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
This policy brief is most important for leadership and governance within higher education institutions such as university presidents, vice-rectors, deans, heads of research offices who shape institutional strategy and policies. It also matters for integrity officers, ethics committees, and open science coordinators working within HEIs who operationalise institutional practices and frameworks.
Additionally, it is relevant for institutional research managers and administrators who design evaluation, reward and monitoring systems. The brief also has value for funders and policymakers looking to engage HEIs in strengthening trust in science at a systemic level. By adopting the recommendations, these stakeholders can help transform HEIs into centres of trustworthy research, robust engagement and social relevance. +
This policy brief is particularly important for research-performing organisations (universities, research institutes, labs) that want to build or maintain societal legitimacy and trust. It also matters for institutional leadership (deans, directors, heads of R&I) who set strategy and governance frameworks;for research integrity and quality assurance officers who operationalise ethics, transparency and stakeholder involvement;and for funders or programme managers who rely on RPOs to achieve societal impact and maintain public support for investment in science. By adopting its recommendations, these actors can build stronger research cultures, improve stakeholder relations, and enhance both the relevance and accessibility of research in ways that foster greater trust +
THE SAN CODE OF RESEARCH ETHICS' 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. +
In a knowledge society in which scientific research, technological development and innovation are essential assets for progress and sustainable economic growth, scientific integrity is of particular relevance as a value that underlies and ensures good research practice. A commitment to high‐quality science requires integrity and accountability in the performance of research – attitudes that constitute the primary basis for the advancement o f knowledge, and for trust in and consolidation of the scientifi c heritage. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
National Statement on Scientific Integrity' 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. +
When outsourcing clinical trials from the West to countries with an upcoming economy, such as India, we must remain cautious whether the same ethical standards are used as with a regular clinical trial. However, we should not judge this process on account of single cases or merely on media coverage. This study may give insight into the different perspectives of the stakeholders in the process of outsourcing clinical trials. Moreover, the study raises the question of whether it is morally defensible to conduct clinical trials in countries whose population probably does not benefit from the drug under investigation. The declaration of Helsinki articulates that “medical research involving a disadvantaged or vulnerable population or community is only justified if the research is responsive to the health needs and priorities of this population or community”, suggesting that these clinical trials are not justifiable.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' Therefore, as the author of the study suggests, more research into this topic is needed to determine the ethical implications of the outsourcing of clinical trials from the West to developing countries. <br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000002-QINU`"' +
Statement of Principles and Practices for Research Ethics, Integrity, and Culture in the Context of Rapid-Results Research +
Statement of Principles and Practices for Research Ethics, Integrity, and Culture in the Context of Rapid-Results Research distils international expectations for research integrity in International 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 nan in ?, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Statement: Code of Conduct for Scientists –Revised Version- distils national expectations for research integrity in Japan and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Japan 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 2013, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
The HASL has the overall responsibility to encourage and direct scientific advancement in Hungary. It does so by studying both national and international trends in research, developing research partnerships and networks and regulating the granting of scientific qualifications. These roles are set out in detail, as well as the funding mechanisms and appointment of members. +
Through this guideline, the Swedish Research Council mobilizes its aims to achieve gender equality in research. Not only is the quality of research is benefited when both genders are able to participate to the fullest extent, but it is also a matter of justice in resource allocation. It also refers to the national legislation pertaining to gender equality. Departing from these, it provides concrete steps to maintain and improve gender equality. +
The video is important because it draws attention to the need for structured education and community-building in responsible research. As research landscapes rapidly evolve with open data mandates, interdisciplinary teams, and higher public expectations early-career researchers often lack formal training in integrity, ethics and stakeholder trust. This Summer School model addresses that gap by offering dedicated space to learn, reflect and network in a supportive environment. Promoting responsible research at this stage helps prevent misconduct, fosters reproducibility, and ensures that research contributes positively to society. The video thus acts as a gateway to encourage participation and raise awareness of integrity-driven practice. +
This brief is important because it identifies practical, actionable measures needed to sustain citizen science efforts that go beyond short-term projects. Long-lasting Citizen Observatories can provide continuously updated, locally relevant data that strengthens environmental decision-making and democratic engagement. By focusing on inclusivity, clarity in data practices, and ethical safeguards, the brief helps ensure that COs remain trustworthy, accessible, and impactful for both participants and policymakers. Strengthening COs contributes to scientific literacy, community empowerment, and evidence-informed governance across Europe. +
The Swedish Research Council comprises active members of the research community. Thus, the situation may arise, during the evaluation of grant proposals, where evaluators may be closely linked to the applicant or applying institution or the research project, and therefore cannot make an impartial decision. Thus, it is important to be aware of and declare such conflicts in order to avoid them. This document provides guidelines on identifying, preventing, managing and addressing such situations. +
Many kinds of authorship related disputes exist, from clear breaches of integrity such as omission of authorship to gray areas such as disagreements on the order of attribution. In light of the rapid rise in the number of publications, such conflicts are also on the rise. Many such gray areas have not been previously addressed - neither by ethical guidelines nor by legislation. This guideline builds on an analysis of previous authorship related guidance and sets forth newer recommendations concerning authorship criteria, disputes and their management. +
Swiss Academy of Arts and Sciences Code of Conduct for Scientific Integrity distils national expectations for research integrity in Switzerland and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Switzerland 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 Aebi-Müller Regina E., University of Lucerne, Swiss National Science Foundation;Blatter Inge, Swiss National Science Foundation;Brigger Joël, Innosuisse;Constable Edwin Charles, University of Basel, Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences;Eglin Noëmi, swissuniversities;Hoffmeyer Pierre, University of Geneva, Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences;Lautenschütz Claudia, Swiss National Science Foundation;Lienhard Andreas, University of Bern, swissuniversities;Pirinoli Christine, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Western Switzerland, swissuniversities;Röthlisberger Markus, Swiss National Science Foundation;Spycher Karin M., Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences ( in 2021, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Recognizing that the scientific landscape has undergone rapid changes in the last decade, and that scientific integrity is more essential than ever, the Swiss Academy of Arts and Sciences have revised their earlier code of conduct published in 2008. The current guideline takes into account newer challenges in research integrity, with regards to technological advancements, broader collaborations and public-private partnerships. +
T
Checking tabs functionality +
Tesing +
'THE CONCORDAT TO SUPPORT RESEARCH INTEGRITY' 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. +
THE MALAYSIAN CODE OF RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT IN RESEARCH distils national expectations for research integrity in Malaysia and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Malaysia 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 2020, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
