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
A
Retraction Watch presents the case of a researcher who failed to declare conflicts of interest in his research; he has also allegedly fabricated and falsified data on his research to reach certain conclusions. +
In this randomized study, authors measured Biostatistics and Research Ethics online course knowledge, compared to traditional on-site training of the same course. Online and on-site training formats led to marked and similar improvements of knowledge in Biostatistics and Research Ethics. +
A framework for assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: enhancing deliberation as a tool for bioethic +
This study offers a framework to a democratic deliberation (DD) project regarding surrogate consent for dementia research. The authors concluded that participants learned and used new information, were collaborative and satisfied with the study. The participants also provided societal policy recommendations with regard to surrogate consent. +
A guidebook for teaching selected responsible conduct of research topics to a culturally diverse trainee group +
The aim of this textbook from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia was to address the training needs of a large group of international postdocs regarding the RCR. The textbook contains a summary of different themes related to RCR, a script to facilitate small group discussions and teaching materials for topics regarding data management, intellectual property and research misconduct.
<br /> +
A meta-analysis of studies of publication misrepresentation by applicants to residency and fellowship programs +
This study evaluates percentages of applicants to residency and fellowship programs that have publication misrepresentation reported in the literature. Most misrepresentations regard listing nonexistent articles, errors in authorship order and non-authorship. The study shows that misrepresentation decreases when uniform inclusion criteria are applied. +
A proposal for a model of informed consent for the collection, storage and use of biological materials for research purposes +
This article suggests a model of informed consent intended for the collection, storage and use of biological materials in local biobanks for health research purposes. The model can serve as a useful guideline for the development of specific consent forms that can be used by researchers. +
A qualitative approach to Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training development: identification of metacognitive strategies +
This article discusses qualitative approach to RCR training development, based on a sensemaking model. It identifies nine metacognitive reasoning strategies for future development of RCR training. +
The authors of this study conducted a scoping review to explore the competency requirements for editors of biomedical journals. They informed that this was the first step to develop a set of core competences for editors of biomedical journals. +
The study described systematic efforts to develop instructional programs with regard to defining and planning learning needs and environment as well as evaluating learning. The focus of the study was on research ethics. It concluded that a systematic framework to develop instruction in research ethics needs to be applied. +
This study presents an overview of virtue ethics theory. It also identifies common ethical problems in community-based participatory research (CBPR). The authors discuss how virtues can be used as a guide in ethical research practice. +
<div>
In 2021, the UK's National AI Strategy recommended that UK Government’s official Public Sector Guidance on AI Ethics and Safety be transformed into a series of practice-based workbooks. The result is the [https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-projects/ai-ethics-and-governance-practice AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Programme]. This series of eight workbooks provides end-to-end guidance on how to apply principles of AI ethics and safety to the design, development, deployment, and maintenance of AI systems. It provides public sector organisations with a Process Based Governance (PBG) Framework designed to assist AI project teams in ensuring that the AI technologies they build, procure, or use are ethical, safe, and responsible.
This workbook explores how a context-based and society-centred approach to understanding AI Fairness can help project teams better identify, mitigate, and manage the many ways that unfair bias and discrimination can crop up across the AI project workflow.</div><div></div> +
In 2021, the UK's National AI Strategy recommended that UK Government’s official Public Sector Guidance on AI Ethics and Safety be transformed into a series of practice-based workbooks. The result is the AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Programme. This series of eight workbooks provides end-to-end guidance on how to apply principles of AI ethics and safety to the design, development, deployment, and maintenance of AI systems. It provides public sector organisations with a Process Based Governance (PBG) Framework designed to assist AI project teams in ensuring that the AI technologies they build, procure, or use are ethical, safe, and responsible.
This first workbook provides an introduction to the AI Ethics and Governance in Practice programme and provides an outline of the key components that make up AI systems. +
In 2021, the UK's National AI Strategy recommended that UK Government’s official Public Sector Guidance on AI Ethics and Safety be transformed into a series of practice-based workbooks. The result is the [https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-projects/ai-ethics-and-governance-practice AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Programme]. This series of eight workbooks provides end-to-end guidance on how to apply principles of AI ethics and safety to the design, development, deployment, and maintenance of AI systems. It provides public sector organisations with a Process Based Governance (PBG) Framework designed to assist AI project teams in ensuring that the AI technologies they build, procure, or use are ethical, safe, and responsible.
This workbook is the first in a pair that provides the concepts and tools needed to put AI Sustainability into practice. +
In 2021, the UK's National AI Strategy recommended that UK Government’s official Public Sector Guidance on AI Ethics and Safety be transformed into a series of practice-based workbooks. The result is the [https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-projects/ai-ethics-and-governance-practice AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Programme]. This series of eight workbooks provides end-to-end guidance on how to apply principles of AI ethics and safety to the design, development, deployment, and maintenance of AI systems. It provides public sector organisations with a Process Based Governance (PBG) Framework designed to assist AI project teams in ensuring that the AI technologies they build, procure, or use are ethical, safe, and responsible.
This workbook is part two of two workbooks on AI Sustainability in Practice. +
AIOLIA is a Horizon Europe project that transforms the EU AI Act’s ethical principles into practical tools for researchers, developers, and policymakers. Through real-world use cases, AIOLIA develops co-created guidelines, modular training materials, and interactive content like podcasts and chatbots. These resources are made accessible via the Embassy of Good Science. With a strong European foundation and global partnerships, including universities and UNESCO platforms in Asia, Africa, and North America, AIOLIA promotes culturally aware, socially robust, and ethically sound AI development. It empowers communities to implement responsible AI practices grounded in real-world relevance and global impact. +
ALLEA has been a long-standing voice in the fields of research ethics and research integrity via its Permanent Working Group Science and Ethics, which has covered a wide-range of issues relating to ethics and integrity. The flagship publication of the group is the ''European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity,'' which was revised in 2017 and is regarded as one of the most comprehensive guides outlining how researchers should conduct their work. +
ALLINTERACT was a Horizon 2020 project (2020–2023) focused on expanding and diversifying citizen engagement in science, especially among young people and groups that are often excluded from scientific participation. It examined how increasing public awareness of the social impact of research can transform people’s willingness to engage into active involvement. The project concentrated on key societal challenges such as quality education and gender equality, using methods like social media analysis, surveys, focus groups, and real-world interventions. Through this work, ALLINTERACT developed new insights and practical, replicable strategies for motivating a broader range of citizens to interact with, contribute to, and benefit from scientific research. +
APEC Guiding Principles for Research Integrity (2022) is a international framework authored by nan, in english, targeting Asia Pacific. Originating from Asia Pacific, it aims to formalise principles of research integrity and open practice. It emphasises honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust in research. The text covers responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, spelling out expectations for good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Common provisions include clear authorship criteria, proper citation and acknowledgement, management of conflicts of interest, transparency of methods and data, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It also establishes procedures for handling breaches of integrity, defining misconduct, and setting up investigation mechanisms that ensure due process, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities. By aligning with international standards, it connects local policy to global norms, reinforcing mobility of researchers and comparability of practices across borders. The document integrates the principle of education—training for students and staff on responsible conduct—ensuring that integrity is taught as a core skill rather than assumed knowledge. It also incorporates guidance on emerging issues such as data management, digital tools, open science, and new forms of dissemination, embedding integrity in contemporary workflows. Practical tools often include checklists, codes of behaviour, reporting templates, and FAQs, translating high-level principles into day-to-day actions. The intended audience spans researchers, supervisors, institutions, and policymakers, all of whom need clarity on their roles in safeguarding the credibility of research. Equity and diversity appear as cross-cutting themes, recognising that integrity involves creating inclusive environments free from discrimination, harassment, or exploitation. Overall, the resource situates research integrity as both a personal commitment and an institutional responsibility, embedding it into the full research cycle from design to dissemination. Annexes may provide case studies, historical context, and references to international declarations such as Singapore or Montreal statements. Definitions and glossaries support consistent interpretation, and contact points or ombudsperson systems are described to lower barriers to reporting. These features help the resource serve not only as a policy but also as a practical handbook.
<div>
The ARC’s policy requires that research outputs arising from ARC‑funded projects be made openly accessible within 12 months of publication, with metadata deposited in an institutional repository within three months and including the ARC Project ID and persistent links. The policy applies across output types (e.g., journal articles, books and chapters) for projects funded under guidelines released since 1 January 2013. Where immediate open access is not possible due to legal or contractual constraints, researchers must justify non‑compliance in final reporting. The policy page consolidates the current version and directs readers to related guidance on research data and integrity, tying open access to national evaluation exercises (e.g., ERA) and sector‑wide dissemination norms. It positions open access as a public benefit mandate, aiming to maximise the reach and utility of publicly funded research.
</div><div><div><div><div></div><div><div><div><div></div></div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div> +
A complaint was made to the Executive Board at VU Amsterdam regarding a research report submitted by a researcher affiliated with the university but who produced the report in a personal capacity. Nevertheless, the report stated that the researcher carries out work with a VU Amsterdam research group. A subsequent petition was made to LOWI on the basis that the Executive Board had informed the complainants that it is not the university's responsibility to conduct an investigation or make statements about the research due to the fact that the assignment was issued to the author in a personal capacity. This is a factual anonymized case. +
