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
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. +
This study offers recommendations for dental schools in order to involve students in research. The recommendations include the need to increase student understanding of the importance or research, establish rotating research positions, provide compensation, pursue projects that interest students and provide time in the curriculum for research. +
This document, published by the Swedish Research Council, sets forth strategies to improve and achieve gender equality within its domains. As a Government-supported research funding agency, the Council plays an important role in the enabling excellence in research. +
Mark would like to conduct research for his dissertation at a group home for developmentally disabled persons where he has worked as a social worker for several years. +
This scenario discusses an interdisciplinary humanities–STEM case in which a PhD candidate researching colonial artifacts together with non-academic colleagues tries to navigate grey ares in research bias, publication practices, and supervisor relations. +
This scenario discusses an interdisciplinary humanities–STEM case in which a PhD candidate researching colonial artifacts together with non-academic colleagues tries to navigate grey ares in research bias, publication practices, and supervisor relations. +
Monsanto engaged in ghostwriting and other types of research misconduct to disrupt regulatory oversight of one of its most profitable products. Although public-science organizations have sanctions in place to punish research misconduct, private-science organizations do not. At least one Monsanto employee boasted about research misconduct in promotion materials. Journal editors who oversaw decisions in which Monsanto manipulated the peer review process did not disclose their conflicts of interest. Scientific misconduct by private firms threatens the integrity of public science and the public's trust in science. +
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies are one of the most disruptive general purpose applications at the service of research and innovation. It acts as a catalyst for scientific breakthroughs and is rapidly becoming a key instrument in the scientific process in all areas of research. In this Scientific Opinion (SO) the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors examines how the European Commission can accelerate the responsible take-up of artificial intelligence in science in the European Union. It focuses on a responsible uptake of AI in science – including providing access to highquality AI, respecting European values, and strengthening the position of Europe in science to boost innovation and prosperity in the EU. This SO is published in the context of the Scientific Advice Mechanism which provides independent scientific evidence and policy recommendations to the European institutions by request of the College of Commissioners. +
This short promotional video presents the upcoming Summer School on Responsible Research, aimed at introducing participants to key themes in research integrity and responsible research practices. The video highlights how the Summer School will cover topics such as research ethics, open science, stakeholder engagement, and integrity-driven research design. It sketches who it’s for early-career researchers, PhD candidates, and post-docs and emphasizes a multidisciplinary, international, and interactive format (workshops, peer discussions, case studies). There is a sense of urgency: as research becomes more complex and interconnected, the Summer School offers a unique opportunity to build a network, gain skills and adopt a culture of integrity from the outset of one’s career. +
This resource helps supervisors to foster a strong culture of research integrity. Participants learn how their everyday actions both visible and subtle shape ethical behaviour, explore practical strategies for guiding responsible research, and strengthen their ethical decision-making competence. By the end, they are prepared to lead by example and confidently support integrity throughout their research communities. Supervisors are invited to elevate their impact as the pillars of research integrity, and to apply practical practices that build trust and transparency. With the training they can enhance ethical decision-making with proven frameworks and step confidently into the role of REI leader: by creating psychological safety, setting clear expectations, inspiring accountability, and shaping a culture that drives excellent, responsible research across teams. +
The ''Ensuring Long-Term Functioning of Citizen Observatories'' policy brief explains how Citizen Observatories (COs) community-led networks where citizens collect and share scientific data can be sustained over time to meaningfully contribute to policymaking and environmental monitoring in Europe. COs represent a form of grassroots science that engages people directly in monitoring issues like environmental change and urban governance, often using mobile and web technologies. The brief outlines key practices and structures that support CO longevity, including establishing clear open-access policies for data management, offering structured public training on data collection and use, and detailing educational activities that boost participation. It also recommends gender mainstreaming and inclusivity strategies to ensure diversity and equal representation, and the adoption of ethical guidelines to protect privacy, research integrity, and inclusion for all participants. +
Editorial office staff at journal A noticed possible image manipulation in two figures of a new paper submitted by author X. These suspected manipulations involved images of gels which appeared to contain multiple duplicated bands. This prompted editorial staff to look at the submission history of author X to journal A in more detail.
It was found that author X had previously submitted to journal A numerous times. All previous submissions had been rejected for reasons unrelated to the concerns raised here but one paper had been accepted for publication. Unfortunately, this author X paper which journal A had published appeared to contain possible band duplications in two gel images, as did an earlier submission which had been rejected at the start of 2015. As at least three papers received by journal A from author X has suspected image problems, authors X’s recent publication history was examined.
Similar possible gel issues along with a suspected image duplication relating to a photo of bacterial colonies were identified in three papers published in three different journals (journals B, C and D). Two members of editorial staff along with the editor-in-chief of journal A have considered all of the suspected issues and feel confident they are legitimate. As it currently stands, journal A has rejected the most recent submission from author X on the grounds of possible gel issues identified. However, the suspected issues identified in the four published papers in journals A, B, C and D were not mentioned in the rejection letter to allow time for an appropriate course of action to be decided.
As the paper was only recently (12 August) rejected by journal A, it has yet to hear back from author X, if indeed it does at all.
Journal A feels that it is important that journals B, C and D are made aware of the issues in the papers they have published. However, they also feel that it is important that they are made aware of all of the papers involved so they can appreciate the full picture as this may determine how they choose to handle the issues in their own respective journals.
Editorial office staff at journal A noticed possible image manipulation in two figures of a new paper submitted by author X. These suspected manipulations involved images of gels which appeared to contain multiple duplicated bands. This prompted editorial staff to look at the submission history of author X to journal A in more detail.
It was found that author X had previously submitted to journal A numerous times. All previous submissions had been rejected for reasons unrelated to the concerns raised here but one paper had been accepted for publication. Unfortunately, this author X paper which journal A had published appeared to contain possible band duplications in two gel images, as did an earlier submission which had been rejected at the start of 2015. As at least three papers received by journal A from author X has suspected image problems, authors X’s recent publication history was examined.
Similar possible gel issues along with a suspected image duplication relating to a photo of bacterial colonies were identified in three papers published in three different journals (journals B, C and D). Two members of editorial staff along with the editor-in-chief of journal A have considered all of the suspected issues and feel confident they are legitimate. As it currently stands, journal A has rejected the most recent submission from author X on the grounds of possible gel issues identified. However, the suspected issues identified in the four published papers in journals A, B, C and D were not mentioned in the rejection letter to allow time for an appropriate course of action to be decided.
As the paper was only recently (12 August) rejected by journal A, it has yet to hear back from author X, if indeed it does at all.
Journal A feels that it is important that journals B, C and D are made aware of the issues in the papers they have published. However, they also feel that it is important that they are made aware of all of the papers involved so they can appreciate the full picture as this may determine how they choose to handle the issues in their own respective journals.
