Why is this important? (Important Because)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A description to provide more focus to the theme/resource (max. 200 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
C
A recent review'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001C-QINU`"' has found that published cases of research ethics violations in Social Sciences and Humanities disciplines constitute a very small percentage (4.3% and 1.3% respectively). It is important to flag examples of ethics misconduct in disciplines like Law. +
Accuracy in referencing is important for several reasons'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' such as avoiding improper appropriation of others ideas, allowing readers to further research certain topics which might be only briefly touched upon in the text, embedding the text in the relevant literature on the same topic and supporting ones claims on scientific evidence which has been peer reviewed by other researchers. Reflecting on this case, for instance in a classroom setting, can support the understanding good referencing practices and help in avoiding mistakes'"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000008-QINU`"' +
Cultural differences play an important role in the research environment. Not being aware of such differences can cause miscommunication and even be a cause of research misconduct. +
Education, research and innovation are basic pillars of the development of contemporary society. The trust in research rests on the trust in the integrity of researchers and the reliability of results of their scientific work. The outcome and interpretation of their research can be verified by the scientific community, but cannot be verified by the public for which the new knowledge is intended. Therefore, if science is to remain trustworthy, researchers must observe basic moral principles in their work, and must be people of integrity and honesty. +
D
DIAMOND OPEN ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR INSTITUTIONS, FUNDERS, SPONSORS, DONORS, AND POLICYMAKERS +
This document matters because it helps translate high-level open-science principles into practical, actionable guidance that three major stakeholder groups (institutions, funders, policymakers) can use to nurture and sustain an equitable open-access ecosystem. Diamond OA differs from traditional models by avoiding paywalls and fees, making research more accessible globally. However, it faces challenges in funding, infrastructure, and recognition. These recommendations support coordinated efforts to overcome such barriers, encouraging inclusive and transparent scholarly communication that benefits researchers, academic communities, and the public alike. By offering tailored guidelines, the report fosters collaboration, sustainability, and policy alignment across Europe and beyond. +
Research and research-based education is of central and increasing importance in developing society’s knowledge base, increasing welfare and providing informed answers to local and global challenges. +
The strategy for open access focuses on two Open Access models: Golden and Green. While Golden Open Access is encouraged where possible, it should not be used when there is an added expenditure involved. The default Open Access model, therefore, should be Green Open Access.
This guideline also stresses that legislation is not the way to ensure Open Access to all research. Rather, co-operation and awareness are the main mechanisms to enable compliance. Open Access should also be implemented using means that do not compromise the quality of research, but only add to its value. +
The case demonstrates that: a) sometimes, what initially seems as a violation of research ethics procedures might be the result of a mistake, often more easily performed by researchers in their early careers; b) there may be a lack of clarity on how to deal with what might seem – but not necessarily proven – to be a case of research misconduct in a team.
This is a useful case for students as it provides some practical advice of who a student can raise such concerns with. It provides some ideas on how one can proceed in a manner that would protect all parties involved from potentially unnecessary tribulations. +
Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project +
The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.
They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.
The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.
According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:
1) Research Environment
2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring
3) Research Procedures
4) Safeguards
5) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063648#.X3cHCpNKjxQ '''Data Practices and Management''']
6) Collaborative Working
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
<br /> +
If you face a moral question, dilemma, or conflict, you should be able to make a well-considered choice. In order to consider choices or form an opinion you should be able to fully understand the context of the issue, what is at stake and for whom. To have a dialogue, an attitude of slowing down, postponing judgments and asking questions is required. By engaging with others in dialogue you focus on understanding the other and helping the other (and yourself) think critically about his/her way of acting. +
When facing a moral question, dilemma, or conflict, one should be able to make a well-considered choice. In order to consider choices or form an opinion one should be able to fully understand the context of the issue, what is at stake, and for whom. To have a dialogue, an attitude of slowing down, postponing judgments and asking questions is required. By engaging with others in dialogue you focus on understanding the other and helping the other (and yourself) think critically about his/her way of acting. +
Im Angesicht einer moralischen Frage, einem Dilemma oder einem Konflikt, sollte man in der Lage sein, eine wohlüberlegte Entscheidung zu treffen. Um Entscheidungsmöglichkeiten abzuwägen und sich eine Meinung zu bilden, ist es wichtig, den Kontext zu verstehen – welche Risiken die Situation birgt, und für wen das relevant ist. Zu diesem Zweck ist es hilfreich, einen ''Dialog ''zu führen und dabei mit Fragen die Perspektiven anderer zu erkunden, ohne dabei vorschnell zu urteilen. Mit anderen Personen in einen Dialog zu treten, trägt zum gegenseitigen Verständnis bei und hilft uns und den anderen, die jeweiligen Handlungsweisen des Gegenübers kritisch zu hinterfragen. +
Im Angesicht einer moralischen Frage, einem Dilemma oder einem Konflikt, sollte man in der Lage sein, eine wohlüberlegte Entscheidung zu treffen. Um Entscheidungsmöglichkeiten abzuwägen und sich eine Meinung zu bilden, ist es wichtig, den Kontext zu verstehen – welche Risiken die Situation birgt, und für wen das relevant ist. Zu diesem Zweck ist es hilfreich, einen ''Dialog ''zu führen und dabei mit Fragen die Perspektiven anderer zu erkunden, ohne dabei vorschnell zu urteilen. Mit anderen Personen in einen Dialog zu treten, trägt zum gegenseitigen Verständnis bei und hilft uns und den anderen, die jeweiligen Handlungsweisen des Gegenübers kritisch zu hinterfragen. +
Deception to enroll in clinical trials can be a risk "to both subject safetey and study integrity that researchers should actively minimize when methods of verifying self-reported health data exist". '"`UNIQ--ref-00000024-QINU`"' +
This declaration serves as an adaptation of the Hippocratic Oath to modern medicine. The declaration is a core document for medical ethics and, in many countries, it is even part of the medical profession code. The Biomedical Alliance in Europe and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology endorse the Declaration of Geneva in their codes of conduct and ethics, respectively. +
The Declaration of Helsinki is especially important to protect the well-being of human subjects involved in biomedical research. It serves as a call of duty for physicians, that need to safeguard the welfare of the human subjects. Different European societies, such as the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, and the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association, have endorsed the declaration in their code of ethics and conduct. +
Although organ transplantation saves and improves many lives, exploitative and unethical practices are common, provoking harm especially to the poor and vulnerable. The declaration provides guidance and principles to ensure that organ transplantation is a safe practice, based on values like human solidarity, and to prevent harmful practices. Among many medical societies, the Declaration of Istanbul is endorsed by the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association. +
The case delivers yet another example of the many formats that plagiarism can take (see also Loui, 2002)'"`UNIQ--ref-0000012B-QINU`"'. It is also a reminder of how easily and, often unintentional, breech of ethical guidelines can occur, especially by those less experienced in a field.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000012C-QINU`"' +
Liest man verschiedene Research Integrity Verhaltenskodizes oder Leitlinien zur guten wissenschaftlichen Praxis, fällt auf, dass von den Wissenschaftler:innen oft erwartet wird, dass sie bestimmte Pflichten kennen und bestimmte Werte und Tugenden vertreten, und dass sie von alleine wüssten, wie sie sich entsprechend zu verhalten hätten. Beispiele sind: “Ehrlichkeit”, “Zuverlässigkeit”, “Verantwortung” und “Rechenschaftspflicht”.
Doch wie sollte man sich verhalten, um dem Wert “Ehrlichkeit” in bestimmten Situationen gerecht zu werden? Kann ein:e Wissenschaftler:in zu ehrlich sein? Oder nicht ehrlich genug? Diese Übung fördert die gemeinsame und kritische moralische Überlegung darüber, was es bedeutet, sich bestimmten Werten und Tugenden entsprechend zu verhalten - vor allem in Situationen, die eine Herausforderung für die eigene oder allgemeine Research Integrity darstellen. +
Liest man verschiedene Research Integrity Verhaltenskodizes oder Leitlinien zur guten wissenschaftlichen Praxis, fällt auf, dass von den Wissenschaftler:innen oft erwartet wird, dass sie bestimmte Pflichten kennen und bestimmte Werte und Tugenden vertreten, und dass sie von alleine wüssten, wie sie sich entsprechend zu verhalten hätten. Beispiele sind: “Ehrlichkeit”, “Zuverlässigkeit”, “Verantwortung” und “Rechenschaftspflicht”.
Diese Leitlinien sollen Wissenschaftler:innen darin anleiten, sich integer zu verhalten, wenn sie in ihrem Forschungsalltag mit moralischen Fragen konfrontiert werden.
Doch wie sollte eine Person sich verhalten, um dem Wert “Ehrlichkeit” in einer konkreten Situation gerecht zu werden? Kann ein:e Wissenschaftler:in zu ehrlich sein? Oder nicht ehrlich genug? Was ist, am Beispiel von “Ehrlichkeit”, genau das richtige Maß an Ehrlichkeit für die spezifische Person in dem spezifischen Kontext?
Diese Übung soll Trainer:innen darin schulen, einen gemeinsamen kritischen moralischen Reflexionsprozess bei den Teilnehmenden zu fördern, um ihnen erfahrbar zu machen, was es heißt, werte-orientiertes Verhalten zu zeigen. +
