Why is this important? (Important Because)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A description to provide more focus to the theme/resource (max. 200 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
F
Financial support for research is often obtained from intramural (e.g. from university funds) or extramural (e.g. from funding agencies) sources. Funders have some responsibility for ensuring that the research they fund is conducted in accordance with relevant laws and good research practices. However, funders’ oversight and reporting standards differ greatly.
Collaborations, particularly those related to funding, also have the potential to influence the ways in which research questions are defined and the results presented. A particular concern involves collaborations between academia and industry-sponsors. Studies have shown that industry-sponsored research tends to favor the sponsor.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001B9-QINU`"' Therefore, funders need to be transparant about their aims, researchers should declare the source of funding, academic autonomy must be ensured, and researchers must be aware that funders can potentially influence research.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001BA-QINU`"' +
G
GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY (2019), CNR Research Ethics and Integrity Committee - (64 RI GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY - Italy, p. 1) +
GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY distils national expectations for research integrity in Italy and clarifies what researchers and institutions in nan need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark; for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by CNR Research Ethics and Integrity Committee - (64 RI GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY - Italy, p. 1) in 2019, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Gene editing technologies are revolutionizing science. They offer potential cures for genetic diseases and improvements in food security. However, concerns over ethical boundaries, human enhancement, ecological impact, and long-term consequences highlight the need for responsible research. Cases like gene-edited babies illustrate the risks of unethical practices. Researchers must be aware of these challenges to prevent harm, ensure transparency, and foster public trust in scientific advancements. +
General guidelines for Research Ethics distils national expectations for research integrity in Norway and clarifies what researchers and institutions in nan need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark; for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by nan in ?, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
A scientific publication should always contain one’s own original work, unless clearly stated otherwise. If this is not the case, it would be very difficult to distinguish work that is deliberately plagiarized from original work. Plagiarism allows individuals to claim reward for the work of the original authors. Therefore, these practices should be punished and penalized. +
The DFG considers it highly important to safeguard good scientific practice as an essential prerequisite for research and as the core task of self-regulation in research. +
Every detail of a publication should be right, including who are the legitimate authors and what are their affiliations. +
Research integrity and research fairness have gained considerable momentum in the past decade and have direct implications for global health epidemiology. Existing good epidemiological practice guidelines developed by national epidemiological associations lack international legitimacy and are not tailored to the idiosyncrasies of global health. Existing guidelines for fair and equitable partnerships in global health are not specific to epidemiology. Comprehensive guidelines which tackle both integrity and fairness are needed to provide practical support to epidemiologists navigating the complex global health landscape.
The BRIDGE guidelines are for all people involved in the commissioning, conduct and appraisal of global health research.
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000029-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000002A-QINU`"' +
By making its annual report publicly available, the Commission demonstrates the transparency of its reporting processes and its commitment to accountability in matters involving public inquiries, complaints and investigations. Moreover, it provides the public the opportunity to see the ways in which the Commission responds to queries and manages its investigations. +
By making its annual report publicly available, the Board demonstrates the transparency of its reporting processes and investigation procedures as well as its commitment to accountability in matters involving allegations, investigations and requests for statements. Moreover, it provides the public the opportunity to see the ways in which the Board responds to statement requests and manages its investigations. +
By making its annual report publicly available, the SNSF Commission on Scientific Integrity and the Plagiarism Control Group demonstrates the transparency of their reporting processes and investigation procedures, as well as their commitment to accountability in matters involving plagiarism and complaints regarding scientific misconduct. +
Good Scientific Research Practice (2004), Ministry of Science and Information Society Technologies (63 RI Good scientific research practice - Poland, p. 1) +
Good Scientific Research Practice distils national expectations for research integrity in Poland and clarifies what researchers and institutions in nan need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark; for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by Ministry of Science and Information Society Technologies (63 RI Good scientific research practice - Poland, p. 1) in 2004, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Good research practice distils national expectations for research integrity in Sweden and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Sweden need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark; for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by nan in 2017, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
This document contains principles relating to both authorship and editorial reviews. Besides explaining the underlying principles such as impartiality, confidentiality and honesty, it also provides practical guidance on how to conduct reviews, communicating acceptance and rejection, paper retractions and withdrawals, etc. It also sets down principles for acknowledging authors and contributors. +
This resource can be used to let students reflect on what plagiarism is, how it affects their writing, and what good and bad writing practices are. The 10 scenarios can lead to discussion among the students, and let students reflect on themselves and past and future writing assignments. +
Ghostwriting and guest authorship give an unfair advantage to guest authors over researchers who do not take part in such practices by awarding guest authors with publications despite not having contributed to the work done. In addition, the practice of guest authorship may seriously damage public trust in science and may also cast considerable doubt on the independence of researchers involved in drug trials. However, incorrect accusations of guest authorship, and scientific misconduct in general, harm the reputation of innocent researchers. Therefore, it is important to openly discuss accusations of guest authorship made in publications, as is done in the present case. <br />
'"`UNIQ--references-000000DE-QINU`"' +
Openly and clearly a dishonest research practice, the case provides a good indication that research integrity practices are still continuously violated even in the 'clear daylight'. +
This guidance is important because it ensures that urgent research during crises, such as pandemics, is reviewed both quickly and ethically. In emergencies, time-sensitive studies must be assessed and published fast but without compromising scientific integrity or participant protection. The document helps ethics committees and editors make fair, transparent decisions under pressure by offering clear procedures and tools. It reduces the risk of rushed or biased judgments, supports collaboration among institutions, and promotes public trust in crisis-related research. Ultimately, it balances speed with ethical rigor, ensuring that life-saving knowledge can be shared responsibly when it's needed most. +
The report is a guidance document for research integrity and ethics practionners in academia. It identifies the key themes that lead to good practices and essential principles for an effective and successful approach to training. The report focuses on a hands-on approach with a checklist to help create an effective ethics and research integrity training programme and provides links to relevant resources that help build that training. +
In the period of a pandemic, pragmatic actions are required to ensure the integrity of research. This document provides simplified measures to ensure, integrity, safety, and the rights of those involved in research trials during the ongoing health crisis. However, this document is only valid in the EU/EEA as long as the COVID-19 outbreak is not over. The Guidance on the Management of Clinical Trials during the COVID-19 Pandemic has been endorsed by the European Association for Hemophilia & Allied Disorders, in their report: Reducing bureaucracy in clinical trials: now is the time!. +
