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 BEYOND Guidelines for Preventing and Addressing Research Misconduct are an aspirational document intended to guide research communities in cultivating environments that promote responsible research conduct and institutional accountability. Rooted in the belief that research integrity (RI) is a shared responsibility, these Guidelines are addressed to all actors in the research ecosystem, including researchers, research performing organisations (RPOs), research funding organisations (RFOs), citizen scientists, ethics and integrity bodies, publishers, and policymakers.
This document follows the lead of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC) and affirms its core principles of reliability, honesty, respect, and accountability. In particular, it endorses the ECoC’s emphasis on the importance of the research environment in sustaining RI. The BEYOND Guidelines adopt and further develop this perspective by explicitly advancing an ecosystem approach to research misconduct (RM), one that recognises how systemic, organisational, epistemic, socio-technical, and psychological factors interact to shape research culture and behaviour. +
This collection of cases for teaching and training was developed within the EU-funded BEYOND (Beyond Bad Apples: Towards a Behavioral and Evidence-based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Integrity in Europe) project.
Ethics and ethics education have traditionally emphasized individual responsibility in decision-making and actions. While this perspective remains vital, it does not encompass the full complexity of ethical decision-making processes. Human beings are inherently social creatures and their decisions are influenced not only by personal choices but also by their broader environment and situational contexts. This underscores the need to integrate an understanding of social and contextual factors into ethical frameworks and teaching methodologies.
Ethical and other decisions within the research context are conditioned by institutional missions and values, disciplinary rules, organizational culture, and the particular, often implicit, practices of specific units and teams. These layers of context can and do influence how research is conducted, for example by emphasizing ethical considerations and equipping individuals with critical thinking tools, training opportunities, and providing a “research ethics infrastructure” comprising guidelines, transparent procedures, safeguards, and counseling opportunities.
BEYOND cases for young and early career researchers have been developed to support critical ethical reflection, acknowledging that practical ethics often involves choosing between incompatible values within complex social environments.
The material consists of ethical dilemmas which are developed in accordance with the methodology described by Parder et al. (2024)[https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/For%20upload%20on%20the%20embassy/BEYOND%20training%20material%20for%20early%20career%20researchers_for%20resource%20presentation.docx#_ftn1 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000000-QINU`"'].
· The narrative is described from the perspective of the protagonist – the protagonist must be someone that the trainees find it easy to identify with.
· The characters and the basic relationships between them are described without too much detail, leaving thus room for trainees to fill the missing information with their own life experiences.
· The information about the motives of the actors has been kept to a minimum to give the trainees an opportunity to draw from their experiences.
· The temporal dimension of the narrative is also kept limited – in some cases background information is given, but the pre-given choices were kept within one temporal moment.
· The dilemma and the pre-given solutions were balanced – the narrative was written from the neutral perspective and the pre-given solutions were morally acceptable from the perspective of at least one ethical theory.
The drafting of solutions was inspired by four ethical theories: deontology, utilitarianism, care ethics and virtue ethics. It has to be noted that the solutions are not in perfect accordance with the theories as the aim of this training methodology is not to teach ethical theories to trainees, but rather to provide realistic alternative solutions to choose from.
Finally, the aim of the methodology is not to teach a “right” answer to the dilemma as dilemmas often involve conflicts between two or more valuable ethical principles, but to focus on the reflection of the cases and solutions and to guide participants to carry out moral reasoning with emphasis on the skills of listening and discussing.
The purpose of this training activity is to engage participants in a game to encourage discussion and promote better self-understanding and mutual understanding, while also enhancing listening and argumentation skills. The game is played in groups of 3–6 players. There can be as many groups as needed, although facilitation might require more effort with more groups. The cases focus on issues that are especially relevant for young and/or early career researchers and attempt has been made to cover topics that have emerged more recently in research ethics and integrity field (AI, researcher rehabilitation etc.).
Educators and trainers can find detailed instructions on how to facilitate reflection using these cases here .
[https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/For%20upload%20on%20the%20embassy/BEYOND%20training%20material%20for%20early%20career%20researchers_for%20resource%20presentation.docx#_ftnref1 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000001-QINU`"'] Parder, M. L., Tammeleht, A., Juurik, M., Paaver, T., Velbaum, K., and Harro-Loit, H. (2024). Digital Discussion Game on Values: Development, Use and Possibilities for Measuring Its Functionality. In Y. P. Cheng, M. Pedaste, E. Bardone, Y. M. Huang (eds). (2024). Innovative Technologies and Learning. ICITL 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 14785. Springer, Cham.
This collection of cases for teaching and training was developed within the EU-funded BEYOND (Beyond Bad Apples: Towards a Behavioral and Evidence-based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Integrity in Europe) project.
Ethics and ethics education have traditionally emphasized individual responsibility in decision-making and actions. While this perspective remains vital, it does not encompass the full complexity of ethical decision-making processes. Human beings are inherently social creatures and their decisions are influenced not only by personal choices but also by their broader environment and situational contexts. This underscores the need to integrate an understanding of social and contextual factors into ethical frameworks and teaching methodologies. +
Bridging Integrity in Higher Education, Business and Society (BRIDGE) is an Erasmus+ funded project, it is a multidisciplinary three-years project (2020-2023).
Academic integrity, research integrity, integrity in business, integrity in society are usually described as separate fields. In this project, we seek to create a bridge between them in order to reach a broader understanding of interrelated aspects of integrity between these fields. The target groups of this project are early career researchers, i.e. master and PhD students, and their supervisors. +
Based on a news from Times of India (TOI), a study regarding the development of a new indigenous gene was completely fake. The gene that was stated is a new variety of Bt Cotton or Bt gene (BNla106 truncated cry1 AC). Hence, the project team responsible for the study claimed that they had already developed a new variety of Bt cotton seeds. However, experts found that the construct of Bt cotton has a Monsanto gene (Mon-531), which exemplifies that the cotton seeds was never altered or still it is the common seed. Moreover, the variety of BT cotton was already brought in the public in the year 2008 and the paper work of the UAS was published in the Current Science regardless of dubious claims that was later found out and thus, the published work was later on withdrawn (dated December 25, 2007). In 2012, the Monsanto gene was introduced by the media through a UAS staffer that it was indeed present and was never altered at all. Furthermore, it was found out through a 129-page report that a scope was contaminated due to the seeds being mass multiplied. +
An anthropologist working for two organisation has been asked to delay her (developed) funding application with one organisation in order to faciliatate the other +
In 1986, Thereza Imanishi-Kari co-authored a scientific paper on immunology with five other authors including Nobel laureate David Baltimore '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'. Margot O'Toole, who was a postdoc in Imanishi-Kari's laboratory and also acknowledged in the paper “for critical reading of the manuscript”, reported Imanishi-Kari for fabrication after discovering laboratory notebook pages with conflicting data. Baltimore refused to retract the paper and Imanishi-Kari dismisses O'Toole from the laboratory. After a series of published statements in Nature and a bitter debate within the biomedical community '"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"', Baltimore and three co-authors then retracted the paper. Baltimore publicly apologized for defense of fabricated data and not taking a whistle-blower's accusations seriously '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'. The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found Imanishi-Kari guilty for data fabrication and attempts of covering up those fabrications with additional frauds. However, the appeals panel of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ruled that the ORI had failed to prove misconduct by Imanishi-Kari and dismissed all charges against her '"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"'. This is a factual case.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000004-QINU`"' +
A woman brushes off her most recent diagnosis, Huntington disease (HD), and resists her doctor’s recommendations to tell her family about the diagnosis. By not disclosing this information to her family, they would not know that they might want to get tested for HD. Prior to diagnosis, the woman and her family provided genetic samples to a research database to investigate a genetic disease unrelated to HD. Since the database project required written consent for using samples in future research, the doctor wonders if he can run tests for HD on the stored samples that would include the materials of the woman and her family. +
'''Becoming an Ethical Researcher''' is a badged open course run by the Open University on its OpenLearn platform. This runs for 11 months of the year and was launched on 1 October 2020. It is designed to take 6 weeks of study for 2 hours per week. +
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. +
