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
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.
The SIENNA D6.1 report presents a generalized methodology for the ethical assessment of emerging technologies, developed as part of the SIENNA project’s work on ethics and human rights in technology innovation. The methodology is structured into seven key steps: the first four focus on defining the technology’s subject, aim and scope, while engaging in conceptual analysis and description;the last three provide ethical analysis with both descriptive and normative components. Combined with methods like foresight analysis, social and environmental impact assessment (SIA), and stakeholder engagement, this framework helps analysts comprehensively assess ethical issues associated with new or emerging technologies. The report also situates this approach within the wider landscape of technology and impact assessment methodologies, illustrating its application across different technology domains to ensure thorough and responsible evaluation. +
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. +
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. +
This training accompanies the RE4GREEN Starting Guide “Going Beyond Harm: Environmental & Climate Considerations in Research Ethics.” The guide explores how environmental and climate ethics may be relevant even when no significant environmental harm is expected.
Learners are invited to read the guidance document first, which introduces three complementary dimensions of ethical reflection: responsible and precautionary research, justice and fairness, and participatory and inclusive research.
The exercises in this training support reflection on how research assumptions, methodological choices, societal influence, and participation practices may raise ethical considerations beyond harm assessment alone. +
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-00000000-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000002-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. +
