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
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. +
Codul General de Etică în Cercetarea Științifică - General code of ethics in scientific research (2015) +
Codul General de Etică în Cercetarea Științifică - General code of ethics in scientific research (2015) is a national framework authored by nan, in romanian, targeting nan. Originating from Romania, 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.
Because of structural imperatives that overemphasize the good of efficiency (number of publications, h-index), researchers may feel it is not possible to do justice to principles and values related to research integrity (e.g. taking time in order to improve the quality of one publication, rather than publishing as much as possible). In such a situation, a researcher experiences cognitive dissonance and moral distress. The psychological notion of cognitive dissonance refers to the mental discomfort experienced by someone who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The ethical concept of moral distress denotes the experience of a person who knows what is the right thing to do, but is (or feels) unable to act accordingly. +
A group of three scientists fails to agree on the interpretation of their findings. One of the three decides to publish separately, the other two decide to wait for the first researcher's article to be published.
During the course of the project, the first researcher who is in the midst of the publication process, leaves the university. By accident, a fax from the publishing journal is sent to the old university, so the other two scientists discover where the first scientists intends to publish. They contact the journal, argue the first scientists interpretation is wrong and offer the journal their alternative view. +
Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project +
Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.
This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ collaborative working between academia and industry and the links with research integrity]'''.
It focuses on issues regarding:
*Conflicts of Interest between academia and industry;
*Data usage and data privacy;
*HARKing (Hypothesizing after the results are known);
*Preregistration of studies;
*Authorship criteria for academic publications;
*The duties of corresponding authors;
*Non-publication of results;
*Divergences in research integrity standards and processes between international collaborators.
It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative. +
The main goal of this online training is to encourage researchers for collaborative research. It examines benefits and problems that researchers can encounter when collaborating with their colleagues. Apart from the foundation text, the module presents two case studies that explore concrete issues of collaborative research, section with questions and answers as well as resources related to this topic. +
Collaborative working is "the act of two or more people or organizations working together for a particular purpose". '"`UNIQ--ref-000001F9-QINU`"' Collaborative working can cover formal or informal ways to work together. Formal collaborations include research projects under specified research grants, informal collaborations include, for example, networks or alliances.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001FA-QINU`"' Collaborations can be permanent or last for a certain time period. Important for succesfull research collaborations is having good underlying principles providing the basis for agreements of collaborations.
'"`UNIQ--references-000001FB-QINU`"' +
Columbia grad student faked data in study of socioeconomics and life experiences, says retraction notice +
This is a factual case of fake data and misleading conclusions in the field of socio-economics. +
These guidelines contain basic principles and standards for all peer-reviewers. They can be applied across disciplines. +
This document presents a guide for young researchers on the area of authorship, which many people agree is one of the more confused areas. It helps new researchers prevent and resolve authorship problems. In particular it provides:
*suggestions for good authorship practice that should reduce the incidence of such dilemmas,
*advice on what to do when authorship problems do arise, and
*a glossary of key concepts in authorship, with some reading lists and websites for those who wish to take this further.
<br /> +
The CONCISE policy brief is part of an EU-funded effort under Horizon 2020 to study how science communication affects public beliefs, perceptions, and knowledge across Europe. The project conducted public consultations in five countries (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Slovakia, Poland), engaging nearly 500 citizens. Participants discussed four controversial and socially relevant scientific-issues vaccines, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), climate change, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to reveal how people receive and trust science information, what media or channels they use (traditional media, social media, personal networks), and what they expect from science communication. The brief summarises findings on preferred information sources, trust levels, and how citizens perceive scientific information. It concludes with recommendations to improve science communication for policymakers, institutions, and communicators aiming to foster more reliable, inclusive, and effective dissemination of science across Europe. +
This study provides information on feasibility and acceptability of a new approach to community consultation and public disclosure (CC/PD) for a large-scale Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trial by encouraging community members in designing and conducting the strategies. The authors argue that this approach has demonstrated a feasible CC/PD plan. +
Een online Community of Practice omgeving die specifiek is ingericht is samen met anderen te werken aan je onderzoeksvaardigheden. In de Communityomgeving kun je op elk gewenst moment (mede)studenten in een besloten online omgeving uitnodigen om samen te werken, te leren, te discussiëren en te delen.
<br /> +
