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
E
This module presents guidelines developed by the European Commission, UKRIO and the ENAI network which focus on the responsible use of AI. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into our lives and work, it is important to ensure that its development and use is both ethical and responsible. This module is designed to help educators educate individuals and organizations about the principles and practices of responsible AI. +
This activity is designed to help you reflect on how these skills contribute to addressing complex sustainability challenges. +
Bu kılavuz, araştırma doğruluğu konusunda eğitmenlerin eğitimine yönelik karma bir eğitim programını yürütmek için gerekli pratik talimatları içermektedir. +
F
This training introduces the concept of FAIR Research Data Management (RDM) and explains what the FAIR principles Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable mean in practice for researchers. It provides an overview of why research data management matters and how FAIR principles support good scientific practice throughout the research lifecycle. The training clarifies the relationship between FAIR data, open data, and managed data, highlighting common misunderstandings. Through practical examples, short exercises, and quizzes, participants learn how research data can be made more reusable for both humans and machines. The course is designed for researchers and research support staff who want a foundational understanding of FAIR RDM and how it contributes to transparency, collaboration, and long-term value of research outputs. +
This online self-assessment tool developed in the FAIRsFAIR project allows you to evaluate your knowledge about the FAIR principles and learn skills to put these principles into practice. +
''FAPESP’s Open Access Policy'' (2019), published by the São Paulo Research Foundation, sets national expectations for open science and open access in Brazil, aligning them with international standards. Written in English, it frames openness as the default while respecting ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, following the principle of being “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” The policy emphasizes open access publishing through trusted repositories, Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and FAIR data principles supported by data management plans. It defines responsibilities for researchers, institutions, and funders, including rights retention, funding acknowledgment, and transparent rules for embargoes or exceptions. Infrastructure such as repositories, registries, and discovery services underpins compliance and visibility, linking Brazilian practices with initiatives like Plan S and national repository networks. Equity, responsible openness, and multilingual access are central, ensuring affordability and inclusion while safeguarding sensitive or Indigenous data. Serving as both a benchmark and practical checklist, the policy offers actionable steps to strengthen transparency, reproducibility, and equitable research access in Brazil. +
This blog presents a few example cases of fraud, falsified data and other types of research misconduct identified by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). +
This workshop discusses how to deal with issues with regard to research integrity, addressing good and bad research practices. Some of the covered topics where: What is exactly research integrity? What are the risks? How to detect research misconduct? With what resources can researchers react to respond to topics related to research integrity? How should researchers act when research integrity is endangered? The planned learning outcome is to raise awareness on responsible conduct of research among PhD students and help them recognize and apply it in their research and in the research of others. +
''FRQ Open Access Dissemination Policy'' (2022), published by Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ), sets national expectations for open science and open access in Canada, aligning them with international standards. Written in French and English, it establishes openness as the default while balancing ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, guided by the principle “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” The policy emphasizes open access publishing through repositories, Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and FAIR data principles supported by data management plans. It outlines responsibilities for researchers, institutions, and funders, including rights retention, funding acknowledgment, and transparency for embargoes or exceptions. Infrastructure such as repositories, discovery services, and registries underpins compliance and visibility, while alignment with initiatives like Plan S and national networks ensures interoperability. Equity, multilingual communication, and responsible openness are cross-cutting themes, with safeguards for sensitive and Indigenous data. Serving as a benchmark and checklist, the policy offers actionable steps to enhance transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access to research across Canada. +
Two graduate students co-author an article. After submission, they receive a response from a referee with critical but valid comments on one section. One of the graduate students takes the lead in the revision. The other student recognizes that in the new version, the other student has changed some data, writing to the referee that they were mistakes.
The graduate student is suspicious because there is no good explanation for the change of data. In addition, she knows the revising student is desperate to publish in a good journal before she starts her job search next year.
However there is no concrete evidence of misconduct. +
Facebook is the best human research lab ever. There’s no need to get experiment participants to sign pesky consent forms as they’ve already agreed to the site’s data use policy. A team of Facebook data scientists are constantly coming up with new ways to study human behavior through the social network. When the team releases papers about what it's learned from us, we often learn surprising things about Facebook instead -- such as the fact that it can keep track of the status updates we never actually post. +
This study explores the reasons why some clinical teachers attend centralized faculty development activities, compares their responses with those of their colleagues who do not attend these activities and suggest how faculty development programs can be more applicable to teachers' needs. +
Researchers within a multi-institutional project did not devise a contract regarding intellectual property until it was too late. +
This short article provides information about some cases of inaccurate representation of research results in the media and gives a researcher's opinion on the matter. +
Selling authorship for scientific articles is an unethical but increasingly prevalent issue in academia. This practice undermines the integrity of scientific research by allowing individuals to claim undeserved credit, creating mistrust in the scientific community. The topic investigates into how this trend threatens academic standards and highlights the challenges institutions face in combating this issue.
Examples in real world:
a)Authorship for sale platforms: Several online platforms (X, former Twitter, has had a public account with different price ranges for first (8 thousand dollars) to last author position (3 thousand dollars)), forums, or third-party brokers openly offer authorship on scientific papers. These services connect individuals willing to pay for co-authorship or even first authorship with researchers or predatory journals. The offer does not stop there, there all also sales for patent designs, book publications, conference abstracts.
b) Predatory journals: Many predatory journals accept payment in exchange for authorship or even guarantee publication without rigorous peer review. These journals exploit the academic pressure to publish while ignoring ethical guidelines.
c) Guest authorship: Senior academics or influential figures are sometimes added as authors, despite having no significant contribution, to increase a paper's credibility or likelihood of acceptance in prestigious journals.
d) Ghostwriting services: Ghostwriting companies write entire papers and assign authorship to paying clients. These clients often have little or no involvement in the research or writing process, misrepresenting their expertise and contributions.
e) Institutional pressure: In some institutions, there is an unspoken culture of rewarding quantity over quality in publications. This leads to unethical practices, such as honorary or undeserved authorship, particularly among faculty members seeking promotions or tenure.
f) Coercive authorship: Supervisors or senior researchers might pressure students or junior colleagues to include them as co-authors, regardless of their actual contribution, perpetuating unethical practices.
g) High-impact journal manipulation: Some researchers target high-impact journals by buying authorship on studies already accepted or under review, leveraging these publications for career advancement or securing funding.<div></div>
A study compared two ways of nursing premature infants who require respiratory support. False results were generated by the study. This is a factual case. +
Jim Burke is preparing a presentation for Professor Rassmussen as part of his duties as research assistant. He notices that some of the data covered in the presentation might have been made up by the intervieweres. The case study asks whether he should mention it to Rassmussen and what Rassmussen should do in the situation. +
The case describes a clinical trial of an existing drug in Japan. Several universities performed the trial in collaboration with a large pharmaceutical company. The drug did not work as expected, and the researchers tried to bury the results. Eventually the case came to light, resulting in an elaborate apology from the researchers. +
An editor gives a researcher who is a friend an unfair advantage in the competitive world of publishing. +
The Federal Open Access Law (2014), issued by the Mexican Federal Government, provides a national framework for open science and open access in Mexico. Written in Spanish, it translates high-level principles into actionable guidance for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers, promoting openness as the default while respecting ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security. The law links openness to research quality, reproducibility, equitable access, and faster translation of knowledge, particularly for communities with limited subscription access. Key elements include open access to publications with preferred licensing (e.g., Creative Commons), deposition in trusted repositories, FAIR data principles, and comprehensive data management plans. Responsibilities for authors and institutions cover funding acknowledgment, rights retention, and budgeting, while justified embargoes and exceptions for sensitive, commercial, or security-relevant data are transparently documented. The law encourages enabling infrastructure repositories, registries, discovery services and aligns with international initiatives such as Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud. Assessment emphasizes the quality of openness, including machine-readable metadata, persistent identifiers, and sharing of methods, code, and data. Equity, multilingual communication, and capacity building are highlighted to prevent reinforcing disparities. Implementation relies on early planning, institutional support, and funder-backed infrastructure. The law serves as a practical reference, checklist, and benchmark, supporting compliance, transparency, reproducibility, and alignment with global norms. +
