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
P
The case discusses several possible instances of plagiarism:
1. Plagiarizing journal articles;2. Reproducing and taking credit for figures presented in another researcher's articles;3. Reproducing figures from a co-authored article;4. Plagiarizing PowerPoint presentations;5. Copy-and-pasting sections of a PhD thesis produced by another student.
It shows that plagiarism comes in different forms and does not just pertain to copy-and-pasting text. +
This glossary is important because a lack of consensus on what constitutes academic integrity and misconduct undermines efforts to prevent and address violations. Without shared definitions, institutions may interpret behaviors inconsistently, leading to unfairness, confusion, and weak enforcement. The glossary helps harmonize understanding across borders and disciplines, supporting fair and transparent integrity practices. By offering a common terminological basis, it aids educators, students, policy makers, and integrity offices in communication, training, and policy implementation. Over time, it can foster more consistent handling of misconduct and strengthen a culture of integrity in higher education and research. +
This policy brief is vital because it tackles the growing challenge of misinformation and declining public trust in science. By mapping and recommending effective communication strategies beyond simple fact-checking it helps build trust, transparency and societal engagement. It provides a practical blueprint for bridging science and society in times of urgent challenges (e.g. climate change, public health). Its recommendations can help institutions, communicators, and policymakers improve how scientific knowledge is conveyed, understood, and acted upon contributing to better-informed public debates and decisions. +
This policy brief is important because many organizations struggle to convert ethical AI principles into everyday practice. Regulations such as the EU AI Act specify legal obligations but often lack practical implementation guidance, particularly for smaller organizations with limited resources. AIOLIA provides tested methods, governance processes, and practical measures that help organizations develop trustworthy AI while reducing legal, reputational, and operational risks. The recommendations also encourage collaboration between policymakers, researchers, and industry to create consistent standards and evidence-based governance. This supports responsible AI innovation while protecting human rights, transparency, accountability, and public trust in AI systems. +
This policy brief is important because AI companions are becoming increasingly integrated into people's daily lives, offering emotional support, advice, and companionship. While these technologies provide significant benefits, they also introduce new ethical challenges that existing regulations do not adequately address. Long-term interactions can lead to emotional dependence, privacy risks, manipulation, and changes in user behavior that develop gradually rather than through isolated incidents. The brief provides practical recommendations for policymakers and AI developers to create safeguards that balance innovation with user protection. Its proposals help ensure that AI companions promote human well-being, preserve autonomy, and maintain trust in AI technologies as their use continues to expand. +
Some important topics addressed by the HRK recommendations are:
- Good scientific practices: https://www.hrk.de/resolutions-publications/resolutions/beschluss/detail/good-scientific-practice-at-german-higher-education-institutions/
- Stating affiliations in publications: https://www.hrk.de/resolutions-publications/resolutions/beschluss/detail/recommendation-on-guidelines-for-stating-affiliations-in-publications/
- Quality of doctoral education, including project initiation, selection, supervision: https://www.hrk.de/resolutions-publications/resolutions/beschluss/detail/key-points-on-quality-assurance-in-doctoral-education-with-an-external-employment-contract/
- External quality assurance: https://www.hrk.de/resolutions-publications/resolutions/beschluss/detail/common-guidelines-on-external-quality-assurance-at-universities/
- Examination procedures: https://www.hrk.de/resolutions-publications/resolutions/beschluss/detail/quality-assurance-in-doctoral-examination-procedures/
- Information competency in the digital age: https://www.hrk.de/resolutions-publications/resolutions/beschluss/detail/higher-education-institutions-in-a-digital-age-rethinking-information-competency-redirecting-proc/
<br /> +
Policy on Ethics and Scientific Integrity distils national expectations for research integrity in France and clarifies what researchers and institutions in French 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 Agence Nationale de la Recherche in 2014, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Policy statement on ensuring research integrity in Ireland (2020), National Research Integrity Forum +
Policy statement on ensuring research integrity in Ireland distils national expectations for research integrity in Ireland and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Ireland 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 National Research Integrity Forum in 2020, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Ethical values, standards of research integrity and good practices in research highlight the ethical and social responsibility of scientists. Scientists must be aware of their particular responsibility to society and to the whole of humanity. +
Polish Ministry of Science and Information Society Technologies' Good Scientific Research Practice Recommendations +
This guideline emphasized the role of research institutions in fostering research integrity, since they are in a position to detect misconduct at an early stage. For institutions and administrators, it describes the extent of responsibilities towards researchers, especially early career researchers. +
Researchers operating in Poland have a responsibility to read and understand the code prior to embarking on research operations. More broadly, the code is applicable to individuals and institutions interested in 1) how to train others in practices and cultures of research integrity, 2) how to implement enforcement mechanisms and sanctions, both through restrictions to funding and through re-training of individuals. +
Both the mentors and the mentees need to be aware of what is expected in their collaboration and professional relationship. Research performing institutions should ensure that they devote more attention to training of both the mentees and mentors about what mentoring means and how to build it for successful outcome of research mentoring. +
Ensuring health data is FAIR is essential for better research, policy, and public health outcomes especially when synthesising data from different sources and countries. The guide helps researchers and data managers standardise how data and metadata are described so that others can reliably discover, combine, and reuse health data. By aligning powerful domain-specific models like OMOP CDM with widely accepted metadata standards such as Schema.org, it makes complex datasets understandable and usable outside specialised communities, including by AI tools. This increases the potential for cross-study analysis, global collaborations, and evidence-based decision-making in public health. Ultimately, it supports more consistent, transparent, and interoperable health data ecosystems. +
This position paper gives an overview of the components of RRI, the current RRI scenario in Austria, previous approaches used to strengthen responsible innovation and future directions and goals. Importantly, the platform provides recommendations to promote research integrity in universities and among funding organizations (Section "ethics", pages 28-32). The role of governance in ensuring responsible innovation is also discussed. +
While some feel that statutory regulation of scientific research is necessary, this is not the current norm in the UK (and in most other countries). Moreover, to regulate the diverse research performing organizations and various lines of research under a single statutory framework would be impractical. Therefore, it falls upon the institutional authorities and employers to ensure research integrity in most cases. Hence, it is important that they are aware, not only of their responsibilities but also of the existing structures of research governance. +
It shows what can be achieved with post-publication peer-review. Furthermore, it shows what can go wrong when contributors who are responsible for important aspects of publications change institutions and country of residence. +
Pratiquer une recherche intègre et responsable - Conducting Ethical and Responsible Research – Guidelines (2017), CNRS Ethics Committee (62. ChatGPT translated French Code, p. 1) +
Pratiquer une recherche intègre et responsable - Conducting Ethical and Responsible Research – Guidelines distils national expectations for research integrity in France 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 CNRS Ethics Committee (62. ChatGPT translated French Code, p. 1) in 2017, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Precision medicine represents a shift in treatment approaches in healthcare systems across Europe. Instead of a standardized protocol in which a single drug is used to treat specific diseases, the approach to the patient is completely tailored to understanding their biological specificity. It enables earlier disease detection, more precise diagnosis, and more specific therapies that ultimately work better and reduce side effects in patients. When considering the health system context, this enables more effective treatments and minimizes resource waste from ineffective treatments and hospitalizations.
It also creates a database for developing national strategies. In addition, the exchange among member states provides a strong foundation for the development of good practices, policies, organizations, and innovation in this area. (2)(3)
Such databases include unique genomic data not only for the patient but also for their family members, and therefore, they belong to a special category of data. The collection, processing, and use of such data require the patient's personal consent or, when used in scientific research, must be protected with special mechanisms due to the sensitive nature of the data. Any use of personal data, including genomic data, is regulated by the GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679). +
It shows that academic and industrial research partners might have different priorities that do not always match. +
Because of the lengthy duration of peer review process and subsequent delay in publication, preprint servers are useful tools for researchers to post full draft of their research papers and immediately get the feedback from their colleagues.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000027-QINU`"' The articles can be posted at no charge'"`UNIQ--ref-00000028-QINU`"' and authors have the possibility to submit revised versions to the server at any time.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000029-QINU`"' Most of the articles are given a digital object identifier (DOI) so they can be cited.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000002B-QINU`"' Readers can also upload their comments, which can result in productive discussions.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002C-QINU`"'
This way of sharing research results and communication among researchers has its pros and cons.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002D-QINU`"' The most obvious benefit would be higher speed of publication, from 7 days to 2-4 mouths'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002E-QINU`"' and evidence of authors’ productivity and accomplishment.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002F-QINU`"' This would justify financial funds, especially in those disciplines with strong competition for development and limited funding.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000030-QINU`"' The use of preprint servers would also foster open science, increase visibility and lead to fast feedback and recommendations for improvement in quality.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000031-QINU`"' Furthermore, it could result in some new collaborations.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000032-QINU`"' On the other hand, researchers need to consider that not all journals will accept manuscripts that have been submitted to a preprint server.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000033-QINU`"' Researchers also might “rush out data prematurely” in order to get credit for their work, which could result in posting low quality and irreproducible data.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000034-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000035-QINU`"' +
