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
An author submitted two manuscripts to our journal and the data were clearly fabricated, which was confirmed when we examined the original patient data files. The lead author admitted that they had only recruited a few patients and fabricated all of the remaining data and said that the co-authors had done this without their knowledge.
We reported this to the institution, who conducted an investigation. However, this investigation exonerated the lead author from misconduct, who went on to publish one of these manuscripts elsewhere and is still publishing suspicious manuscripts in other journals. +
This online training is designed for young researchers and students and is intended for self-pace learning. It provides information on data management, selection, collection, handling, analysis, publication and reporting as well as ownership. The aim of this module is to promote RCR. It does not provide any advices or recommendations on ethical and moral dilemmas that researchers can face in their work. +
The aim of this short checklist is to help researchers in managing and sharing their data. With the list of questions, you can easily identify and apply the best practices in the process of data planning, documenting, formating, storing, sharing as well as in confidentiality, ethics, consent and copyright issues. +
A journal received an enquiry from a reader stating that they had found some discrepancies in the spectra published in the electronic supporting information for a published paper. They suggested that the discrepancies would be consistent with the spectra being manually ‘cleaned’. If this were true, the characterisation and purity of the compounds reported in the paper would be called into question.
The editor checked the spectra in close detail and verified that the discrepancies that the reader had identified were a reasonable cause for concern. The editor also checked the author’s related papers in the journal and identified a total of four papers that were affected by similar discrepancies in the spectra. When the editor contacted the lead author to discuss the concerns, they explained that ‘cleaning’ spectra to remove impurity peaks was not a practice that was carried out by their research group, and they did not believe that it had occurred in this instance. However, the researcher who had carried out the analysis had now left the group and the original data files where no longer available.
As a comparison with the original data files could not be made, the journal approached an independent expert to obtain a second opinion on the evidence available in the published spectra. The expert confirmed that there was clear evidence that the spectra had been altered and that this could be consistent with an attempt to overestimate the yields for the reported reactions.
Following this, the journal contacted the director of the institute to request their assistance in determining whether the spectra had in fact been altered. The director consulted with the lead author and the head of their facility. They confirmed that it was not possible to locate the original data due to a limitation of their archival system. They stated that their internal review had not found any ‘intentional altering of the spectra’. They stated that on that basis, the papers should not be suspected and should be allowed to stand.
This recommendation runs contrary to the evidence that we believe can be seen in the spectra, but in the absence of the original data files it is difficult to make a conclusive judgement.
This study explored the issues of data sharing and dual-use practices. The authors concluded that it is important to support the openness and freedom of research and also to be cautious with regard to dual-use and aware of the obligation to share the data. +
In this exercise you discover the value of, and differences between, debate and dialogue. The exercise is based on the premise that dialogue and dialogical skills are indispensable for reflection and deliberation processes in general, and for research integrity in particular. Participants experience the different types of interaction and reflection produced by debate and dialogue. +
This exercise helps trainers to develop their own, and other's, dialogical skills. The exercise is based on the premise that dialogue and dialogical skills are indispensable for reflection and deliberation processes in general, and for research integrity in particular. In learning how to facilitate this exercise, you will be able to:
*Conduct a dialogue and know how to support/encourage the use of dialogue as a tool for reflection processes.
*Foster reflection in others by means of experiential learning;
The exercise can also be used as an ice-breaker before using more in-depth reflection tools or exercises. +
Watch this interactive video, which explains the difference between debate and dialogue! +
Die Übung hilft Trainer:innen, sich in ihrer Fähigkeit, Dialoge zu führen, zu entwickeln – und andere in dieser Entwicklung zu unterstützen. 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. Indem du lernst, die Übung durchzuführen, wirst du dazu befähigt ...
* Einen Dialog zu führen und andere darin zu unterstützen/sie zu motivieren, den Dialog als Werkzeug für Reflexionprozesse zu nutzen
* Reflexionsprozesse in anderen zu fördern, in dem sie die Wirkung des Werkzeugs “Dialog” selbst erfahren
Diese Übung kann auch gut als Einstieg genutzt werden, um sich für komplexere Reflexionsprozesse und Übungen “aufzuwärmen”. +
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. +
