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
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-00000065-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000066-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. +
The collection of cases is a useful recourse for teaching publication ethics and for discussing ethical dilemmas in the field. +
To prevent misconduct in academic publishing it is important to define the best practices and ethical standards. Therefore, these core practices dictate how to ethically handle potential cases of misconduct, as well as ways to minimize the chances that misconduct may occur in academic publishing. +
These resources give a clear overview about the major challenges regarding publication ethics. Challenges that all people (in)directly involved in the research are obliged to confront with. Publication pressure and other factors +
When it comes to authoring a research paper, the authors must be prepared to take responsibility for their findings, claims and arguments. The assumption is that the authors should disclose themselves in order to take ownership of their work. +
The analysis provides a strategy to help identify when something is amiss with a research proposal and prompts a much closer examination of such issues. +
This is a real case which can be discussed and analyzed as an example of scientific misconduct. +
This collection of cases is useful for organizing group discussions. +
The database includes a broad collection of cases. The cases can be searched by keyword, subject, or discipline. +
This case study can help researchers identify practical issues and challenges they might come across in collaborations. +
