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
M
Ahlaki bir soru, ikilem ya da çatışma durumunda kişi, iyi düşünülmüş bir seçim yapabiliyor olmalıdır. Seçenekler üzerine düşünmek ya da bir fikir oluşturabilmek için ise sorunun bağlamını ve neyin kimin için risk altında olduğunu tam olarak anlayabilmelidir. Diyalog içerisindeyken kişinin tutumunun yavaşlama, hemen yargılamada bulunmama ve soru sorma üzerine şekillenmesi gerekir. Bu nedenle diyalog içerisindeyken katılımcılar, karşılarındaki kişiyi anlamaya odaklanmak ve onu (ve kendilerini) kendi davranış şekli ve bunun altında yatan sebepler üzerine düşünmeye yönlendirmek durumunda kalırlar. +
Ahlaki bir soru, ikilem ya da çatışma durumunda kişi, iyi düşünülmüş bir seçim yapabiliyor olmalıdır. Seçenekler üzerine düşünmek ya da bir fikir oluşturabilmek için ise sorunun bağlamını ve neyin kimin için risk altında olduğunu tam olarak anlayabilmelidir. Diyalog içerisindeyken kişinin tutumunun yavaşlama, hemen yargılamada bulunmama ve soru sorma üzerine şekillenmesi gerekir. Bu nedenle diyalog içerisindeyken katılımcılar, karşılarındaki kişiyi anlamaya odaklanmak ve onu (ve kendilerini) kendi davranış şekli ve bunun altında yatan sebepler üzerine düşünmeye yönlendirmek durumunda kalırlar. +
N
The Nagoya Protocol outlines the conditions for access to genetic resources and promotes the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of these resources. +
There is an increasing emphasis on managing and sharing research data. This guide will help researchers learn more about the various aspects of research data management and sharing. It will also guide NTU researchers in meeting the university as well as funders’ requirements.
Research data is an important component of research. It has evidentiary value which is essential to ascertaining the integrity of research. Good stewardship of research data can bring many benefits to the researchers as well as their institutions. The success of your research project depends on how well you manage your data throughout the lifecycle of your research. +
National Policy on Academic Ethics (2019), Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India +
National Policy on Academic Ethics distils national expectations for research integrity in India and clarifies what researchers and institutions in India 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 Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India in 2019, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
National Research Integrity Framework of Tanzania distils national expectations for research integrity in Tanzania and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Tanzania 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 nan in 2020, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
National Statement on Scientific Integrity distils national expectations for research integrity in Spain and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Spain 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 COSCE, crue, CSIC in 2015, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2018) is important because it establishes a shared national standard for responsible, honest, and transparent research across all disciplines and institutions. It defines core principles honesty, scrupulousness, transparency, independence, and responsibility that guide researchers in conducting, reporting, and evaluating research. The Code helps prevent research misconduct and questionable research practices by clarifying expectations and responsibilities. It also provides a common framework for handling integrity breaches, ensuring fairness, due process, and consistency across Dutch universities and research organisations. Furthermore, the Code strengthens public trust in science, which is essential for societal support, policy relevance, and funding. By aligning with international research integrity standards, it also enhances the credibility and global reputation of Dutch research, supporting high-quality collaboration and responsible research assessment. +
The code is relevant for all researchers in the Netherlands as it is the central national guiding document on research integrity. +
The Dutch Code of Conduct for Research Integrity describes the institutional duties of care, including creating a working environment that promotes and safeguards good research practices. The periodic research evaluation assesses whether the institution fulfills this duty sufficiently. +
New Zealand Code of Professional Standards and Ethics in Science, Technology, and the Humanities (2019) +
Code of Professional Standards and Ethics in Science, Technology, and the Humanities ' 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. +
By recognizing these pitfalls and responding appropriately can save a career and strengthen science. +
The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees developed these general guidelines as a gateway document to research ethics. Further specification is expected for discipline specific research. Indeed, the Committees have developed additional guidelines for medical and health research, science and technology, and social sciences, humanities, law and theology'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
It shows that some researchers might successfully hide their conflicting interests for years without funding agencies and journals realising that. +
O
These infographics can be used by RCR instructors and Research Integrity Officers (RIOs) to help educate the community on research integrity topics. ORI encourages the sharing and distribution of these resources with colleagues. +
The blog brings up the question of how equivalent are punishments for seemingly similar ethics violations among different researchers and how these are decided upon. +
OeAWI Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice distils national expectations for research integrity in Austria and clarifies what researchers and institutions in nan 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 nan in 2018, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India National Policy on Academic Ethics (2024) +
National Policy on Academic 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. +
Safeguards are usually thought of an ethics issue that mainly concerns the research participants rather than the researchers themselves. In this case, this notion is challenged and both the researcher and the researched are susceptible to safeguarding issues. Also, this is a good case for discussions on research methods courses on ethnography or with ethnographic elements. +
Reviews often serve as an important source of evidence in informing policy and practice. This factual case is a very interesting starting point for debate (universities, students, researchers, policy makers) on how to approach reviews and conclusions based on research that has been, for various reasons, retracted. +
