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
T
The document 'General guidelines for Research Ethics', developed in 2019 in Norway, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by The Norwegian National Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics, The Norwegian Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology, The Norwegian National Committee for Evaluation of Research on Human Remains, The Norwegian National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct, and available in English, it targets the research community in Norway. 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. +
This background document, prepared by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, aimed to map the state of research ethics in Norway, as preparation for the amendment of the Research Ethics act in 2015. +
The Nuremberg Code was created in 1946 and as a result of the Nuremberg doctors trials, wherein 23 Nazi defendants were trialled for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The code lays out 10 standards to which researchers need to adhere before conducting experiments. The concept of voluntary informed consent is explained in the first standard, and endorced worldwide after the publication of the code. +
Researchers are treated disrespectfully by their mentor/supervisor. The latter is behaving unprofessionally. +
This is a factual case about a blood researcher who is pressured by a pharmaceutical company into not sharing any details of a clinical trial which was terminated after the drug under investigation was suggested to be ineffective and maybe even harmful for the patients. The researcher received no support from the institution she was working for. The institution was later shown to have a conflict of interest. The article especially emphasizes the lack of action by the bioethical community in this case.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000000-QINU`"' +
In this fictional case, a couple’s remaining fertilised embryos are stored - on their request - for possible future implantation. After the couple’s tragic death following an accident, the IVF clinic storing the embryos is approached by a Parkinson’s disease research group asking for unused surplus frozen embryos. What should the IVF clinic do? +
The purpose of the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCCptHKZmew PREPARED App] is to provide a digital platform to complement the training in terms of research ethics and integrity decision-making during global crises. This is achieved by integrating with illuminative case studies that enable transformative learning.
The app is developed for the two most popular and common smartphone platforms: Android and iOS. It was [https://prepared-project.eu/an-app-for-ethics-in-times-of-crisis/ launched by João Monteiro], Chief Editor of NATURE Medicine, in Amsterdam. +
The PREPARED Code is a ''global code of conduct for research during pandemics''. Developed by an international, multilingual, and multidisciplinary consortium, it provides ethical and integrity-based guidance for researchers, research ethics committees, and institutions during pandemic crises. It is grounded in human rights and structured around four core values: '''fairness, respect, care, and honesty'''.
The Code addresses urgent ethical challenges, such as fast data sharing, equitable stakeholder engagement, inclusion of vulnerable populations, and protection of research participants.
Structured into four sections, it outlines how to uphold ethical standards under pressure.
# '''Fairness''' promotes collaboration and equitable access.
# '''Respect''' emphasizes informed consent, ethics oversight, and fair treatment of community researchers.
# '''Care''' protects patient safety, supports healthcare systems, and ensures biosafety.
# '''Honesty''' calls for transparency in data use, communication, and publishing. +
This is a factual case. +
This study provides information about PI Program that discusses the causes of violations of rules and regulations in research. This three-day workshop teaches evidence-based decision-making strategies for researchers to help them avoid for bias and uncertainty in their work. +
The REAPPRAISED checklist can be used by anyone struggling to assess a submitted or published article, and includes common-sense assessments that go beyond the text itself. It can, and should, be applied independently of whether misconduct is suspected. Its use can help to speed up the identification and correction of flawed papers, preventing wasted resources and even protecting patients from harm. How did we come to see the need for this tool? From early 2013, three of us (A.A., A.G., M.J.B.) began to contact journals about multiple, serious problems we had identified in 33 reports of trials led by bone-health researchers Yoshihiro Sato and Jun Iwamoto. The first retraction did not appear until late 2015. This delay is all the more regrettable given that concerns had been raised more than a decade earlier. +
The RESPECT guidelines are intended to form the basis of a voluntary code of practice covering the conduct of socio-economic research in Europe. +
The Regulation on Ethics in Research and Publishing (2012), Ministry of Higher Education and Science +
The Regulation on Ethics in Research and Publishing (2012) is a national framework authored by Ministry of Higher Education and Science, in albanian, targeting Albania. Originating from Albania, 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.
A brief overview of replicability definitions and examples of non-replicability cases in psychology, namely on priming and spatial distance cues research. +
This website contains documents, information and resources on how to increase the value of research and reduce waste. It is based on articles published in the medical journal The Lancet in 2014. +
The Rise of Octopus Affiliation: Navigating Multiple Institutional Associations in Academic Publishing +
<span lang="HR">One of the most important elements in research articles is author affiliation as it provides readers with information where the research was conducted. The academic community refers to this practice as "octopus affiliation" because it is becoming more and more common for authors to list multiple affiliations (1). When an author lists more than one organization to which they are affiliated in their article, it is known as octopus affiliation (2).</span> +
Developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), the Rotterdam Dilemma Game includes a variety of dilemmas in the form of case definitions regarding research processes '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' . The game is designed for the use of a diverse population such as students, researchers, supervisors, scientists, academics and administrators. As the dilemmas are based on real cases, they are recognizable to those who take part in research activities. The game serves as an enjoyable exercise letting participants exchange their authentic experiences and perspectives concerning moral dilemmas they face in their research environment. It may also be helpful in developing a shared understanding of formally defined principles and the moral content of our actions as well as the role of values and norms in decision-making.
Recently, EUR launched a [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game mobile app of the game], which can be played online. Users can add new cases to the app and their suggestions for best solutions for the dilemmas are recorded in its database.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
The Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland is a leading national medical training body. In order to foster a culture of rigour and integrity in its affiliated institutions and researchers, it lays down core principles of good research practice. +
An anthropologist working in a rural Mexican village is asked by a woman to help her leave her abusive husband. This might jeopardise the anthropologist's relationship with the community they are working with. +
This paper summarizes a scandal related to the origin of the eggs obtained for research on cloned human embryos. In 2004 and 2005, researcher 'W' was acclaimed for creating stem cells from cloned human embryos. Concerns were later raised, however, about the source of the eggs for the embryos. An investigation discovered that the researcher had failed to fully inform the women donating the eggs about the purpose of the research, had failed to gain their informed consent, and had made payments or 'undue inducements' to obtain eggs. In fact, 75% of women had received payments and two female junior researchers from research W's lab were coerced into donating their own eggs'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'. This is a factual case.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
