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
R
This page is important because it showcases the gold standard of RDA’s contributions outputs that have been vetted, endorsed, and deemed ready for broader adoption. Such endorsement provides legitimacy and confidence that the tools and recommendations are robust, community-supported, and sustainable. For researchers, institutions, and infrastructure providers, these outputs serve as trustworthy blueprints for implementing FAIR data practices. They help reduce duplication, promote interoperability, and accelerate uptake across domains and geographies. In effect, the endorsed set helps translate collective expertise into reliable infrastructure for data-intensive research. +
<div>
These guidelines are important as open science is now considered as standard in the practice of science in the research and innovation programs of the European Commission. To quote the EC, " Open science is a policy priority for the European Commission and the standard method of working under its research and innovation funding programmes as it improves the quality, efficiency and responsiveness of research."
'''Reference:'''
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-science_en</div><div></div> +
It shows the adverse effects of strict mentoring. +
The present case shows that plagiarism is not only committed by researchers, but also by publishers. Such plagiarism may not only harm the original authors of the articles by not attributing them for their work, but also the original publishers. It is important to recognize journals that do steal the work of others as fast as possible, so they cannot make many victims. This case may help to recognize such journals. +
Within SINAPSE, you will be able to indicate that you are a trained VIRT2UE trainer, enabling other members of the community to identify you as a potential trainer for research integrity courses. The European Commission also uses SINAPSE to identify experts for policy and research purposes. +
This recommendation is important for researchers and authors, who are responsible for declaring truthful and ethically justified institutional affiliations in scientific publications. It is also crucial for universities and research institutions, as affiliations directly affect institutional reputation, visibility, rankings, and accountability for research outputs. Research Integrity Officer rely on such guidance to investigate concerns, enforce good scientific practice, and develop clear internal policies. Journal editors and academic publishers benefit by using the recommendation to assess, verify, and, when necessary, correct misleading affiliation claims. Finally, funding agencies and research evaluators depend on accurate affiliation information to ensure fair evaluation, responsible research assessment, and appropriate allocation of research funding. +
This recommendation is particularly important for researchers, who must ensure their affiliations are accurate, truthful, and ethically justified in publications. It is also highly relevant for universities, research institutes, and funding organizations, as affiliations affect institutional visibility, reputation, performance metrics, and access to funding. Editors and publishers benefit from the guidance when assessing author information and preventing misleading attribution. In addition, research integrity offices and policy makers can use the recommendation to develop or refine institutional rules and codes of conduct. Finally, it matters to the broader research evaluation community, as it supports responsible assessment practices and helps prevent distortions in rankings and bibliometric indicators caused by inappropriate or strategic affiliation claims. +
Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers distils international expectations for research integrity in International 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. +
Mainstreaming citizen science is crucial because it enables more inclusive, real-time, and locally grounded data for better policy decisions. Traditional research alone cannot capture all environmental and societal challenges, especially those requiring continuous monitoring such as air quality, biodiversity loss, and climate impacts. By involving the public, governments gain access to larger datasets, improved societal trust, and greater policy legitimacy. It also empowers communities, increases scientific literacy, and supports behavioral change. Recognizing citizen science in policy unlocks funding, long-term support, and institutional acceptance, shifting it from small-scale initiatives to meaningful governance tools. This contributes directly to EU priorities on sustainability, digital transformation, and democratic engagement. +
This handbook is important because investigating suspected misconduct is a sensitive, intricate process that impacts individual reputations, institutional legitimacy, and public trust in science. Without clear, ethically grounded and robust procedures, investigations risk being unfair, opaque, biased, or inconsistent. The handbook helps fill that gap by offering guidance to make investigations more credible, fair, and transparent. It assists institutions, national bodies, and research communities in handling allegations responsibly protecting both complainants and respondents, promoting consistency across cases, and enabling learning from systemic issues. In cross-institution or cross-country cases, shared reference to this handbook supports smoother cooperation and comparability. +
The Handbook might be of help answering to questions related to how to deal with misconduct cases.
How should research misconduct be defined and how will it differ from unacceptable research practices? How should allegations be handled? What if an allegation involves several institutions and/or researchers in different countries? Why is it important to have a formal research integrity system in each European country to deal with research misconduct and is there any best model? Where should countries with no RI structures start? Should responsibility be local or national? What about openness and transparency versus confidentiality when dealing with possible misconduct cases?
<br /> +
This handbook is important for research integrity offices and institutional officials responsible for investigating alleged misconduct, as it provides structured, practical guidance. It helps universities and research institutions establish or improve their research integrity systems and formal procedures. Investigation committee members and administrators benefit by understanding best practices for fair, transparent, and unbiased processes. Researchers and whistleblowers gain clarity on how misconduct allegations should be handled and what protections should be in place. Finally, national or regional research policymakers and funders can use it to support harmonised, credible, and trustworthy approaches to upholding research integrity across institutions and borders. +
Replication is of great importance to science, because science aims to discover laws of nature. Since such laws are permanent, experiments on which they are based should be infinitely replicable'"`UNIQ--ref-00000013-QINU`"'. This concept is highly important to medicine. Being able to replicate, for example, an epidemiologic study to determine health effects of certain risk factors could build up existing scientific evidence and impact decision making that might affect the public health'"`UNIQ--ref-00000014-QINU`"'. Replicability also represents a direct public interest since science is significantly funded by public resources. If a study cannot be replicated, the money invested in it is wasted. It is estimated that annual costs of non-replicable preclinical research are approximately US$28 billion'"`UNIQ--ref-00000015-QINU`"'.
Replication can be divided into direct and conceptual'"`UNIQ--ref-00000016-QINU`"'. Direct replication is an exact replication of an experiment and it ensures that the phenomenon is reproducible;however, it does not guarantee that the theory behind the phenomenon is true. Therefore, confirming the same results with a different methodology or a different experimental system adds more credibility to the proposed theory or model'"`UNIQ--ref-00000017-QINU`"'. Nevertheless, we cannot expect that every experiment can be replicated down to the last detail, especially in psychology and medicine. We can always expect to see random deviation in the results and conclusions when conducting an independent experiment'"`UNIQ--ref-00000018-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000019-QINU`"' +
Some scholars argue that replicability is possible at least in the fields of humanities which are empirical, such as history, archeology, linguistics, literature, art and theology. In other words, they are based on “the collection of data”.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"' One of the most common arguments that refute this idea is that study objects in the humanities are usually “unique phenomena”, for example certain historical events.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"' Therefore, it is not clear ''how'' a study should be replicated.
Scholars advocating for replicability in the humanities provide a counterargument: although subjects studied in the humanities are unique, they still have “multiple instances”. For example, French Revolution was as a unique event, however, a researcher can study it several times and each time generate new data (in artifacts, literary accounts and paintings) which enables repetition of a particular method (studying a text) and discovering new things about that unique event.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000F-QINU`"'
Majority of scholars who refute the idea of replication in the humanities maintain that replication might be possible in some, but it is not possible in all fields of humanities. because the main reason for this is that the research issues and questions often rely on interpretation.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000010-QINU`"' Further intra-disciplinary and interdisciplinary debates regarding this topic should be encouraged.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000011-QINU`"' +
To ensure that unfavorable practices are stopped and in order to foster a culture of integrity, it is essential that these are reported. In addition, anonymous reporting ensures that the identity of the whistleblower is protected. On the other hand, the person(s) named in the reoprt also have rights to confidentiality and a fair investigation;these are alos addressed in this guideline. +
These videos should be viewed as a starting point for discussions about best practices for designing experiments and how to relate them to the research environment. +
Sharing and responsibly managing data produced or re-used in a research project is required by funders and publishers, and supports open scholarship. The outcomes of good RDM are that the rights of data subjects/owners are protected and that data is archived towards the end of research so that it remains available for validation of results, and potentially for future re-use. Together with Open Access publishing and other Open things such as Open Source software, managing and providing access to your research data contributes to the modern goal of Open Research/Scholarship/ Science. +
The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.
They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.
The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.
According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:
1) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063597#.X3cFmpNKjxQ '''Research Environment''']
2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring
3) Research Procedures
4) Safeguards
5) Data Practices and Management
6) Collaborative Working
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing +
For all activities funded by the European Union, ethics is an integral part of research from beginning to end, and ethical compliance is seen as pivotal to achieve real research excellence. It is only by getting the ethics right that research excellence can be achieved. +
Ethics is fundamental in research to ensure integrity, trust and social value. The Research Ethics Compass matters because it helps researchers proactively recognise ethical dilemmas, navigate them thoughtfully and align their work with standards of respect, transparency and responsibility. Especially in complex, interdisciplinary or vulnerable-population studies, having a structured ethics training supports good practice, helps prevent misconduct or harm, and bolsters the credibility and impact of the research. +
