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
This checklist serves to researchers to examine whether their planned work could involve a higher than minimal risk or increased sensitivity. This is a part of the document Ethics in Social Science and Humanities provided by the European Commission in 2018. +
This checklist, factsheet and gender glossary are capacity strengthening outputs as part of the Research Ethics and Integrity for the GREEN transition - RE4GREEN - project (funded by the European Union’s Horizon Grants for research). The project aims to develop a framework that will address ethics and integrity concerns within the green transition. The author of the outputs, Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF), is an ecofeminist network organisation and a partner on the RE4GREEN project, whose role is predominantly to strengthen the capacity of the partners to implement ecofeminist analysis and action throughout the project's implementation.
The glossary outlines key definitions that will be worked with throughout the capacity strengthening, and the fact sheet gives entry points for thinking about the connection between social identities, the green transition, and research ethics. The two checklists provide areas for reflection on report writing, in order to understand how the research we do can reproduce inequalities. +
This blog post describes what led to the horrific death of a young chemist at UCLA because she was not wearing a lab coat. +
Child protection and confidentiality: Surveying children’s experiences of violence, abuse and neglect +
In 2008 the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) decided to set up a comprehensive UK-wide study of the prevalence and impact of violence towards children and young people at home, in school and in the community. The study was the first ever in the UK to ask children and young people directly about all forms of violence experienced during childhood and within the past year. A UK-wide household survey was conducted in 2009 with 6196 participants, of whom 2160 were parents/carers of children under 11 years, 2275 were children and young people aged 11 to 17 years and 1761 were young adults aged 18 to 24 years. See www.nspcc.org.uk/childstudy for further details. +
The guidance 'Opinions on Strengthening Research Integrity of Our Country' has been jointly developed by a number of Chinese ministries and organisations (Science and Technology, Education, Finance, Human Resources and Social Security, Health, General Armament Department of People's Liberation Army, Academy of Sciences, Academy of Engineering National Natural Science Foundation and the Association for Science and Technology) with the goal of strengthening research integrity and innovation. The 'opinions' are statements on five areas: 1) the Importance and Urgency of Strengthening Research Integrity Promotion; 2) Guidelines, Principles and Objectives of Research Integrity Promotion; 3) The Development of a Legal System and Norms Relevant to Research Integrity; 4) The Management Institutions Related to Research Integrity; 5) Research Integrity Education and the Professional Ethics of Science Practitioners; 6) Supervisory and Disciplinary Mechanisms, and Research Misconduct; 7) Organizational Work and Leadership, and an Environment Beneficial to Research Integrity. +
The document 'Code of Conduct for Responsible Research', developed in 2023 in China, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Department of Supervision, Ministry of Science and Technology, and available in Mandarin, it targets the research community in China. 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. +
In 2009, the National Natural Science Foundation of China introduced standards of professional ethics and a code of conduct for its members, funders, and governors. The aim of this document is to ensure the fair and impartial distribution of resources to research programs. It includes concrete guidelines on review, confidentiality, project management and also guidelines for individual comportment, laying out professional duties and virtues (e.g. self-discipline and honesty) for members. +
Through interactive exercises, learners explore the 9R strategies—Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle—and understand how these practices contribute to sustainability across product lifecycles. Participants reflect on the environmental, social, and economic impacts of circularity, developing systems thinking and adaptability skills. By the end of the module, learners will be able to integrate circular principles into research, innovation, and design processes, promoting resource efficiency, responsible consumption, and sustainable development. +
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.
