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 position paper takes stock of the state of the art regarding scientific integrity in Germany, and makes tailored recommendations to improve specific areas. Moreover, it references related National Guidelines (such as the German Research Foundation's Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice: Code of Conduct) and International Guidelines (such as the European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity). +
This guideline deals specifically with Authorship criteria in academic publications, laying down different legal bases such as Copyright law and the German Higher Education Law. In addition, it emphasized the ethical guideline concerning authorship and makes references to inter-disciplinary variations. +
This is a fictional case. +
This micromodule outlines how environmental- and climate-ethical considerations play a role in the different stages of research and innovation projects (choice of topic, research design, conduct of research, dissemination and implementation of results, impact of work output on environment and society). It explains how responsibility for environmental implications of R&I can be attributed meaningfully, and what it means for professional conduct. As a key aspect, it introduces a virtue ethics approach to good R&I practice (as the micro-ethical dimension) and a deliberative discourse approach to environmental and societal impact (the macro-ethical dimension).
The micromodule challenges researchers to reflect on what it means to be an environmentally virtuous researcher in one’s own specific field. This is expected to sensitize researchers for their attitude and decision-making in academic and corporate R&I activities, both on the personal professional level and regarding the researcher’s role in tackling the wicked problems of our time. As such, this micromodule serves as an introductory unit for the various other micromodules that go into detail regarding either the professional conduct direction (research integrity) or the methodological aspects of multi-stakeholder discourses (sustainability, risk, ethical impact assessment, etc.) that researchers usually find themselves in. +
Anthropologist discovers that nurses who are supposed to be obtaining signed consent for a study from the female heroin users who are the subject of the study are obtaining verbal consent instead, as the subjects are reluctant to sign an admission of legal wrong-doing. The anthropologst debates whether to hide the lack of signed consent from the Institutional Review Board in order to protect his subjects (as he sees it) and continue the resarch. +
Five principles to reward researchers' behavior to foster research integrity:
*responsible research practices;*transparent reporting;*open science (open research);*valuing a diversity of types of research;*recognizing all contributions to research and scholarly activity +
A plea to reform modern science, with 40 proposed reforms. +
In "The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct," you become the lead characters* in an interactive movie and make decisions about integrity in research that can have long-term consequences. The simulation addresses Responsible Conduct of Research topics such as avoiding research misconduct, mentorship responsibilities, handling of data, responsible authorship, and questionable research practices.
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000000-QINU`"'The four available perspectives are: graduate student, postdoctoral researcher, principal investigator, research administrator +
Although Cyprus has no national guideline on Research integrity, the Larnaca College, which is one of the largest in the country, makes a declaration to adhere to principles of integrity and ethics. +
This paper focuses on the infamous case of Hwang Woo Suk, the South-Korean national hero and once celebrated pioneer of stem cell research. After briefly discussing the evolution of his publication and research scandal in Science, the author attempts to outline the main reactions that emerged within scientific and bioethical discourses on the problem of research misconduct in contemporary biosciences. This is a factual case. +
Alphonse recently finished a study about wages and cooperation in food processing industry. The state which funded her research called on her to testify about safety standards and practices in the industry. As Alphonse did not explicitly ask her sources about safety, she is not sure whether she has enough expertise about the matter to testify and whether she could protect her sources while doing so. +
The Mallorca Declaration (2016), produced by Research, Innovation, and Science Policy Experts (RISE), is an international resource written in English and aimed at researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, and policymakers across Europe and beyond. It frames openness as the default, guided by the principle of being “as open as possible, as closed as necessary,” while balancing ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security. The declaration links open science to improved research quality, reproducibility, faster translation, and equitable access, particularly for communities with limited subscription access. Core guidance covers open access to publications, Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, repository deposition, FAIR data principles, and data management plans addressing stewardship, metadata, and repository choice. Responsibilities are outlined for authors (rights retention, funding acknowledgment), institutions (training, repository services), funders (supporting core infrastructure), and publishers (author rights, interoperability, metadata standards). Embargoes are discouraged but permitted with transparent justification, and secure governance mechanisms manage sensitive or commercial data. Infrastructure such as repositories, registries, and discovery services supports compliance and visibility, aligned with initiatives like Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud. Emphasizing equity, responsible openness, and inclusion, the declaration provides actionable steps, reduces ambiguity, and serves as a benchmark reference for institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
The ''Mallorca Declaration'' (2016), produced by the Research, Innovation, and Science Policy Experts (RISE), provides international guidance on open science and open access with a focus on Europe. It frames openness as the default, moderated by ethical, legal, and security considerations, and promotes the principle of being “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” The declaration emphasizes open access to publications through repositories, use of Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and compliance with FAIR data principles supported by data management plans. It outlines clear responsibilities for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers, covering rights retention, transparency in embargoes, and cost management. Adoption is supported through infrastructure such as registries, repositories, and discovery systems, aligned with initiatives like Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud. Equity and responsible openness are central, ensuring inclusion, multilingual communication, and protections for sensitive data. Serving as a benchmark and checklist, it offers actionable steps to harmonize practices, improve reproducibility, and expand equitable access to research. +
The Manchester University's Code of Practice for Investigating Concerns about the Conduct of Research +
This institutional guideline details the policy on responding to research misconduct, from the initial complaint to the investigation and resolution. +
An interactive game that teaches you about the concept of virtue ethics, and about the middle position! +
This exercise is based on the assumption that it is not always clear how to ensure research integrity in specific situations in practice, or what virtuous behavior looks like when research integrity is at stake. Virtues are often described as in between two extremes of vices. For example, courage is a virtue between two extremes: cowardice and reckless. This exercise aims at looking critically into the nuances of the practical meanings of virtues related to research integrity in everyday research practice. +
This exercise is inspired by an Aristotelian method of moral inquiry into emotions within clinical ethics support. It helps participants look critically into the nuances of the practical meanings of abstract research integrity virtues in their everyday research practice. This exercise is based on the assumption that it is not always clear what research integrity means in concrete situations. Through this exercise, trainers foster reflection about virtues related to research integrity such as courage, accountability, honesty. Participants reflect on which virtues are associated with research integrity and what virtuous behavior looks like. Virtues are often described as lying between two extremes of vices. This exercise looks critically into the practical nuanced meanings of virtues related to research integrity in everyday research practice. +
This code, authored by the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) is intended specifically for individual researchers in research or academic institutions. It summarized the main principles of research integrity and how they can be applied in the academic context. +
This act, passed in 2017, establishes the Danish Committee on Research Misconduct, which replaces the former Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. This law also defines the scope of research misconduct and codifies misconduct proceedings, appeals procedures etc. +
This law governs all research that occurs in Norway, under both public and private domains. It enumerates the responsibilities of individual researchers, research institutions, ethics committees and regional committees. +
