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
T
This article presents a series of ten cases that were dealt with at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (Mashhad, Iran), and provides recommendations based on the COPE guidelines. +
This blog describes some of the arguments against the case of the AAP's (American Academy of Paediatrics) change of policy's position in relation to infant male circumcision. The author of the blog suggests that whilst the evidence remains the same, institutions can 'cherry pick' findings to support their own conclusions. +
The ANR’s Open Science Policy (2023) sets national guidance for France on making research outputs as open as possible, while respecting ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security. It requires open access to publications—preferably under Creative Commons licences—with deposition in trusted repositories, use of persistent identifiers, and FAIR-aligned data management. Researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers all share responsibilities: planning for openness from project start, retaining rights, acknowledging funding, and using repositories rather than relying on costly publication fees. Exceptions (e.g. sensitive or security-relevant data) must be transparently justified.
The policy promotes infrastructures like repositories and discovery services, aligns with international efforts such as Plan S and EOSC, and emphasises quality of openness (metadata, reproducibility, machine-readable formats) over quantity of outputs. It highlights equity, encouraging zero-embargo access, support for non-paywalled routes, and inclusive practices like multilingual communication. Implementation is supported through clear roles, training, reporting, and compliance monitoring, making it a practical, coherent reference for researchers, institutions, and policymakers. +
The American Statistical Association (ASA) Board released a statement that reflects on inferring from P-values. It provided instructions on how to use P-values and declared that good statistical practice includes good study design, interpretation of the research results in context and complete reporting. +
This text provides information on the AVATAR-method that is aimed at learning historical empathy as an aspect of historical thinking. Students can take the personal perspective of a certain historical actor to explore their viewpoint on some events and developments within the context of that actor. The method should enhance historical empathy among students and help them understand better historical actors and the time they lived in. +
This factual case discusses the consequences of various occasions of scientific misconduct, such as data fabrication. This report takes a different approach to most reports on scientific misconduct as it focuses on the consequences for collaborators and colleagues on a personal level, rather than the consequences for the perpetrator, the scientific community or science in general.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000002-QINU`"' +
This factual case describes a covert sociological study on the work culture of nightlife bouncers. The author describes both practical and ethical problems he encountered during his research which resulted from its covert nature. However, he argues that the research would not have been possible without its secrecy.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000000-QINU`"' +
The aim of this two-day workshop was to test the applicability of the BIAS FREE Framework in African settings. The concerning issues were construction of knowledge, objectivity, logic of domination, hierarchy, power, sex and gender, disability and race/ethnicity. The Framework identified three types of bias issues related to gender, race and disability: maintaining hierarchy, not examining existing differences and using double standards. +
The Cape Town Statement on Fostering Research Integrity through Fairness and Equity (2022) 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.
The document 'The Cape Town Statement on Fostering Research Integrity through Fairness and Equity', developed in 2022 in International, is a international guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by WCRI Foundation, Cape Town Statement Working Group, and available in English, it targets the research community in International. 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. +
A researcher in the field "recorded" statements from real people he had never met. He claimed he recorded what he knew they would have said. +
An anthropologist becomes aware that medical staff in an intensive care ward failed to administer a test that might have prevented permanent harm to a baby. The staff then did not inform the parents of the baby that the harm might have been avoided. +
An anthropologist hears that a collegaue is receiving kickbacks from organising university tours to Egypt. He is concerned about what he should do if asked about his colleague in terms of recommending him for a promotion +
The researcher did not disclose his likely possession of a significant religious artefact to the Native American community he was researching when deciding whether or not to keep it. The item had previously belonged to a religious leader and had been missing for 20 years. The ethnographer had bought it from a trading post 20 years previously. +
This document, drafted and ratified by the European Convention in 2000, enshrines certain social, political, and economic rights for European Union citizens and residents within EU law. Articles of the charter cover different rights to which EU citizens and residents are entitled, including to things like dignity, equality, and justice before the law - all of which can have different bearings on issue relating to research and research integrity. +
The Code of the National Science Centre on Research Integrity and Applying for Research Funding (2016) +
The Code of the National Science Centre on Research Integrity and Applying for Research Funding (2016) is a national framework authored by nan, in english?, targeting Poland. Originating from Poland, 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 Concordat for the Environmental Sustainability of Research and Innovation Practice is a voluntary agreement developed by the UK research and innovation sector to make research and innovation more environmentally sustainable. It recognises that research has an important role in understanding and addressing climate change and biodiversity loss, but that research activities themselves also have environmental impacts.
The Concordat provides a shared framework for organisations to reduce these impacts while continuing to deliver high-quality research. It covers environmental issues including carbon emissions, water, waste, resource use and biodiversity. It focuses on six priority areas: leadership and system change; sustainable infrastructure; sustainable procurement; business and academic travel; collaborations and partnerships; and environmental impact and reporting data. The aim is to encourage organisations to work collectively towards environmentally responsible research practices and support the transition towards net zero and greater environmental sustainability by 2050. +
The Croatian Committee for Ethics in Science and Higher Education's Rules of Procedure of the Ethics Committee. +
This national, legally binding document, available in Croatian, describes and regulates the rights and duties of the members of the Committee on Ethics in Science and Higher Education of Croatia. +
The Croatian Committee on Ethics in Science and Higher Education's Amendments to the Ethics Code of Ethics Committee in Science and Higher Education +
This addendum to the Ethical Code of the Board of Ethics in Science and Higher Education (please see "related resources") clarifies the responsibility of institutions in implementing the code, and sanctioning violations and misconduct. +
