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
F
This is a factual case. Three papers allegedly used fraudulent research methods as well as conclusions based on data analysed by a small private company owned by one of the co-authors. +
A leading and pioneering anaesthesiologist in Massachusetts, United States was suspected of fraud, having falsified results in at least 21 manuscripts published over 15 years. This has become one of the largest cases of fraud in US medical research history. +
The [https://prepared-project.eu/harassment/ PREPARED project’s harassment page] outlines clear guidance on preventing and addressing harassment in research settings, especially in fragile or crisis-affected contexts. It emphasizes the ethical responsibility of researchers and institutions to ensure safe, respectful environments for all involved—participants, staff, and community members. The guidance promotes zero tolerance for harassment, defines different forms it may take (e.g. sexual, verbal, power abuse), and encourages institutions to have clear reporting procedures. It also highlights the need for awareness training and accountability mechanisms tailored to high-risk, cross-cultural research settings. +
This report spotlights the alarming prevalence of harassment against scientists ranging from online abuse, doxxing, verbal and physical attacks to vexatious legal actions often intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic . It emphasizes that harassment is multifaceted and disproportionately targets women, LGBTQ+ individuals, ethnic minorities, early-career researchers, and those in high-profile fields like climate and pandemic science. Designed to be accessible, the report distills complex threats into digestible visuals and advice, balancing awareness raising with practical guidance through a two-part structure: first, elucidating forms and dynamics of harassment especially manipulation tactics such as ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and online toxicity and second, addressing what scientists can do when faced with harassment, with actionable steps like documenting incidents, seeking institutional or national support, considering formal complaints, and prioritizing mental well-being. In closing, it envisions a scientific culture anchored in '''fairness, respect, care, and honesty''', and calls for collective responsibility—from institutions, governments, media, and platforms to protect scientists from harassment and safeguard science’s integrity +
The Ethics and Scientific Integrity Charter was developed by the French National Research Agency (ANR). The charter describes which ethical principles and duties researchers need to adhere to. Named principles are impartiality, integrity, probity, neutrality and independence. +
The document 'Conducting Ethical and Responsible Research – Guidelines', developed in 2017 in France, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by CNRS Ethics Committee, and available in French, it targets the research community in France. It provides clear expectations for responsible conduct in research and defines practices that safeguard honesty, transparency, and accountability. The text outlines responsibilities of both individual researchers and institutions. It identifies misconduct such as plagiarism, data falsification, fabrication, and unethical authorship, while also promoting good practices in publication, peer review, and collaborative research. It emphasizes effective data management, openness in reporting, and respect for colleagues, participants, and the wider community. Institutions are encouraged to create supportive environments through policies, training, and oversight mechanisms. The document serves as an official reference for aligning national research standards with international expectations, reinforcing ethical norms across research fields. +
The French National Charter for Research Integrity clarifies the professional responsibilities ensuring a rigorous and trustworthy scientific approach, and will apply in the context of all national and international partnerships'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
National research council absolves one previously sanctioned lab leader of misconduct, and holds another researcher responsible. France’s national research council has ruled that one of its plant biologists committed misconduct through manipulation and data fabrication in published figures, but it cleared another researcher whom it had heavily sanctioned in 2015.
The ruling should add some clarity and closure to the long-running saga — although the cleared researcher, Olivier Voinnet, is now raising fresh questions over how the French research agency, CNRS, handled its initial investigation. +
Scientists here are still searching their souls about two previous scandals—involving Diederik Stapel of Tilburg University in 2011 and Dirk Smeesters of Erasmus University in Rotterdam a year later. Now they have learned that a national research integrity panel has found evidence of data manipulation in the work of Jens Förster, a social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam (UvA). The university has already announced that it will request the retraction of one of Förster's articles. bThe case is drawing widespread international attention as well, in part because Förster, who's German and came to Amsterdam in 2007, enjoys a sterling reputation. "He is among the most creative and influential social psychologists of his generation," says Jeffrey Sherman of the University of California, Davis. +
In the 1990s, Denmark experienced cases of serious scientific fraud that had occurred many years ago. Some widely published cases from the United States motivated the Danish Medical Research Council to establish the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, a national committee covering the health sciences'"`UNIQ--ref-000000D7-QINU`"'. This is a factual anonymized case.
'"`UNIQ--references-000000D8-QINU`"' +
Laboratories play a pivotal role in advancing science. However, they’re also significant sources of plastic waste, thereby contributing heavily to global plastic pollution. In 2015, a study estimated the amount of plastic waste produced in bioscience labs worldwide at 5.5 million tons (Urbina et al. 2015. ''Labs should cut plastic waste too''. Nature). Given the essential role of plastic products in wet-lab research, avoiding their use altogether may not be a practical option. Alternatively, plastic used in the lab can be recycled. This micromodule explores practical actions for reducing, managing, and recycling plastic waste in research environments. Whether you are a student, researcher or lab technician, you will gain actionable insights to make your workspace cleaner, greener, and more sustainable. +
Funding for research comes from many sources, including from universities, industry, philantrophists and research funding organizations (RFOs). RFOs are the financiers of many research projects and provide grants to research projects, collaborations and individual researchers. The responsibility for ensuring that the funds and resources are utilized optimally without any misconduct lies with researchers, research performing organizations, ethics committees, and the funding organizations. This calls for the development of a code for appropriate utilization of funds, and to ensure academic autonomy, integrity, freedom and the rights of scholars in academic–industry relationships. +
G
GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY (2019), CNR Research Ethics and Integrity Committee - (64 RI GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY - Italy, p. 1) +
GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY (2019) is a national framework authored by CNR Research Ethics and Integrity Committee - (64 RI GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY - Italy, p. 1), in english, targeting nan. Originating from Italy, it aims to formalise principles of research integrity and open practice. It emphasises honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust in research. The text covers responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, spelling out expectations for good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Common provisions include clear authorship criteria, proper citation and acknowledgement, management of conflicts of interest, transparency of methods and data, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It also establishes procedures for handling breaches of integrity, defining misconduct, and setting up investigation mechanisms that ensure due process, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities. By aligning with international standards, it connects local policy to global norms, reinforcing mobility of researchers and comparability of practices across borders. The document integrates the principle of education training for students and staff on responsible conduct ensuring that integrity is taught as a core skill rather than assumed knowledge. It also incorporates guidance on emerging issues such as data management, digital tools, open science, and new forms of dissemination, embedding integrity in contemporary workflows. Practical tools often include checklists, codes of behaviour, reporting templates, and FAQs, translating high-level principles into day-to-day actions. The intended audience spans researchers, supervisors, institutions, and policymakers, all of whom need clarity on their roles in safeguarding the credibility of research. Equity and diversity appear as cross-cutting themes, recognising that integrity involves creating inclusive environments free from discrimination, harassment, or exploitation. Overall, the resource situates research integrity as both a personal commitment and an institutional responsibility, embedding it into the full research cycle from design to dissemination. Annexes may provide case studies, historical context, and references to international declarations such as Singapore or Montreal statements. Definitions and glossaries support consistent interpretation, and contact points or ombudsperson systems are described to lower barriers to reporting. These features help the resource serve not only as a policy but also as a practical handbook.
With this guide, Higher Education, Funding and Research Centres (HEFRCs) wishing to implement an ETHNA System will learn how to monitor and respond to the potential societal contributions of research and innovation (R&I). You will gain insight into the benefits of responsible research and innovation (RRI) in addressing transitions related to the challenges of our time.
Based on stakeholder statements and perspectives gathered through literature reviews, surveys and deliberative workshops, you will get answers to the question of how organisations can best identify societal needs in order to address today’s most pressing demands. The guide highlights the different stakeholder viewpoints, draws on key findings from other EU-funded projects such as EURAXESS, BOHEMIA or PE2020 and consults a variety of networks such as SIS.net, ECsite, EUSEA, GenPORT, Scientix, EUCYS, RRI Tools, ENRIO, ENERI, EURAXESS.
Following the success story of “The European Charter for Researchers” and “The Code of Conduct for Recruitment”, which address the need for a consolidated and structured EU research policy, you will get inspiration and motivation to create an ETHNA System Code of Ethics and Good Practices (CEGP). +
Gene editing holds immense promise for medicine and agriculture, but ethical and scientific integrity challenges must be addressed. Researchers must navigate issues such as informed consent, unintended consequences, and potential misuse. This thematic page explores the responsibilities of scientists in ensuring gene editing is conducted ethically, balancing innovation with societal concerns. +
General Code of Ethics in Scientific Research (Romanian Ministry of Education, Research and Youth) +
This Code of Conduct, developed by the Romanian Ministry of Education, Research and Youth, sets for the deontological principles and norms of behavior expected form researchers, in accordance with the national law and international research guidelines. It also describes how institutions can respond to allegations of research misconduct. This document is available in Romanian. +
General guidelines for Research Ethics (?) is a national framework authored by nan, in english, targeting nan. Originating from Norway, it aims to formalise principles of research integrity and open practice. It emphasises honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust in research. The text covers responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, spelling out expectations for good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Common provisions include clear authorship criteria, proper citation and acknowledgement, management of conflicts of interest, transparency of methods and data, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It also establishes procedures for handling breaches of integrity, defining misconduct, and setting up investigation mechanisms that ensure due process, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities. By aligning with international standards, it connects local policy to global norms, reinforcing mobility of researchers and comparability of practices across borders. The document integrates the principle of education—training for students and staff on responsible conduct—ensuring that integrity is taught as a core skill rather than assumed knowledge. It also incorporates guidance on emerging issues such as data management, digital tools, open science, and new forms of dissemination, embedding integrity in contemporary workflows. Practical tools often include checklists, codes of behaviour, reporting templates, and FAQs, translating high-level principles into day-to-day actions. The intended audience spans researchers, supervisors, institutions, and policymakers, all of whom need clarity on their roles in safeguarding the credibility of research. Equity and diversity appear as cross-cutting themes, recognising that integrity involves creating inclusive environments free from discrimination, harassment, or exploitation. Overall, the resource situates research integrity as both a personal commitment and an institutional responsibility, embedding it into the full research cycle from design to dissemination. Annexes may provide case studies, historical context, and references to international declarations such as Singapore or Montreal statements. Definitions and glossaries support consistent interpretation, and contact points or ombudsperson systems are described to lower barriers to reporting. These features help the resource serve not only as a policy but also as a practical handbook.
This is a factual case that describes the retraction of a geology paper due to plagiarism. Although the authors described the methods that were used to obtain their data, most of the data that is presented in the paper comes from (the authors of) a previously published paper. One of the corresponding authors has commented that the researchers have performed the experiments, but the results and images of others were used for the publication. +
German Council of Science and Humanities' Recommendations for Evaluating and Controlling Research Performance +
The evaluation of research is of great importance as it could determine the allocation of funding. It is also, however, a difficult task, and various factors need to be taken into consideration. Moreover, the question of who should evaluate research has also been a point of contention. This document clarifies these issues and provides practical recommendations on the same. +
This position paper deals specially with improving the quality of the German doctorate system. It makes an assessment of the current organization of doctoral training and makes recommendations on diverse areas such as supervision of relationships, assessments and publication standards. +
