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 document 'Guide to Recommendations for Responsible Practices', developed in 2013 in Brazil, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Brazilian Academy of Sciences, and available in Portuguese, 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. +
Brussels Declaration on Open Access (2012), Federal Science Policy, Wallonia-Brussels Federation, and Flemish Ministry for Economy, Science, and Innovation +
The declaration sets Belgium’s national framework for open access, making openness the default while balancing ethics, privacy, and intellectual property. It requires open access to publications through repositories or open journals, encourages Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and FAIR data practices, and outlines responsibilities for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers. Exceptions for sensitive or commercial data are allowed but must be transparently justified. Monitoring emphasizes the ''quality'' of openness—metadata, persistent links, reproducibility, and data/code sharing—rather than just publication counts. The policy aligns with international initiatives like Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud, highlights equity and multilingual access, and promotes responsible openness with safeguards for sensitive data. Overall, it provides Belgium with a coherent reference to guide compliance and harmonize national open science practices within a European and global context. +
Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), Open Society Institute (now Open Society Foundations -OSF) +
The Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), produced by the Open Society Institute (now Open Society Foundations), is a foundational international framework promoting open access to research outputs. It establishes openness as the default while balancing ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, linking open access to research quality, reproducibility, and equitable knowledge sharing. It encourages depositing publications in trusted repositories, using Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and FAIR-aligned data management. Responsibilities span researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers, with clear guidance on planning for openness, rights retention, acknowledging funding, and using infrastructure efficiently. Limited embargoes or exceptions for sensitive data must be justified transparently. The initiative emphasizes equity, zero-embargo access, and publisher-agnostic routes while prioritizing the quality of openness metadata, interoperability, and reproducibility over publication counts. By consolidating dispersed principles into a coherent framework, it provides a practical reference for implementing global open science standards and fostering transparent, inclusive, and accessible research worldwide. +
This article discusses why faculty plagiarism and fraud happen in business organizations and among students. The authors offer advices to universities to help them develop ethical culture that would reduce the possibility of such research misconducts. Based on these recommendations, universities should create defined policies and standards, develop codes of conduct and guarantee training, among others. +
C
CAS Issues Open Access Policy (2014), produced by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, outlines China’s national expectations for open science and open access. Written in Chinese, it provides guidance for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers. The policy promotes openness as the default, balanced with ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security. It emphasizes open access to publications, FAIR data principles, use of persistent identifiers, and deposition in trusted repositories. Responsibilities are defined for authors and institutions, including rights retention, funding acknowledgement, and cost management. Embargoes and exceptions for sensitive data are documented transparently. The policy encourages enabling infrastructure, training, and monitoring, linking local practice to international efforts like Plan S. Equity, responsible openness, and inclusion are cross-cutting themes. For practitioners, it serves as a practical checklist to improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. Published in 2014, it is a key reference for implementing open research in China. +
CATALISI (Catalysation of Institutional Transformations of Higher Education Institutions) is an EU-funded project launched in 2023 to support universities in implementing their own strategies for institutional change. It does this by offering “acceleration services” like Living Labs, counselling, community of practice, and predictive studies, focused on three core areas: research careers and talent development, open science and public engagement, and sustainable research and education. By fostering co-creation, peer learning, and capacity building, CATALISI helps higher-education institutions rethink their governance, adapt to societal challenges, and align with European Research Area priorities. +
CHAllenges and innovative chaNGes in research Ethics Reviews (CHANGER) is a three-year Coordination and Support Action (CSA) project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon WIDERA programme aiming to promote changes in research ethics reviews by strengthening the capacities of researchers to incorporate ethical judgements in the project design and implementation, and by supporting capacity building of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) to address new challenges posed by new technologies and new research practices.
==Evidence and Gap Map (EGM)==
The collected evidence base was used to create Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) – systematic and visual presentation of the availability of evidence for the identified challenges to ethics review. In this way, critically appraised evidence is provided in a clear and actionable format to all stakeholders. <span lang="EN-GB">Rows represent the selected topics, and columns represent the challenges to ethics reviews. The data was visualised using Python (3.8.19) and ''Matplotlib'' library.</span>[[File:Image EGM.png|thumb]] +
These guidelines provide detailed guidance for research institutions, providing standards and best practices for institutions to implement to facilitate the conduct of good, ethical scientific research. +
The ''CIRAD Code of Ethics'' (December 2017) sets out the ethical principles, rules, and responsibilities guiding all professional activities within CIRAD, the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development. The document emphasizes that research must benefit society and be conducted with integrity, transparency, and responsibility to maintain public trust. It defines ethical standards for scientific integrity, including honesty, impartiality, reliability of data, respect for diversity, non-discrimination, and responsible partnerships. The Code clarifies the roles and duties of General Management, managers, and employees, and addresses issues such as conflicts of interest, research misconduct, whistleblowing, and freedom of expression. A specific focus is placed on research-for-development partnerships, particularly with countries in the Global South, ensuring fairness, mutual benefit, respect for local cultures, sustainable development, and alignment with international ethical standards. Overall, the Code serves as a framework to guide ethical decision-making and professional conduct across CIRAD’s research, partnerships, and institutional operations. +
COALESCE is a four-year European project (2023–2027) focused on creating a European Competence Centre for Science Communication along with a Science Communication Academy. Its goal is to strengthen the connection between science and society by improving the quality, accessibility, and impact of science communication across Europe. The project works to build trust in research and counter misinformation by developing evidence-based resources, tools, and training programs co-created with scientists, communicators, policymakers, journalists, and civil society. Although the Competence Centre will operate virtually, it is supported by national and regional hubs that bring together diverse expertise. By integrating knowledge from past initiatives and promoting inclusive, interdisciplinary approaches, COALESCE aims to professionalize science communication and make it more effective and socially responsive across Europe. +
CODE OF ETHICS FOR RESEARCH WORKERS (2017) is a national framework authored by nan, in english, targeting nan. Originating from Poland, 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 ''Code of Ethics for Scientists'' (2017) is Latvia’s national framework for promoting research integrity and open scientific practice. It sets out core values of honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and responsible use of resources, linking them to reproducibility, credibility, and public trust in science. The code outlines expectations for researchers, supervisors, institutions, funders, and journals in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. It establishes clear rules on authorship, citation, conflict of interest management, supervision, and fair peer review, while also defining misconduct and procedures for investigation with proportional sanctions and learning outcomes. Education is emphasised, ensuring that students and staff are trained in responsible conduct as an essential skill. The code addresses emerging challenges such as open science, digital tools, data management, and new dissemination practices, embedding integrity in contemporary research workflows. Equity and diversity are highlighted as integral to integrity, fostering inclusive environments free from discrimination and harassment. Practical tools such as checklists, templates, and FAQs support day-to-day application. Annexes provide case studies, international references, and contact points for reporting, making the code both a policy framework and a practical handbook. +
The ''Code of Ethics of the Croatian Science Foundation'' (2018), authored by the Croatian Science Foundation, is a national framework promoting research integrity in Croatia. Written in Croatian and targeting researchers, institutions, and funders, it formalises principles of honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking them to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust. It defines responsibilities across the research cycle, including authorship, citation, conflict-of-interest management, transparent methods and data, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. The framework also outlines procedures for addressing misconduct, ensuring due process, proportional sanctions, and opportunities for learning. By aligning with international declarations such as the Singapore and Montreal statements, it connects Croatian practice to global norms, reinforcing mobility and comparability. Education and training are emphasised to instil integrity as a core skill, while guidance covers open science, digital tools, and data management. Equity and diversity are integrated as cross-cutting themes. Combining principles with practical tools, glossaries, and reporting systems, it serves as both policy and handbook. +
CONCISE is a Horizon 2020 project that investigates how science communication shapes European citizens’ beliefs, perceptions, and knowledge about controversial science topics like vaccines, complementary and alternative medicine, GMOs, and climate change. It carried out deliberative public consultations with about 500 participants across five EU countries Portugal, Spain, Italy, Slovakia, and Poland, to explore which communication channels people trust, how they form their opinions, and how to foster more effective, inclusive, and trustworthy dialogue between scientists, media, policy makers, and the general public. +
This is a collection of case studies on publication ethics developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The collection is constantly updated with new cases which are submitted by COPE members. +
This COPE's guide provides basic principles regarding patient's consent for publishing medical case reports. It informs about what information needs to be collected and gives several examples of these forms. +
The COPE core practices are guidelines for all stakeholders involved in academic publishing. They replaced COPE’s previous code of conduct and may be used in addition to national codes of conduct. +
The flowcharts are designed to help editors follow COPE’s Core Practices and implement its advice when faced with cases of suspected misconduct and have been translated into a number of different languages'"`UNIQ--ref-00000064-QINU`"'. +
These educational recourses provide recording of COPE seminars, webinars and COPE PPT presentations. They can serve as introduction regarding all research integrity issues related to publication ethics. +
CROATIAN OPEN ACCESS DECLARATION (2012) is a national resource produced by Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, written in croatian, and intended for stakeholders in Croatia. It synthesizes expectations for open science and open access within Croatia, translating high‑level principles into actionable guidance for researchers, institutions, funders and publishers. The document frames openness as a default—tempered by considerations of ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security—and promotes the maxim of being as open as possible and as closed as necessary. It links openness to research quality, reproducibility, speed of translation, and equitable access to knowledge, particularly for communities with limited subscription access. Core elements typically covered include open access to publications with clear routes to compliance, preferred licensing such as Creative Commons, the use of persistent identifiers, and deposition of the accepted manuscript or version of record in trusted repositories. The guidance also references FAIR data principles and encourages data management plans that specify stewardship, metadata standards, and repository selection. On the operational side, the resource explains responsibilities for authors and host institutions, including acknowledging funding, retaining rights where feasible, and budgeting for publication costs only when necessary. Embargoes, where still allowed, are circumscribed and justified, and exceptions exist for sensitive, commercial, or security‑relevant data; these exceptions are documented through transparent waiver or justification processes. To support adoption, the document points to enabling infrastructure—repositories, registries, discovery services, and research information systems—that help automate compliance and improve the visibility of outputs. It often aligns with or references international efforts such as Plan S, the European Open Science Cloud, or national repository networks, situating local practice within a broader, interoperable ecosystem. Assessment and monitoring are addressed through reporting requirements, progress indicators, and compliance checks at grant reporting or institutional review stages. Rather than counting publications alone, emphasis is placed on the quality of openness: machine‑readable metadata, persistent links, transparent methods, and, where appropriate, sharing of code and data under well‑described licences. The audience for the resource spans researchers who need practical steps to comply; research managers who design workflows and training; librarians and repository managers who provide infrastructure; and policymakers seeking to harmonise national strategies. Examples and FAQs translate policy statements into tangible actions, covering preprints, rights retention statements, and the handling of third‑party content. Equity is treated as a cross‑cutting theme: the document encourages zero‑embargo access when feasible, recognises the burden of author‑facing publication charges, and highlights publisher‑agnostic routes such as repositories and community‑owned platforms. It underscores that openness without attention to inclusion can reinforce disparities, and therefore pairs access with capacity building and multilingual communication where possible. Responsible openness features prominently, requiring safeguards for participants and communities, especially when dealing with personal, health, or Indigenous data. The resource endorses governance mechanisms—ethics oversight, data access committees, and secure environments—that balance public value with legitimate protections, while promoting transparency about any restrictions that remain. Implementation relies on clear roles and timelines. Researchers are encouraged to plan for openness at project inception; institutions to provide training and repository services; and funders to underwrite core infrastructure rather than pay‑per‑article charges where avoidable. Publishers are invited to support author rights, interoperability, and machine‑readable licensing and metadata. For practitioners, the value of CROATIAN OPEN ACCESS DECLARATION lies in its specificity and coherence: it gathers dispersed rules into one dependable reference, connects them to global norms, and explains how to demonstrate compliance without excessive administrative load.
