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
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-00000002-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-00000003-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. +
A collection of examples, relevant for those who engage in guideline development processes. +
This editorial reports on a research scandal in Austria that involved a famous scientist and high-ranked academic officials. The case is about a trial involving patients who paid for the stem-cell treatment for urinary incontinence without knowing that the treatment was experimental. +
This is an extensive list of role-play scenarios that regard RCR. The materials presented here provide a series of activities intended for student-faculty learning. +
The document 'Statement: Code of Conduct for Scientists–Revised Version', developed in 2013 in Japan, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Science Council of Japan, and available in Japanese and English, it targets the research community in Japan. It provides clear expectations for responsible conduct in research and defines practices that safeguard honesty, transparency, and accountability. The text outlines responsibilities of both individual researchers and institutions. It identifies misconduct such as plagiarism, data falsification, fabrication, and unethical authorship, while also promoting good practices in publication, peer review, and collaborative research. It emphasizes effective data management, openness in reporting, and respect for colleagues, participants, and the wider community. Institutions are encouraged to create supportive environments through policies, training, and oversight mechanisms. The document serves as an official reference for aligning national research standards with international expectations, reinforcing ethical norms across research fields. +
Science Ethics Code of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (2010) is a national framework authored by Hungarian Academy of Sciences, in english, targeting nan. Originating from Hungary, 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.
SFI’s Plan S‑aligned policy requires SFI‑funded publications to be made open access, with an expectation to apply CC BY and include rights‑retention wording. The policy hub explains compliant routes (including use of the Journal Checker Tool), clarifies that preprint deposition alone is insufficient for compliance, and offers FAQ and DMP guidance aligned to FAIR principles. It encourages broader open research practices while recognising cases where outputs beyond journal articles may need tailored approaches. Together, the documents provide a practical toolkit for Irish researchers and administrators implementing policy across projects and institutions. +
This case is about using genetic material from the oppressed Uighur minority group in China to develop next-generation surveillance tools that could allow authorities to construct an image of someone’s face from information in their DNA'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'. This is a factual case.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
''Science as an Open Enterprise'' (2012), published by The Royal Society Science Policy Centre, sets out international expectations for open science and open access with a focus on the UK. Written in English, it frames openness as the default while balancing ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, following the principle of being “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” The document links openness to research quality, reproducibility, innovation, and equitable access, particularly for communities with limited subscription access. It emphasizes open access publishing through repositories, Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and FAIR data principles supported by data management plans. Responsibilities are assigned to researchers, institutions, and funders, including rights retention, transparency in embargoes, and cost management. Infrastructure such as repositories, registries, and discovery systems supports adoption, aligning practices with initiatives like Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud. Equity and responsible openness are cross-cutting themes, ensuring inclusion, multilingual communication, and safeguards for sensitive or Indigenous data. Serving as both a benchmark and a practical checklist, it offers actionable steps to strengthen transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access to research. +
The authors analyze a convenience sample of fraud cases to see whether (social) psychology is more susceptible to fraud than other disciplines. They also evaluate whether the peer review process and replications work well in practice to detect fraud. This is a factual case. +
