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
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`"' +
It shows that important tasks should not be delegated. +
It shows a clear case of self-plagiarism where both the plagiarised and plagiarising manuscripts were published in the same journal. +
This brief matters because it addresses the persistent gap between integrity policies (written rules) and how research is actually conducted. By insisting that integrity be integral to how research is organised, governed, evaluated, and rewarded, it helps reduce hypocrisy, confusion, and perverse incentives. Embedding integrity at institutional and systemic levels makes research more trustworthy, robust, and aligned with public expectations. Moreover, clarifying concepts and procedures reduces ambiguity and legal risk, supporting fair, transparent, and consistent integrity governance across institutions and nations. +
Social research, especially ethnographic, may be less accurate when it comes to predictions of precise methodological steps, possible scenarios encountered and directions of findings. As noted previously, ethnographic research may often be less understood by ethics committees who may carry some degree of ‘biomedical bias’, threatening both the research’s methodology and its direction'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"'.
This is an interesting case for discussion amongst all those working in ethnographic research (i.e., students, supervisors, researchers) or dealing with it (i.e., ethic committee members and administrators). It is also a useful resource for teaching ethnographic research methods.
Finally, the case further reminds us that protecting human research subjects from harm and at the same time promoting their best interests may sometimes become a seemingly contradictory affair.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"' +
In relation to human research, The Belmont report lays down three basic ethical principles which are aimed at protecting research subjects. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'The three ethical principles are:
#'''Respect for persons''' includes acknowledging the autonomy of individuals and protecting those with diminished autonomy. The principle respect for persons is protected in the form of informed consent.
#'''Beneficence''' is understood as minimizing harm and maximizing possible benefits. Systematically assessing the risks and benefits of a research project is needed to ensure the harms are minimized and the benefits of the study are maximized.
#'''Justice''' concerns who receives the benefits of a research study and who carries the cost. Fair procedures to select subjects is one important way to ensure justice in a study.
For animal research, guiding principles are to replace, reduce, and refine their use in research - referred to as 3R principles.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
Currently, citizen science is becoming more and more important in different fields of science. For example, in natural sciences, it enables large-scale data collection by involving a vast number of individuals which would be challenging to achieve for traditional research methods within the same timeframe and resources. This training will guide you through the crucial elements of responsible citizen science, including protection of human research participants, plants, animals and ecosystems;rights of citizen scientists;conflicts of interest;quality of research outputs etc. By the end of this training, you will gain a deeper understanding of responsible open science and acquire the following skills and attitudes necessary for responsible practising of citizen science:
# +
It is important to realise that not only researchers, but also students can falsify data. +
The Institutional Review Board acknowledges that in order for it to come to decisions regarding issues concerning disclosure of identifiable health information, informed consent, principles of beneficence and maleficence, coercion of research subjects and the intrusiveness of surveys, it must be able to discern those activities that are research-based from those that are practice-based.
The case indicates that disclosure of identifiable health information for the purposes of public health practice does not require informed consent. However, in the case of public health research, a waiver of consent is required from an IRB.
The case also demonstrates that, for situations where information would be used for both practice and research, the demands for consent fall either under the research provisions or the public health provisions, as appropriate. +
Although it is nearly impossible to define 'good academic publishing', scientific gatekeeping must always be pursued'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000D-QINU`"' +
There are several quick messages emerging here. An underlying implicit message is that even with the best intentions in mind, one may be in danger of unwillingly performing ethics misconduct.
Second, when unsure, once can ask for clarification of the best research ethics practices from the relevant institutions (in this case, COPE).
Third, the primary aim of this requested publication of cases is to inform future medical practice, and therefore, and provide an educational resource for trainees and practicing doctors. In answering, COPE provides ideas of ways to deal with this dilemma;several issues are considered in terms of privacy, stakes to be protected and legalities.
Finally, different countries might have different regulations, guidelines and practices for ethics in research, as well as different legal environments and systems when patient safety concerns are involved. +
This policy brief is important because as research and innovation increasingly aim to address grand societal challenges (climate change, health, inclusion), simply doing “science & tech” isn’t enough the “society” part must be present. By bringing citizens in, R&I becomes more relevant, equitable and sustainable. Yet meaningful citizen participation is not straightforward: this brief surfaces the ethical, organizational and procedural barriers so that R&I funders and institutions can better design inclusive processes. Ensuring participation isn’t tokenistic but genuine strengthens trust in research, improves outcomes and aligns innovation with lived realities making this brief valuable for policy-makers, funders and practitioners alike. +
Q
Qualitative studies increasingly form the foundation for quantitative research, intervention studies by generating hypotheses as well as further investigating and understanding quantitative data (1). Those researches answer the hows and whys instead of how many or how much thus exploring and providing deeper insights into real-world problems by gathering participants' experiences, perceptions, and behavior. While qualitative and quantitative approaches are different, they are not necessarily opposites, and the results can be complementary. +
Besides explaining the principles of quality enhancements, this guideline also deals with evaluations and reviews at different levels: institutional, discipline-wide and national. It also details the procedures to deal with complaints, investigations and appeals. +
