Why is this important? (Important Because)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A description to provide more focus to the theme/resource (max. 200 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
D
Many researchers work in environments that stimulate responsible behavior. However, scholarly environments are also complex and full of competition. Competition can stimulate people to work hard, but may also have downsides. What is an optimal research environment? What working conditions are detrimental to good research practices? Fostering responsible research and preventing questionable practices is important. However, the causes behind the variability in engagement in responsible and questionable practices and research misconduct are largely unknown. Once known, strategies to enhance responsible research practices while reducing questionable practices can be developed and evaluated. The NSRI attempts to play an important role in solving this. Watch this two-minute [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYvsa-1d_wQ video] on why research integrity matters to every one of us in society.
To optimally address all 40,000 academic researchers in The Netherlands, a survey instrument was the most fitting choice for this project. While it has its drawbacks, especially when studying a complex topic such as research integrity, the primary goal of this survey was to get concrete estimates of RRP, QRPs, and their associated factors for these practices across disciplines. Balancing time to answer such a survey, while protecting the privacy and the target sample size of about 40,000 researchers, a survey tool was most appropriate.
This does not exclude us from exploring themes that will arise from the survey results through more detailed focus group discussions at the next stage of this project.
The Dutch National Survey on Research Integrity (NSRI) is unique in a number of ways:
* It aims to provide valid disciplinary field-specific estimates on the occurrence of responsible research practices and questionable research practices across the biomedical sciences, the humanities, natural sciences and engineering, and the social and behavioral sciences.
*It targets the entire population of academic researchers in The Netherlands.
*The survey employs a technique known as the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvcaziHteAI Randomized Response (RR)] which has shown to elicit more honest answers around sensitive topics.
* It examines a broad range of factors that may impact scholars engagement in responsible research practices and questionable research practices.
'''How is the privacy of participants joining the NSRI guaranteed?'''
Given the sensitivity of the topic, NSRI has paid very close attention to fully ensuring the protection of the identity of the participants and their research institutions. Our privacy protection measures include:
#No personal identifying data except disciplinary field and academic rank (PhD, A/Prof, Full Prof) were collected in the survey
#The use of the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvcaziHteAI&feature=emb_logo Randomized Response] (RR) technique for the two most sensitive questions. RR which has been proven in research on doping and social security fraud to reduce the effect of social desirability and thereby elicit a greater sense of trust with respondents. It does so by creating a probabilistic rather than direct association between the answers of respondents and the sensitive question (see also [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124104268664 Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research- Thirty-Five Years of Validation. Sociological Methods & Research 2005; 33 (3): 319-348)]
#All data was collected by a trusted third party, [https://www.kantar.com/public/ Kantar Public] so the research team never directly received any personal data.
#IP addresses were not collected. The research team only received anonymized data by disciplinary field and academic rank.
Because of these measures, no data was analysed or published that can be traced to individual participants or specific research institutions.
You can access the NSRI’s publications [https://community.embassy.science/c/nsri/97 here].
To find out more about the NSRI, visit our FAQ page [https://community.embassy.science/t/nsri-faqs/358 here].
This factual case shows the magnitude of the penalties that can be issued on some confirmed cases of research ethics violations . +
This case raises the question of when does one act with integrity in research? And where does one’s responsibility lie when it comes to research violations performed by others?
It is also a firm reminder of the different power dynamics and positions held in an institution when it comes to reporting misconduct or, as in this case, whistleblowing. +
E
High-quality training of members and staff is an important prerequisite for ensuring that RIOs, RECs and related bodies can perform their tasks competently and thereby help strengthen the science-society nexus and promote ethical research conduct. However, training materials addressing the specific needs of RIOs, RECs and related bodies are scarce and often not openly accessible. The ENERI Classroom helps filling this gap and thus adds an educational component to ongoing initiatives to continuously improve the research integrity and research ethics systems across Europe. +
New and emerging technologies as well as the globalization of research and the rise of multi-center studies, to name just a few, have brought numerous challenges in terms of research ethics and research integrity. Based to a large extent on the [[Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434|ENERI Research Ethics and Research Integrity Manual]], the Decision Tree guides researchers as well as members of RECs and RIOs through several of these challenges and provides them with tools to conduct research ethically and with integrity. More specifically, the Decision Tree includes summaries of and links to laws, guidelines, codes and other pertinent references. In this way, it covers the international, European and national levels, all of which researchers, RECs and RIOs usually need to consider.
The ENERI Decision Tree is based on three premises:
1) Good researchers should reflect on and respond to ethical issues and challenges before, during and after conducting their research.
2) RECs should help researchers in doing good research.
3) RIOs should assist researchers in monitoring their research.
The information in the Decision Tree is structured around the following topics:
'''Responsibility in research'''
*Research as a social practice
*The legal framework of research
'''Planning of the research'''
*Cross-national and international multi central research
*Responsibility in authorship
*Research with human participants: general provisions
*Research with animals
*Research in biotechnology
*Research in engineering, AI and robotics
*Research in biotechnology for agricultural and food purposes (outside of the biomedical sector)
*Research on human remains
*Study design and objectives, avoiding bias
*The role of funders
*Research with personal data
'''The actual research process'''
*Research with humans in biomedical research
*Research with human tissues/cells
*Research with embryonic stem cells, embryos, fetal tissues
*Research with samples and data taken from human biobanks
*Research with human participants in psychology
*Research with human participants - qualitative research
*Research with human beings in implementing technology/devices
*Research on the environment
*Minimal disturbance to the integrity of nature
*Monitoring animal welfare
*Making uncertainties and value assumptions explicit
*Dealing adequately with big data and complexity
'''Quality assurance and dissemination'''
*Sharing results in the scientific community, with the public and with stakeholders
*Mechanisms for quality assurance
*Were the methods and tools adequate for the claimed result? ''(under development)''
*Publication as public knowledge ''(under development)''
*Open science or restricted access ''(under development)''
*Stakeholder consultations ''(under development)''
'''Applications and monitoring'''
*Dual use and misuse
*Evaluation of success and failure ''(under development)''
*Consultation with beneficiaries and stakeholders ''(under development)''
*Assess necessity of retractions ''(under development)''
*Re-start the research afresh ''(under development)''
Each topic is a self-contained unit so that users can easily find tailored information to specific questions without having to read the whole Decision Tree. Like the ENERI Manual on Research Ethics and Research Integrity, the Decision Tree is a living document and will thus be updated periodically to account for new developments in research ethics and research integrity processes and policies.
The ENERI Decision Tree is important because it translates complex and abstract research ethics and integrity principles into a navigable decision support tool. This helps ensure that researchers and oversight bodies systematically reflect on potential ethical pitfalls tailored to their project’s particularities. In doing so, it lowers the barrier to integrating ethics and integrity into everyday research practice, rather than treating them as afterthoughts. The tool also helps harmonize understanding across disciplines and national contexts by linking to relevant codes and laws. Because ethical missteps or oversight can damage credibility, public trust, or even lead to harmful outcomes, having a practical, responsive guide supports more responsible, trustworthy science. +
ENERI is a project that aims to improve the exchange between experts in the fields of research ethics and research integrity. The manual offers guidance for both fields. It is a living resource, inviting engagement rather than consumption. It contains no technical or technocratic instruction, but rather seeks to instill deliberation around issues of research ethics and research integrity. +
ETHICAL CODE OF THE COMMITTEE FOR ETHICS IN SCIENCE AND HIGHER EDUCATION (2015), Committee for Ethics in Science and Higher Education +
ETHICAL CODE OF THE COMMITTEE FOR ETHICS IN SCIENCE AND HIGHER EDUCATION distils national expectations for research integrity in Croatia and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Croatia need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark; for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by Committee for Ethics in Science and Higher Education in 2015, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Embedding a comprehensive ethical dimension to organoid-based research and relating technologies (Policy brief 1) +
The 1st HYBRIDA Policy Brief matters because organoid research is fast-developing and carries significant ethical, social, and regulatory complexities. Without clear and consistent definitions, stakeholders risk miscommunication, regulatory gaps, or inconsistent oversight. The brief’s typology helps build a common conceptual framework, which is essential for creating coherent policies and laws. Moreover, the mapping of public attitudes and stakeholder perspectives provides evidence-based insights for regulators and institutions to respond to societal concerns. This input is crucial for legitimacy, transparency, and social acceptance of new biotechnologies. Finally, by offering concrete recommendations early on, the brief helps orient policymakers toward more informed, proactive governance of organoid technology — helping to avoid reactive or fragmented regulation. +
Embedding a comprehensive ethical dimension to organoid-based research and resulting technologies (Policy brief 2) +
This second brief is crucial because it translates research outputs into actionable guidance for policymakers, bridging the gap between science, ethics, and regulation. By detailing practical tools like the operational guidelines, code of conduct, and ECoC supplement it provides concrete mechanisms to manage emerging challenges in organoid research. Clarifying how the project addresses key uncertainties helps regulators understand where gaps remain and where intervention is necessary. Moreover, integrating these governance tools with ethical oversight and integrity norms promotes consistency and public trust. Overall, it helps ensure that advances in organoid research proceed responsibly, under coherent policies that balance innovation with rights, safety, and societal concerns. +
This is a widely cited, consensus-setting resource that links the day-to-day choices of engineers and their institutions to SDG outcomes. It offers an actionable agenda—particularly around education reform, capacity building and open knowledge—that organizations can adopt immediately. For anyone designing research programmes, curricula or funding mechanisms, it provides authoritative evidence and a roadmap to measure contribution to the 2030 Agenda. +
The ultimate goal of science is to seek truth at the realm of material things. Because of that, science itself cannot be practiced without somehow tapping into the field of epistemology. Ideally, researchers should be attentive, careful, thorough, impartial, open, willing to exchange ideas and aware of their own fallibility. '"`UNIQ--ref-000002FE-QINU`"' These traits could serve as a preventative measure for research misconduct and other, various practices that are detrimental to science.
'"`UNIQ--references-000002FF-QINU`"' +
Program dahilinde üzerinde durulacak temel kavramlara ilişkin ortak bir anlayışa sahip olabilmek adına katılımcıların yüz yüze eğitime geçmeden önce bu online dersi tamamlaması oldukça önemlidir. +
Araştırmacılar için önemli olan ahlaki nitelikler ve bu ahlaki niteliklerin eylemleri nasıl yönlendirebileceği üzerine fikir yürütmek, araştırmacıların iyi bilim yapmadaki kişisel saiklerinin ne olduğunu anlamaları açısından önemlidir. +
Araştırmacılar sıklıkla araştırma doğruluğunu riske atacak ikilem ve sorularla karşı karşıya kalmaktadırlar. Bu durumlarda araştırmacılardan kendileri için neyin önemli olduğuna ve bir yandan doğruluğu koruyup mesleki davranış kodlarına saygılı bir biçimde davranırken diğer yandan nasıl değerlerine yakın kalabileceklerine karar vermeleri beklenir. Araştırmacılar için hangi ahlaki niteliklerin önemli olduğu ve bu ahlaki niteliklerin eylemleri nasıl yönlendirebileceği üzerine fikir yürütmek, araştırmacıların iyi bilim yapmadaki kişisel saiklerinin ne olduğunu anlamalarına yardımcı olabilir. +
The Code of Conduct for Research Integrity is meant to complement the Code of Ethics of Estonian Scientists adopted in 2002. The new document is needed because the development of research has brought forth new themes and perspectives not reflected in the code of ethics, and added new points for consideration. The current document also places greater emphasis on the activities of research institutions, separately pointing out the responsibility of researchers and research institutions, which helps to emphasise that responsibility for ethical research lies with everyone who is active in research. Researchers alone cannot ensure research integrity. So that researchers could behave ethically, the necessary conditions have to be created at the level of the organisation and the system. The Code of Conduct for Research Integrity has been created as a framework document which provides guidelines to all Estonian research institutions and the researchers working there. The task of the research institution is to elaborate detailed procedural rules which help to increase awareness in the organisation about the principles of research integrity, to monitor the research environment and, if necessary, to interfere and to deal with the cases of misconduct. To ensure as equal treatment of members of different research institutions as possible, research institutions cooperate closely in drafting procedural rules and regulations.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000D-QINU`"' +
Code of Ethics of Estonian Scientists' is important because it ensures credibility and trust in research by providing both preventive and corrective guidance. It prevents misconduct by educating researchers on standards, and offers frameworks for addressing violations fairly. In today’s interconnected research environment, having shared ethical codes strengthens international collaboration and consistency. For governments, institutions, and the public, this document demonstrates commitment to transparency, fairness, and societal responsibility. It is not just a guideline but a foundation for safeguarding the reliability of research outcomes. +
Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity distils national expectations for research integrity in Estonia and clarifies what researchers and institutions in nan need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark; for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by nan in 2017, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
The importance of the guideline is twofold: firstly, it aims to stimulate scientists and researchers to reflect ethically on their activities, paying special attention to the social impact of their research. Secondly, it serves to provide citizens (who indirectly fund scientific research) with an assurance of the ethical quality and social responsibility of scientific research. Besides publicly funded research, research within the context of industry and corporate organizations is also covered by this code. +
Anthropologists are increasingly confronted with complex situations involving, among other things, conflicts of interest, value choices, dilemmas, obligations, and competing duties. As a result, the Association of Social Anthropologists of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth (ASA) provides a practical framework in the form of ethical principles to assist them in such situations. +
