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 “Code of Ethics for Scientific Research in Belgium” establishes the major principles of ethically justified scientific practice in Belgium. As the code already dates from 2009, many consider it to be out of date. All Flemish universities no longer refer to it and have replaced it by the ALLEA code. +
This foundational declaration, led by the Max Planck Society, articulates a vision of the Internet as the infrastructure for a global scientific knowledge commons. It endorses open access to research literature and cultural heritage, building on the Budapest and Bethesda statements, and calls on research organisations, funders, libraries, archives and museums to adopt policies that enable unrestricted access and responsible reuse with proper attribution.
The text defines open access, urges signatories to develop sustainable frameworks (including institutional repositories and new publishing models), and invites broad institutional commitment through signatures. Over two decades, the declaration has served as a touchstone for national and institutional policies worldwide. +
The Austrian Higher Education Conference published a new Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethic. The guide for research integrity and ethics presented here is a compilation of standards for good research practice and principles of research ethics. +
Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethics (2020), Research Integrity / Research Ethics Working Group of BMBWF +
The Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethics (2020), authored by the Research Integrity / Research Ethics Working Group of BMBWF, serves as Austria’s national framework for fostering responsible research practices. Published in both German and English, it promotes honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship, linking these principles to credibility, reproducibility, and public trust in science. The guide outlines the duties of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, establishing standards for planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. It specifies provisions on authorship, citation, conflict of interest management, data transparency, supervision, and peer review, while also defining misconduct and providing fair, proportionate procedures for handling breaches. Education and training are highlighted as essential to embedding integrity as a core skill. The guide addresses contemporary challenges such as open science, data management, and digital tools, supported by practical resources like checklists and reporting templates. Equity and diversity are integrated as fundamental to credible research environments. By aligning with international standards, the guide enhances comparability, researcher mobility, and global trust. +
Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethics (2020), Research Integrity / Research Ethics Working Group of BMBWF +
Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethics (2020) is a national framework authored by Research Integrity / Research Ethics Working Group of BMBWF, in german and english, targeting Austria. Originating from Austria, 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 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 RETHINK Best Practice for Science Communication report outlines key principles and recommendations for effective, reflective science communication in the digital era. It emphasizes that science communicators need to move beyond simply transmitting facts and instead understand how audiences interpret information within their personal, social, and cultural contexts. The document highlights the importance of reflexivity recognizing one’s own assumptions, worldviews, and biases to improve communication practice. By adopting reflective approaches, practitioners can better connect with diverse audiences, avoid the “knowledge-deficit” trap, and foster open dialogues rather than one-way information flows. The report stresses the need to be open to perspectives that differ from one’s own and to reshape communication strategies based on new insights and audience feedback. This helps make science communication more inclusive, contextually relevant, and capable of addressing societal challenges in a fragmented, digital information landscape. +
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 policy report produced under the COALESCE initiative. It consolidates key findings from eight former European “Science with and for Society” (SwafS-19) projects (including QUEST, CONCISE, NEWSERA, GlobalSCAPE, RETHINK, PARCOS, ENJOI and TRESCA) funded under the EU’s H2020 programme. The report reflects on the role of science communication (scicomm) across Europe assessing past efforts, identifying structural and institutional barriers (such as lack of stable support, limited career paths, and insufficient integration of scicomm into academia and R&I systems), and making a case for systemic change. It outlines motivations for effective scicomm (public trust, scientific literacy, democratic engagement, innovation, etc.), presents evidence collected through stakeholder consultations across many EU countries, and provides a set of policy recommendations aiming to professionalise and institutionalise science communication across Europe. +
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. +
