligations, and even a failure to properly deal with misconduct allegations, to qualify as misconduct. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"'.There is ongoing debate among academics how to precisely define research misconduct. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"'
The European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity '"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"' refers to misconduct as FFP. Other violations which damage the integrity of the research are referred to as ‘other unacceptable practices’.'"`UNIQ--references-00000006-QINU`"' +
This is a factual case concerning the recent INTERGROWTH-21st study at the University of Oxford. +
This article provides information on possible responses to research misconduct by creating and enforcing a rule and ethics education. It addresses the best possible ways to apply them. +
The US Public Health Service found that a researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago had carried out research misconduct in relation to the legend and related text for a figure contained in their National Institutes of Health grant application. +
Parents are told that if they enroll their babies in a research project, the babies will receive an EEG to look for signs of brain damage. Babies not enrolled will not receive this diagnostic test. +
This blog post describes some of the controversies around the famous British-German psychologist Hans Eysenck and provides a summary of the statement made by King's college about his work being unsafe. +
A student conducts an educational experiment on her own classmates with the permission of the professor. The professor agrees the experiment has academic merit. The experiment clearly shows, one group performs significantly better than the other.
The student wants to publish the results and give a talk about them. However, the student is in doubt about the right procedures. +
This case is about a professor of biomedical engineering whose paper got retracted because only certain data points were reported that supported the paper's conclusion. +
This factual case describes an instance in which a researcher is accused of scientific misconduct by the General Medical Council (GMC). The researcher allegedly lied to trial sponsors and other research institutions about having obtained ethical approval and about the existence of other sponsors. In addition, the accused researcher used the titles of professor and Ph.D. without obtaining a doctorate. +
This blog post describes a case where one member of a project decides to publish the results of their group work on his own. +
This factual case is about a psychologist who committed scientific misconduct and describes the investigation into this misconduct by his institution. The institution refuses to release details on this case. This provokes the fear by scientists that the case may cause harm to the whole field of research rather than only to the individual researcher. +
Geneticists working on groundbreaking research and funded by a large NIH grant fail to find a safe place to store their lab rats. Their haphazard solution may cost them. +
Researcher’s Code of Ethics (1998) is a national framework authored by nan, in english, targeting nan. Originating from Thailand, 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.
A resident physician at the University of Virginia Medical Center was found by the Office of Research Integrity to have engaged in research misconduct by plagiarising research supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) research and training awards and by NIH intramural research funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Surgical Neurosurgery Branch (NSB), and from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR). +
This legal resolution, adopted by the National Assembly in 2011, details a comprehensive system for managing research and innovation in Slovenia, including planning, funding, conduct of research, ethical dimensions and collaborations. It also makes references to EU-wide legislation. +
