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
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. +
The purpose of this online training is to answer the question how should researchers act with regards to research ethics. It explores numerous topics concerning research ethics and provides regulations and guidelines as well as case studies. +
One of Dr. Cultu's research subjects is suspected of committing a murder at a bar where Cultu conducted observations and recorded interviews. The police requests access to Dr. Cultu's research notes and interviews. The case study asks whether the researcher should cooperate with the police and in what form. +
This online course portal is developed by Columbia University to support Responsible Conduct of Research practices. It provides a case based introduction regarding responsible conduct of research practices.
The course is suitable to junior researchers, students in their doctoral studies. However, the well-developed case studies could also support senior researchers or department heads in discussing RCR issues with their students and colleagues. The course involves six independent modules, built on six important RCR topics: Conflicts of Interest, Mentoring, Responsible Authorship and Peer Review, Research Misconduct, Collaborative Science, Data Acquisition and Management.
Authorship and Peer Review is the third module in the course that starts with a brief introduction, it provides three annotated case studies ("Who is an author?", "What is responsible peer-review?" and "Peer review and controversial research"). The module provides the reader with a brief introduction on the issue section with a list of questions and answers, comprehensive theoretical background and a rich compilation of resources, including video materials. +
This report, sponsored by IAC (Inter-Academy Council) and IAP (the global network of science academies), represents the first joint effort by the scientific academies to provide clarity and advice in forging an international consensus on responsible conduct in the global research enterprise. It acknowledges and draws on information and recommendations from the many national and international organizations that have issued guidelines and statements on the basic responsibilities and obligations of researchers. +
Collection of resources on Responsible Research and Innovation aimed at research-performing and research-funding organizations from the RRI-Practice H2020 project +
This course has 5 learning units. It spans five weeks and involves about 12.5 hours of work in total. The program introduces you to key challenges that you could face when collaborating with others during your PhD research, as well as a range of practical exercises.
[[File:Overview course RCR-1.png|center|frame|You can access the introductory video for this course here: [https://vimeo.com/707791207/0697af19f4 Teaser for the course]]]
One way of showing responsible conduct in practice is to talk about challenges that you could face as a PhD candidate with your supervisor or your mentor. That is why – as part of the course – we ask you to schedule a meeting with your supervisor or your mentor about RCR. At the end of every learning unit, you can collect possible topics for this meeting.
Collaboration is an important part of this course. There will be 3 plenary sessions (in week 1, 3 and 5). Next to that, there are interactive assignments in small subgroups (the group allocation is announced on the news forum). Subgroups can decide to meet live (online), or to work asynchronously.
A certificate will be provided to participants who completed every part. This course was developed in the [https://community.embassy.science/c/integrity/26 H2020 INTEGRITY project] by Mariëtte van den Hoven, Miriam van Loon, Hesther van Gulick and Eline Borsboom, and funded by EU H2020.<br /> +
The Institute of Science and Technology, Austria is a government-established research institution that organized and encourages both research in basic sciences and the dissemination of research results. Being a prominent PhD granting organization, the IST emphasizes the need for ethical research and upholding good scientific practices. Every researcher is required to respect the standards of good scientific practice set by the OeAWI (link under "related to" section). In addition, they also provide contact details of ombudspersons responsible for research ethics and good scientific practices. +
This tool is intended for researchers who are at the beginning of their research careers. The purpose of this Quick Guide is to promote RCR (in this case publication practices and authorship) through education and training. Its content is useful for young researchers when preparing their research or writing an article. For example, it includes some sample scenarios that can help researchers to detect and critique frequent mistakes in the research. +
This article describes the role of academies of science and of associations of such academies in developing codes of good research practices. It also discusses their role in encouraging research conscience based on values and research standards. +
