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
All medical journals require submission of a contributors’ form signed by all the authors declaring that “Neither this manuscript nor one with substantially similar content under my/our authorship has been published or is being considered for publication elsewhere.” It seems that sometimes authors do not read the declaration thoroughly or perhaps understand the implications of signing it'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'. This is a factual case.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010), authored by the World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI), is an international framework that sets out global principles for responsible research. Written in English and originating from contributions by scholars—primarily from Global North countries—it seeks to formalise honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship as universal standards, linking them to reproducibility, credibility, and public trust in science. The Statement outlines the responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research, with provisions for authorship, proper citation, conflict-of-interest management, transparency of methods and data, fair peer review, and responsible supervision. It calls for clear processes to address misconduct, ensuring due process and proportional responses while fostering learning. Education is central, emphasising training in integrity as an essential skill rather than assumed knowledge, and the framework also addresses contemporary challenges such as open science, digital tools, and data management. Practical guidance includes codes of behaviour, checklists, and templates that translate principles into daily practice. By aligning local practices with international norms, it enhances researcher mobility, policy comparability, and equitable access. The Statement targets researchers, institutions, supervisors, and policymakers worldwide, offering both a benchmark for policy and a practical reference for training, compliance, and grant documentation. +
Archaeologists with permission to enter private land notice and record a site of historical and prehistorical importance. The landowner, who had given permission for them to enter his land, later informs them that he hates the federal government and doesn't want this site recorded. They submit the site information to the Bureau of Land Maangement so that the information will not be lost. +
This is a factual case. +
The aim of this article is to provide an organizing scheme for the responsible conduct of research (RCR). The heuristic framework should be helpful in research ethics education. The six domains are: research integrity, collegiality, protection of human subjects, animal welfare, institutional integrity and social responsibility. +
The Slovak Academy of Sciences have developed the ethical code of the conduct of research. The code is available in Slovakian and in English. The code describes:
#General principles
#Principles of scientific work
#Principles for publishing research results
#Principles for assessment, review, evaluation and expert activities
#Principles of behavior towards colleagues and students
#Violation of the ethical principles of research and development
#Process of resolution of contentiuous ethical issues
<br /> +
An anthropologist hired by a hospital questions whether he should record instances of "slow codes" in hospitals, whereby resident doctors were deciding in effect which patients to resuscitate or not. Recording this information has the potential to damage the career prospects of the doctors with whom the anthropologist is embedded. the anthropologist is unsure whether he owes loyalty to his research subjects or the maangement company that has hired him. He is unclear about which cohort are his research subjects. +
Social Justice, Vulnerability And Inclusion Vid_Step 8 +
Social Sciences and Humanities Matter. Guidelines on How To Successfully Design and Implement, Mission-Oriented Research Programmes +
These guidelines offer advices to researchers in the social sciences and humanities who plan to engage in interdisciplinary projects. They provide pointers necessary for stimulating and enabling cooperation when designing a research funding programme and fostering cooperation while implementing a research funding programme. +
This policy brief, produced under the Horizon WIDERA call on “Societal trust in science, research and innovation”, offers recommendations targeted at research funding organisations (RFOs), research performing organisations, higher education institutions and other actors in the innovation ecosystem. It highlights that public trust in science depends not only on the quality of research but on principles such as integrity, transparency and alignment with societal values.
The brief points to challenges undermining trust for example, poor reproducibility, weak stakeholder involvement, non-publication of negative results, overlooked methodology limitations and weak alignment with citizen needs. It sets out policy options and good practices for RFOs to promote co-creation of research with society, robust governance of research integrity, improved dissemination of data and results, and to monitor and evaluate trust impacts. +
This policy brief is designed specifically for higher education institutions (HEIs) and explores how they can build and maintain societal trust in science through practices of integrity, openness, and engagement. It underscores that trust depends not just on the content of research but on how research is governed, communicated, and connected to societal values. The brief identifies core trust-challenges for HEIs such as limited transparency in institutional processes, weak mechanisms for stakeholder involvement in research agenda-setting, insufficient visibility of negative or null results, and internal cultures that may emphasise output over integrity.
It proposes targeted recommendations for HEIs: embedding research integrity and responsible research practices into institutional strategy, promoting open science and transparent governance, enhancing institutional accountability through stakeholder engagement and monitoring, and aligning institutional performance and evaluation frameworks with trust-related metrics. The goal is to empower HEIs to become more socially responsive, ethically robust, and publicly credible. +
This policy brief addresses how research performing organisations (RPOs) can strengthen public trust in science through integrity, transparency, and societal engagement. The document highlights that credibility in research is not just about results, but also about the processes: how research is designed, executed, communicated, and integrated with societal values. Key challenges identified include inadequate stakeholder and citizen involvement, weak alignment of research agendas with public needs, limited transparency in research governance, and low visibility of negative or null results factors that can erode trust.
The brief offers targeted recommendations for RPOs such as embedding research integrity into institutional policies, enhancing openness in data and methodology, actively involving societal stakeholders in research cycles, investing in monitoring and evaluation of trust-related outcomes, and linking incentives and recognition systems to trustworthy research practices. +
The document 'THE SAN CODE OF RESEARCH ETHICS', developed in 2017 in San, is a international guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by South African San Institute, and available in isiXhosa and English, it targets the research community in To all who inted to do research in the San communities. 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. +
This law, adopted in 2011, covers the broad realm of science, technology and innovation in Spain. From financing to organization and aligning with EU norms, this document covers many aspects of science, of which research is an integral part. Among others, this law also establishes and describes the duties of Research Ethics Committees. +
The present National Statement establishes ethical principles and professional responsibilities relating to research activity, and at the same time calls for joint efforts and commitment by all actors involved. Each institution or entity that subscribes to this Statement is responsible for its development and implementation, for facilitating and promoting awareness of ethical matters in general, and for ensuring that research activities are carried out in a responsible manner based on good scientific practice in particular. The content of this Statement is applicable to all fields of research and scientific disciplines, and its aims are consistent with those of other important statements, codes and reports of relevance in this area.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
The document 'National Statement on Scientific Integrity', developed in 2015 in Spain, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by COSCE, crue, CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS, and available in Spanish and English, it targets the research community in Spain. 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. +
The clips, some with subtitles in Spanish or Chinese, cover a wide range of topics from a multidisciplinary perspective. They can be used for individual learning, as preparatory material within training courses or to foster shared reflection in class. +
This is a factual case about a study in which the various stakeholders of outsourcing clinical trials in India are interviewed. The study nuances the image sketched by the media about the size and the monetary worth of the practice of clinical trial outsourcing in India. In addition, the author raises the concern that the largest portion of India’s population does not benefit from the types of drugs tested in the outsourced clinical trials.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000000-QINU`"' +
Springer Nature ‘continuing to investigate the concerns raised’ about paper linking obesity and lying +
Retraction Watch presents a case where concerns have been raised about the methods and conclusions of a study linking obesity to lying. +
This document provides you with methodological guidance on how to design ethical governance activities in the context of strategic development in Higher Education, Funding and Research Centres (HEFRCs) wishing to implement an ETHNA System. The guide outlines a set of options and vivid examples for conducting deliberative workshops with key actors in your organisation, e.g., actors from civil society, research, innovation and funding communities, business and industry or policy makers.
By engaging stakeholders in deliberative participation at an early stage, you can effectively identify, discuss and take into account societal values, needs and expectations related to the RRI activity you plan to undertake. This guide will help you learn more about methods and techniques to promote dialogical learning and deliberation in stakeholder workshops. Both dialogical learning and deliberation are key pathways to engage stakeholders in the ethical governance of R&I. +
