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
B
The article addresses misunderstandings and disputes regarding authorship in multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary health research teams. The authors propose a five-step "best practice" that includes the distribution of contributorship and authorship for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research. They conclude that this procedure involves dialogue and the use of a contributorship taxonomy as well as a declaration explaining contributorship. +
The study aims to explore the role of institutional culture in promoting research integrity. Research participants provide useful insighta in fostering research integrity, especially with regard to relationships and power differences between individuals or groups. +
This article provides several examples of bias in history research with an emphasis on cultural bias. The author concludes that while personal bias can be avoided, cultural bias is not easy to detect or avoid. +
A female physicist is applying for a prestigious job at a top university that has a reputation for being conservative. During the interview the physicist is asked if she has a significant other who works in the same field. Should she answer the question? +
The Gates Foundation mandates unrestricted access and reuse of peer‑reviewed research and underlying datasets arising from its funding. Introduced in 2015 and updated to align with Plan S principles, the policy requires immediate open access under liberal licences (typically CC BY) and encourages deposition of data in appropriate repositories. The dedicated policy portal explains scope, compliance routes, and answers practical questions for grantholders. By framing openness as essential to solving global challenges, the Foundation’s policy ties dissemination to impact, equity and innovation across health, development and education. +
Factual cases of research on people without their approval. +
An introductory series by Marianne Talbot exploring bioethical theories and their philosophical foundations. These podcasts will explain key moral theories, common moral arguments, and some background logic'"`UNIQ--ref-000000F6-QINU`"'. +
This is a factual case describing how an immunologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Luk Van Parijs, was found to be solely responsible for more than 11 incidents of data fabrication in grant applications and papers submitted between 1997 and 2004. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000062-QINU`"'
Van Parijs avoided jail after several prominent scientists wrote letters begging for clemency on his behalf and was sentenced to home detention, community service and financial restitution.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000063-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000064-QINU`"' +
<br />The Biomedical Alliance in Europe (BioMed Alliance) is a group of 34 European medical societies, with a total of more than 400,000 members, created in 2010 to unite researchers and healthcare professionals and address common issues at the European level. +
The Embassy of Good Science is a wiki platform developed in the EnTIRE project, which was granted in the EU Horizon 2020 programme four years ago. The platform and its relevance for Research Integrity (RI) in Europe and beyond were presented during the final conference of the project, which was held online on October 25th and 26th, 2021. '''This case scenario was submitted as a part of research integrity scenario competition that was held during the second day of the conference.''' +
The BlueMed Initiative is a collaborative research and innovation effort among Mediterranean countries aimed at ensuring a healthy, resilient, and productive Mediterranean Sea. It brings together national and EU-level marine research strategies under a common agenda to support sustainable “blue” growth. This includes promoting marine-based economic opportunities, protecting biodiversity, developing innovative coastal and maritime technologies, and improving the overall management of marine resources. BlueMed also strengthens cooperation across countries by creating platforms for knowledge sharing, policy alignment, and joint action on key challenges such as pollution, climate change, and ecosystem degradation. Through this coordinated approach, the initiative works to enhance scientific understanding and drive sustainable development in the Mediterranean region.<div><div></div></div> +
This is a factual case that describes the reasons for the (potential) retraction of various articles. Most of these articles are retracted due to authorship issues, while others are potentially retracted due to data falsification. One of the articles is retracted because one of the co-authors was not aware of its publication, nor did he permit for the publication. +
The document 'Code of Good Scientific Practice', developed in 2014 in Brazil, is a regional (state of sao paulo) guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by FAPESP São Paulo Research Foundation, and available in Portuguese and English, it targets the research community in Brazil. 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 document 'Guide to Recommendations for Responsible Practices', developed in 2013 in Brazil, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Brazilian Academy of Sciences, and available in Portuguese, it targets the research community in Brazil. 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. +
Brussels Declaration on Open Access (2012), Federal Science Policy, Wallonia-Brussels Federation, and Flemish Ministry for Economy, Science, and Innovation +
The declaration sets Belgium’s national framework for open access, making openness the default while balancing ethics, privacy, and intellectual property. It requires open access to publications through repositories or open journals, encourages Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and FAIR data practices, and outlines responsibilities for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers. Exceptions for sensitive or commercial data are allowed but must be transparently justified. Monitoring emphasizes the ''quality'' of openness—metadata, persistent links, reproducibility, and data/code sharing—rather than just publication counts. The policy aligns with international initiatives like Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud, highlights equity and multilingual access, and promotes responsible openness with safeguards for sensitive data. Overall, it provides Belgium with a coherent reference to guide compliance and harmonize national open science practices within a European and global context. +
Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), Open Society Institute (now Open Society Foundations -OSF) +
The Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), produced by the Open Society Institute (now Open Society Foundations), is a foundational international framework promoting open access to research outputs. It establishes openness as the default while balancing ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, linking open access to research quality, reproducibility, and equitable knowledge sharing. It encourages depositing publications in trusted repositories, using Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and FAIR-aligned data management. Responsibilities span researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers, with clear guidance on planning for openness, rights retention, acknowledging funding, and using infrastructure efficiently. Limited embargoes or exceptions for sensitive data must be justified transparently. The initiative emphasizes equity, zero-embargo access, and publisher-agnostic routes while prioritizing the quality of openness metadata, interoperability, and reproducibility over publication counts. By consolidating dispersed principles into a coherent framework, it provides a practical reference for implementing global open science standards and fostering transparent, inclusive, and accessible research worldwide. +
This article discusses why faculty plagiarism and fraud happen in business organizations and among students. The authors offer advices to universities to help them develop ethical culture that would reduce the possibility of such research misconducts. Based on these recommendations, universities should create defined policies and standards, develop codes of conduct and guarantee training, among others. +
C
CAS Issues Open Access Policy (2014), produced by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, outlines China’s national expectations for open science and open access. Written in Chinese, it provides guidance for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers. The policy promotes openness as the default, balanced with ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security. It emphasizes open access to publications, FAIR data principles, use of persistent identifiers, and deposition in trusted repositories. Responsibilities are defined for authors and institutions, including rights retention, funding acknowledgement, and cost management. Embargoes and exceptions for sensitive data are documented transparently. The policy encourages enabling infrastructure, training, and monitoring, linking local practice to international efforts like Plan S. Equity, responsible openness, and inclusion are cross-cutting themes. For practitioners, it serves as a practical checklist to improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. Published in 2014, it is a key reference for implementing open research in China. +
CATALISI (Catalysation of Institutional Transformations of Higher Education Institutions) is an EU-funded project launched in 2023 to support universities in implementing their own strategies for institutional change. It does this by offering “acceleration services” like Living Labs, counselling, community of practice, and predictive studies, focused on three core areas: research careers and talent development, open science and public engagement, and sustainable research and education. By fostering co-creation, peer learning, and capacity building, CATALISI helps higher-education institutions rethink their governance, adapt to societal challenges, and align with European Research Area priorities. +
CHAllenges and innovative chaNGes in research Ethics Reviews (CHANGER) is a three-year Coordination and Support Action (CSA) project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon WIDERA programme aiming to promote changes in research ethics reviews by strengthening the capacities of researchers to incorporate ethical judgements in the project design and implementation, and by supporting capacity building of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) to address new challenges posed by new technologies and new research practices.
==Evidence and Gap Map (EGM)==
The collected evidence base was used to create Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) – systematic and visual presentation of the availability of evidence for the identified challenges to ethics review. In this way, critically appraised evidence is provided in a clear and actionable format to all stakeholders. <span lang="EN-GB">Rows represent the selected topics, and columns represent the challenges to ethics reviews. The data was visualised using Python (3.8.19) and ''Matplotlib'' library.</span>[[File:Image EGM.png|thumb]] +
