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
Besides using Bloom’s Taxonomy to define learning objectives, the [https://www.johnbiggs.com.au/academic/solo-taxonomy/ SOLO Taxonomy] can be used .'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003E-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000003F-QINU`"' The Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome, or SOLO, is a way to set the learning outcomes according to how complicated they are.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000040-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000041-QINU`"' This allows us to evaluate students' work based on its quality following the idea of increasing understanding of complexities: Initially, we learn one or a few aspects of the task (unistructural), then multiple aspects that are unrelated to each other (multistructural), then we learn how to integrate them into a whole (relational), and lastly, we can generalise that whole to still-untaught applications (extended abstract). It evaluates the quality of students' work and understanding:
*<span lang="EN-GB">'''Pre-structural''': identify basic ethical concepts without fully understanding them.</span>
*<span lang="EN-GB">'''Unistructural''': recognize and label simple ethical procedures.</span>
*<span lang="EN-GB">'''Multistructural''': enumerate and describe ethical principles but struggle to connect them.</span>
*<span lang="EN-GB">'''Relational''': analyze and apply ethical concepts, understanding interrelations.</span>
*'''Extended abstract''': generalize and theorize ethical principles to solve novel dilemmas.
[[File:SOLOtaxonomy.png|alt=|center|frame|Fig 32. SOLO taxonomy (taken from Tammeleht & Löfström, 2023)]]
The SOLO taxonomy has been used to evaluate effectiveness of trainings as well as the development of ethical sensitivity and has been proven to be effective in the context of research ethics and integrity training.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000042-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000043-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000044-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000045-QINU`"' The verbs emphasised in the descriptions below can be used as indicators of the appropriate levels in learning objectives.
''Pre-structural level (0)''
At the pre-structural level the learner fails to identify or approach topics in a meaningful way, but simply repeats the words in the question without understanding them.
''Unistructural level (1)''
At the unistructural level, the learner has sufficient knowledge to identify, recognise, count, find, label, match, name, and perform follow simple procedures. The learner identifies one relevant aspect displaying some familiarity with relevant concepts, but failing to outline multiple dimensions of it but failing to outline multiple dimensions of it. In the context of research ethics and integrity, this may mean identifying certain, perhaps common concepts, but having a limited view of them. For example, the learner may be able to identify some of the things that ought to be mentioned in an information letter to research participants but fails to understand all aspects of ensuring voluntary participation in research.
''Multi-structural level (2)''
At the multistructural level, the learner can enumerate, describe, illustrate, list, sequence, select, combine, and follow procedures, but struggles to make connections between concepts or draw conclusions based on interrelations. For example, the learner may understand that informed consent is necessary in research but fails to understand that this is so because of the need to respect people’s autonomy and right to make decisions that concern themselves.
''Relational level (3)''
At the relational level, the learner displays an ability to address the most relevant aspects of the concept and provide explanations pointing out interrelations and providing examples demonstrating their own reasoning. Corresponding action verbs include, analyse, apply, argue, compare, contrast, critique, explain causes, relate and justify. For example, the learner understands at least the main mechanisms and connections between FFP and the detrimental effects to science.
''Extended abstract level (4)''
At the extended abstract level, the coherent whole is generalised or re-conceptualised at a higher level of abstraction. The learner grasps a more abstract version of the concept, and recognises other domains to which the concept might be applied by displaying the ability to theorise, generate, generalise, hypothesise, create or reflect, formulate and reflect. For example, the learner is able to use knowledge about ethical analysis and ethical principles to solve a novel integrity-related dilemma, which the learner recognises is affecting a research group, but to which the learner has not been exposed before.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000046-QINU`"'
Besides using Bloom’s Taxonomy to define learning objectives, the [https://www.johnbiggs.com.au/academic/solo-taxonomy/ SOLO Taxonomy] can be used .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000061-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000062-QINU`"' The Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome, or SOLO, is a way to set the learning outcomes according to how complicated they are.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000063-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000064-QINU`"' In this way, the students' work can be assessed according to its quality and not according to how many parts they have understood correctly: initially, we learn one or a few aspects of the task (unistructural), then multiple aspects that are unrelated to each other (multistructural), then we learn how to integrate them into a whole (relational), and lastly, we can generalise that whole to still-untaught applications (extended abstract).
[[File:SOLOtaxonomy.png|alt=|center|frame|Fig 32. SOLO taxonomy (taken from Tammeleht & Löfström, 2023)]]
The SOLO taxonomy has been used to evaluate effectiveness of trainings as well as the development of ethical sensitivity and has been proven to be effective in the context of research ethics and integrity training.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000065-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000066-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000067-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000068-QINU`"' The verbs emphasised in the descriptions below can be used as indicators of the appropriate levels in learning objectives.
''Pre-structural level (0)''
At the pre-structural level the learner fails to identify or approach topics in a meaningful way, but simply repeats the words in the question without understanding them.
''Unistructural level (1)''
At the unistructural level, the learner has sufficient knowledge to identify, recognise, count, find, label, match, name, and perform follow simple procedures. The learner identifies one relevant aspect displaying some familiarity with relevant concepts, but failing to outline multiple dimensions of it but failing to outline multiple dimensions of it. In the context of research ethics and integrity, this may mean identifying certain, perhaps common concepts, but having a limited view of them. For example, the learner may be able to identify some of the things that ought to be mentioned in an information letter to research participants but fails to understand all aspects of ensuring voluntary participation in research.
''Multi-structural level (2)''
At the multistructural level, the learner can enumerate, describe, illustrate, list, sequence, select, combine, and follow procedures, but struggles to make connections between concepts or draw conclusions based on interrelations. For example, the learner may understand that informed consent is necessary in research but fails to understand that this is so because of the need to respect people’s autonomy and right to make decisions that concern themselves.
''Relational level (3)''
At the relational level, the learner displays an ability to address the most relevant aspects of the concept and provide explanations pointing out interrelations and providing examples demonstrating their own reasoning. Corresponding action verbs include,analyse, apply, argue, compare, contrast, critique, explain causes, relate and justify. For example, the learner understands at least the main mechanisms and connections between FFP and the detrimental effects to science.
''Extended abstract level (4)''
At the extended abstract level, the coherent whole is generalised or re-conceptualised at a higher level of abstraction. The learner grasps a more abstract version of the concept, and recognises other domains to which the concept might be applied by displaying the ability to theorise, generate, generalise, hypothesise, create or reflect, formulate and reflect. For example, the learner is able to use knowledge about ethical analysis and ethical principles to solve a novel integrity-related dilemma, which the learner recognises is affecting a research group, but to which the learner has not been exposed before.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000069-QINU`"'
Examine the Rotterdam Dilemma Game cases and familiarize yourself with the classification criteria.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' Select the dilemmas you want to discuss. If using the Dilemma Game [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game app], start a new 'room' in group mode, creating a name for the room and specifying that it will be used for a 'lecture'. You will then be able to select the cases.
Please note that cases are grouped per topic. If the training is specifically aimed at reflecting on issues such as research processes, roles of different parties or publication ethics, the trainer might pick cases which correspond to those topics. Besides, while selecting the cases, take the attributes of the trainee group into account as well. For example, if you are going to play the game with a group of PhD students, then you should pick the cases suitable for them.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
Collaborative learning is a pedagogical approach that emphasises active participation, shared responsibility and mutual support among students. Collaborative learning is based on the idea that the production and internalisation of the knowledge is established by collaboration. Moreover, learning is usually best supported through social negotiation rarther than competition. Furthermore, team learning has been demonstrated to significantly enhance ethical practice. Research indicates that students primarily interpret their socialisation into academia and their field by the ethical standards and practices that they observe.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000005C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000005D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000005E-QINU`"'
When teaching research ethics and integrity, collaborative learning can be particularly effective as it can promote deeper understanding, critical thinking and ethical reasoning skills. In collaborative learning environments, students are actively engaged in the learning process rather than passively receiving information. They participate in discussions, debates and hands-on activities that require them to grapple with ethical dilemmas, analyse complex issues and apply ethical principles to real-world scenarios. This active engagement promotes deeper learning and retention of ethical concepts and principles. Collaborative learning encourages students to critically evaluate information, perspectives and arguments related to research ethics and integrity. Through discussions with peers, analysing case studies and reflecting on their own ethical beliefs and values, learners develop the ability to identify ethical issues, consider alternative viewpoints and make informed decisions.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000005F-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000060-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000061-QINU`"'
Collaborative learning environments provide opportunities for learners to challenge assumptions, explore ethical complexity and develop reasoned arguments based on evidence and ethical principles. Peer interaction is a central component of collaborative learning that allows learners to learn from each other's experiences, perspectives, and insights. By participating in discussions, debates, and collaborative projects with their peers, learners learn about various viewpoints, cultural perspectives, and disciplinary approaches to research ethics and integrity. Peer interaction also fosters collaboration, communication skills and teamwork, which are essential for addressing ethical challenges in research environments where collaboration and interdisciplinary cooperation are increasingly common.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000062-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000063-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000064-QINU`"'
During collaborating trainings, a variety of teaching methods can be used. Prior research has addressed collaborative learning with the use of case-based approaches, storytelling, flipped classroom, and role play and games (e.g., [https://www.erim.eur.nl/research-integrity/training-and-education/dilemma-game/ Rotterdam dilemma game]) .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000065-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000066-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000067-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000068-QINU`"'
Collaborative approaches are utilised in [[Initiative:0582c7af-35eb-4def-b74e-c884f29965da|Path2Integrity]], [[Initiative:F9656f91-a514-44ff-9264-d6b3414fdddc|INTEGRITY]] and [[Initiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e|VIRT2UE]].
'"`UNIQ--references-00000069-QINU`"'
Collaborative learning is a pedagogical approach that emphasises active participation, shared responsibility and mutual support among students. Collaborative learning is based on the idea that the production and internalisation of the knowledge is established by collaboration. Moreover, learning is usually best supported through social negotiation rarther than competition. Furthermore, team learning has been demonstrated to significantly enhance ethical practice. Research indicates that students primarily interpret their socialisation into academia and their field by the ethical standards and practices that they observe.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000008E-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000008F-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000090-QINU`"'
When teaching research ethics and integrity, collaborative learning can be particularly effective as it can promote deeper understanding, critical thinking and ethical reasoning skills. In collaborative learning environments, students are actively engaged in the learning process rather than passively receiving information. They participate in discussions, debates and hands-on activities that require them to grapple with ethical dilemmas, analyse complex issues and apply ethical principles to real-world scenarios. This active engagement promotes deeper learning and retention of ethical concepts and principles. Collaborative learning encourages students to critically evaluate information, perspectives and arguments related to research ethics and integrity. Through discussions with peers, analysing case studies and reflecting on their own ethical beliefs and values, learners develop the ability to identify ethical issues, consider alternative viewpoints and make informed decisions.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000091-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000092-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000093-QINU`"'
Collaborative learning environments provide opportunities for learners to challenge assumptions, explore ethical complexity and develop reasoned arguments based on evidence and ethical principles. Peer interaction is a central component of collaborative learning that allows learners to learn from each other's experiences, perspectives, and insights. By participating in discussions, debates, and collaborative projects with their peers, learners learn about various viewpoints, cultural perspectives, and disciplinary approaches to research ethics and integrity. Peer interaction also fosters collaboration, communication skills and teamwork, which are essential for addressing ethical challenges in research environments where collaboration and interdisciplinary cooperation are increasingly common.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000094-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000095-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000096-QINU`"'
During collaborating trainings, a variety of teaching methods can be used. Prior research has addressed collaborative learning with the use of case-based approaches, storytelling, flipped classroom, and role play and games (e.g., [https://www.erim.eur.nl/research-integrity/training-and-education/dilemma-game/ Rotterdam dilemma game]) .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000097-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000098-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000099-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000009A-QINU`"'
Collaborative approaches are utilised in [[Initiative:0582c7af-35eb-4def-b74e-c884f29965da|Path2Integrity]], [[Initiative:F9656f91-a514-44ff-9264-d6b3414fdddc|INTEGRITY]] and [[Initiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e|VIRT2UE]].
'"`UNIQ--references-0000009B-QINU`"'
Podcasting is not just about speaking. It is about how listeners process and follow information through sound.
Unlike written texts, listeners cannot go back to re-read a sentence, scan for key points or rely on visual structure. Because of this, podcasts require a different approach to communication.
When listening to a podcast, audiences process information in real time. They rely on structure and repetition to follow ideas, and interpret meaning through tone, emphasis, and pacing. If this structure is missing, it becomes easy to lose track of the message.
To support understanding, effective podcasts clearly introduce topics, guide listeners through ideas step by step, and repeat or summarise key points when needed. They also use small signals such as “so” or “what this means” to indicate transitions and help listeners stay oriented. +
Incorporating gender, health, and climate justice in your research: A reflexive question card exercise +
After the presentation, reflect on the following:
*Which of these four themes feels most relevant to your current research or study field?
*Can you identify a research decision (e.g., topic, method, interpretation) that might be shaped by your own position or assumptions?
* What is one insight or discomfort you experienced during the slides? +
Research shapes the world, not only through major discoveries, but also through the everyday choices we make, such as the questions we ask, the methods we use, and how we share our work. +
Research activities can take place in both wet and dry laboratories, each with distinct processes and environmental impacts.
Wet Laboratory (Wet Lab) Research Practice
A wet lab is a research environment where experiments are conducted using biological materials, chemicals, liquids, and specialized laboratory equipment. These activities often require substantial energy, generate plastic and chemical waste, and consume water and other resources.
Dry Laboratory (Dry Lab) Research Practice
A dry lab is a research environment where research is conducted through computational methods, including data analysis, modeling, simulations, and artificial intelligence. These activities rely on computers, data storage, and digital infrastructure rather than physical experiments.
While considerable attention has been given to reducing environmental impacts in wet laboratories, progress in digital or "dry lab" research has been slower. The growing use of data-intensive approaches in fields such as population health, personalized medicine, and artificial intelligence has increased the environmental footprint of digital research. Beyond the impacts associated with manufacturing computer hardware, digital technologies consume substantial amounts of energy through data centers, cloud storage, and high-performance computing.
Assessing these impacts is important not only for reducing greenhouse gas emissions but also because environmental sustainability considerations are increasingly being incorporated into research funding requirements, ethics frameworks, and research integrity guidelines. +
Doing research with communities affected by climate change: Climate-conscious methodologies matrix (for researchers and ethics reviewers) +
Please complete the multiple answers mini quiz +
<div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">Develop clear and specific learning objectives for your session(s), aligned with the modules. '''Keep your specific context in mind in order to respond to the needs of the learners you wish to engage.'''</span>
</div><div>
'''<span lang="EN-GB">Expected learning outcomes are in line with the competence profile described in step 1 and may include:</span>'''
</div><div>
*'''<span lang="EN-US">Understand</span>''' <span lang="EN-US">the environmental, social, and ethical impact of research practices.</span>
</div><div>
*'''<span lang="EN-US">Recognize</span>''' <span lang="EN-US">the complexity and interconnected nature of sustainability challenges</span>
</div></div><div><div>
*'''<span lang="EN-US">Identify</span>''' <span lang="EN-US">opportunities to align research with societal and environmental priorities</span>
</div><div>
*'''<span lang="EN-US">Apply</span>''' <span lang="EN-US">practical strategies to make research more responsible and sustainable</span>
</div><div></div><div>
'''<span lang="EN-GB">Adapt your session to your audience.</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">Not all materials are suitable for all learners.</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">Use the filtering functionality and consider the four stakeholder groups:</span>
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Researchers</span>
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Students</span>
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Citizen scientists</span>
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Ethics reviewers</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB"> </span>
</div></div> +
Use the instructions below to reflect on your own experience. +
The Stories Behind (the) Research – Ep. 2. From Skepticism to Action: Embracing a culture of humility in research +
Flashcards activity. +
The Stories Behind (the) Research, Ep 3. Beyond the Ivory Tower: The courage to feel when researching tough topics +
After listening to the podcast, reflect on the following questions:
# Durwin shares his experience of vulnerability and dealing with difficult emotions while engaging in his research. Have you encountered similar moments in your own research, studies, or professional experiences?
# How can you stay true to yourself while engaging in research, especially when working on emotionally challenging topics?
# What strategies can help you recognize, process, and care for the emotions that emerge during research while maintaining meaningful engagement? +
Research integrity aims to provide a comprehensive framework for scientists on how to carry out their work within accepted ethical frameworks and follow good scientific practices.
====Defining research ethics and integrity====
There is no universally accepted definition of research integrity, although it is generally understood to relate to the performance of research to the highest standards of professionalism and rigor in an ethically robust manner.
=====Research ethics=====
Research ethics (also referred to as Scientific ethics) could be defined as "ethical principles-driven decision-making in research based on potential impact on subjects of research and wider society" (The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ European Network for Academic Integrity], 2018).
=====Research integrity=====
Research integrity (or Scientific integrity) is defined as "compliance with ethical and professional principles, standards, and practices by individuals or institutions in research" (The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ European Network for Academic Integrity], 2018).
====Why is it important?====
Research integrity is crucial to preserving the trustworthiness of the research system and its results. It encompasses the basic responsibility of the research community to formulate the principles of research, define the criteria for proper research behavior, maximize the quality, reliability, and robustness of research and its results, and respond adequately to threats to or violations of good research practices.
Research results in this context include, but are not limited to, publications, data, metadata, protocols, code, software, images, artifacts, and other research materials and methods.
====Glossary for Academic Integrity====
Lost in terminology? Check the ENAI's [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/glossary/ Glossary for Academic Integrity], which was developed by an international team. The Glossary comprises more than two hundred terms related to academic integrity. The terms are presented in alphabetical order, along with a definition.
Further reading:
The following paper sets out seven key reasons why [https://scienceeurope.org/ Science Europe] Member Organizations and research organizations, in general, should be concerned about promoting research integrity in their research communities.
Science Europe. (2015). Seven reasons to care about integrity in research. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.5060023
[1] ALLEA. (2023) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity – Revised Edition 2023. [http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC%C2%A0 http://www.doi.org/10.26356/ECOC]
[2] Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Glendinning, I., Kravjar, J., Ojsteršek, M., Ribeiro, L., Odiņeca, T., Marino, F., Cosentino, M., Sivasubramaniam, S., Foltýnek, T. (2018). [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/glossary/ Glossary for Academic Integrity]. ENAI
[3] Science Europe. (2015). Briefing paper 'Research integrity: What it means, why it is important and how we might protect it'. https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-resources/briefing-paper-on-research-integrity-what-it-means-why-it-is-important-and-how-we-might-protect-it
Open science is a legal requirement under Horizon Europe. Its objective is to enhance transparency and trust, ultimately benefiting scientific research and EU citizens. In the EU, Open Science means enhancing research quality to ensure transparency and reproducibility, facilitating their utilization by both industry and society as a catalyst for growth.
To learn about how to comply with open science principles when applying for EU funding and implementing the project, you can visit the [https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en#open-science-in-horizon-europe European Research Executive Agency's Q&A webpage] or check out this leaflet on [https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9570017e-cd82-11eb-ac72-01aa75ed71a1 "Horizon Europe: Open Science – Early Knowledge and Data Sharing"] for a quick orientation.
==== Open Research Europe ====
[https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/about/ Open Research Europe] is an open-access publishing platform for the publication of research stemming from European Commission funding across all subject areas, with no author fees. The platform makes it easy for European Commission beneficiaries to comply with the open access terms of their funding and offers researchers a publishing venue to share their results and insights rapidly and facilitate open, constructive research discussion. Open Research Europe operates under a continuous publication schedule.
[1] European Research Executive Agency. (2024). Open science. Open science in Horizon Europe. https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en +
Authorship can refer to individuals or groups that create an idea or develop the publication that disseminates that intellectual or creative work; however, appropriately acknowledging roles and contributions is not always a simple task.
In science and research, authorship is the currency by which academics are paid and thus is essential for tenure, promotion, and grant funding. What is clear is that authorship is a fluid, evolving concept, and as it evolves, so will the ethical challenges associated with it.
==== What constitutes authorship? ====
Editorial or academic organisations within different specialties have set out criteria and guidelines that members could adopt in their consideration of authorship.
For example, the [https://www.icmje.org/ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)], also known as the Vancouver group, developed the recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. The ICMJE states that an author should meet all four of the following criteria:
# Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
# Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
# Final approval of the version to be published; AND
# Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
ICMJE further states that contributors who do not meet all four criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should still be acknowledged.
The recommendations are intended to guarantee that those who have made significant intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors while also ensuring that those credited as authors understand their responsibility and accountability for the published work.
A selection of other definitions of authorship for different scientific disciplines is presented in COPE Discussion Document on [https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/authorship What constitutes authorship].
==== Who qualifies, and who does not – common scenarios ====
Interested in expert opinions on common authorship issues? For example:
* I am a junior researcher and did a lot of the basic work. My supervisor/department head wrote up the work and hasn’t included me as an author
* My department head insists on being included as an author on any research paper that comes out of his/her department. But he/she only obtained the grant money. Is this fair?
* In what order should we list the authors to demonstrate the relative contribution of each?
* There are more than 100 authors on this paper. Is that feasible?
* The “author” is a collaborative group. How does that work?
Check out the common scenarios and the COPE authorship guidelines [https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/Authorship_DiscussionDocument_0_0.pdf here].
==== Handling authorship disputes ====
Authorship sounds simple, but in reality, it often proves to be a source of frustration. To advice on how to deal with authorship issues, you can read the COPE guidelines on [https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1 How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers] written by Tim Albert and Elizabeth Wager.
[1] COPE. (2014): What constitutes authorship? COPE Discussion Document [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3
[2] COPE. (2003): How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers [online]. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1
[3] ICMJE. (2024). . Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/
[4] UKRIO. (2017). Good practice in research: Authorship. https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Guidance-Note-Authorship-v1.0.pdf
After watching the interview with Amber Wutich, complete the following acivity to demonstrate your understanding of the terminology related to working with communities in fragile research environments. +
Plastic is classified into seven main categories, each defined primarily by its distinct chemical properties.
'''To learn more about these categories, match the types of plastic with their descriptions'''. Click on the type of plastic to select it, then click on the blank space to drop it. +
The principles of the ECoC remain the foundation for responsible research. This Annex does not revise or add to these principles. Instead, it clarifies how their meaning extends to the environmental and climate dimensions of research, particularly where research activities or outcomes have the potential to affect ecosystems, natural resources, or the conditions that support human and non-human life. The aim is to support the research community in interpreting the four ECoC principles in ways that reflect contemporary environmental considerations.
'''Reliability'''
“Reliability in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, methodology, analysis, and use of resources.” Reliability requires rigorous, well-designed, and methodologically sound research. From an environmental and climate perspective, it includes generating accurate, valid, and reproducible assessments of potential environmental implications of the research. This involves ensuring that environmental assumptions, uncertainties, and real world feasibility considerations are accounted for in research design and execution, so that findings remain dependable and applicable in practice.
'''Honesty'''
“Honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting, and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full, and unbiased way.” Honesty requires transparency on the environmental dimensions of research, including potential benefits, harms, limitations and uncertainties. It includes avoiding misrepresentation, such as overstating environmental benefits or concealing or downplaying uncertainties and potential harms and ensuring that all claims related to environmental performance or sustainability are supported by evidence and presented without exaggeration.
'''Respect'''
“Respect for colleagues, research participants, research subjects, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage, and the environment.” Respect, as recognised in the ECoC, extends to ecosystems, cultural heritage, and the environment. Interpreted in an environmental and climate context, respect entails recognising the interdependence of human and natural systems, and the moral significance of non-human life. It includes attentiveness to how research activities or outcomes impact those most affected by environmental degradation, including Indigenous peoples, local communities, and future generations. It also involves acknowledging and engaging with relevant knowledge systems, including local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge, where appropriate.
'''Accountability'''
“Accountability for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision, and mentoring, and for its wider societal impacts.” Accountability includes responsibility for the environmental implications of research processes and outcomes. This entails careful stewardship of resources, adherence to applicable environmental obligations, and transparency toward institutions, funders, and society about environmental considerations relevant to the research. Accountability also requires monitoring and reflecting on the broader consequences that research may have for environmental and climate objectives and establishing mitigation measures when these are assessed as being harmful.
