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
D
In dieser Übung entdeckst du den Nutzen einer Debatte und eines Dialogs, und was der Unterschied dazwischen ist. Die Übung basiert auf der Annahme, dass die Fähigkeit, einen Dialog und eine Debatte zu führen, unverzichtbar ist, für Reflexions- und Abwägungsprozesse im Allgemeinen sowie für Research Integrity-Themen im Besonderen. Die Teilnehmenden erfahren, inwiefern eine Debatte und ein Dialog zu unterschiedlichen Formen der Interaktion und Reflexion führen. +
While many guidelines and regulations are in place prohibiting research misconduct by researchers, research participants can also fabricate or falsify their data or testimonies. A study by Devine et. al. conducted in 2013 researched whether research subjectes who had enrolled in multiple studies were prone to conceal or exaggerate personal information in order to qualify for inclusion criteria of a study.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000022-QINU`"' Three quarters of the research subjects were found to engage in some form of deception, such as having been enrolled in a previous study, concealing health symptoms or not reporting medication. One likely reason for participants' deception is the financial compensation for enrolling in a study.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000023-QINU`"' +
Declaración de Panamá sobre Ciencia Abierta (2018), Co-created by university and civil society members from Latin America and the Caribbean +
The Declaración de Panamá sobre Ciencia Abierta (2018), co-created by universities and civil society members from Latin America and the Caribbean, provides a regional framework for open science and open access. Written in Spanish, it translates high-level principles into actionable guidance for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers across Latin American and Caribbean countries, including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, España, Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela. The declaration promotes openness as the default while respecting ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, linking openness to research quality, reproducibility, speed of translation, and equitable access—especially for communities with limited subscription access. Core elements include open access to publications with preferred licensing (e.g., Creative Commons), deposition in trusted repositories, FAIR data principles, and detailed data management plans. Responsibilities for authors and institutions include funding acknowledgment, rights retention, and budgeting, while justified embargoes and exceptions for sensitive data are transparently documented. It encourages enabling infrastructure—repositories, registries, discovery services—and aligns with international initiatives such as Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud. Assessment emphasizes quality of openness, machine-readable metadata, persistent identifiers, and sharing of methods, code, and data. Equity, multilingual communication, and capacity building are emphasized. Implementation relies on planning, institutional support, and funder-backed infrastructure. The declaration serves as a practical reference, checklist, and benchmark for transparency, reproducibility, and alignment with international norms. +
Declaración de la Alhambra sobre acceso abierto (2010), Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT) and Consortium of Southern European Libraries +
Declaración de la Alhambra sobre acceso abierto (2010) is an international resource produced by Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT) and the Consortium of Southern European Libraries, aimed at stakeholders in Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Greece, and Turkey). Written in Spanish, it provides practical guidance for implementing open science and open access principles in the region. The document frames openness as a default, moderated by ethical, privacy, intellectual property, and security considerations, emphasizing the principle of being “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” It links open access to research quality, reproducibility, rapid knowledge translation, and equitable access, especially for communities with limited subscription access. Key elements include open access to publications, preferred licensing such as Creative Commons, use of persistent identifiers, and depositing accepted manuscripts in trusted repositories. The guidance incorporates FAIR data principles, data management plans, and operational responsibilities for authors, institutions, and funders. It addresses infrastructure needs, monitoring, and compliance, while highlighting equity, responsible openness, and inclusion. The document provides examples and FAQs for implementation, covering preprints, rights retention, and third-party content. For practitioners, it consolidates dispersed rules into a coherent reference, aligning Southern European practices with international norms. It serves as a benchmark for policymakers and a practical checklist for researchers and administrators. Published in 2010, it remains a credible reference for policies, training, and grant documentation. +
The Declaration Open Science Macedonia (2021), produced by the National Open Science Cloud Initiative, provides a national framework for open science and open access in North Macedonia. It translates high-level principles into actionable guidance for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers, promoting openness as the default while respecting ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security. The declaration links openness to research quality, reproducibility, equitable access, and faster translation of knowledge, particularly for communities with limited resources. Key elements include open access to publications with preferred licensing (e.g., Creative Commons), deposition in trusted repositories, FAIR data principles, and robust data management plans. Responsibilities are defined for authors and institutions, including funding acknowledgment, rights retention, and budget considerations, while justified embargoes and sensitive-data exceptions are documented transparently. The declaration encourages enabling infrastructure—repositories, registries, discovery services—and aligns with international initiatives like Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud. Assessment emphasizes the quality of openness, not just publication counts, including machine-readable metadata, persistent identifiers, and sharing of methods, code, and data. Equity, multilingual communication, and capacity building are emphasized to prevent reinforcing disparities. Implementation requires early planning, institutional support, and funder-backed infrastructure. The document serves as a practical reference, checklist, and benchmark, supporting compliance, transparency, and harmonization with global norms. +
Declaration for Open Science and Research 2020 - 2025 (2020), Open Science Coordination in Finland, Federa- tion of Finnish Learned Societies +
Declaration for Open Science and Research — 2020–2025 (2020) is a national resource produced by Open Science Coordination in Finland and the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies, written in English, and aimed at stakeholders in Finland. It provides practical guidance for implementing open science and open access principles nationally. The document frames openness as the default, moderated by ethical, privacy, intellectual property, and security considerations, emphasizing the principle of being “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” It links open practices to research quality, reproducibility, rapid knowledge translation, and equitable access, particularly for communities with limited subscription access. Key components include open access to publications, preferred licensing such as Creative Commons, use of persistent identifiers, and deposition of accepted manuscripts in trusted repositories. The guidance incorporates FAIR data principles, data management plans, and operational responsibilities for authors, institutions, and funders. It highlights enabling infrastructure, monitoring, and compliance, while addressing equity, responsible openness, and inclusion. Examples and FAQs support implementation, covering preprints, rights retention, and third-party content. For practitioners, the document consolidates dispersed rules into a coherent reference, aligning Finnish practices with international norms. It serves as a benchmark for policymakers and a practical checklist for researchers and administrators. Published in 2020, it is a credible reference for policies, training, and grant documentation. +
The Declaration of Geneva is a medical code of ethics that highlights the humanitarian character of the physicians' profession and the field of medicine. Although it was first established in 1948, a new version of the Declaration of Geneva was adopted by the World Medical Association (WMA) General Assembly on October 14, 2017, in Chicago. +
Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Developed by the World Medical Association in 1964, the Declaration of Helsinki is a fundamental document on biomedical research that works as a code of research ethics and provides principles to protect human subjects in biomedical research. +
The Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism is a guiding instrument for professionals, policymakers, health authorities, and societies to maximize the benefits of organ transplantation and to develop programs to prevent unethical activities like organ trafficking.<br /> +
This is a fictional case of a novice reviewer who, in writing her first book review, used her own substantive ideas but relied heavily on borrowing identical sentences and phrases from a professor’s published review. The professor whose review has been heavily plagiarised alerted the journal. +
This session introduces participants to the key concepts of innovation in a post-growth world, helping them understand how innovation can thrive beyond traditional growth models. +
İkinci (yüz yüze) grup oturumunda eğitmenler eğitimin genel bir özetini yapacak, katılımcıların alıştırmaları uygularken edindikleri deneyimler üzerine fikir yürütmelerini sağlayacak ve katılımcılar seçilmiş olan birkaç alıştırmayı tekrar uygularken onları denetleyeceklerdir. Bu oturum, eğitimi alan kişilerin:
1) Araştırma doğruluğuna erdem temelli yaklaşımı anlamalarını,
2) Alıştırmaların bir kısmını kolaylaştırıcı olarak tekrardan uygulamalarını,
3) Eğitimi, alıştırmaları kolaylaştırıcı olarak yönetmek hususunda kendilerine güvenerek tamamlamalarını,
4) Alıştırmaların spesifik hedeflerini ve bunların eğitimin genel hedeflerine yaptığı katkıları öğrenmelerini,
5) Eğitim materyallerini kendi çalışma ortamlarının gerekliliklerine göre uyarlamanın mümkün olduğunu fark etmelerini,
6) Böyle bir eğitimi organize ederken ilgili materyalleri ve desteği nerden ve nasıl bulabileceklerini öğrenmelerini sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. +
İkinci (yüz yüze) grup oturumunda katılımcılar son kez bir araya gelip eğitimin içeriği ve kolaylaştırıcı olarak alıştırmaları uygularken edindikleri deneyimler üzerine fikir yürüteceklerdir. Bu oturumda katılımcılar özellikle:
1) Araştırma doğruluğuna erdem temelli yaklaşıma ilişkin anlayışları ve insanların araştırmayla ilgili fikir ve eylemlerinde erdem etiği yaklaşımını nasıl etkin hale getirebilecekleri üzerine fikir yürüteceklerdir.
2) Alıştırmaların bir kısmını kolaylaştırıcı olarak tekrardan uygulayacak ve iki yüz yüze oturum arasında kafalarında oluşan şüphe ve sorular üzerinde duracaklardır.
3) Alıştırmaların spesifik hedeflerini ve bunların eğitimin genel hedeflerine yaptığı katkıları gözden geçirecek ve bu konuda fikir yürüteceklerdir.
4) Eğitim materyallerini kendi çalışma ortamlarının gerekliliklerine göre uyarlamanın mümkün olup olmadığı üzerine fikir yürüteceklerdir.
5) Böyle bir eğitimi organize ederken ilgili materyalleri ve desteği nerden ve nasıl bulabileceklerini öğreneceklerdir. +
Diese Übung basiert auf der Annahme, dass es nicht immer klar ist, wie Research Integrity in bestimmten Situationen gewährleitet werden kann, und dass es nicht immer offensichtlich ist, wie tugendhaftes Verhalten aussieht, wenn im Forschungsalltag Research Integrity gefährdet ist. +
Diese Übung ist inspiriert von der aristotelischen Philosophie. Sie hilft den Teilnehmenden, sich kritisch mit den Nuancen der praktischen Bedeutung abstrakter Research Integrity-Werte und Tugenden in ihrem Forschungsalltag auseinanderzusetzen. Die Übung basiert auf der Annahme, dass nicht immer klar ist, was Research Integrity in einer konkreten Situation bedeutet. Durch die Übung fördern Trainer:innen Reflexion über Werte, die mit Research Integrity zusammenhängen (wie z.B. Mut, Verantwortlichkeit, Ehrlichkeit). Die Teilnehmenden reflektieren, welche Werte und Tugenden mit Research Integrity in Verbindung gebracht werden und welche konkreten Verhaltensweisen daraus abgeleitet werden können. Tugendhaftes Verhalten wird oft als zwischen zwei Extremen liegend beschrieben. Diese Extreme gelten im Allgemeinen als Laster. Die Übung verschafft einen kritischen Blick auf die praktische, nuancierte Bedeutung der Werte in Zusammenhang mit Research Integrity im Forschungsalltag und hilft Teilnehmenden, tugendhafte (mithin gute und situativ angemessene) Verhaltensweisen zu identifizieren. +
Der SDA – Selbstauskunfts-Ansatz – ist eine Übung mit dem Ziel, in einem Workshop-Setting Reflexion über Research Integrity anzuregen. Dabei wird die Frage „Was ist das überhaupt, wenn etwas ''gut ''ist und wie könnten verschiedene Formen des Guten kategorisiert werden?“ als Ausgangspunkt benutzt. Mithilfe eines Selbstauskunfts-Arbeitsblattes werden Gedanken und intuitive Reaktionen der Teilnehmenden zum Konzept des Guten gesammelt. Diese Antworten sind für die Übung von besonderer Bedeutung. Auf dem Arbeitsblatt können die Gedanken der Teilnehmenden zum Thema ''des Guten ''sowie ihre Definition davon und ihre persönlichen Erfahrungen mit dem Thema festgehalten werden. +
Diese Übung soll zum Nachdenken über Research Integrity in einem Workshop-Setting anregen. Die Frage „Was ist ''gut ''and wie können verschiedene Arten des Guten kategorisiert werden?“ dient als Ausgangspunkt für die Übung. Das Herzstück der Übung ist die Diskussion darüber, auf welche unterschiedlichen Arten Forschung ''gut'' sein kann und auf der Reflexion des Konzepts des Guten in der Forschung. Die Übung ist inspiriert von einer etwas allgemeineren Methode, dem Selbstauskunfts-Ansatz (self declaration approach, SDA). Dieser Ansatz nutzt die individuellen Antworten der Teilnehmenden auf einem Selbstreflexionsbogen, um die Reflexion über ein spezifisches Research Integrity-Thema zu strukturieren. Das Besondere an diesem Ansatz ist, dass die Gedanken und Intuitionen der Teilnehmenden in die Diskussion integriert werden. Diese Methode ist flexibel anwendbar und auf verschiedene Research Integrity-Themen sowie unterschiedliche Zielgruppen anpassbar. +
The study discusses an engineering ethics course which was included at Shantou University (STU) in 2008, within a Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate (CDIO) curriculum in China. The course included three issues important for China: engineers' social obligations, intellectual property and engineering safety criteria. Although, as authors emphasized, the assessment of the course's impact on students has its limitations, this effort is perceived as a positive step to sustain the CDIO reform of STU. +
This study examined the design of online training modules in molecular biology education that were part of a "boot camp" for high school biology teachers in Hawaii. The aim of this educational program was to prepare science teachers to navigate successfully their students' activities to conduct medical research in laboratory. The participants, a group of 29 teachers, reported that these online materials were useful and valuable for their future work with students. +
Deuxième Plan National pour la science ouverte (2021), Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation +
Deuxième Plan National pour la science ouverte (2021) is a national resource produced by the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, written in French, and aimed at stakeholders in France. It provides clear guidance on open science and open access, translating high-level principles into actionable steps for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers. The document positions openness as the default, balanced with ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, promoting the principle of “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” It emphasizes the link between openness and research quality, reproducibility, faster knowledge translation, and equitable access, particularly for communities with limited subscription access. Key elements include open access to publications, preferred licensing like Creative Commons, persistent identifiers, deposition in trusted repositories, and adherence to FAIR data principles through comprehensive data management plans. Operational guidance covers author and institutional responsibilities, funding acknowledgment, rights retention, budgeting, and justifiable embargoes or exceptions. The resource highlights enabling infrastructure, assessment mechanisms, and governance for responsible openness. For practitioners, it provides a coherent reference that aligns French open science practice with international norms, reduces ambiguity, and offers practical steps to enhance transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. Published in 2021, it is a credible reference for policy, training, and grant documentation. +
