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
G
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. +
This document covers recommendations on professional self-regulation in science set out by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation). The document was first published in 1997 and its most recently updated version was presented in 2022.
The white paper contains 17 recommendations for the safeguarding of good scientific practice and explains the individual recommendations extensively. In addition, the white paper considers issues and problems in the research system, covering topics such as “Competition”, “Publications”, and “Quantitative Performance Measurement”. Furthermore, the paper briefly describes experiences outside Germany and refers to other standards set on both national and international levels. +
This instructor material explores certain myths which are widespread among physicists and regard "usefulness" of teaching ethics in physics. It briefly describes possible approaches to incorporating ethics into the physics curriculum. +
This is the factual case of a professor in chemistry who allegedly stole others' work and the reluctance of his academic institution to deal appropriately with the allegations. +
The blog presents the case of a retracted paper due to 'misrepresented' affiliations of the main author as well as other authorship and plagiarism issues. +
The BRIDGE guidelines for good epidemiological practice in (global health) research have been developed through a Delphi consultation study involving experts with a wide range of experience and expertise in global health and epidemiology.
The guidelines foster high-quality epidemiological studies with impact where it is needed the most: in the local communities and local research systems where the research is conducted.
[[File:Smaller bridge guidelines.jpg|thumb|3711x3711px|Figure 1. Bridge Guidelines Leaflet.]]
The guidelines bring together existing principles for research integrity and fairness in one checklist. The checklist focuses on practical implications for research and covers the six steps of study implementation: study preparation, study protocol and ethical review, data collection, data management, analysis, reporting and dissemination.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000026-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000027-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000028-QINU`"' +
This is the 2017 annual report for the Austrian Commission for Research Integrity. In it, the commission not only provides anonymised details of the cases it had completed in 2017, but also gives an overview of the central aims and goals for its research integrity strategy.
The cases discussed relate to issues of:
*authorship, plagiarism, ghostwriting;
*citation of withdrawn publications,
*anullment of academic titles;
*ethics approvals;
*data analysis, data ownership, data protection and inaccurate presentation of data;
*right of use of visual materials;
*approval processes for doctoral theses;
*wage-dumping. +
This is the 2017 annual report for the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity ('TENK'). As well as providing anonymised details of verified violations of responsible conduct of research in five cases, and details of the ten statements the Board had issued concerning specific allegations of misconduct, the report provides an overview of the work carried out by the Board in relation to preventative action and research integrity education.
The verified cases of misconduct and questionable research practices relate to:
*Plagiarism;
*The denigration of the roles of other researchers;
*Inadequate or inappropriate referencing of earlier results;
*Self-plagiarism
The statements issued by TENK related to:
*Online posts that damaged the reputation of another researcher;
*Inadequate investigation of alleged disqualification;
*Serious accusation of negligence of ethical principles in human sciences;
*Authorship dispute;
*The investigation of alleged plagiarism in a doctoral dissertation;
*Invalidation of the responsible conduct of research process;
*Negligent reporting and storage of interview material;
*Falsification vs. A difference in scientific views. +
This is the 2017 annual report for the Swiss National Science Foundation's Commission on Scientific Integrity and Plagiarism Control Group. In it, these two bodies report on their activities.
The Plagiarism Control Group checks the research proposals submitted to the SNSF.
The Commission on Research Integrity is responsible for identifying cases of scientific misconduct in connection with applications for SNSF grants or the use thereof. If the suspected misconduct concerns the use of SNSF funding, then the Commission assists the institution where the misconduct is believed to have taken place.
In the reporting year, the Commission worked with research institutions in the investigations of three misconduct cases, two of which related to data manipulation and one related to fraud. +
This new, re-worked edition of the Swedish Research Council’s publication "Good Research Practice" was reseased in october 2024. It is based on the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA) and aims to promote an ethical mindset. It provides orientation in ethical principles and regulations that are important for research, and clarifies responsibilities of different actors. It contains examples of questions that researchers should ask in relation to their own research area and provides guidance for reflection on ethics throughout the research process. +
This new, re-worked edition of the Swedish Research Council’s publication "Good Research Practice" was reseased in october 2024 (and replaces the previous version from 2017). It is based on the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA) and aims to promote an ethical mindset. It provides orientation in ethical principles and regulations that are important for research, and clarifies responsibilities of different actors. It contains examples of questions that researchers should ask in relation to their own research area and provides guidance for reflection on ethics throughout the research process. +
Good Scientific Research Practice (2004), Ministry of Science and Information Society Technologies (63 RI Good scientific research practice - Poland, p. 1) +
Good Scientific Research Practice (2004) is a national framework authored by Ministry of Science and Information Society Technologies (63 RI Good scientific research practice - Poland, p. 1), in english, targeting nan. Originating from Poland, 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.
Good research practice (2017) is a national framework authored by nan, in english, targeting Sweden. Originating from Sweden, 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.
Good scientific practice for courses in science and medicine: report; german +
The Spanish Superior Council for Scientific Investigation (CSIC), besides publishing general good conduct guidelines, has set forth detailed guidelines pertaining to the publication and dissemination of scientific research results. These are relevant to researchers and research institutions in Spain. +
In 2010, Harvard University psychologist Marc Hauser seemed to be at the pinnacle of his career. His provocative work probing the biological origins of cognition and morality had yielded collaborations with prominent scholars, as well as frequent media attention. And with the recent publication of a popular book on moral cognition, he had moved into the rarified sphere of the public intellectual. Then a Harvard investigation concluded that the author of ''Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong'' had engaged in scientific misconduct. Last week, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity (ORI) confirmed the findings, revealing that Hauser fabricated and falsified methods and data in six federally funded studies. +
Greek Cypriot students’ ideas of historical empathy: a case study exploration of 9 -12 years old students’ ideas about practices in the past +
This dissertation reports a case study conducted on Greek Cypriot primary students. The aim was to explore their ideas of historical empathy. Students were asked about two practices in the past: child labour in early 20th century Cyprus and boys’ education in Ancient Sparta. The study shows that the students hold similar ideas of historical empathy to those identified by international research. +
The world is facing several pressing environmental issues such as climate change and air pollution that need to be urgently addressed. As lab managers, researchers, innovators, and students, our work aims to solve these environmental challenges. Ironically, many scientific labs consume excessive energy, generate significant material waste, and rely on unsustainable equipment, substantially increasing their carbon footprints. However, the good news is that simple, practical actions can make a big difference. What could these practical actions be?
This micromodule is designed to equip learners with the knowledge and tools needed to make labs more environmentally friendly, thereby contributing to a Green Transition. Through real-world examples and a case study showcasing eco-friendly lab management practices, this micromodule will foster learning and critical reflection on how greening strategies can be tailored to specific contexts and scale up for a broader outreach. +
This episode of SEI’s Now & Then podcast explores climate justice, green colonialism and just transitions, and what that means for Indigenous peoples in Northern Europe. +
