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 study assesses how policies for integrity in postgraduate research meet the needs of students as research trainees. The authors propose a framework for policy and support for postgraduate research that includes a consistent and educative approach to integrity. +
This blog post describes how a Parkinson researcher has obtained his fourth retraction due to the publication of duplicate research and failing to obtain consent from his co-authors. +
The ''Framework to Enhance Research Integrity in Research Collaborations'' provides guidance on promoting responsible research conduct within collaborative research partnerships. It is part of a suite of national research integrity tools developed under the National Research Integrity Forum in Ireland to help researchers and institutions work together with integrity in joint projects. The framework emphasises establishing clear governance and oversight mechanisms, recognising and addressing differences in customary practices across disciplines and cultures, and agreeing on shared standards at the start of a collaboration. It outlines responsibilities for accountability, independence, and responsiveness, encouraging transparent communication, risk management, and dispute resolution throughout the research lifecycle. It also highlights the need to manage potential conflicts of interest and align practices with funders’ requirements and relevant policies. The overall goal is to strengthen trust, reduce misunderstandings, and support rigorous, ethical, and high-quality collaborative research. +
This is a guidance document to help researchers reinforce responsible research conduct in their research collaborations. +
Framework to Enhance Research Integrity in Research Collaborations (2022), National Research Integrity Forum +
The Framework to Enhance Research Integrity in Research Collaborations (2022), authored by the National Research Integrity Forum, provides guidance for Ireland-funded international research collaborations. Written in English, it formalises principles of honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship, linking them to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust. The framework sets out responsibilities for researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, covering good practices in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing collaborative research. It includes provisions on authorship, proper citation, conflict of interest management, transparency of data and methods, supervision, and peer review. Mechanisms for handling misconduct are defined, ensuring due process, fair sanctions, and opportunities for learning. Education and training are embedded to make integrity a core skill, while guidance on open science, data management, digital tools, and dissemination supports contemporary practice. Equity and diversity are emphasised as essential to inclusive, trustworthy collaborations. By aligning with international standards, the framework enhances comparability, researcher mobility, and global credibility, offering practical tools to embed integrity in daily research activities. +
Framework to Enhance Research Integrity in Research Collaborations (2022), National Research Integrity Forum +
Framework to Enhance Research Integrity in Research Collaborations (2022) is a national and international (ireland-funded research collabs) framework authored by National Research Integrity Forum, in english, targeting International (research outside Ireland). Originating from Ireland, 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.
Briefly discussing several cases of scientific misconduct. +
This is a factual case. +
The paper discusses several case studies briefly, as examples from the field of toxicology, and a few with some details. One is, the case of Ricuarte and his colleagues, who reported that Ecstasy given to primates at doses intended to replicate the doses used by people caused dopaminergic neurotoxicity, which is known to lead to Parkinson’s disease. When they tried to repeat their work they found that the original bottles had been mislabelled and that the primates had been given amphetamine. +
It discusses several case studies in the field of toxicology briefly, and a few particular extensively. One is the work of Árpád Pusztai on the toxic dietary effects of genetically modified potato on experimental rats has many interesting facets. Pusztai's conclusions on toxicity were in the public domain - via a TV interview he gave - before the results were published. This interview had widespread implications for the future of GM crops and food. A frenzied debate then occurred in the media, with scientists, politicians and single interest groups expressing their views. About a year later, when the manuscript was published, it received extensive criticism regarding its experimental design and reliability. +
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-00000000-QINU`"'. This is a factual anonymized case.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
