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
[
This theme explores the concepts of falsifiability and attractor states as crucial tools for assessing scientific theories. It discusses how these concepts can help researchers determine the direction in which the weight of evidence is pointing, whether towards supporting or falsifying a theory. Using string theory as an example, it highlights the importance of distinguishing between confirmation bias, lack of evidence, and genuine falsification. +
c
cOAlition S Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications +
''cOAlition S: Accelerating the Transition to Full and Immediate Open Access to Scientific Publications'' (2018), published by Science Europe, sets international expectations for open science and open access with a focus on the EU. Written in English, it frames openness as the default while balancing ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, following the principle of being “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” The document emphasizes immediate open access to publications, Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, FAIR data principles, and deposition in trusted repositories. It outlines responsibilities for researchers, institutions, and funders, including rights retention, transparency in embargoes, and cost management. Adoption is supported through infrastructure like repositories, registries, and research information systems, aligned with initiatives such as Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud. Equity and responsible openness are highlighted, ensuring inclusion, multilingual communication, and safeguards for sensitive or Indigenous data. Serving as a benchmark and practical checklist, it offers actionable steps to improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access across Europe and beyond. +
h
Across the disciplines, collaboration and interdisciplinary work is growing. As teamwork in scholarship increases, it’s important to establish good practices for collaboration. Laying clear ground rules (Howard Gadlin and Kevin Jessar call these a “prenuptial agreement for scientists”) and having an open discussion about expectations helps the collaboration run smoothly. This is equally true if you are collaborating with different labs at other universities, working with private industry, or keeping your mentor up to date on your own research. +
i
Ethics in research is an essential ingredient for good science. Maintaining high ethical standards is essential to winning public trust in scientific work. However, there are many challenges such as new technologies, increasing international collaboration in academic research and the absence of standardisation across Europe. The EU-funded irecs project will reinforce the reliability of science by advancing research ethics expertise and competencies. It will improve the understanding of research ethics in Europe and provide interactive, sustainable training programmes. Building on the European Network for Research Ethics and Research Integrity and the Embassy of Good Science as well as close collaboration with key stakeholder organizations, irecs will create a horizontal community unifying research ethics practitioners, policymakers and other stakeholders.
The project has produced four policy briefs, [https://zenodo.org/records/11101576 on AI in health and healthcare], [https://zenodo.org/records/11102003 extended reality], [https://zenodo.org/records/11102042 genome editing], [https://zenodo.org/records/11101907 and biobanking] providing advice on how to improve research ethics expertise in practice. A [https://zenodo.org/records/17737002 fifth policy brief] provides recommendations on implementing research ethics governance at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and Research Performing Organizations (RPOs).
You can have a look at the project's deliverables [https://zenodo.org/communities/irecs/records?q=&l=list&p=1&s=10&sort=newest here]. +
[https://irise-project.eu/ iRISE — improving Reproducibility In SciencE] is a Horizon Europe–funded research initiative dedicated to understanding, investigating and guiding strategies to address irreproducibility across the sciences. iRISE engages diverse stakeholders to understand the theoretical basis of reproducibility, conduct evidence syntheses, test interventions to strengthen reproducibility in research, and develop integrative evidence frameworks. Central to its approach is the embedding of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) principles, ensuring that recommended practices are effective, fair, and accessible across different researcher communities. Through its collaborative ethos and alignment with open science and integrity values, iRISE is dedicated to advancing shared goals around reproducible scholarship and evidence-based reform. +
p
PRO-Ethics: Participatory Real Life Experiments in Research and Innovation Funding Organisations on Ethics +
Ö
Bu alıştırma, “iyilik nedir ve nasıl kategorize edilebilir?” sorusundan yola çıkarak sınıf ortamında araştırma doğruluğu üzerine fikir yürütmeyi teşvik etmek için tasarlanmıştır. İyilik türleri üzerine tartışmaya ve araştırmada iyilik kavramı üzerine fikir yürütmeye odaklanır. Bu alıştırma, daha kapsamlı ve esnek bir yaklaşım olan Öz Beyan Yaklaşımına (ÖBY) dayanarak geliştirilmiştir. Bu yaklaşımda, katılımcıların öz beyan formunda verdikleri yanıtlar, araştırma doğruluğu (AD) alanındaki spesifik bir konu üzerine geliştirilecek fikir yürütme süreçlerini yapılandırmak için kullanılır. Tartışma içerisine katılımcıların sezgilerini de dahil etmek bu yaklaşımın en ayırt edici özelliğidir. Bu format, farklı AD konularına ve farklı hedef kitlelere uygulanabilirliği ve uyarlanabilirliği açısından oldukça esnektir. +
Öz Beyan Yaklaşımı (ÖBY), “iyilik nedir ve nasıl kategorize edilebilir?” sorusundan yola çıkarak sınıf ortamında araştırma doğruluğu üzerine fikir yürütmeyi teşvik etmek için tasarlanmış bir alıştırmadır. Bu alıştırmada katılımcıların iyilik hakkındaki düşünce ve sezgileri öğrenilerek bu yanıtlardan faydalanılır. Bunun için araç olarak öz beyan formu kullanılır. Bu form, eğitim alan katılımcıların araştırmada iyiliğin tanımı ve bu konudaki kişisel deneyimleri hakkındaki düşüncelerinin öğrenilmesini sağlar. +
‘
Description of the fragment:
The first evidence is found that the disease is sexually transmitted. However this not enough proof yet to decide to close the gay bath houses. The statements at the press conference are cautiously phrased to prevent a nation-wide panic. Dr. Don Francis is furious, because he fears that the disease will spread further if the public is not aware of the transmission.
Points for discussion:
As a scientist one would want to continue doing research until the evidence is solid proof. However, the social responsibility to society or to patients would urge you to warn them as soon as possible about the possibility of sexually transmitting the disease. A maybe more political view on the responsibility to society might be to prevent a panic.
What is right? There seems to be harm on both sides of this dilemma. Take into account that at that moment in time, when this fragment takes place, the real cause and effect, including the enormous and disastrous spread of the disease, were still unknown.
Knowing what we now know about HIV, AIDS and the world-wide consequences, can we hold Dr. Curran responsible for an unnecessary spread of disease after not disclosing the inconclusive evidence at this point in time? And if so, why? And what does that mean for researchers, in any field of research? +
‘Caught in the act’: Veterinary researcher caught fabricating gene data, resigns from university job +
The case presents a veterinary microbiology researcher who was caught fabricating data on sequencing. The researcher was working under two grants. +
“
“There can be no justification for such studies”: Paper on artificial eyes for dogs earns expression of concern +
This is the factual case of research where 3-D artificial eyes for dogs were created in order to 'improve' the dogs' appearance. +
国
<div><div><div><div><div><div>
The '''NSFC Open Access Policy Implementation Guidelines (2014)''' set national requirements in China for making outputs from NSFC-funded basic research openly accessible, with openness as the default while respecting ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security. It mandates open access to publications through deposition in trusted repositories, encourages use of persistent identifiers and FAIR-aligned data management plans, and outlines responsibilities for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers in supporting compliance. Limited embargoes or exceptions for sensitive or commercial data must be justified transparently. The policy promotes infrastructures like repositories and registries, aligns with international open science efforts, and emphasizes the quality of openness—metadata, reproducibility, and accessibility—over publication counts. Equity and inclusion are treated as cross-cutting themes, with attention to minimizing author costs, supporting repository-based routes, and providing multilingual communication. Implementation relies on clear roles, reporting, and monitoring, making the guidelines a coherent, practical reference for researchers and institutions in China.
</div></div></div></div></div></div><div></div> +
负
负责任研究行为规范指引 - Code of Conduct for Responsible Research (2023), Department of Supervision, Ministry of Science and Technology (70. Chat GPT - China - Code of Conduct for Responsible Research, Pos. 3) +
负责任研究行为规范指引 - Code of Conduct for Responsible Research (2023) is a national framework authored by Department of Supervision, Ministry of Science and Technology (70. Chat GPT - China - Code of Conduct for Responsible Research, Pos. 3), in mandarin, targeting China. Originating from China, 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.
