Text (Instruction Step Text)
From The Embassy of Good Science
Describe the actions the user should take to experience the material (including preparation and follow up if any). Write in an active way.
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
2
In the context of uncertainty, researchers should review their study protocols regularly to ensure that new findings are taken into account as they emerge +
In this lecture, Olivier Le Gall examines open peer review, highlighting both its benefits and potential risks. The presentation starts by elucidating the rationale behind open peer review, and proceeds to discuss its benefits as well as the associated risks of opening it.
'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''
'''Further reading:'''
The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c|Open peer review - transparent way of gatekeeping science]]”
Schmidt, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., Edig, X. van, & Moylan, E. C. (2018). Ten considerations for open peer review (7:969). F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1
Ross-Hellauer, T., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2024). Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review. Research Evaluation, 33, rvae004. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae004
Henriquez, T. (2023). Open peer review, pros and cons from the perspective of an early career researcher. mBio, 14(5), e01948-23. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01948-23 +
During pandemics, researchers may experience a heightened risk of hostility and related safety and security concerns. Research ethics committees should check that risk management plans are in place +
In this lecture, Elina Koivisto addresses the topics of open access, open access publishing, and predatory practices. The first segment of the lecture provides a definition of open access, showcases various types of open access, and elucidates their distinctions. The subsequent segment explores the advantages of open access as well as some negative consequences associated with publishing in general and open access publishing specifically. The concluding segment is dedicated to predatory practices;it defines these practices and offers guidance on how to avoid them.
'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''
'''Further reading:'''
The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:49d71148-0df2-4a78-93d4-c802b48bbdb7|Predatory publishing]]”
Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open access publishers. https://beallslist.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/criteria-2015.pdf
COPE Council (2019). COPE Discussion Document: Predatory Publishing. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.6 +
It is vital that researchers uphold the highest standards of research integrity, even when under significant pressure, to ensure the reliability of pandemic research results and to maintain public trust in science +
Try to answer the questions about the case. +
Participants and research ethics committees should be promptly and fully informed about changes in the risks or burdens of participation in clinical research if new, relevant information becomes available during a trial. +
In this lecture, Elina Koivisto elaborates on the application of Open Science principles in the assessment of research and researchers. The initial segment delineates the concepts of research and researcher assessment, as well as the contexts and circumstances in which these assessments are conducted. The subsequent segment addresses the notion of responsible researcher assessment, highlighting its significance. The concluding segment elucidates the incorporation of Open Science principles in research and researcher assessment, detailing their practical implications.
'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''
'''Further reading:'''
Hatch, A., & Curry, S. (2020). Changing how we evaluate research is difficult, but not impossible. eLife, 9, e58654. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58654
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission), Cabello Valdes, C., Rentier, B., Kaunismaa, E., Metcalfe, J., Esposito, F., McAllister, D., Maas, K., Vandevelde, K., & O’Carroll, C. (2017). Evaluation of research careers fully acknowledging Open Science practices: Rewards, incentives and/or recognition for researchers practicing Open Science. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/75255
Provost, L., & Xenou, Z. (2025). Reframing Research Assessment: Towards a comprehensive framework for Researcher Profiles. fteval Journal for Research and Technology Policy Evaluation, 57, Article 57. https://doi.org/10.22163/fteval.2025.693
CoARA – Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. (n.d.). Retrieved July 23, 2025, from https://coara.eu/
Leiden manifesto for research Metrics. https://www.leidenmanifesto.org/
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. https://sfdora.org/read/ +
Existing regulatory requirements for the secondary use of personal data and biological materials must prevail during pandemics, unless an explicit exception has been enacted +
In this lecture, Theodora Konach discusses intellectual property rights and how to use them in a responsible way within the Open Science framework. The first segment provides a brief introduction to intellectual property rights. Further, the next segment discusses principles of copyright and some other related basic concepts. The third segment outlines relevant exceptions and limitations to copyright. Finally, the fourth segment focuses on the public domain and open source as a resource of creativity and knowledge.
'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''
'''Further reading:'''
Aligning Intellectual Property Rights with Open Science. https://allea.org/portfolio-item/aligning-intellectual-property-rights-with-open-science
European Commission: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency, Your guide to IP and contracts – Stay ahead of the innovation game, Publications Office of the European Union, 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/607724
European Commission: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, Your guide to IP in Europe, Publications Office, 2019, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/94924
European Commission: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, European IP Helpdesk – Copyright, Publications Office of the European Union, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/128833
UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (2021) https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546
Unitary Patent. https://www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary/unitary-patent
Creative Commons Certificate Resources, Course Content 2021 and 2022;https://certificates.creativecommons.org/about/certificate-resources-cc-by/
WIPO, (2016), Understanding Copyright and Related Rights, (2nd ed.) Geneva, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_909_2016.pdf
European Commission: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, New Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market, Publications Office, 2019, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/429252
WIPO, Summary of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886). https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html
The Europeana Public Domain Charter. https://pro.europeana.eu/post/the-europeana-public-domain-charter
Statement of Principles on Copyright Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives (2009). https://www.ifla.org/publications/statement-of-principles-on-copyright-exceptions-and-limitations-for-libraries-and-archives-2009/
Ethics and Intangible Cultural Heritage—UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage. https://ich.unesco.org/en/ethics-and-ich-00866
Researchers should actively support rigorous, fast-track scientific review to help combat the erosion of good science during pandemics. They should also support quality control mechanisms for open communication channels such as pre-print servers or social media. +
In this lecture, Søren Holm examines the appropriate methods for crediting the various contributions made by researchers and other participants in Open Science projects. The first segment concentrates on authorship and contributorship, while the second segment addresses the proper acknowledgement of contributions made by citizen scientists.
'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''
'''Further reading:'''
[https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#two ICMJE, Recommendations, Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors.]
[https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2322557 Hosseini, M., Holcombe, A. O., Kovacs, M., Zwart, H., Katz, D. S., & Holmes, K. (2025). Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges. Accountability in Research, 32(5), 762–784].
[https://credit.niso.org/ CRediT]. (n.d.). CRediT.
[https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00097 Larivière, V., Pontille, D., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2021). Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 111–128]. +
Researchers should answer publishers’ research ethics questions in full, even in rapid review submissions. +
Try to answer the questions about the case. +
In public communications, researchers should ensure that the scientific information presented is reliable. They should be clear about study limitations and avoid exaggeration, sensationalism and deception +
This lecture by Theodora Konach covers open licenses relevant to research and scientific work. It begins with an overview of the general principles and forms of Creative Commons licenses, examining how they can be combined and mixed. Further, the second segment of the lecture delves deeper into Creative Commons licenses, discussing topics such as the scope of the licenses, excluded works, and adaptations.
'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''
'''Further reading:'''
Creative Commons. [https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/version4/ Considerations for licensors and licensees.]
Creative Commons. [https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/ About CC Licenses.]
Creative Commons. [https://creativecommons.org/legal-code-defined/ Legal Code Defined.] +
In this lecture, François Jost discusses the responsibilities of citizen scientists. The first segment explains what citizen science is and addresses topics such as informed consent, data privacy and security, communication, and transparency. The second segment covers data accuracy and honesty, adherence to project guidance, the significance of training and education, and the role of Open Science in the democratisation of science.
'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''
'''Further reading:'''
[https://www.ecsa.ngo/10-principles/ Ten Principles of Citizen Science – European Citizen Science Association] (ECSA).
[https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/horizon-magazine/extreme-citizen-science-gives-voice-marginalised-remote-communities Extreme citizen science gives a voice to the marginalised in remote communities, Horizon Magazine]. (2022, April 5)
Elliott, K. C., & Rosenberg, J. (2019). [https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.155 Philosophical Foundations for Citizen Science. Citizen Science]: Theory and Practice, 4(1).
Balázs, B., Mooney, P., Nováková, E., Bastin, L., & Jokar Arsanjani, J. (2021). Data Quality in Citizen Science. In K. Vohland, A. Land-Zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, R. Samson, & K. Wagenknecht (Eds.), [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_8 The Science of Citizen Science] (pp. 139–157). Springer International Publishing.
Rasmussen, L. M. (2019). [https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.207 Confronting Research Misconduct in Citizen Science. Citizen Science]: Theory and Practice, 4(1). +
Try to answer the questions about the case. +
3
Sufficient time should be given to trainees to prepare for the first session and for practicing the exercises in between the sessions. When preparing the schedule for the training you:
a. Distribute preparation materials (including online modules and assignments) at least one month prior to the first participatory session.
b. Plan at least two months’ time in between the first participatory session(s) and the follow up session. +
Invite trainees to facilitate exercises in the way they did in their own work setting give then feedback and ask them to elaborate on possible modifications in the structure or steps of the exercises. +
