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
C
In this article, I discuss calls for access to empirical data within controversies about climate science, as revealed and highlighted by the publication of the e-mail correspondence involving scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in 2009. (J.W. McAllister) +
Reports a procedural stage of a misconduct investigation that aims to clarify wheather researchers had a previous knowledge that their published data were potentially flawed. Under scrutiny is a research paper on whether the apparent rise in temperature readings in the late twentieth century could be an artefact of measurement sites that shifted from the countryside to cities, which are warmer. +
This article describes ethical issues regarding the Study 329. The Study wanted to determine the efficacy and safety of imipramine and paroxetine in the treatment of adolescents with major depression. However, it did not comply with the study protocol and ignored important safety problems, which led to some harmful effects. +
A graduate student discovers that the lab she once worked for plans to publish research in which she played an integral role; she argues for co-authorship. +
Cochrane is an independent, non-profit organisation aiming to promote evidence-informed decision-making in healthcare, by gathering and summarizing the best and most relevant research in this field. The Cochrane-Library is a collection of high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence, that provides information for professionals and patients in order to enhance healthcare knowledge and decision making. The articles are translated into 14 languages and reviewed by consumers and patients, to ensure the content is easily understandable. The library is freely available and up do date contains over 7.500 articles. +
The Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2020), published by the Royal Irish Academy, provides a national framework to guide responsible research practices in Ireland, including for researchers funded by the Academy. It establishes principles of honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship, linking them to reproducibility, credibility, and public trust. The code outlines the responsibilities of researchers, supervisors, institutions, funders, and journals, setting standards for good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Key provisions address authorship, citation, conflict of interest management, transparency of data and methods, supervision, and peer review. It also defines misconduct, details fair procedures for investigations, and promotes proportional sanctions alongside opportunities for learning. Education and training are embedded to ensure integrity is actively taught, while guidance on open science, data management, and digital tools reflects contemporary challenges. Equity and diversity are emphasised as integral to integrity. By aligning with international standards, the code reinforces comparability, mobility, and global credibility. +
Code of Ethics Young Scientists (2018) is a international framework authored by nan, in english, targeting International. Originating from International, 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 Researchers of the Czech Academy of Sciences (2024), authored by the Czech Academy of Sciences, is a national framework written in Czech that establishes principles for responsible research within the Czech Republic. It emphasises honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust. The Code outlines responsibilities for researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, detailing good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Key provisions include clear authorship criteria, proper citation, conflict-of-interest management, transparency of methods and data, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It also defines misconduct and sets procedures for investigations with due process, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities. Education and training are highlighted to ensure integrity is a core skill, while guidance on data management, digital tools, open science, and new dissemination methods supports contemporary research workflows. Practical tools such as checklists, codes of conduct, reporting templates, and FAQs help translate principles into daily practice. Equity and diversity are cross-cutting themes, promoting inclusive, discrimination-free environments. The Code is intended for researchers, supervisors, institutions, and policymakers in the Czech Republic, making it especially important for researchers and institutions under Czech jurisdiction, providing clarity, reducing ambiguity, and aligning national practice with international standards. +
The document 'Code of Ethics for Researchers of the Czech Academy of Sciences', developed in 2024 in Czech Republic, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Czech Academy of Sciences, and available in Czech, it targets the research community in Czech Republic. 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. +
Code of Ethics for Scientific Research in Belgium (2009), Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux Arts de Belgique, the Académie Royale de Médecine de Belgique, the Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten and the Koninklijke Academie voor Geneeskunde van België +
This resource links local policy with global norms, enhancing researcher mobility and enabling comparability of practices across borders. It emphasizes education by embedding training on responsible conduct for students and staff, treating integrity as a core skill rather than assumed knowledge. Guidance extends to emerging issues such as data management, digital tools, open science, and new dissemination practices, ensuring integrity is integrated into contemporary workflows. Practical instruments—checklists, codes of behaviour, reporting templates, and FAQs—translate broad principles into actionable steps. Its audience includes researchers, supervisors, institutions, and policymakers, each with defined responsibilities in safeguarding research credibility. Equity and diversity are highlighted as cross-cutting themes, promoting inclusive environments free from discrimination or exploitation. Annexes may include case studies, historical notes, and references to declarations like the Singapore and Montreal statements. With glossaries, definitions, and contact points such as ombudspersons, the resource functions both as a policy framework and as a practical handbook. +
The document 'Code of Ethics for Scientific Research in Belgium', developed in 2009 in Belgium, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux Arts de Belgique, the Académie Royale de Médecine de Belgique, the Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten and the Koninklijke Academie voor Geneeskunde van België, and available in English, it targets the research community in Belgium-funded research . 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. +
Code of Ethics of Estonian Scientists (?) is a national framework authored by ? Originating from Estonia, 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 document 'Code of Ethics of Estonian Scientists', developed in 2011 in Estonia, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Estonial Academy of Sciences, and available in English, it targets the research community in Estonia. 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 document, available in Croatian, lays down the general principles of scientific integrity to be followed by all researchers. It also gives instances of dishonesty in science. +
This document, available here in (unofficial) English translation on the website of the Croatian Science Foundation, provides a set of principles in the area of scientific integrity and ethics that are to serve as guidelines for the professional and public activities of all stakeholders. The guidelines are meant to serve as a means of evaluating scientific conduct, and of promoting ethical and accountable professional and scientific conduct. +
Code of Good Scientific Practice (2014) is a regional (state of sao paulo) framework authored by FAPESP São Paulo Research Foundation, in portuguese and english, targeting Brazil. Originating from Brazil, 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.
Code of Good Scientific Practice CSIC (2021) is a national framework authored by nan, in spanish, targeting Spain. Originating from Spain, 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 Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) is a publicly funded autonomous research body that focuses on scientific and technological advancement. In order to the socially relevant and acceptable, scientific endeavors need to conform to ethical good practice principles such as respecting human dignity, the autonomy of research, transparency and social responsibility. In their good practice code, the CSIC elaborates further on the principles of research, obligations of researchers, publication ethics, institutional framework and also include references to the supporting legal documents. +
Code of Professional Standards and Ethics in Science, Technology, and the Humanities (2019) is a national framework authored by nan, in english, targeting Aotearoa - New Zealand. Originating from New Zealand, 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 HYBRIDA Code of Responsible Conduct is part of a broader project that addresses the ethical, legal, and social challenges arising from research using organoids (mini-organs grown in labs). Organoids bring unique ethical questions because they challenge traditional categories: are they more like objects, animals, or human participants? The Code provides guidance for researchers in academia and industry to navigate these uncertainties responsibly. It is built on philosophical, legal, and stakeholder analyses, and includes engagement with the public, vulnerable groups, and regulatory bodies. The document clarifies the moral and ontological status of different types of organoids (e.g. neural, embryo models), identifies gaps in existing regulation and ethics frameworks, and proposes concrete rules and norms to ensure integrity, respect, and transparency in organoid-based research. The Code is intended to complement existing European research integrity regulations (like the ALLEA Code of Conduct), making them more applicable to new biotechnologies. +
