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
S
The SIENNA Project (Stakeholder-Informed Ethics for New Technologies) was a Horizon 2020 initiative that addressed ethical and human-rights challenges in three emerging tech domains: human genomics, human enhancement, and AI & robotics. The project combined stakeholder input from citizens, experts, civil society, and policymakers with rigorous ethical, legal, and social analysis. Based on this, it developed ethical frameworks, research-ethics protocols, professional codes of conduct, and recommendations for better regulation. The aim was to guide responsible innovation in these transformative technologies by promoting human rights, accountability, and inclusive governance. +
SOPs4RI (Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity) aims to stimulate and foster responsible research practices across European Research Performing and Funding Organisations (RPOs and RFOs) with a toolbox that includes a collection of easy-to-use Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines that these organisations can use to develop their own Research Integrity Promotion Plans. +
SOPs4RI - Guidelines for research institutions on community building for a positive research culture +
This [https://osf.io/7fn2x guideline] offers recommendations that can help research institutions create an environment in which researchers share a sense of community and a positive research culture. +
This [https://osf.io/fwa5c guideline] offers recommendations that can help research institutions foster diversity, equality, and inclusion. +
This guideline presents a set of recommendations for research institutions on informing and empowering supervisors regarding their rights, roles and responsibilities.
Competent supervision and mentoring must be offered to researchers at all stages of their career development. The RIPP must specify procedures and criteria for qualifying as a supervisor or mentor and must include guidelines for supervision and mentoring of researchers at different career stages, with due attention to responsible conduct of research and research integrity. Also, we assure that academic leadership is valued and made tangible in this guidelines. +
This guideline presents a set of recommendations for research institutions on building and leading an effective team with a focus on research integrity and valueing responsible conduct of research.
Competent leadership is a skill that should get more attention by resaerch institutions. Guidance should be offered to researchers at leadership positions. The RIPP must specify procedures and criteria for leadership, their responsibilities, how to support them, provide time, guidance and resources, provide training leadership and recognize and reward responsible leadership. +
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research funders on defining and preventing unjustified interferences from funders, political and commercial actors +
The recommendations in this guideline concern what measures research funding organizations can take to define unjustified interferences, ensuring transparency and integrity in their procedures, and preventing unjustified interferences by funders themselves, political, and commercial actors. +
The guidelines on monitoring of funded projects address research funding organizations with the aim to give them general recommendations on how to monitor the execution of research grants with regards to scientific, research integrity and financial aspects. +
This resource contains a specific guideline for Research Funding Organizations focusing on the selection and evaluation of proposals. This guideline focuses on promoting ''research integrity practices'' during the granting process. +
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on Responsible Supervision and Leadership - Supervision requirements & guidelines +
This guideline presents a set of recommendations for research institutions on informing and empowering supervisors regarding their rights, roles and responsibilities.
Competent supervision and mentoring must be offered to researchers at all stages of their career development. The RIPP must specify procedures and criteria for qualifying as a supervisor or mentor and must include guidelines for supervision and mentoring of researchers at different career stages, with due attention to responsible conduct of research and research integrity. Also, we assure that academic leadership is valued and made tangible in this guidelines. +
This document provides guidance to research institutions on providing continuous research integrity education outside of formal training. +
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on the research integrity education of bachelor, master and PhD students +
This document provides guidance to research institutions on what to include in their research integrity education strategy for bachelor, master and PhD students. +
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on the research integrity education of institutional research integrity stakeholders +
This document provides guidance to research institutions on what to include in their research integrity education strategy for institutional research integrity stakeholders who are not directly involved in conducting research (e.g. privacy officers, Research Integrity and Ethics Officers, research administrators). +
SOPs4RI Guidelines for research institutions on the research integrity education of post-doctorate and senior researchers +
This document provides guidance to research institutions on what to include in their research integrity education strategy for post-doctorate and senior researchers. +
This guideline presents a set of recommendations for research institutions on informing and empowering PhD students regarding their rights, roles and responsibilities.
Competent supervision and mentoring must be offered to researchers at all stages of their career development. The RIPP must specify procedures and criteria for qualifying as a supervisor or mentor and must include guidelines for supervision and mentoring of researchers at different career stages, with due attention to responsible conduct of research and research integrity. Also, we assure that academic leadership is valued and made tangible in this guidelines. +
This SPOC (small private online course) is about research integrity. The aim of the course is to stimulate you to become aware of relevant issues in your academic publishing practice and ways to approach them.
Together with an international group of PhD’s, you will engage in meaningful discussions and develop insights that can help you on your route to becoming a responsible researcher. Before we discuss in unit 2 issues that you may come across when you are ready to publish a paper, in unit 1 we will first discuss how to tackle authorship issues in your research project. Unit 3 offers practical assignments in which we will further explore what it takes to do a scrupulous and honest review.
Some important characteristics of this course:<br />
*You will closely relate to your own experiences in this course. Therefore, there will be multiple opportunities to share your experiences and perspectives.
*The cases that are presented often do not have an immediate right or wrong answer: these are examples of ‘grey areas’ that require reflection.
*This course is structured around the process of publishing an academic paper and has a central focus on authorship and peer review. Topics discussed are: making a publication plan, determining authorship order, recognising predatory journals and criteria to use while reviewing the work of others. In each phase of the process, dilemmas may arise that have an integrity component and require reflection.
[[File:Overview authorship phd course.png.png|center|frame|You can access the introductory video for this course here: [https://vimeo.com/707791264/fcfb8e1e46 Teaser for the course]]]
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. +
The RCR through supervision and mentoring course is a SPOC (small private online course) which focuses on supervisors and mentors training to improve academic leadership and empowerment through reflecting on personal experiences and behaviour. The course focuses on three topics:
*Being a good mentor
*Mentoring towards Responsible Conduct of Research training
*Empowerment in Academia
[[File:SPOC video.png.png|center|frame]]
The RCR through supervision and mentoring course is part of the [https://community.embassy.science/c/integrity/26 INTEGRITY Project], which develops an evidence-based analysis of student and researchers needs, blind-spots, and expectations regarding research integrity across 9 European countries. +
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found in 2011 that a postdoctoral researcher who sabotaged a colleague’s research materials, was found guilty of misconduct'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'. This paper discusses definitions of scientific misconduct and its implications with the example of a factual case. It is discussed whether the definition of research misconduct used to assess the case may be seen as appropriate and what possible alternative definitions may be.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
Safeguards, Data-sharing and the Disclosure of Sensitive Results: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project +
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 '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063633#.X3cGu5NKjxQ safeguards required for data-sharing and data disclosure practices]'''.
It focuses on issues regarding:
*The ethical and regulatory standards governing data-sharing practices;*The ethical dimensions of research involving children and schools;*Amendments to research ethics protocols;*Research participant complaints against researchers;*Disclosure of sensitive research results.
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. +
Salvador Declaration on Open Access: the developing world perspective (2005), Participants of the International Seminar on Open Access +
''Salvador Declaration on Open Access: the Developing World Perspective'' (2005), produced by participants of the International Seminar on Open Access, sets international expectations for open science and open access with a focus on developing countries. Written in English, it frames openness as the default while balancing ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, following the principle “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” The declaration emphasizes open access publishing through trusted repositories, Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and FAIR data principles supported by data management plans. Responsibilities for researchers, institutions, and funders are clearly defined, including rights retention, funding acknowledgment, and transparent management of embargoes or exceptions. Infrastructure such as repositories, registries, and discovery systems supports compliance and visibility, aligning local practice with global initiatives like Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud. Equity, inclusion, and responsible openness are central, with safeguards for sensitive and Indigenous data. Serving as both a benchmark and practical checklist, it offers actionable guidance to enhance transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access worldwide. +
