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
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. +
This policy brief is vital because achieving sustainability and climate resilience requires research and innovation to align ethically with ecological and intergenerational justice goals. Existing ethics frameworks often focus on human subjects or data integrity while overlooking environmental impacts. The brief addresses this gap by offering practical guidance to embed climate and environmental ethics into research governance. This approach helps institutions prevent unintended harms, build societal trust, and align with the European Green Deal. Its recommendations strengthen accountability and train future researchers to consider ecological impacts, ensuring that scientific progress supports both people and the planet responsibly.future generations of researchers are more attuned to ecological considerations. In a time when scientific research frequently shapes transformative technologies and policy, ensuring that ethical reflection includes environmental dimensions is essential. +
There are no comprehensive statistics on the extent of research misconduct in China — and few ministries, agencies or universities make cases public. Surveys and anecdotal evidence, however, reveal a deep-rooted problem, and suggest that students are learning unethical behaviour alongside their science. +
In order to support and foster excellent research, the FWF expects researchers to adhere to the highest ethical standards. This requires a good understanding of the fundamentals of research ethics and research integrity, for which the guidelines of the Austrian Higher Education Conference (created in 2020) are used as a standard. Further, grant applicants need to be able to foresee and weigh the potential benefits, risks and ethical implications of their own research, as advised by the good practice recommendations of the OeAWI. The ethical implications of research involving animals receives added attention. The number and type of research misconduct cases in Austria from 2008 to 2020 are also listed. +
This research strives to understand more clearly what constitutes appropriate scholarly behavior. That is important, since research integrity decisions depend on human effort. Part of the research is to find out on what decision makers base their findings (e.g., guidelines or standards) and whether they consider grey zone issues. If so, which grey zones, and are they appropriate? Automating misconduct detection requires clear definitions. +
Research integrity is at the core of the research endeavour. It is the basis for researchers’ trust in each other and in the research record and, equally importantly, society’s trust in research. There are many reasons to take research integrity seriously including research excellence and an unsullied research record;continuing societal support for public investment in research;avoiding harmful impacts and research waste etc.
Science Europe Working Group on Research Integrity (2015), Seven Reasons to Care about Research Integrity: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000000-QINU`"'
<br /> +
Retrospective studies are common in clinical research but carry risks of bias and data limitations. Ensuring research integrity improves the quality and reliability of findings. +
Research Integrity (RI) is an integral part of researchers' everyday work. Besides papers and books this podcast series provide a new and motivating way to talk and learn about the topic. +
The type of research misconduct presented here, although not frequently encountered, is not unique.
The case is significant for several reasons. First, it suggests that a research ethics body may not always have descriptions and labels to cover every single possible type of potential research misconduct.
Second, it is worth keeping in mind that more junior researchers may hesitate to put a complaint about their seniors’ behaviour, or generally, question and challenge ‘authority’.
Third, the case shows that consequences for such type of behaviour can be very costly for everyone directly or indirectly involved: perpetrators, their colleagues, the scientific research society and the wider society in general. The costs can be personal in terms or reputation and career consequences as well as wider in terms of public trust and monetary costs. +
Conflicts of interest may lead to the introduction of biases in research studies. This is especially the case when the product or drugs under investigation are produced by a company, as this may lead to corruption. Recent research shows that more favourable results are obtained for company-sponsored than non-company-sponsored studies.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' Therefore, it is important for researchers to declare all potential conflicts of interest. Undeclared conflicts of interests, such as in the present case, may cast considerable doubt on the objectivity of the researchers.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
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) Research Environment
2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring
3) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063611#.X3cGAJNKjxQ '''Research Procedures''']
4) Safeguards
5) Data Practices and Management
6) Collaborative Working
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing +
Research and scientific integrity policy' is important because it ensures credibility and trust in research by providing both preventive and corrective guidance. It prevents misconduct by educating researchers on standards, and offers frameworks for addressing violations fairly. In today’s interconnected research environment, having shared ethical codes strengthens international collaboration and consistency. For governments, institutions, and the public, this document demonstrates commitment to transparency, fairness, and societal responsibility. It is not just a guideline but a foundation for safeguarding the reliability of research outcomes. +
Research culture encompasses the behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes and norms of our research communities. It influences researchers’ career paths and determines the way that research is conducted and communicated. +
Research communities can be the science system as a whole, institutions or research labs. In these places a different reseach cultures might reign. Nontheless, research culture has an impact on the science system as a whole. The impact encompasses research integrity, diversity and inclusion, career paths, collaborations, the reward system, communication and more. Creating and maintaining a good research culture is invaluable for good science.
<br /> +
