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
Research Integrity-Übungen können zum oberflächlichen Auswendiglernen verleiten, ohne dass hinterfragt wird, was gute Forschung überhaupt ausmacht. Zu wissen, was ''gut'' in diesem Zusammenhang bedeutet und was gute Forschung ist, ist ein wichtiges Fundament für die Entwicklung und Übung von Research Integrity. Diese Reflexion lenkt die Aufmerksamkeit auf die zugrundeliegende Motivation, aufgrund derer wir uns mit der Integrität in der Forschung beschäftigen. +
Diskussionen über oder Übungen zu Research Integrity laufen Gefahr, zum Auswendiglernen zu verleiten und ihre Wirkung zu verlieren, wenn nicht hinterfragt wird, was gute Forschung überhaupt ausmacht. Diese Übung soll helfen, über die Grundlagen dessen nachzudenken, was wir unter ''guter Forschung'' verstehen. +
Research integrity and research misconduct are of immense interest to stakeholders both within and outside the scientific community. Integrity in research not only enables good quality research, supports effective collaborations and delivers benefits to the public, but also safeguards the trust of the public in the research community. Research misconduct, on the other hand, can diminish trust in science, affect the quality of research results and misspend public funds. To prevent this, it is crucial that researchers receive guidance on research integrity.
National documents are important in laying down specific norms that are to be followed. For instance, the Estonian document provides considerations to be taken into account during different stages of the research, such as planning, conduct and publication <sup>4</sup>. In the Danish and Swiss guidelines, the procedures to address a suspected breach of integrity are described in detail <sup>5, 6</sup>. The Swiss document, in addition, also provides the legal background and implications of misconduct <sup>6</sup>.
Whilst there is a value for countries to have their own RI code or statement, challenges can arise when there are divergences both among national documents and between national level documents and the ECoC regarding the guiding values of research integrity and what constitutes research misconduct. These divergences are important to map and define, for two broad reasons: firstly, it could mean that in cases of research misconduct in international collaborations, responses to misconduct may vary, depending on the national norms, and secondly, these divergences go against the harmonizing effect envisaged in the ECoC, and could affect the overall coherence of research integrity guidance <sup>4</sup>. These considerations are of importance not only to policy makers, but also to research institutions and researchers in general. +
Research integrity issues often require thorough consideration, as it is not always simple to apply rules and to know what is the right action given a code of conduct. A dialogue can help to find ways to deal with such issues. A dialogue can take place within the research team, or in a group aiming at reflection on research integrity issues.
The idea of dialogue is not only being nice and friendly. The aim is to come to a better view of the situation, gaining knowledge and understanding. This requires that one seriously investigates the relevance of the perspective of the other. Being open to the perspective of the other does not mean simply giving up one’s own point of view, but being prepared to learn from the other’s point of view. By exchanging perspectives, dialogue can result in a fusion of horizons.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000276-QINU`"'
It is important to distinguish dialogue from debate. In a nutshell, the most relevant differences are the following :'"`UNIQ--ref-00000277-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000278-QINU`"'
*Dialogue focuses on learning from differences; debate focuses on finding the one right answer
*Dialogue focuses on understanding the other; debate focuses on convincing the other
*Dialogue focuses on listening and questioning; debate focuses on speaking and arguing
*Dialogue focuses on looking for strengths in the position of the other; debate focuses on looking for weaknesses in the position of the other
*Dialogue focuses on exploring and considering; debate focuses on attacking and defending
*Dialogue focuses on thinking slow; debate focuses on thinking fast
*Dialogue focuses on reflection and learning; debate focuses on concluding and deciding
'"`UNIQ--references-00000279-QINU`"' +
It demonstrates the tensions that can arise between institutional research integrity committees and national research integrity bodies in the application of the standards governing conflicts of interests. Different interpretations of these standards can lead to diverging opinions regarding whether research misconduct has been committed. +
This fictional case is a firm reminder of the plurality of types of conflicts of interest one can come across in their research life. The case is presented alongside questions that provide a starting point for reflection on the dilemmas faced by researchers in relation to their contractual responsibilities as well as moral obligations when working in a team. +
An interesting example of a case, signifying that not all retractions are due to conscious manipulation of data/results by the papers' authors. +
Peer review is an important process to detect the flaws of to-be-published papers. This step of the publication process needs to be performed in order to increase the quality of scientific papers. When peer review is 'sloppy', or even allegedely fake, the quality will likely be low, and erroneous papers can be published.
<br /> +
Authors do not always set on purposely to deceive in all ethics violations allegations. For example, double submission may be in order to increase one's list of publications but it can also derive by luck of communication between authors (especially when in different countries/institutions) which may lead to such 'misshapen'. +
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
The Moodle CitizenScience.eu platform is important because it builds capacity in citizen science a field that democratizes research by engaging non-scientists in real scientific work. It equips learners with both conceptual knowledge and practical skills to design, run, and evaluate citizen science projects, increasing the quality and impact of public participation in research. By offering open, accessible training, it helps expand understanding of scientific methods, data collection, and community engagement, empowering educators, researchers, and activists to collaborate effectively. It also fosters a pan-European network of practitioners and learners, strengthening science literacy and innovation across disciplines and sectors. +
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. +
Training programs like those offered through EU-LIFE are vital for preparing researchers with the skills, networks, and experience needed to compete internationally in science and technology. They promote excellence by integrating cutting-edge research with professional development, improving career prospects in academia, industry, and beyond. Open-access training resources broaden participation and help reduce inequalities in research skills and opportunities across Europe. By sharing best practices and enhancing mobility, these programs foster collaboration, innovation, and knowledge transfer strengthening the European research ecosystem and helping address global challenges in health, environment, and society through a highly skilled scientific workforce. +
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. +
