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
<span lang="EN-GB">Research involving children presents unique ethical challenges, especially regarding obtaining consent for participation.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">Two approaches must be followed to ensure that research involving children is transparent. The first is consent, which requires complete and informed consent from adults who understand all aspects of the research; the second is assent, which is not legally binding but reflects the children’s agreement, as their age prevents them from giving fully informed consent.</span> +
This is a website intended to be a learning tutorial regarding ethics and the use of animals in research. It consists of an essay with numerous links to other websites. +
Contentious problems in bioscience and biotechnology: a pilot study of an approach to ethics education +
This study presents problem-based learning approach in analyzing "fractious problems" in bioscience and biotechnology. US students from science, engineering, social sciences, humanities and medicine analyzed these problems and presented their results to policy-makers, stakeholders, experts and public. The study concluded that this approach could help in educating future bioscientists and bioengineers. +
J.D. Brighton conducted a research about the perception of police behaviour in a small community. The local police chief requested access to the data in order to have the results confirmed by another researcher. Brighton is worried that sharing data would violate the trust of his participants and make it impossible to continue the research done with them. Moreover, he is worried that some of the participants could be identified by the police. The case study asks whether Brighton should grant access to data. +
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine. An international tool to protect human dignity from abusive medical and biomedical innovations/technologies. The Convention is also known as the Oviedo Convention. +
Copy and paste: A slow university investigation into serious accusations of misconduct benefits no one +
This ''Nature'' article describes the case of a complaint about plagiarism, made by Bradley against George Mason University’s researchers. The article does not provide an answer as to whether the plagiarism claims are substantiated; instead, it focuses on the unnecessary long delays in the University’s internal investigations in dealing with the allegations. The delays appear to breach the university’s own timelines on misconduct investigations.
The article provides also an exploration of how such delays might have further adverse consequences; for example, they may provide possible loopholes in policy debating, or conversely, accumulate strain on those unfairly accused of wrong-doing. +
This factual case details a court's decision to uphold the prison sentence for a former researcher who was found guilty of scientific misconduct. The misconduct entailed the modification of HIV trial outcomes to make a drug look more effective. The attorney of the defendant appealed the decision, but the court decided to uphold the sentence. +
This text contains guidelines for journalists on how to report about science. For example, journalists should always put research in context, write about the whole research process and be careful when citing risk statistics. +
By engaging in this activity participants will learn how to develop a tailored climate communication strategy for their research environment (department, group, project). They will explore practical ways to implement small but impactful behavioral changes that promote sustainability within academic culture. Additionally, they will gain the skills to apply core sustainability values when planning and delivering events or conferences in their field. +
A student, a post-doc and a professor are working on a problem. They achieve good results in their research. When the student is finishing his master thesis, he discovers that the professor and his post-docs have published a paper on the experiment, that he designed an important part of. He is not given any credit in the paper. +
This blog presents the case of a criminology professor whose several publications were retracted or corrected. The retractions were initially requested by one of his co-authors. +
This case concerns the 2013 book publication of ‘’the Tyranny of the Weak’, published by a professor on the history of North Korea. In the book the author presents his historical research on how North Korea ‘survived’ the Cold War.
In 2014 another historian noticed several irregularities in the sources of the work of the professor and started investigating these irregularities. Many of these sources referred to archives, and were written in Russian, German, Chinese or Korean. The other historian decided to visit one of the archives in person to check the original sources. He states “[I checked] the collection there to reconstruct the original archival locations (…). This way it could be fully verified that the vast majority of the Russian archival citations from 1957-60 were invalid, because the cited files could not be found either in the Seoul collection or in the (essentially identical) Wilson Center collection.”
Upon this discovery, he also reached out to an archive in Berlin, where most sources could also not be located, or contained different information as suggested in the book. In addition, as the historian points out on Retractionwatch, several uncanny similarities appear to exist between "Tyranny of the Weak" and his own book on a similar topic.
The pofessor and book author, replied stating that “[t]he book was reviewed by two expert external reviewers before publication. In addition, before the book was published three years ago I shared the entire manuscript with one of the scholars who is currently critical of the book and is a renowned expert on the Russian sources on North Korea. At that time, this scholar did not find any problem with my use of sources, although he made a number of other comments which I incorporated in the final version of the book.” In 2015 the book earned 52 corrections in the new publication. +
Pavo Barišić says he won't step down after a parliamentary ethics committee found he copied another scholar's work. In a plagiarism scandal in Croatia, the country’s highest-level research ethics committee is clashing with its science minister — who says he won't step down after the committee found he had copied another scholar’s work. Scientists say the case raises questions about academic integrity at the top of a research system that is already riven with misconduct allegations. +
This fictional case is about the communication between a head of a lab, a research manager and a researcher. The researcher has a different cultural background, and interprets the communication differently. +
The Code of Ethics for CAS researchers (Articles I - V) includes framework principles of good conduct in science, seeking to support desirable moral standards in academic research. +
D
This resource is structured following the journey you will go through, from thinking of a research question to writing up and dealing with your dissertation after submission. Keep in mind that this resource has been designed to suit all students from the University, and so there may be sections that are more or less relevant to your specific discipline. Additionally, this is only a starting point to get you thinking about your dissertation +
The '''DIAMAS Project''' has released a set of international recommendations and guidelines to support ''Diamond Open Access'' (OA), a scholarly publishing model where neither authors nor readers pay fees. These guidelines were developed over two years through consultations with diverse stakeholders such as institutions, funders, and policymakers, and are structured around three strategic themes: strengthening research cultures, ensuring financial sustainability, and addressing power and legitimacy dynamics in publishing communities. The framework is designed to be flexible, enabling organizations to adapt the recommendations to their own contexts while encouraging collaboration, policy alignment, and resource sharing to build a resilient, community-led Diamond OA ecosystem. +
Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) is a joint service of OAPEN, OpenEdition, CNRS and Aix-Marseille Université. It aims to help scholars and students discover academic books. The directory is open to all publishers of academic, peer reviewed books in Open Access. +
The Code aims to ensure credibility, integrity and thereby quality in Danish research through common principles and standards for responsible conduct of research. The Code is aimed at both public and private research institutions, including universities, the research council system, foundations and enterprises. It is a common framework meant to be implemented and developed across all research fields. +
The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2014), authored by the Ministry of Higher Education and Science, is a national framework written in Danish that sets principles for responsible research in Denmark. 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, covering 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, establishes procedures for investigations with due process and proportional sanctions, and encourages learning from breaches. Education and training are central to ensure integrity is a core skill, while guidance on data management, digital tools, open science, and new dissemination methods supports modern research workflows. Practical tools such as checklists, codes of conduct, reporting templates, and FAQs help implement principles in 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 Denmark, making it particularly important for researchers and institutions operating under Danish jurisdiction, providing clarity, reducing ambiguity, and aligning national practices with international standards. +
