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
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. +
DIAMOND OPEN ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR INSTITUTIONS, FUNDERS, SPONSORS, DONORS, AND POLICYMAKERS +
The document titled ''“DIAMOND OPEN ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR INSTITUTIONS, FUNDERS, SPONSORS, DONORS, AND POLICYMAKERS”'' is a policy guidance report published by the DIAMAS project. ''Developing Institutional Open Access Publishing Models to Advance Scholarly Communication.'' It presents a comprehensive and flexible framework designed to support and strengthen Diamond Open Access (OA) publishing, a model of scholarly publishing in which articles are free to read and free for authors to publish in. The report outlines strategic pathways, recommendations, and guidelines tailored to key research actors such as universities, research funders, sponsors, donors, and policymakers on how to build institutional capacity, ensure long-term sustainability, and foster collaboration for Diamond OA. The guidance includes suggested actions to enhance research culture, recognition of Diamond OA contributions, investment in monitoring and evidence-gathering, and engagement with community hubs that support equitable open scholarly publishing. +
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. +
In line with international and European efforts to expand the reach of Open Access, the Danish Ministry of Education and Research has also made Open Access a priority. While most Danish research institutions are already aware of and comply with this model, this strategy aims to streamline and co-ordinate the efforts of different stakeholders to maximize research impact and improve access. +
This is a hypothetical scenario of a junior researcher who discovers gaps between previously kept records of lab data and what has been published. The scenario poses the question of whether the student researcher should report these inconsistencies or not, and how should he proceed.
The American Society of Physics poses the following question and encourages critical discussion: 'Is this really a case of misconduct in handling data and record keeping? Or, is it the result of an honest mistake?' Several alternative scenarios of why such inconsistencies can occur are discussed. +
The revised European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity outlines a number of recommendations on "Data Practices and Management". These are:
" • Researchers, research institutions and organisations ensure appropriate stewardship and curation of all data and research materials, including unpublished ones, with secure preservation for a reasonable period.
• Researchers, research institutions and organisations ensure access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary, and where appropriate in line with the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable) for data management.
• Researchers, research institutions and organisations provide transparency about how to access or make use of their data and research materials.
• Researchers, research institutions and organisations acknowledge data as legitimate and citable products of research.
• Researchers, research institutions and organisations ensure that any contracts or agreements relating to research outputs include equitable and fair provision for the management of their use, ownership, and/or their protection under intellectual property rights."'"`UNIQ--ref-00000198-QINU`"'
These recommendations emphasize the importance of good data management and stewardship, however they need to be further specified in individual country or disciplinary contexts. +
Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: 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/4063648#.X3cHCpNKjxQ data practices and data management and their links with research ethics and research integrity]'''.
It focuses on issues regarding:
*Data protection and consent;
*FAIR principles for data management and stewardship;
*Data copyright and data citation;
*Data for personal research use.
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. +
This toolkit is a collection of resources for working across jurisdictions regarding data privacy and security in the global pandemic such as COVID-19. It contains the practice notes, checklists, guides, documents, articles, blogs, etc. related to public health emergency and disaster preparedness topics. +
Professor Esser conducted a long study of Ethiopian immigrant women. It took her a long time to earn the trust of her participants and some of her notes are in Amharic. After she publishes her results, another researcher requests access to her notes. The case study asks whether Professor Esser should share the notes and how her relationship to the research subjects and the language in which the notes were written should influence her decision. +
Jose Coronado conducts a study which requires him to archive data for future reuse and which assumes that subjects might be re-interviewed in the future. He is worried that this might make less likely that his subjects will agree to take part. The case study asks how Coronado should discuss with his research subjects about the future of their data. +
A team led by Angela Beringer leads a long term research projects and publish a paper before they finish collecting all data for the project. A grad student involved in the project also publishes a dissertation on the basis of the data. Afterwards, a different researcher asks for access to the data relating to the published work as he wants to check their results and criticise their assumptions about the missing data. The case study asks whether Angela's team can withhold the data until they present their further analyis, and whether they can protect the integrity of their research by withholding data +
Professor Stillwell is asked by another researcher to share his data from a project on family ties about the homeless. Stillwell is worried that this would violate consent of participants (as they were not informed that their data could be reused) and could lead to their identification. The case study asks about the appropriate safeguards regarding the participants' consent. +
A graduate student finds out there is a significant gap in the data that her research group has published on. The data are unaccounted for in the lab-book. +
A paper was submitted to our journal. The managing editor was concerned about patient information in the paper and queried the authors. The authors responded that the data were collected from routine samples and so consent was never obtained. The patients were lost to follow-up, and there was no ethics committee approval as it involved the study of existing data, but they did discuss with the institutional review board who said it was exempt.
The cohort was 2500 patients, all with one syndrome, in one hospital. The paper contains two tables that display data from 12 patients: sex, age, presenting symptom, as well as laboratory parameters and outcome. +
