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
These guidelines are designed to assist in the development or revision of the consent process for use in clinical trials involving human participants. These guidelines do not address issues related to informed consent in clinical practice.
The guidelines have been developed by the i-CONSENT consortium. i-CONSENT (H2020, Grant Agreement number 741856) is an EU-funded H2020 project that aims to improve the information that individuals receive when deciding whether or not to participate in clinical trials. +
This [https://osf.io/2p3vf guideline] offers recommendations that can help research institutions provide researchers with adequate education and skills building opportunities. +
This [https://osf.io/tracp guideline] offers recommendations that can help research institutions manage the competition between researchers and the publication pressure they face. +
This short guide recommends researchers how to communicate with the media in order to prevent potential misrepresentations. +
Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Data (2016), Research Council of Lithuania +
Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Data (2016), produced by the Research Council of Lithuania, outlines national expectations for open science and open access. Written in Lithuanian, it provides guidance for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers. The guidelines promote openness as the default, balanced with ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security. Key elements include open access to publications, FAIR data principles, persistent identifiers, and deposition in trusted repositories. Responsibilities are defined for authors and institutions, covering rights retention, funding acknowledgement, and cost management. Embargoes and exceptions for sensitive data are transparently documented. The document encourages enabling infrastructure, training, and monitoring, aligning local practice with international standards like Plan S. Equity, responsible openness, and inclusion are cross-cutting themes. For practitioners, it serves as a practical checklist to improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. Published in 2016, it is a credible reference for implementing open research in Lithuania. +
Guidelines to the Rules on Open Access to Scientific Publications & Open Access to Research Data in Horizon 2020 (2017), European Comission +
Guidelines to the Rules on Open Access to Scientific Publications & Open Access to Research Data in Horizon 2020 (2017), produced by the European Commission, is an international policy resource written in English and designed for stakeholders across Europe and beyond. It sets openness as the default for research, while balancing ethical, privacy, intellectual property, and security considerations under the maxim “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” The guidelines link openness to improved research quality, reproducibility, translation speed, and equitable knowledge access, particularly for under-resourced communities. They outline requirements for open access to publications, Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and deposition in trusted repositories, while also promoting FAIR data principles and detailed data management plans. Responsibilities are assigned to researchers and institutions, including rights retention, funding acknowledgement, and justified use of embargoes. Infrastructure such as repositories, registries, and discovery systems supports compliance, while monitoring occurs through grant reporting and progress indicators. The resource emphasizes responsible openness with safeguards for sensitive or commercial data and encourages capacity building, multilingual communication, and equity. It aligns European practices with initiatives like Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud. For researchers, managers, librarians, funders, and publishers, it offers a clear, actionable reference, reducing ambiguity, harmonizing practices internationally, and serving as a benchmark for transparency, reproducibility, and open research. Published in 2017, it remains a credible reference for policy, training, and grant compliance. +
H
HEA Principles of Good Practice in Research within Irish Higher Education Institutions (2020) is a national framework authored by nan, in english, targeting nan. 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.
The document 'HEA Principles of Good Practice in Research within Irish Higher Education Institutions', developed in 2020 in Ireland, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Higher Educaton Authority, and available in English, it targets the research community in Ireland. 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. +
This research initiative addresses research integrity. It emphasizes that grey zones and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) play an important role in research integrity. +
HEIRRI is a Horizon 2020 project that created training programmes for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). There are ten HEIRRI training programmes in total, for high school level, undergraduate and graduate students, PhD students, and a train-the-trainer course. They can be used independently and allow great teacher flexibilty. +
Embedding a comprehensive ethical dimension to organoid-based research and related technologies +
This handbook is a result of the STAR project (Support Training Activities of the data protection Reform). It aims to help trainers in delivering training on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
<br /> +
This factual case analyses the similarities and differences in history, composition and functioning of committees on scientific dishonesty in medical research in the Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. For instance, the respective committees from these countries use different definitions of scientific dishonesty. Furthermore, eight cases of potential scientific misconduct that were brought to the committees are being discussed. +
In 2014 a sexual harassment case at Yale University came to light. The case describes how a senior cardiologist made advances to a junior cardiologist. At the time, the boyfriend of the junior cardiologist worked at the same hospital, and asserts "his career stalled after [the senior cardiologist] disparaged him and froze him out professionally". '"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"' The case enlarged the universities' lack of response and action taken to handle harassment against women. +
In November 2014, the first author of a decade old paper in our journal and a 15-year-old paper from another journal informed us that he faked the data in two figure panels in the paper in our journal and one figure panel in the paper in the other journal. The main gist of the manipulation was loading unequal amounts or delayed loading of gel lanes.
Self-admission of data falsification is a serious charge that is difficult to disprove, and we felt a challenge to identify evidence to counter or support this type of allegation. As general guidelines, we felt there were three types of evidence that could help resolve the standoff:
(1) compelling original raw data with evidence for or against unequal or delayed gel loading;
(2) verified replication already existing within the published literature; and
(3) as a last resort, a replication study performed by a wholly independent laboratory. +
This is a case study about conducting research in traditional cultural settings. Implementing international research ethics in the complex realities of local contexts can be challenging. The representation of reseacrhers as guests and the cultural value of hospitality in Pakistan creates nuanced dilemmas. How to do field reseach without deepening local poverty, but respesting cultural values? +
This is a case study about conducting research in traditional cultural settings. Implementing international research ethics in the complex realities of local contexts can be challenging. The representation of reseacrhers as guests and the cultural value of hospitality in Pakistan creates nuanced dilemmas. How to do field reseach without deepening local poverty, but respesting cultural values? +
This is a factual case about three child psychiatrists who failed to disclose consultancy fees that they received from pharmaceutical companies. Between 2000 and 2007, the three researchers received a combined total of $4.2 million from different companies. The three scientists claim that this was an honest mistake, and consequently were "banned from participating in 'industry-sponsored outside activities' for one year, to be followed by a two-year period of close monitoring and a delay in consideration for promotion.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000012F-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000130-QINU`"' +
A PI and her students are performing a promising experiment but they experience some difficulties with the material they use. They discover that their experiment could be improved by exchanging one of their materials for another, toxic material. Should they change the material? What are the responsibilities of the PI towards her students? Do the students have any role in the decision? +
This case describes how a high profile Chinese scientist, who at one point was the head of the research integrity initiative in China, become involved in a research scandal of his own work. Image manipulation expert, Elizabeth Bik, uncovered in 2013 that over 40 papers co-authored by the scientist appeared to be falsified. In several of his papers images appeared to be falsified.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000B2-QINU`"' An overview of the papers of the scientist, of which several are now retracted, can be found on PubPeer. '"`UNIQ--ref-000000B3-QINU`"' +
