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
V
The ''Valuing Citizen Engagement in Science Governance'' policy brief argues that engaging citizens meaningfully in how science is governed is essential for democratic, knowledge-based decision-making. It highlights that traditional, top-down models of expertise and science governance often exclude the perspectives and knowledge of ordinary people, which can weaken trust, reduce legitimacy, and limit the relevance of scientific decisions to broader society. Instead, the brief advocates for participatory models that recognise citizens not only as recipients of scientific information but as contributors whose experiences and insights can inform policy and research agendas. It suggests ways to move beyond narrow consultation to deeper, deliberative engagement where citizens help shape scientific priorities, evaluation, and governance processes. These models draw on lessons from citizen science and deliberative democracy research to create more inclusive, transparent, and responsive science governance systems across Europe. +
The Valuing Voices Tool supports you to design and deliver equitable and responsible research projects. It is a practical approach to achieving meaningful, impactful and fundable research.
Five principles, four questions, one tool.
==== Who is it for? ====
* Researchers at all career stages: to support equitable and responsible research design and the development of grant applications
* Research enablers: to enhance the support you provide to researchers in developing research projects and grant applications
==== What is it? ====
* Five principles for equitable and responsible research
* Curated practical resources for each principle
* One guided results-based planning tool for research design +
The Valuing Voices Tool supports you to design and deliver equitable and responsible research projects. A practical approach to achieving meaningful, impactful and fundable research. Five principles, four questions, one tool.
=== Our tool at a glance ===
<div>
==== Who is it for? ====
* Researchers at all career stages: to support equitable and responsible research design and the development of grant applications
* Research enablers: to enhance the support you provide to researchers in developing research projects and grant applications
==== What is it? ====
* Five principles for equitable and responsible research
* Curated practical resources for each principle
* One guided results-based planning tool for research design
</div> +
This blog post reports on the results of ORI investigation about a researcher who fabricated data and manipulated images in seven publications, all of which are flagged for retraction. +
This series of eLearning modules supports users in reflecting on possible circumstances that might undermine a good research and and prevent researchers from developing virtues. By taking these modules learners will:
<br />
*'''Reflect on their experience of cognitive dissonance''''"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' '''in a research related context.''' Both in explaining and demonstrating the underlying dynamics and relevance of cognitive dissonance for the research process, learners are likely to experience this psychological discomfort, and reflect upon it.
<br />
*'''Reflect on the necessity and risks of applying self-justification strategies.''' Both in explaining and demonstrating the underlying dynamics informing the application of self-justification strategies in research, learners are invited to reflect on the self-justification strategies they use, and the possible unintended consequences, like the development of cognitive biases.
*'''Select the most relevant breach of research integrity in their discipline and invent self-justification strategies.''' In a two-step exercise, learners are first required to choose the most relevant violation of research integrity in their discipline. Then, they are asked to write different types of self-justification strategies (e.g. denial of responsibility, trivialization) that have previously introduced to them with the example of honorary authorship.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
By taking these eLearning modules you will learn about and reflect on:<br />
*'''Your experience of cognitive dissonance in a research related context:''' You will be guided in recognizing the relevance and dynamics of cognitive dissonance within the research process.
*'''The necessity and risks of applying self-justification strategies:''' You will be guided and invited to reflect on the self-justification strategies you might use, and the possible unintended consequences they might lead to, like the development of cognitive biases.
*'''The most relevant breaches of research integrity in your discipline and possible self-justification strategies:''' After identifying the most relevant violations of research integrity in your discipline you will be invited to write different types of self-justification strategies. +
This essay attempts to apply virtue ethics and positive psychology to science and engineering ethics education and to develop a new conceptual framework for more effective education. It also suggests two possible educational methods - moral modeling and involvement in some moral activity in science and engineering ethics classes. +
This exercise provides a structured format to reflect on research integrity cases and dilemmas. The exercise related the concepts of virtues and to research practice'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"'. Virtues are reflected upon in the context of research integrity and transformed into norms for action.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000D-QINU`"'<br /> +
This exercise supports reflection on research integrity cases and dilemmas by focusing on how virtues (or moral characters) can support researchers in deciding how to act in accordance to personal motives and values'"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"'. In this exercise, virtues are defined and reflected upon and transformed into norms for action. You will be asked to reflect on questions such as “What should I do to honor honesty in this situation?” “How can I be reliable?” This exercise helps to reflect on what kind of researchers we want to be and what we consider 'excellent' behaviors, while also considering possible difficulties and constraints.'"`UNIQ--references-00000009-QINU`"' +
‘Virtue’ derives from ancient Greek - ἀρετή - and means ‘excellence of any kind’. To be virtuous means to strive towards living in compliance with one’s full potential, intellectually as well as morally. The reference to full potential shows that the ability to develop a virtue is innate yet, in order to become virtuous, one needs to practice. A distinction can be made between intellectual or epistemological virtues and moral virtues. Both types of virtues are character traits, relevant for research integrity, as doing good research requires intellectual and moral excellence. +
Dr Maggiano was asked by a state agency to collect data about health risk behaviours among pregant women in the state. However, the requirement of the project was to oversample the Native American population of the state in order to focus potential support on them (and meet the grant agreements). What should the researchers do in this case? +
Professor Maggiano was conducting a study about re-integration of mental health patients into society when she realised that some of the participants (selected for the study by the state department of mental health) have not been contacted and briefed about the purpose and nature of the research. According to the sponsors of the research, consent was not required in this case, because the study is for internal use only. What should Professor McGorty do in this situation? +
W
WHO’s open access policy requires WHO‑authored and WHO‑funded journal articles to be published open access from 1 January 2021, preferably in journals indexed in DOAJ and with agreements to deposit the version of record in PubMed Central and Europe PMC. WHO does not support APCs for hybrid journals except in transitional cases;accepted manuscripts must be deposited with no embargo and licensed under CC BY 3.0 IGO (WHO‑authored) or CC BY 4.0 (WHO‑funded). WHO publications since November 2016 are released under CC BY‑NC‑SA 3.0 IGO, and the policy includes explicit expectations for data availability statements and deposition of datasets with persistent identifiers. The page links to WHO journals indexed in DOAJ and to IRIS, WHO’s publication repository. +
''<span lang="EN-US">WIFO's AI Guidelines provide a comprehensive framework for the ethical and effective use of generative AI in research and administrative support. The guidelines stress the importance of continuous education, transparency, and scientific integrity, forbidding AI in personnel assessments and involving employees in AI governance. Key components include robust technical infrastructure, an AI working group, and internal communication channels. The guidelines highlight personal accountability, human oversight, and strict data protection, ensuring compliance with European laws and fostering responsible AI integration.</span>'' +
Want to make sure your paper gets published? Just do your own peer review like this researcher did +
The blog describes the case of a 'self-peer review' by an environmental/earth sciences researcher. +
This is an open access publishing platform. It provides post-publication peer review. +
Wellcome’s policy applies to original research publications arising in whole or in part from its funding. It requires immediate open access, typically under CC BY, and provides detailed guidance on compliance routes, acknowledgement of funding, and when a No‑Derivatives (ND) licence exception may be requested. From 1 January 2025, Wellcome will only fund APCs for articles in fully open access journals or platforms indexed in DOAJ;repository‑based routes and rights retention remain available. Additional guidance covers open access funding for books and chapters, support for centres and programmes, and how to manage rights and third‑party content. +
Diese Übung soll dazu anregen, über Research Integrity Situationen und Dilemmata nachzudenken. Im Fokus steht dabei, wie eine Reflexion über Werte (oder den eigenen moralischen Charakter) den einzelnen Wissenschaftler:innen dabei helfen kann, sich bewusst für eine Handlungsoption zu entscheiden, die ihren persönlichen Motiven und Werten entspricht (Pennock, R. T. & O’Rourke, M. Developing a Scientific Virtue-Based Approach to Science Ethics Training. Sci. Eng. Ethics 23, 243–262 (2017).). In dieser Übung werden zuerst Werte besprochen und reflektiert, und dann in Handlungsnormen umgewandelt. Auf dich werden Fragen zukommen wie bspw.: „Was sollte ich tun, um in dieser Situation dem Wert/der Tugend Ehrlichkeit gerecht zu werden?“, „Wie kann ich zuverlässig sein?“. Die Übung hilft dir dabei, darüber nachzudenken, welche Art von Wissenschaftler:in du sein möchtest. Die Übung regt auch dazu an, darüber nachzudenken, was für uns in schwierigen und eingeschränkten Situationen „erstrebenswerte“ Verhaltensweisen sind. +
Diese Übung soll dazu einladen, über Research Integrity Situationen und Dilemmata nachzudenken. Sie verbindet den werte- und tugend-basierten Ansatz mit der Forschungspraxis und dadurch mit konkreten Handlungsoptionen (Pennock, R. T. & O’Rourke, M. Developing a Scientific Virtue-Based Approach to Science Ethics Training. Sci. Eng. Ethics 23, 243–262 (2017).). Die Werte/Tugenden werden im Kontext von Research Integrity reflektiert und in Handlungsnormen umgewandelt. +
This factual case discusses an analysis of research misconduct investigations into a particular and significant case of scientific misconduct. The investigators reviewed several misconduct reports regarding this instance and found that all reports were inadequate.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000000-QINU`"' +
