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
The module explains how researchers can make their work more environmentally sustainable, socially fair, and ethically responsible. It highlights that research activities impact both people and the planet, and therefore must follow principles like “do no harm,” inclusion, and fairness. The module introduces key concepts such as environmental justice, climate justice, and circular economy, while encouraging researchers to consider inequality and vulnerable communities.
It also provides practical guidance on reducing environmental impact in daily research practices, such as minimizing waste and energy use. Overall, it aims to support researchers in integrating sustainability and ethical thinking into all stages of their work and contributing to a more just and sustainable future. +
The purpose of this exercise is to facilitate an understanding of the character of sustainability as a wicked problem. Accordingly, participants are expected, after watching the video, to respond to the following multiple-choice questions +
This final exercise helps you reflect on the role of engineers in promoting sustainability. +
The Swedish Research Council is a Government-backed research funding organization and plays a vital role in ensuring the quality or research. In order to ensure the fair and impartial allocation of funds, this document lays down the conflict of interest policy to be followed by its employees. +
t was a Swedish thriller, science style. To get at the truth about an alarming, high-profile ''Science'' paper suggesting that tiny bits of floating plastic threaten fish populations, members of a panel at Uppsala University (UU) in Sweden sifted through hundreds of emails, travel documents, receipts, and bank statements. They were attempting to retrace the steps of UU ecologist Oona Lönnstedt, the paper's first author, during six crucial weeks in the spring of 2015. That is when Lönnstedt said she conducted the experiments described in the paper at the Ar Research Station on the Baltic Sea island of Gotland. But whistleblowers accusing her of fraud had alleged that she didn't spend nearly enough time on the island to have gathered the data. +
According to the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences, disputes regarding authorship attributions are the most frequently encountered form of research misconduct cases. Thus, this guideline serves to analyze existing guidelines on authorship practices and to formulate additional recommendations regarding the same. +
Swiss Academy of Arts and Sciences Code of Conduct for Scientific Integrity (2021) is a national framework authored by Aebi-Müller Regina E., University of Lucerne, Swiss National Science Foundation;Blatter Inge, Swiss National Science Foundation;Brigger Joël, Innosuisse;Constable Edwin Charles, University of Basel, Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences;Eglin Noëmi, swissuniversities;Hoffmeyer Pierre, University of Geneva, Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences;Lautenschütz Claudia, Swiss National Science Foundation;Lienhard Andreas, University of Bern, swissuniversities;Pirinoli Christine, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Western Switzerland, swissuniversities;Röthlisberger Markus, Swiss National Science Foundation;Spycher Karin M., Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (, in english, targeting Switzerland. Originating from Switzerland, 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 national guideline provides aims to be provide a uniform understanding of research integrity, what constitutes research integrity, its principles and what constitutes scientific misbehavior. It it aimed at all participants in the research process who collectively contribute to the generation, analysis and dissemination of information. The overall goal behind this guideline is to establish a culture of research integrity in the community. +
T
Trainer Test +
Participant Test +
The Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2019), authored by Universities UK, is a national framework that promotes responsible research practices for UK and UK-funded research. It formalises principles of honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship, linking them to reproducibility, credibility, and public trust. The Concordat outlines the responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, setting expectations for good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Key provisions include clear authorship rules, accurate citation, conflict-of-interest management, data transparency, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It also defines misconduct, establishes procedures for investigations, and ensures sanctions are proportionate while encouraging learning. By aligning with international standards, it reinforces global comparability and researcher mobility. The framework highlights education, requiring training for staff and students on integrity as a core skill, while also addressing contemporary issues like data management, digital tools, open science, and new dissemination methods. Practical tools such as checklists, codes of behaviour, and reporting templates support implementation. Emphasising equity and diversity, it promotes inclusive, discrimination-free environments. Overall, the Concordat frames integrity as both an individual duty and an institutional responsibility across the full research cycle. +
The document 'THE CONCORDAT TO SUPPORT RESEARCH INTEGRITY', developed in 2025 in UK, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Universities UK, and available in English, it targets the research community in UK and UK-funded research. 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 MALAYSIAN CODE OF RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT IN RESEARCH (2020) is a national framework authored by nan, in malaysia, targeting Malaysia. Originating from Malaysia, 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.
The document 'THE MALAYSIAN CODE OF RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT IN RESEARCH', developed in 2020 in Malaysia, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by National Science Council, and available in English, it targets the research community in Malaysia. 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 SAN CODE OF RESEARCH ETHICS (2017) is a international framework authored by nan, in isixhosa and english, targeting To all who inted to do research in the San communities. Originating from San, 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.
TIER2 (enhancing '''T'''rust, '''I'''ntegrity and '''E'''fficiency in '''R'''esearch through next-level '''R'''eproducibility) will increase reproducibility of scientific research results that will bring trust, integrity, and efficiency to the European Research Area (ERA) and the global Research and Innovation (R&I) system. The project will boost knowledge on reproducibility, create tools, engage communities, implement interventions and policy across different contexts to increase re-use and overall quality of research results. TIER2 aims to build an evidence-base on the extent and efficacy of existing reproducibility practices and co-create new tools to enhance reproducibility across diverse contexts.
Publications from and relating to the TIER2 project can be found [https://tier2-project.eu/library?type=3&Filter%5Bsort%5D=year+desc&search= here]. +
TIME4CS (Supporting sustainable Institutional Changes to promote Citizen Science in Science and Technology) is a Horizon 2020 project (2021–2023) that helps research organizations (like universities and institutes) redesign their governance, culture, and resources to better support public engagement and citizen science. It defines four key “intervention areas” research, education & awareness, infrastructure, and policy & assessment and works with experienced institutions (“Front-Runners”) and early adopters (“Implementers”) to develop tailored roadmaps for change. Through mutual learning, knowledge exchange, and evaluation, TIME4CS aims to create long-lasting, inclusive, and systemic institutional transformations that embed citizen science into everyday research. +
TRESCA (Trustworthy, Reliable and Engaging Scientific Communication Approaches) was an EU-funded Horizon 2020 project that explored how to rebuild public trust in science. It focused especially on communication around social science and humanities research connected to digitalization, addressing hot-button issues like misinformation, digital safety, environmental health, and the future of work. The project used large-scale experiments, surveys, and qualitative dialogue to understand trust dynamics, and created three main tools: an animated science-communication video, a prototype “misinformation widget” for secure communication platforms, and a MOOC aimed at scientists, journalists, and policymakers to foster more credible and engaging science communication. +
TRREE on-line training programme on the ethics and regulation of health research involving human participants +
This online program provides basic training on ethics and promotes welfare of participants. It aims to develop a training program with local collaborators and it is focused mainly on the needs of African countries. It provides free access to e-learning and e-resources. +
The TRUST Project was an EU-funded initiative designed to strengthen global research ethics and prevent “ethics dumping” where researchers apply lower ethical standards in underprivileged settings. It brought together a diverse, international consortium including academic scholars, civil society organizations, funders, and policymakers to co-create tools and mechanisms with vulnerable communities to improve research governance. Key outputs include a ''Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings'', an online fair-contracting tool for research collaborations, and a compliance & ethics follow-up system tailored to resource-constrained contexts. +
