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
B
Rather than treating RM solely as an individual failure, the Guidelines recognise the institutional, socio-economic, and cultural contexts in which research is conducted. They offer recommendations that balance aspirational norms with practical considerations for prevention, mitigation, and rehabilitation.
By addressing RM not only as individual wrongdoing but also as a systemic challenge, the BEYOND Guidelines contribute to a culture of continuous learning and improvement +
Case-based methodologies in teaching have a long history with the disciplines of law, business and medicine being first to employ real-life cases in university-level teaching. In ethics teaching these methods were first developed in the 1980s within the context of business ethics. Today, as case-based methodologies (descriptions of cases sometimes complemented by a set of solutions) have proven to be more effective compared to other approaches for teaching ethics[https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/For%20upload%20on%20the%20embassy/BEYOND%20training%20material%20for%20early%20career%20researchers_for%20resource%20presentation.docx#_ftn2 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000002-QINU`"'], they have widely been used in different settings[https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/For%20upload%20on%20the%20embassy/BEYOND%20training%20material%20for%20early%20career%20researchers_for%20resource%20presentation.docx#_ftn3 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000003-QINU`"']. In the context of research ethics and integrity, well-known examples of the training materials employing this method are the [[Theme:B96ef996-e262-4c0c-a62c-1ea1ef034f36|Rotterdam dilemma game]] [https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/For%20upload%20on%20the%20embassy/BEYOND%20training%20material%20for%20early%20career%20researchers_for%20resource%20presentation.docx#_ftn4 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000004-QINU`"'] and [[Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c|Virtue training materials[5].]]
The methodology of BEYOND cases is rooted in the values clarification method. It simultaneously develops discussions on ethics and values-related issues while enhancing competencies necessary for dialogic communication, including: 1) skills for listening and responding, 2) openness, 3) empathy, and 4) mutuality orientation.[https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/For%20upload%20on%20the%20embassy/BEYOND%20training%20material%20for%20early%20career%20researchers_for%20resource%20presentation.docx#_ftn6 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000005-QINU`"'].
This particular methodology has been developed through various educational games created by the Centre for Ethics at the University of Tartu, with the first game released in 2010 for teachers. Subsequent games have been designed for medical workers, students, researchers and the general public. The training material is intended for use as active learning methods with high interactivity, such as group work and group discussions. The method combines individual activities (taking first personal responsibility via choosing one’s own solution) with group activities (discussing the case, solutions and their underlying motivations and values, and potentially reaching a consensus).
[https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/For%20upload%20on%20the%20embassy/BEYOND%20training%20material%20for%20early%20career%20researchers_for%20resource%20presentation.docx#_ftnref2 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000006-QINU`"'] Todd, E. M. et al. (2017, July 4). Effective Practices in the Delivery of Research Ethics Education: A Qualitative Review of Instructional Methods. Accountability in Research, 24(5), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2017.1301210
[https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/For%20upload%20on%20the%20embassy/BEYOND%20training%20material%20for%20early%20career%20researchers_for%20resource%20presentation.docx#_ftnref3 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000007-QINU`"'] Baldor, R. A., Field, T. S., and Gurwitz, J. H. (2001). Using the 'Question of Scruples' Game to Teach Managed Care Ethics to Students. Academic Medicine, 76(5), 510–511. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200105000-00040;Bekir, N. et al. (2001). Teaching Engineering Ethics: A New Approach. In 31st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Impact on Engineering and Science Education. Conference Proceedings, 1. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2001.963895;Cohen, H. (1993). The Citicorp Interactive Work Ethic Game: Sociological Practice Use in the Classroom. Clinical Sociology Review, 11(1). '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000008-QINU`"';Dahlin, J.-E. (n.d.). A Board Game for Teaching Sustainable Development. https://www.jonerikdahlin.com/dilemma/;Nelson, J. (1992). The Market Ethic: Moral Dilemmas and Microeconomics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(4), 317–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872174
[https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/For%20upload%20on%20the%20embassy/BEYOND%20training%20material%20for%20early%20career%20researchers_for%20resource%20presentation.docx#_ftnref4 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000009-QINU`"'] Erasmus University Rotterdam. (n.d.). Dilemma game: Professionalism and integrity in research. https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game
[https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/For%20upload%20on%20the%20embassy/BEYOND%20training%20material%20for%20early%20career%20researchers_for%20resource%20presentation.docx#_ftnref5 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000000A-QINU`"'] The Embassy of Good Science. (n.d.). Modified Dilemma Game (Instruction: A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c). [[Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c|https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c]]
[https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/For%20upload%20on%20the%20embassy/BEYOND%20training%20material%20for%20early%20career%20researchers_for%20resource%20presentation.docx#_ftnref6 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000000B-QINU`"'] Kent , M. L., and Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a Dialogic Theory of Public Relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X;Taylor, M., and Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic Engagement: Clarifying Foundational Concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.956106;Yang, S.-U., Kang, M., and Cha, H. (2015). A Study on Dialogic Communication, Trust, and Distrust: Testing a Scale for Measuring Organization–Public Dialogic Communication (OPDC). Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2015.1007998
Case-based methodologies in teaching have a long history with the disciplines of law, business and medicine being first to employ real-life cases in university-level teaching. In ethics teaching these methods were first developed in the 1980s within the context of business ethics. Today, as case-based methodologies (descriptions of cases sometimes complemented by a set of solutions) have proven to be more effective compared to other approaches for teaching ethics<sup>1</sup>, they have widely been used in different settings<sup>2</sup>. In the context of research ethics and integrity, well-known examples of the training materials employing this method are the Rotterdam dilemma game[[Theme:B96ef996-e262-4c0c-a62c-1ea1ef034f36|<sup>3</sup>]] and Virtue training materials[[Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c|<sup>4</sup>]].
# <span lang="NO-BOK">Todd, E. M. et al.</span> <span lang="EN-US">(2017, July 4). Effective Practices in the Delivery of Research Ethics Education: A Qualitative Review of Instructional Methods. ''Accountability in Research,'' ''24''(5), 297–321. <span lang="ET">https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2017.1301210</span></span>
# <span lang="EN-US">Baldor, R. A., Field, T. S., and Gurwitz, J. H. (2001). Using the 'Question of Scruples' Game to Teach Managed Care Ethics to Students. ''Academic Medicine, 76(''5), 510–511. <span lang="ET">https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200105000-00040</span>;Bekir, N. et al. (2001). Teaching Engineering Ethics: A New Approach. In ''31st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Impact on Engineering and Science Education. Conference Proceedings,'' 1. <span lang="ET">https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2001.963895</span>;Cohen, H. (1993). The Citicorp Interactive Work Ethic Game: Sociological Practice Use in the Classroom. ''Clinical Sociology Review,'' ''11''(1). '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000001-QINU`"';Dahlin, J.-E. (n.d.). ''A Board Game for Teaching Sustainable Development.'' <span lang="ET">https://www.jonerikdahlin.com/dilemma/</span>;Nelson, J. (1992). The Market Ethic: Moral Dilemmas and Microeconomics. ''Journal of Business Ethics,'' ''11''(4), 317–320. <span lang="ET">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872174</span></span>
# <span lang="ET">Erasmus University Rotterdam. (n.d.). ''Dilemma game: Professionalism and integrity in research''. https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game</span>
# <span lang="ET">The Embassy of Good Science. (n.d.). ''Modified Dilemma Game (Instruction: A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c)''. [[Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c|https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c]]</span>
When an article is published, all authors are responsible for what is written in the paper. If the paper contains fabricated data, all the authors are deemed to be responsible. +
National ethics guidelines can stimulate good research practices by presenting guidance of what constitutes good scientific practice in a specific country. +
The position paper presented here takes this into consideration by addressing the responsibility of the researchers and the research institutions. In its examination of the general normative principles of the research process and through its recommendations on specific best practices, these guidelines for good research practice are intended to contribute to raising awareness of research integrity and research ethics in Austria and ensuring the freedom of researchers. +
Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethics (2020), Research Integrity / Research Ethics Working Group of BMBWF +
Best Practice Guide for Research Integrity and Ethics distils national expectations for research integrity in Austria and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Austria 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 Research Integrity / Research Ethics Working Group of BMBWF in 2020, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
This report matters because science communication today faces unprecedented challenges: digital overload, misinformation, scepticism, and fragmentation of audiences. Traditional one-way communication (scientist → public) often fails to engage people or build trust. The RETHINK best practices advocate for reflective, audience-aware, and dialogue-oriented approaches that acknowledge the complex ways people make sense of scientific information. Such practices can improve public understanding, trust, and meaningful engagement with science, support more informed decision-making, and help bridge gaps between scientific communities and broader society. This is vital for tackling societal issues like health, climate change, and technology adoption in an inclusive, responsible way. +
Cases like these are unethical and should be prevented and/or investigated for misconduct. +
The case illustrates that coming clean promptly can be a good strategy for those who have committed scientific misconduct.
The case can spur awareness of early signs.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000004-QINU`"' +
Via their code of conduct, BioMed Alliance aims to promote the best interests and values of their members, promote excellence in healthcare, research and innovation, and improve the well-being of all European citizens.<br /> +
The scenario focuses on a student whose years of hard work might go to waste because of her mentor's pride. When mentoring, one always must be aware of the fact that they bear a great responsibility. It’s not about the benefits that come with the ,,mentor” title, it’s about teaching your protégé, developing a healthy working relationship, helping and encouraging them every step of the way. '''While doing so, the integrity of the project, the mentee and the mentor must be preserved. ''' +
This report is important because it offers a comprehensive, evidence-based roadmap for strengthening the European science communication ecosystem. As challenges like misinformation, public distrust in science, and complex societal problems (climate, health, AI, etc.) intensify, effective science communication becomes critical to ensure public understanding, trust and democratic decision-making. By proposing structural changes such as stable institutional support, career paths for science communicators, cross-sector collaboration, fact-checking, and citizen engagement the report can help embed science communication sustainably in research and innovation systems, increasing the impact, reach and societal relevance of science. +
All authors listed on a manuscript or article should have permitted publication of the article. Otherwise, the paper will be retracted soon after publication and a lot of funding and hard work is wasted, as this case proves. The journal discussed here has measures in place to make sure that all authors have agreed to the publication, such as an agreement form that needs to be signed by all co-authors. However, the present case shows that this is not always effective and stresses the importance to remain vigilant even with these measures in place. In addition, the present case shows that it is in nobody’s interest to counterfeit the permission of one of the authors. +
Code of Good Scientific Practice' 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. +
Code of Ethics Young Scientists' 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. +
C
The CIRAD Code of Ethics is important because it safeguards scientific integrity and ensures that research activities are trustworthy, socially responsible, and aligned with public interest. By clearly defining ethical expectations, it helps prevent misconduct such as plagiarism, data falsification, and conflicts of interest, which could damage scientific credibility and public confidence. The Code also promotes fair and balanced research partnerships, particularly in international and development contexts, where power imbalances and ethical risks can be significant. Furthermore, it supports transparency, accountability, and respect for human rights, environmental sustainability, and cultural diversity. By providing shared ethical benchmarks, the Code enables consistent decision-making across the organization and strengthens CIRAD’s reputation as a responsible and reliable research institution. +
CODE OF ETHICS FOR RESEARCH WORKERS distils national expectations for research integrity in Poland 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 2017, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
CODE OF ETHICS FOR SCIENTISTS distils national expectations for research integrity in Latvia and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Latvia 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. +
CODE OF ETHICS OF THE CROATIAN SCIENCE FOUNDATION distils national expectations for research integrity in Croatia and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Croatia 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 Croatian Science Foundation in 2018, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
