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
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. +
The exercise is designed to stimulate reflection on research integrity in a classroom setting by using the question “what is goodness and how may it be categorized” as a springboard. The focus of the exercise is to discuss the types of goodness and to reflect on the concept of goodness in research. This exercise is inspired by a broader and flexible approach, The Self-Declaration Approach (SDA)'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"', which makes use of participants’ responses to a self-declaration sheets to structure reflection on a specific research integrity (RI) topic. Including the participants’ intuitions in the discussion is the hallmark of this approach. This format is flexible in terms of its applicability and adaptability to different RI topics and different audiences.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
The Self-Declaration Approach (SDA) is an exercise designed to stimulate reflection on research integrity in a classroom setting which uses the question of “what is goodness and how may it be categorized” as a springboard. It makes use of participants’ responses specifically by gathering the participants’ thoughts and intuitions on goodness. For this purpose, a tool is used, the self-declaration sheet. You may download samples of self-declaration sheets [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ymx1d8qtznt5r7j/SDA%20sheet%20ver%201%20%281%29.docx?dl=0 HERE] and [https://www.dropbox.com/s/rw3e32aj5ed1aas/SDA%20sheet%20ver%203.docx?dl=0 HERE]. This sheet gathers the trainees’ thoughts on the definition of goodness in research and on personal experiences on the topic. +
This article argues that a morally neutral approach is necessary for a wide multidisciplinary study of medical ethics. The author also discusses alternative possibilities for formal teaching. +
The case describes two very similar paper that has been published in different journals in the same period. The publications were using the same datasets, methods and arrived to the same conclusions. The authors of the two papers were also the same except the first authors.
The case discusses the following questions. When self-plagiarism and suspected salami publishing is found in a published article, what can the editor do? Should the editor inform the other journal editor? In such cases, should the article be retracted from both journals? +
Technology is bringing down instances of duplication, despite variability in oversight. Is plagiarism a sin if the duplicated material is one's own? Self-plagiarism may seem a smaller infraction than stealing another author's work, but the practice is under increasing scrutiny, as the eruption two weeks ago of a long-standing controversy at Queen's University in Kingston, Canada, makes clear. +
A research group offers a post-doctoral student an opportunity to collaborate with them and offers him an incentive to leave his current position. +
This is a factual case. +
A complaint was made my a member of the public against the editors of a symposium in social sciences on the basis that one of the published articles contained delicate, albeit anonymized, information relating to the personal history of the complainant. They claimed that the information was presented in such a way that it was easy to work out their true identity. This is a factual anonymized case. +
VIRT2UE eğitmen eğitimi programına kaydolan katılımcıların, sertifikalı eğitmen olma şansı vardır. Bu sertifika, sertifika sahibi kişinin bir araştırma doğruluğu eğitmeni olarak gerekli didaktik becerilere sahip olduğunu gösterir. Katılımcılar online ve yüz yüze dersleri tamamladıklarında ve 10 başka araştırmacıyı eğittiklerinde sertifikayı almaya hak kazanırlar.
Katılımcıların tercihen tüm eğitim oturumlarına katılmış, toplantılar arasındaki dönemde beş alıştırmayı uygulamış ve 10 başka araştırmacıyı bu beş alıştırmanın en az üçü üzerinden eğitmiş olmaları gerekmektedir. Ancak bu yükümlülükler gerektiği durumlarda değiştirilebilir (örneğin küçük araştırma topluluklarında eğitim almaya istekli 10 araştırmacı bulmak zor olabilir). Eğitim alan kişinin sertifika almaya hak kazanmak için yeteri kadar dersi tamamlayıp tamamlamadığına eğitmen karar verecektir. Becerilerine güveniyor olmaları durumunda eğitimi alan katılımcılar iki yüz yüze oturum arasında yalnızca alıştırmaları uygulamak yerine 10 araştırmacıyı eğitmeyi de tercih edebilirler. +
