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
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. +
Scientific Misconduct at an Elite Medical Institute: The Role of Competing Institutional Logics and Fragmented Control +
This case study analyses a case of serious scientific misconduct by a transplantation surgeon that took place for several years at a famous research institution. The case is analysed from three different perspectives and describes how the misconduct could go on due to the reputation of the perpetrator and the commercial interests of the research institute. '"`UNIQ--references-00000000-QINU`"' +
This booklet of cases and guidance, compiled by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, is based on actual research practice, in other words the problems and choices that arise during the various phases of a scientific study. This involves designing the experiment, collecting data, analysing and reporting the results, and the way those results are used. +
The war in Ukraine has sparked a debate about the future of scientific collaboration with Russia. Some support a boycott, while others argue that collaboration should continue. The German Ministry of Education and Research says that the decision lies with science itself. These different views show the complexity of the issue. +
The paper uses this case to explore broader issues in research ethics, including how fabricated results passed peer review in top journals, the responsibilities of co-authors and institutions, and the limitations of traditional oversight mechanisms. +
''Scientific Values: Ethical Guidelines and Procedures'' is a national framework from India, linked to the Indian Academy of Sciences, that promotes research integrity and responsible conduct. It stresses honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship, connecting these values to reproducibility, credibility, and public trust in science. The document defines responsibilities for researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, outlining good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. It covers authorship criteria, citation, conflicts of interest, transparency of data and methods, supervision, and peer review. It also sets procedures for handling misconduct, ensuring due process, proportionate sanctions, and opportunities for learning. Education is central, with training for students and staff. Emerging issues such as data management, open science, and digital tools are addressed, supported by checklists and templates for daily use. By aligning with global standards and promoting equity and inclusivity, the framework acts as both a policy and a practical handbook. +
This is a factual case. This newspaper article describes a case of scientific misconduct in a series of studiesheaded by Bernard Fisher, that aimed to determine the best treatment for breast cancer. It was shown that one of the doctors responsible for admittance of patients to the trail committed fraud. The fraud included changing data to make patients eligible for inclusion in the study, even when they had explicitly stated that they did not want to participate. +
Scientist's code of ethics (2017) is a national framework authored by nan, in lithuanian, targeting Lithuania. Originating from Lithuania, 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.
This case is about a controversy appeared after a publication of the sequenced genome of a mummified fetus found in 2003 near Chile’s Atacama desert. Some Chilean scientists were condemning the study as unethical, and the Chilean National Monuments Council started an inquiry into whether the remains were illegally disinterred and smuggled out of the country. +
In this module you will find examples of training materials on research ethics and integrity that can be used to train at specific career stages. The following introduces a collection of trainings developed by EU-funded initiatives and indicate, which trainings or parts of them are suitable for 1) secondary schools, 2) bachelor and master students, 3) PhD students and early career researchers, 4) academics and experts in research ethics and integrity, and 5) supervisors. Although we have categorised the training materials by career stage, we recommend that trainers and teachers define the needs and skill level of the group to be trained before selecting the material to be used. This is because career stage often does not reflect the level of skills and competences in terms of research ethics and integrity. The following training resources have been developed by EU-funded initiatives namely: [[PRINTEGER]], [[ENERI]], [[RID-SSISS]], [[EnTIRE final conference|EnTIRE]], [[Virt2uetraining|VIRT2UE]], [[Path2Integrity]], [[INTEGRITY]], [[BRIDGE]] and [[ROSiE]].
All the training resources presented in this module provide examples of training materials to promote RE/RI and prevent research misconduct from the perspective of individual and institutional responsibilities. Active learning, like case studies, engages learners and helps connect content to real ethical dilemmas. Reflection helps learners explore personal values, making ethical principles and theories more meaningful and guiding individual growth. Role-playing and simulations offer experiential insights, allowing learners to practice decision-making in a safe environment, fostering empathy and ethical confidence. A culturally sensitive approach prepares learners for global collaboration by recognizing diverse ethical norms. Lastly, continuous assessment and constructive feedback reinforce learning, enabling learners to apply ethical principles thoughtfully in real-life scenarios, supporting long-term commitment to research integrity.
Moreover, for each target group this module recommends specific tools and methods to measure the short-, medium- and long-term impact of RE/RI trainings (presented below). While materials and resources have been developed for RE/RI training, they may not always include a plan for the assessment of learning or suggestions on how information about learning can be used as an indicator of training effect.
The same training material presented below are also presented in the last section of the BEYOND trainer guide divided by type of training activity and by the specific EU project responsible for its development. This alternative categorization allows for a more tailored approach, enabling users to quickly identify relevant resources that align with their needs, when they already know what training approaches they wish to use, or seeking further guidance related to using specific teaching approaches rather than seeking resources for a specific target group. By connecting each piece of training material to its originating EU project, we can highlight the distinct contributions of each initiative, showcasing their unique approaches to training.
In this module you will find examples of training materials on research ethics and integrity that can be used to train at specific career stages. The following introduces a collection of trainings developed by EU-funded initiatives and indicate, which trainings or parts of them are suitable for 1) secondary schools, 2) bachelor and master students, 3) PhD students and early career researchers, 4) academics and experts in research ethics and integrity, and 5) supervisors. Although we have categorised the training materials by career stage, we recommend that trainers and teachers define the needs and skill level of the group to be trained before selecting the material to be used. This is because career stage often does not reflect the level of skills and competences in terms of research ethics and integrity. The following training resources have been developed by EU-funded initiatives namely: [[PRINTEGER]], [[ENERI]], [[RID-SSISS]], [[EnTIRE final conference|EnTIRE]], [[Virt2uetraining|VIRT2UE]], [[Path2Integrity]], [[INTEGRITY]], [[BRIDGE]] and [[ROSiE]].
All the training resources presented in this module provide examples of training materials to promote RE/RI and prevent research misconduct from the perspective of individual and institutional responsibilities. Active learning, like case studies, engages learners and helps connect content to real ethical dilemmas. Reflection helps learners explore personal values, making ethical principles and theories more meaningful and guiding individual growth. Role-playing and simulations offer experiential insights, allowing learners to practice decision-making in a safe environment, fostering empathy and ethical confidence. A culturally sensitive approach prepares learners for global collaboration by recognizing diverse ethical norms. Lastly, continuous assessment and constructive feedback reinforce learning, enabling learners to apply ethical principles thoughtfully in real-life scenarios, supporting long-term commitment to research integrity.
Moreover, for each target group this module recommends specific tools and methods to measure the short-, medium- and long-term impact of RE/RI trainings (presented below). While materials and resources have been developed for RE/RI training, they may not always include a plan for the assessment of learning or suggestions on how information about learning can be used as an indicator of training effect.
The same training material presented below are also presented in the last section of the BEYOND trainer guide divided by type of training activity and by the specific EU project responsible for its development. This alternative categorization allows for a more tailored approach, enabling users to quickly identify relevant resources that align with their needs, when they already know what training approaches they wish to use, or seeking further guidance related to using specific teaching approaches rather than seeking resources for a specific target group. By connecting each piece of training material to its originating EU project, we can highlight the distinct contributions of each initiative, showcasing their unique approaches to training.
This blog post reports on the findings of a group of anthropologists who discovered that S. J. Gould had been fudging numbers and selecting his samples in a biased manner. +
