Why is this important? (Important Because)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A description to provide more focus to the theme/resource (max. 200 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
A
APEC Guiding Principles for Research Integrity' is important because it ensures credibility and trust in research by providing both preventive and corrective guidance. It prevents misconduct by educating researchers on standards, and offers frameworks for addressing violations fairly. In today’s interconnected research environment, having shared ethical codes strengthens international collaboration and consistency. For governments, institutions, and the public, this document demonstrates commitment to transparency, fairness, and societal responsibility. It is not just a guideline but a foundation for safeguarding the reliability of research outcomes. +
Research integrity is increasingly considered a core instructional area. Proper education and training will contribute to the cultivation of responsible research culture while corresponding to the ethical, financial and legal requirements related to acceptance of funding. +
Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethics' is important because it ensures credibility and trust in research by providing both preventive and corrective guidance. It prevents misconduct by educating researchers on standards, and offers frameworks for addressing violations fairly. In today’s interconnected research environment, having shared ethical codes strengthens international collaboration and consistency. For governments, institutions, and the public, this document demonstrates commitment to transparency, fairness, and societal responsibility. It is not just a guideline but a foundation for safeguarding the reliability of research outcomes. +
The Australian research community can benefit from the guidelines from the NHMRC. +
Australian Guide to Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research +
Having official procedures in place for investigating RM can ensure the processes are held in a fair and transparent manner. +
The purpose of this policy is to promote and support research integrity and safeguard confidence in the value of publicly funded research by:
- making transparent the ARC’s role in ensuring research integrity and addressing breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018) (the Code);
- establishing a framework to support the integrity of the ARC’s grant application, peer review, grant selection and research evaluation processes, funding decisions and research; and
- raising awareness of the importance of research integrity and the possible consequences for research institutions and individuals if appropriate standards are not maintained. +
The quality of research is a precious asset for every society. Social progress, economic value creation, social living conditions and fairness between generations in shaping the future would all be unimaginable without reliable scientific and scholarly knowledge. Ensuring the quality of that knowledge is the duty of scientists and researchers themselves. Because scientific research can be highly specialised and complex, and because there are various links between science and research, politics, the business world and other actors in society, self-governance in science and research can only be effective if it is codified and institutionalised. As an organisation established by Austria‘s research institutions themselves, the OeAWI makes an important contribution to effective self-governance in the Austrian science and research system. +
This paper aims to explore common types of publication misconduct in the editorial office in a specific journal, and considers several implications +
This scenario warrants serious consideration on employed practices regarding ghost authorship. Several consequences might arise from this malpractice. Early-career scientists are deterred from gaining research visibility and acquiring writing skills. In the long run, it generates a vicious circle of bringing up new generation academics that might repeat the same mistakes if they were to become group leaders. Aside from long-term consequences on the health of academia, another problem arises – the lack of adequate bodies, in certain settings, that could help address and resolve the given problem. Institutions that haven't done so already, should widely act upon continuous education about good research practice on all levels, as well as implementing research integrity offices. +
B
Case-based methodologies in teaching have a long history with the disciplines of law, business and medicine being first to employ real-life cases in university-level teaching. In ethics teaching these methods were first developed in the 1980s within the context of business ethics. Today, as case-based methodologies (descriptions of cases sometimes complemented by a set of solutions) have proven to be more effective compared to other approaches for teaching ethics<sup>1</sup>, they have widely been used in different settings<sup>2</sup>. In the context of research ethics and integrity, well-known examples of the training materials employing this method are the Rotterdam dilemma game[[Theme:B96ef996-e262-4c0c-a62c-1ea1ef034f36|<sup>3</sup>]] and Virtue training materials[[Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c|<sup>4</sup>]].
# <span lang="NO-BOK">Todd, E. M. et al.</span> <span lang="EN-US">(2017, July 4). Effective Practices in the Delivery of Research Ethics Education: A Qualitative Review of Instructional Methods. ''Accountability in Research,'' ''24''(5), 297–321. <span lang="ET">https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2017.1301210</span></span>
# <span lang="EN-US">Baldor, R. A., Field, T. S., and Gurwitz, J. H. (2001). Using the 'Question of Scruples' Game to Teach Managed Care Ethics to Students. ''Academic Medicine, 76(''5), 510–511. <span lang="ET">https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200105000-00040</span>; Bekir, N. et al. (2001). Teaching Engineering Ethics: A New Approach. In ''31st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Impact on Engineering and Science Education. Conference Proceedings,'' 1. <span lang="ET">https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2001.963895</span>; Cohen, H. (1993). The Citicorp Interactive Work Ethic Game: Sociological Practice Use in the Classroom. ''Clinical Sociology Review,'' ''11''(1). '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000003C-QINU`"'; Dahlin, J.-E. (n.d.). ''A Board Game for Teaching Sustainable Development.'' <span lang="ET">https://www.jonerikdahlin.com/dilemma/</span>; Nelson, J. (1992). The Market Ethic: Moral Dilemmas and Microeconomics. ''Journal of Business Ethics,'' ''11''(4), 317–320. <span lang="ET">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872174</span></span>
# <span lang="ET">Erasmus University Rotterdam. (n.d.). ''Dilemma game: Professionalism and integrity in research''. https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game</span>
# <span lang="ET">The Embassy of Good Science. (n.d.). ''Modified Dilemma Game (Instruction: A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c)''. [[Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c|https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c]]</span>
When an article is published, all authors are responsible for what is written in the paper. If the paper contains fabricated data, all the authors are deemed to be responsible. +
National ethics guidelines can stimulate good research practices by presenting guidance of what constitutes good scientific practice in a specific country. +
The position paper presented here takes this into consideration by addressing the responsibility of the researchers and the research institutions. In its examination of the general normative principles of the research process and through its recommendations on specific best practices, these guidelines for good research practice are intended to contribute to raising awareness of research integrity and research ethics in Austria and ensuring the freedom of researchers. +
Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethics (2020), Research Integrity / Research Ethics Working Group of BMBWF +
Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethics distils national expectations for research integrity in Austria and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Austria need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark; for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by Research Integrity / Research Ethics Working Group of BMBWF in 2020, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Cases like these are unethical and should be prevented and/or investigated for misconduct. +
The case illustrates that coming clean promptly can be a good strategy for those who have committed scientific misconduct.
The case can spur awareness of early signs.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000065-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000066-QINU`"' +
Via their code of conduct, BioMed Alliance aims to promote the best interests and values of their members, promote excellence in healthcare, research and innovation, and improve the well-being of all European citizens.<br /> +
The scenario focuses on a student whose years of hard work might go to waste because of her mentor's pride. When mentoring, one always must be aware of the fact that they bear a great responsibility. It’s not about the benefits that come with the ,,mentor” title, it’s about teaching your protégé, developing a healthy working relationship, helping and encouraging them every step of the way. '''While doing so, the integrity of the project, the mentee and the mentor must be preserved. ''' +
All authors listed on a manuscript or article should have permitted publication of the article. Otherwise, the paper will be retracted soon after publication and a lot of funding and hard work is wasted, as this case proves. The journal discussed here has measures in place to make sure that all authors have agreed to the publication, such as an agreement form that needs to be signed by all co-authors. However, the present case shows that this is not always effective and stresses the importance to remain vigilant even with these measures in place. In addition, the present case shows that it is in nobody’s interest to counterfeit the permission of one of the authors. +
Code of Good Scientific Practice' is important because it ensures credibility and trust in research by providing both preventive and corrective guidance. It prevents misconduct by educating researchers on standards, and offers frameworks for addressing violations fairly. In today’s interconnected research environment, having shared ethical codes strengthens international collaboration and consistency. For governments, institutions, and the public, this document demonstrates commitment to transparency, fairness, and societal responsibility. It is not just a guideline but a foundation for safeguarding the reliability of research outcomes. +
