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
O
It shows that some researchers are willing to conduct unethical parts of their research in countries where regulations are less stringent. +
P
POIESIS Policy Recommendations for Promoting Trust in Science through Integrity, Integration, and Communication +
POIESIS sets out to probe the impact of integrity and integration on societal trust in science. The project takes its departure in three widely held and intuitive assumptions on the relationship between science and society. First, that trust in science depends on scientists’ capacity to demonstrate high standards of research integrity and breaches to research integrity will lead to mistrust. Second, that citizen and civil society’s involvement in co-creating research and innovation agendas and contents makes research more relevant and responsive to society, strengthening co-ownership and trust. And finally, that institutions foster integrity and societal integration by enabling and supporting researchers to act responsibly. Crucially, POIESIS reaffirms that trust in science is high, but simultaneously identifies cracks in the relationship between science and society that should be kept in mind to ensure that trust in science is maintained or even strengthened. POIESIS provides a firmer understanding of how integrity, integration, and trust are connected, and provides directions for how challenges to these relationships can be addressed in future research and science policy. +
Scientific credibility depends on integrity. When institutional systems push for rapid results, high output, or competitive funding, they can unintentionally compromise ethical standards. Embedding integrity at all levels ensures trustworthy results and sustained public confidence in science. +
This recommendation is crucial because public engagement enhances the social relevance, transparency, and legitimacy of science. When citizens and communities participate meaningfully in the research process, they feel ownership over its outcomes and are more likely to trust and support scientific initiatives. Inclusive and co-created research bridges the gap between expert knowledge and everyday experience, ensuring that research addresses real societal needs. It also helps counter misinformation and skepticism by fostering dialogue and shared understanding. By embedding public engagement within research design, science becomes more democratic, reflexive, and accountable to the people it serves. This approach ultimately strengthens mutual trust and ensures that innovation contributes to social well-being and sustainability. +
This recommendation matters because effective communication is the bridge between scientific discovery and societal understanding. Inaccurate, incomplete, or sensationalized reporting can easily distort research findings, leading to public confusion and mistrust. Strengthening communication across the entire chain from researchers to media to policymakers helps ensure that science is presented clearly, accurately, and transparently. When uncertainty and limitations are communicated honestly, it builds credibility rather than skepticism. Furthermore, well-trained communicators and scientists can jointly counter misinformation and foster a culture of open dialogue. In today’s complex information landscape, trustworthy science communication is essential for informed decision-making, resilient democratic debate, and maintaining confidence in the role of science within society. +
PREPARED Guidance for Fair and Fast Desk Assessment of Submitted Manuscripts during Times of Crisis +
<span lang="EN-GB">During the COVID-19 pandemic, most research focused on the virus was fast-tracked but often in a fragmented manner. In particular, research ethics committees struggled with requests to fast-track pandemic research because of increased workloads, new remote workflows, uncertainty regarding the risks and benefits of COVID-19 research, a lack of resources and training, and study and review duplication. At the same time, editors and publishers were inundated with research paper submissions, which tripled for some journals. Again, fast-tracking measures were attempted in the face of major difficulties, e.g. a lack of reviewers, especially for medical journals, and publishing staff who were themselves affected by the pandemic.</span>
Click [https://prepared-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Guidance-for-fair-and-fast-desk-assessment.pdf here] to open the guideline.
[[File:Https---prepared-project.eu-wp-content-uploads-2024-03-Guidance-for-fair-and-fast-desk-assessment.pdf.png|left|[https://prepared-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Guidance-for-fair-and-fast-desk-assessment.pdf Guidance-for-fair-and-fast-desk-assessment.pdf]]] +
This guidance is crucial because it enables faster ethics reviews during health crises without sacrificing ethical standards. By streamlining processes and promoting collaboration, it ensures urgent research can proceed quickly while protecting participants and maintaining scientific integrity. This balance is vital for generating trustworthy, timely evidence needed to respond effectively to emergencies and uphold public confidence.
Click [https://prepared-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Recommendations-for-expediting-ethics-review-during-times-of-crisis.pdf here] to open the guideline.
[[File:Https---prepared-project.eu-wp-content-uploads-2024-03-Recommendations-for-expediting-ethics-review-during-times-of-crisis.pdf.png|left|https://prepared-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Recommendations-for-expediting-ethics-review-during-times-of-crisis.pdf|alt=https://prepared-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Recommendations-for-expediting-ethics-review-during-times-of-crisis.pdf]] +
Research integrity education, especially on the undergraduate and secondary school level, is not yet widely embedded. The map intends to help curriculum designers and educators to learn about possibilities to integrate topics related to research integrity into study programs and courses. +
Opportunities to educate about research integrity are not limited to classrooms. Informal learning paths matter, too, and are are hitherto underutilized resource to foster a culture of research integrity. The Path2Integrity campaign contributes to filling this gap by enabling educational institutions to make research integrity visible in the everyday life of pupils, students and researchers. +
The Handbooks for Teachers and Trainers help educators navigate the learnings cards created by the Path2Integrity project. Focusing mostly on pedagogy and didactics, they provide examples of various good practices and ways to integrate learning units on research integrity into existing as well as new curricula. Thus, the handbooks accompany the Path2Integrity train-the-trainer program (to be launched in summer 2021) in the quest to facilitate effective teaching and learning of research integrity from the secondary school level to the early career researcher level.
Together with similar initiatives like the INTEGRITY project and the European Network for Academic Integrity (ENAI), Path2Integrity is committed to promote research integrity education already at the secondary school and undergraduate level in an attempt to integrate research integrity education throughout the entire qualification cycle, and to thereby foster trust in science. Enabling already pupils and undergraduate students to recognize what reliable and trustworthy research is and why it is crucially important not only for academia but also for society, is a skill likely to gain ever more momentum in knowledge-based societies and economies where research results and innovations permeate many aspects of life.
Thus, educators need competences and resources that support them in teaching research integrity (as well as related subjects like academic integrity and ethics of research) effectively. +
Education is a pillar to foster a culture of research integrity. The Path2Integrity learning cards facilitate learner-centered instruction of core principles and values of research integrity, and thus contribute to promoting trustworthy and reliable research. +
Research integrity education is crucial to develop a culture of research integrity. The learning cards support educators in developing learner-centered courses that help students recognize and embrace values, principles and norms of research integrity.
Because important facets of research integrity can already be learned on the secondary school and undergraduate level, the Path2Integrity learning materials not only address graduate students and young researchers, but also undergraduates and secondary school students. Thus, the learning cards, especially the s-series and the citizen education series, also serve a bridging function between research integrity and academic integrity.
To emphasize the importance of research integrity to society, the citizen education learning cards approach research integrity topics from the perspective of citizens rather than from the perspective of (prospective) researchers. In that way, they emphasize that research integrity, in societies permeated by research and innovation, matters far beyond what outside academic circles otherwise all too often might be thought of as a somewhat detached ivory tower. This also reflects how closely research integrity is related to the wider responsible research and innovation agenda. +
In an era of rapid scientific change and increasing complexity of research, integrity is essential for maintaining trust, quality, and fairness. The Path2Integrity platform addresses this need by educating upcoming researchers and practitioners on the ethical foundations of research, helping prevent misconduct and promoting accountability. By emphasising values such as honesty, respect and transparency, it fosters a culture that supports credible and reproducible science. Because research often influences society, policy and technology, equipping individuals with integrity training enhances societal benefit, mitigates risks of unethical practices, and strengthens the overall research ecosystem. +
In a scientific journal, the editor is responsible for the quality of published research. Of course, an editor cannot possibly know everything about all areas of research. They must, therefore, seek help from other experts to assess the quality of research. They rely on their knowledge and experience to identify possible weaknesses in research. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"' For authors, the peer review process provides thoughtful comments to help them improve their manuscript. Peer review is important in scientific publishing, but also in reviewing project proposals or, sometimes, conference abstracts.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000F-QINU`"' +
The article may be used as a case study in the context of research integrity training. +
In order to prevent miscommunications such as different expectations, a thorough document with clear agreements on the collaboration and responsibility of the PhD researcher and the supervisor is important. For example it prevents early fall out, and contributes to an uncomplicated doctoral process and qualitative scientific output. +
This case shows an example of how the research organisations could address research misconduct cases and how journals address these cases. +
It shows a case of misconduct against a high-profile politician. It also shows that researchers' early publications might be scrutinised later on. +
The researcher plagiarised text, plagiarised three figures showing results of an immunofluorescence assay, a phosphorimage, and northern blot analysis and falsified the data as results of experiments on Plasmodium bergheii, instead of P. falciparum as reported in a subproject of the PHS grant application. In addition, the researcher fabricated portions of an e-mail from his postdoctoral student that he presented to the HSPH inquiry committee purportedly to falsely implicate the student in the submission of the plagiarised materials for the grant application. +
