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 case studies in the Research Integrity Club present short integrity dilemmas.
In each case, an animation illustrates the dilemma, followed by a poll and a guided discussion. +
Transparency instruments to quantify the method transparency, analytic robustness, and replicability of empirical research +
This project develops three new meta-scientific instruments (meters) to quantify three fundamental trustworthiness aspects of a study - method transparency, analytic robustness and effect replicability. The aim of the project is to improve the quality of meta-analytic conclusions across all disciplines. +
This tool provides information on how to transparently present your funding. It is especially important for institutions which aim to get five stars for their transparency. Openness on their funding would make it easy for citizens to find out who supports the work of a certain institution and its projects. This tool gives guidelines how institutions can practice their transparency and also provides a few examples. +
Transpose (TRANsparency in Scholarly Publishing for Open Scholarship Evolution) is an initiative to build a database of journal policies, focussing on open peer review, co-reviewing and detailed preprinting policies. The goal of this initiative is to foster new practices while increasing awareness among authors, editors, and other stakeholders, while providing resources to assist journals in setting, sharing, and clarifying their policies. +
This is a historical case about an entomologist called Jay Traver who published her personal experiences with a mite infestation of her scalp in the ''Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington'' in 1951. Although results are not reproducible and seem to have been fabricated (hence, deserving of a retraction), in this article it is argued that since she suffered from Delusory Parasitosis, the accusations of fabrication may not hold, and bad science would be a better description of the problem at hand. Accordingly, the validity of a retraction note due to fabrication is questioned on the grounds of discrimination against mentally ill.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000000-QINU`"' +
Treatment of missing data in follow-up studies of randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of the literature +
This article discusses missing data as a serious problem in follow-up studies. The authors recommend researchers clearly specify all sources of missing data in follow-up studies, use statistical methods and conduct sensitivity analyses. +
Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2021), Canadian Institutes of Health Research Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada +
The ''Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research'' (2021), authored by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, serves as Canada’s national guideline for research integrity. While targeted at Canadian researchers and institutions receiving Tri-Agency funding, its principles align with international standards, supporting researcher mobility and comparability of practices across borders. The framework emphasizes honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship, linking these to reproducibility, credibility, and public trust. It outlines responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals across the research cycle, including authorship, citation, data transparency, conflict-of-interest management, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It also defines misconduct, provides mechanisms for investigating breaches, and stresses proportional sanctions with educational value. By integrating training, emerging issues such as open science and digital tools, and equity and diversity as cross-cutting themes, the framework functions as both policy and practical handbook. +
Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications (2015) , Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) +
The Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications (2015), issued by CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC, sets national expectations for open science in Canada. It requires federally funded research publications to be openly accessible—ideally immediately, or within a limited embargo—via repositories or journals, using clear licensing (e.g., Creative Commons) and persistent identifiers. The policy emphasizes responsible openness, balancing transparency with ethics, privacy, Indigenous rights, and security.
It outlines roles for researchers (rights retention, compliance, acknowledging funders), institutions (repositories, training), and funders (infrastructure support, monitoring compliance). It also encourages FAIR data, data management plans, and alignment with international initiatives like Plan S. Equity and inclusion are cross-cutting themes, with attention to affordability and multilingual access.
In short: the policy makes open access the default in Canadian research, linking it to quality, equity, and global interoperability, while providing practical guidance and accountability mechanisms for researchers and institutions. +
This policy brief addresses how policy makers can foster and sustain societal trust in science, research and innovation (R&I). It emphasises that trust is not only a matter of scientific output, but also of the structures, processes and values underpinning R&I systems. Key challenges identified include decreasing public confidence in science due to opaque research governance, unmet expectations, weak stakeholder involvement, and inadequate translation of research into societal value.
The brief offers actionable recommendations for policymakers: creating regulatory and funding frameworks that mandate transparency, stakeholder co-creation, rigorous integrity standards, open dissemination and evaluation of R&I, and monitoring of trust-related outcomes. It also advocates aligning science policy with public needs and values, promoting inclusive research agendas, and supporting capability building across the R&I ecosystem. The goal is to enable policy makers to build robust, transparent and socially responsive research systems that strengthen the social licence of science. +
The report examines how science communication interacts with policy-making, particularly how policymakers consume, interpret, and use scientific information especially in areas linked to innovation, digitalisation, environmental health, and misinformation. The report reviews global trends in science communication, noting longstanding patterns and those accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as increased digitalisation, visualisation, open science practices, and fact-checking efforts. It explores science communication at international, EU, and national levels (Austria, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands) through desk research and interviews with policymakers. The analysis identifies how features like audience needs, communicator roles, message format, and media environment affect effective science-policy engagement. Conclusions are drawn about the mutual influence between science communication and policy and how evolving communication practices shape evidence use. Policy recommendations are outlined to strengthen dialogue between scientists and policymakers and support evidence-informed decision-making. +
This tutorial provides information on the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. It is useful for committee members, institutional administrators, investigators, animal care personnel and veterinarians. +
U
This is an article about H. Rosie Xing, a cancer researcher working at the University of Chicago who engaged in research misconduct by using manipulated images in her publications, and James P. Warne, a diabetes researcher at the University of California at San Francisco who falsified data in publications and grant applications. +
This is an article about physicist Sean Darin Kinion who was working at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He faked data and reports in quantum computing research. In 2016 Kinion was sentenced to 18 months in prison for faking data and ordered to pay back the funding. +
This blog post describes a case where two scientists publish a paper using pseudonyms. Both authors have published with their real names in the past. The paper has gone through normal blind peer-review. +
The concordat provides a national framework for good research conduct and its governance. It outlines commitments of Universities and other research performing organizations, as well as individual researchers to ensure research integrity. It was signed by diverse research institutions in the UK (see tags), who then worked to implement the framework, It was first published in 2012, and revised in 2019. +
UK Guidance on Reproducibility and Reliability of Biomedical Research: Improving Research Practices +
This guideline about reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research describes the importance of reproducible and reliable studies. It also gives insights in how reproducible different kind of studies ought to be and how reproducibility can be improved. The guideline is an outcome of a symposium held by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Wellcome Trust in April 2015. +
The Research Councils UK (RCUK) Policy and Guidelines builds on growing national and international experience in identifying and promoting good research conduct, and in addressing unsatisfactory conduct. In particular this document:
*sets standards of good research practice, with associated guidelines
*specifies and describes unacceptable research conduct
*provides guidelines for reporting and investigating allegations of research misconduct
*clarifies the respective responsibilities of the Research Councils and Research Organisations in fostering and safeguarding the highest possible standards of research conduct +
The UK Research Integrity Office has provided an overview page of resources on research integrity. These are being continually updated.
<br /> +
The case studies in this pack are not literal accounts of any particular enquiry to the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO). Instead they are scenarios, based on real-life situations, which illustrate recurring or notable issues and problems which have been brought to our attention. This pack is suitable for any audience (e.g. case study 2) but may be of particular interest to managers, researchers and administrators involved in responding to allegations of research misconduct. While some case studies may mention a particular discipline, they contain themes that cut across all subjects. +
Code of Practice for Research UKRIO: Promoting Good Practice and Preventing Misconduct.
This Code of Practice for Research is aimed at promoting research practices and outcomes of the highest status, by encouraging good science and preventing misconduct among all stakeholders involved in the UK research community. To do so, the code issues a set of principles that highlight those values relevant in research communities and a set of standards that guide all parties involved in research, from researchers to organizations. The code promotes good practices, training, mentoring, supervision, and leadership, encourages collaborative working, and provides a framework to properly deal with conflicts of interests, research involving human subjects or animals, personal data, health and safety, finances, IP, etc. +
