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
A
Authorship in scholarly manuscripts: practical considerations for resident and early career physicians +
This article addresses different issues regarding authorship in scholarly manuscripts. The authors suggest that residents and early career physicians need to be educated about authorship rules and problems as well as equitable resolutions. They also invite for considering alternative ways to credit authorship. +
This video is about determing authorship. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of working alone or in a team. Advices are giving about working in a team. +
These guidelines are intended for researchers or publishers with aim of helping them identify what they need to request permission to reproduce material created by others, including images and text quotations. +
This study examined a plagiarism detection system PAIRwise for instructors, researchers and students. It showed that PAIRwise can detect verbatim plagiarism efficiently. +
Avoiding Plagiarism, Self-plagiarism, and Other Questionable Writing Practices: A Guide to Ethical Writing +
This tool is intended for students and researchers to identify and prevent questionable research practices. It deals particularly with plagiarism and self plagiarism. +
This short text gives five tips to avoid bias in qualitative data analysis: 1. Use multiple people to code the data; 2. Have participants review your results; 3. Verify with more data sources; 4. Check for alternative explanations; 5. Review findings with peers. +
Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images +
This study provides 12 guidelines for digital image manipulation. The guidelines can be included into lab meetings and trainings of graduate students with aim of inciting discussion that could lead to the end of "data beautification". +
B
BEYOND Bad Apples: Towards a Behavioural and Evidence-Based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Research Integrity in Europe. BEYOND is a Horizon Europe project dedicated to exploring the root causes of research misconduct, developing effective methodologies for impactful training, and creating and enhancing training materials. This project contributes to Europe's ongoing efforts to cultivate a research culture that upholds the highest standards of ethics and integrity, thereby fostering public trust in science.
Please have a look at the project's deliverable [https://zenodo.org/communities/beyondbadappleseu/records?q=&l=list&p=1&s=10&sort=newest here.] +
This collection of cases for teaching and training was developed within the EU-funded BEYOND (Beyond Bad Apples: Towards a Behavioral and Evidence-based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Integrity in Europe) project.
Ethics and ethics education have traditionally emphasized individual responsibility in decision-making and actions. While this perspective remains vital, it does not encompass the full complexity of ethical decision-making processes. Human beings are inherently social creatures and their decisions are influenced not only by personal choices but also by their broader environment and situational contexts. This underscores the need to integrate an understanding of social and contextual factors into ethical frameworks and teaching methodologies. +
Bridging Integrity in Higher Education, Business and Society (BRIDGE) is an Erasmus+ funded project, it is a multidisciplinary three-years project (2020-2023).
Academic integrity, research integrity, integrity in business, integrity in society are usually described as separate fields. In this project, we seek to create a bridge between them in order to reach a broader understanding of interrelated aspects of integrity between these fields. The target groups of this project are early career researchers, i.e. master and PhD students, and their supervisors. +
Based on a news from Times of India (TOI), a study regarding the development of a new indigenous gene was completely fake. The gene that was stated is a new variety of Bt Cotton or Bt gene (BNla106 truncated cry1 AC). Hence, the project team responsible for the study claimed that they had already developed a new variety of Bt cotton seeds. However, experts found that the construct of Bt cotton has a Monsanto gene (Mon-531), which exemplifies that the cotton seeds was never altered or still it is the common seed. Moreover, the variety of BT cotton was already brought in the public in the year 2008 and the paper work of the UAS was published in the Current Science regardless of dubious claims that was later found out and thus, the published work was later on withdrawn (dated December 25, 2007). In 2012, the Monsanto gene was introduced by the media through a UAS staffer that it was indeed present and was never altered at all. Furthermore, it was found out through a 129-page report that a scope was contaminated due to the seeds being mass multiplied. +
An anthropologist working for two organisation has been asked to delay her (developed) funding application with one organisation in order to faciliatate the other +
In 1986, Thereza Imanishi-Kari co-authored a scientific paper on immunology with five other authors including Nobel laureate David Baltimore '"`UNIQ--ref-00000035-QINU`"'. Margot O'Toole, who was a postdoc in Imanishi-Kari's laboratory and also acknowledged in the paper “for critical reading of the manuscript”, reported Imanishi-Kari for fabrication after discovering laboratory notebook pages with conflicting data. Baltimore refused to retract the paper and Imanishi-Kari dismisses O'Toole from the laboratory. After a series of published statements in Nature and a bitter debate within the biomedical community '"`UNIQ--ref-00000036-QINU`"', Baltimore and three co-authors then retracted the paper. Baltimore publicly apologized for defense of fabricated data and not taking a whistle-blower's accusations seriously '"`UNIQ--ref-00000037-QINU`"'. The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found Imanishi-Kari guilty for data fabrication and attempts of covering up those fabrications with additional frauds. However, the appeals panel of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ruled that the ORI had failed to prove misconduct by Imanishi-Kari and dismissed all charges against her '"`UNIQ--ref-00000038-QINU`"'. This is a factual case.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000039-QINU`"' +
A woman brushes off her most recent diagnosis, Huntington disease (HD), and resists her doctor’s recommendations to tell her family about the diagnosis. By not disclosing this information to her family, they would not know that they might want to get tested for HD. Prior to diagnosis, the woman and her family provided genetic samples to a research database to investigate a genetic disease unrelated to HD. Since the database project required written consent for using samples in future research, the doctor wonders if he can run tests for HD on the stored samples that would include the materials of the woman and her family. +
'''Becoming an Ethical Researcher''' is a badged open course run by the Open University on its OpenLearn platform. This runs for 11 months of the year and was launched on 1 October 2020. It is designed to take 6 weeks of study for 2 hours per week. +
The “Code of Ethics for Scientific Research in Belgium” establishes the major principles of ethically justified scientific practice in Belgium. As the code already dates from 2009, many consider it to be out of date. All Flemish universities no longer refer to it and have replaced it by the ALLEA code. +
This foundational declaration, led by the Max Planck Society, articulates a vision of the Internet as the infrastructure for a global scientific knowledge commons. It endorses open access to research literature and cultural heritage, building on the Budapest and Bethesda statements, and calls on research organisations, funders, libraries, archives and museums to adopt policies that enable unrestricted access and responsible reuse with proper attribution.
The text defines open access, urges signatories to develop sustainable frameworks (including institutional repositories and new publishing models), and invites broad institutional commitment through signatures. Over two decades, the declaration has served as a touchstone for national and institutional policies worldwide. +
The Austrian Higher Education Conference published a new Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethic. The guide for research integrity and ethics presented here is a compilation of standards for good research practice and principles of research ethics. +
Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethics (2020), Research Integrity / Research Ethics Working Group of BMBWF +
The Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethics (2020), authored by the Research Integrity / Research Ethics Working Group of BMBWF, serves as Austria’s national framework for fostering responsible research practices. Published in both German and English, it promotes honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship, linking these principles to credibility, reproducibility, and public trust in science. The guide outlines the duties of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, establishing standards for planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. It specifies provisions on authorship, citation, conflict of interest management, data transparency, supervision, and peer review, while also defining misconduct and providing fair, proportionate procedures for handling breaches. Education and training are highlighted as essential to embedding integrity as a core skill. The guide addresses contemporary challenges such as open science, data management, and digital tools, supported by practical resources like checklists and reporting templates. Equity and diversity are integrated as fundamental to credible research environments. By aligning with international standards, the guide enhances comparability, researcher mobility, and global trust. +
Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethics (2020), Research Integrity / Research Ethics Working Group of BMBWF +
Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethics (2020) is a national framework authored by Research Integrity / Research Ethics Working Group of BMBWF, in german and english, targeting Austria. Originating from Austria, 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.
