Why is this important? (Important Because)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A description to provide more focus to the theme/resource (max. 200 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
S
Research institutions, supervisors, and mentors have an important role when it comes to research integrity. Responsible supervision and mentorship is necessary to ensure responsible socialization of supervisees into research, as well as to foster responsible research practices. The relationship between students and supervisors requires respect, openness, and accountability from both sides. PhD students, in particular, need support from their research institutions in engaging in this relationship. This guideline presents a set of recommendations for research institutions on informing and empowering PhD students regarding their rights, roles and responsibilities. The guideline provides information relevant for research officers, trainers, managers, and coordinators, as well as deans, rectors and other institutional leaders. +
*This course offers researchers an especialised training to improve their skills as supervisors.
*This training can improve academic leadership and empowerment of supervisors.
*Supervisors have an important role in teaching RCR to their supervisees.
+
This article and the discussed case highlight the importance of a concise and comprehensive definition of research misconduct in order to assure a proper handling of respective accusations. The case described may be seen exemplary of the implications a definition of research misconduct may have. +
Safeguards, Data-sharing and the Disclosure of Sensitive Results: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project +
The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.
They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.
The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.
According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:
1) Research Environment
2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring
3) Research Procedures
4) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063633#.X3cGu5NKjxQ '''Safeguards''']
5) Data Practices and Management
6) Collaborative Working
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing +
This editorial highlights that the lack of an official national body responsible for addressing issues of scientific misconduct contributes to an inefficient and disorganised workflow in dealing with cases of misconduct. +
Statement: Code of Conduct for Scientists–Revised Version' is important because it ensures credibility and trust in research by providing both preventive and corrective guidance. It prevents misconduct by educating researchers on standards, and offers frameworks for addressing violations fairly. In today’s interconnected research environment, having shared ethical codes strengthens international collaboration and consistency. For governments, institutions, and the public, this document demonstrates commitment to transparency, fairness, and societal responsibility. It is not just a guideline but a foundation for safeguarding the reliability of research outcomes. +
Science Ethics Code of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences distils national expectations for research integrity in Hungary and clarifies what researchers and institutions in nan need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark;for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 2010, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
The strategy is important because research itself has an environmental footprint, while research also provides essential knowledge and technologies for addressing climate change. SFI recognises that both aspects need attention: research should contribute to climate solutions while also being conducted in more sustainable ways. The strategy encourages researchers and institutions to reduce the environmental impact of research activities and supports areas such as renewable energy, circular economy, biodiversity, waste reduction and greenhouse-gas reduction. It also strengthens connections between researchers, policymakers and industry so that scientific knowledge can contribute to real-world climate action. +
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000002-QINU`"' +
There is no evidence that psychology is more vulnerable to fraud than the biomedical sciences, and most frauds are detected through information from whistleblowers with inside information. On the basis of this analysis, the authors suggest a number of strategies that might reduce the risk of scientific fraud. +
Scientific Misconduct at an Elite Medical Institute: The Role of Competing Institutional Logics and Fragmented Control +
As noted in this case study, the incidence of scientific misconduct is on the rise.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' This case study describes some of the factors that contribute to a working climate in which scientific misconduct is possible. Firstly, the case study shows that the commercial mindset at the management level of a research institute may lead to the silencing of whistle-blowers and the sustainment of scientific misconduct. Secondly, the lack of well-organized regulation, both in the case of the research institute and the editorial board of the journals, also contributes to a working culture in which misconduct can take place. Finally, the case study highlights the important role that the media played in the reveal of the scientific misconduct in this case. Furthermore, this case also graphically describes the consequences that scientific misconduct may have for the health of the patients and research subjects. <br />'"`UNIQ--references-00000002-QINU`"' +
Increased competition in science can make it tempting to let personal interests prevail above the interests of science. This booklet is intended to encourage discussion of various issues so as to contribute to deliberate, responsible decision-making. The key question is always how one should act correctly from the point of view of science and responsibly from the point of view of ethics when designing, carrying out, and reporting on scientific research. +
Scientific values: Ethical guidelines and procedures distils national expectations for research integrity in India and clarifies what researchers and institutions in India (but also associates to the indian academy of science) need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark;for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by nan in , it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
The article shows that fraud in clinical trials can happen in many forms and at various levels. Although the fraudulent actions sometimes may seem trivial, they can have a large impact. Cheating in a clinical trial may not only endanger the health of the patients participating in the study but also that of future patients.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' As pointed out by the article, these malpractices in clinical trails may be more frequent than some scientific leaders are willing to publicly admit. Therefore, clinical trail data should be reviewed via a central statistical review by independent committees or algorithms designed for this purpose.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000002-QINU`"' +
Scientist's code of ethics distils national expectations for research integrity in Lithuania and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Lithuania need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark;for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by nan in 2017, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
It nicely shows the self-correcting feature of science. In his 1978 paper, Gould accused Morton (a 19th-century intellectual) of racial bias and misconduct. However, Gould himself is later found to have selected his data in a biased manner. +
The study of research integrity in research can quickly become a rote process without knowing what goodness in research consists in. This exercise is meant to aid reflection on the basics of what we mean by a “good research” anyway. +
The study of research integrity can quickly become a rote process without knowing what goodness in research consists in. Knowing what goodness is and what a good research is are good foundations for the study of research integrity. This reflection brings focus on the very reason why we uphold integrity in research. +
The institutions associated with the two editors deemed the allegation to be unfounded because the person presented in the publication had been anonymised. Responding to the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity ('TENK'), the institutions stated that the matter did not fall within the scope of guidelines for responsible conduct of research.
By contrast, TENK stated that the editors were responsible for the content of the publication, the allegation was serious and the complainant had solid grounds for the validity of the allegation. Accordingly, TENK demanded that the institutions concerned initiate investigations into the matter in accordance with the guidelines for responsible conduct of research. +
Another factual anonymised case added to this illuminating collection of plagiarism types which was inspired by cases that an academic member of University encountered in his role as a research integrity officer.
This particular case highlights the fact that writing of a background section also constitutes intellectual effort (reviewing of available literature and synthesis towards an argument) and should therefore acknowledged and referenced appropriately.
It also provides another example of the possible outcomes of investigation of plagiarism allegations. +
