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
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. +
Stanford University's Resources and Institutional Policies on Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research. +
Statement of Principles and Practices for Research Ethics, Integrity, and Culture in the Context of Rapid-Results Research +
Statement of Principles and Practices for Research Ethics, Integrity, and Culture in the Context of Rapid-Results Research is a international framework authored by nan, in english, targeting nan. Originating from International, 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.
''Code of Conduct for Scientists – Revised Version'' (2013) is Japan’s national framework on research integrity, published in Japanese, and designed to guide researchers, institutions, funders, and journals. It formalises principles such as honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking them to reproducibility, credibility, and public trust in science. The Code specifies good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research, covering authorship, citation, conflicts of interest, data transparency, supervision, and peer review. It outlines procedures for handling misconduct, ensuring due process, proportional sanctions, and opportunities for learning. Education is central, with training for students and staff to embed integrity as a core professional skill. The Code also addresses emerging issues like data management, open science, and digital dissemination, offering tools such as checklists and templates to support daily practice. By aligning with international standards, it connects Japanese policy to global norms, reinforcing collaboration, inclusivity, and trust. +
Franklin Academic is asked by his PI to improve a grant proposal by exaggerating his experience in conducting complex surveys. The case study asks about the ways academics should present their experience and the appropriate course of action in situations similar to the one described. +
The webpage of US Department of Health and Human services Office of Research Integrity briefly describes several cases of data fabrication, focusing on the right most digits. +
This is a guidance in the design, conduct, analysis, and evaluation of clinical trials through the overall clinical development. +
This study aimed to estimate the manuscript quality by adding a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process. It showed evidence that peer review has a positive effect on the final quality of papers. +
This law of the Hungarian Parliament describes the establishment, roles and responsibilities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HASL) which is intended to be the highest body for scientific oversight in the country. +
Research findings are often communicated through data, methods, and results. However, audiences rarely interpret information as isolated facts. Instead, people naturally understand information through patterns of change such as beginnings, disruptions, turning points, and outcomes.
Storytelling provides this structure. It helps transform information into meaning and connects research to relevance. Research on narrative communication shows that stories can improve comprehension, increase engagement, and make information more memorable for audiences (Tobin et al, 2022).
At the same time, narrative framing can influence interpretation. The way a story is structured may shape what audiences notice, remember, and believe . This means storytelling can be a powerful communication tool but also carries ethical responsibilities.
This module explores both the value and responsibility of storytelling in research communication. It also introduces storytelling as a tool to support reflexivity in research. In fact telling a story implies reflecting on one’s own personal involvement in it and the human side of doing science – the emotional, ethical and personal experiences that scientists go through. +
