What is this about? (Is About)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A short summary providing some details about the theme/resource (max. 75 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
A
<div>
In 2021, the UK's National AI Strategy recommended that UK Government’s official Public Sector Guidance on AI Ethics and Safety be transformed into a series of practice-based workbooks. The result is the [https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-projects/ai-ethics-and-governance-practice AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Programme]. This series of eight workbooks provides end-to-end guidance on how to apply principles of AI ethics and safety to the design, development, deployment, and maintenance of AI systems. It provides public sector organisations with a Process Based Governance (PBG) Framework designed to assist AI project teams in ensuring that the AI technologies they build, procure, or use are ethical, safe, and responsible.
This workbook explores how a context-based and society-centred approach to understanding AI Fairness can help project teams better identify, mitigate, and manage the many ways that unfair bias and discrimination can crop up across the AI project workflow.</div><div></div> +
In 2021, the UK's National AI Strategy recommended that UK Government’s official Public Sector Guidance on AI Ethics and Safety be transformed into a series of practice-based workbooks. The result is the AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Programme. This series of eight workbooks provides end-to-end guidance on how to apply principles of AI ethics and safety to the design, development, deployment, and maintenance of AI systems. It provides public sector organisations with a Process Based Governance (PBG) Framework designed to assist AI project teams in ensuring that the AI technologies they build, procure, or use are ethical, safe, and responsible.
This first workbook provides an introduction to the AI Ethics and Governance in Practice programme and provides an outline of the key components that make up AI systems. +
In 2021, the UK's National AI Strategy recommended that UK Government’s official Public Sector Guidance on AI Ethics and Safety be transformed into a series of practice-based workbooks. The result is the [https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-projects/ai-ethics-and-governance-practice AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Programme]. This series of eight workbooks provides end-to-end guidance on how to apply principles of AI ethics and safety to the design, development, deployment, and maintenance of AI systems. It provides public sector organisations with a Process Based Governance (PBG) Framework designed to assist AI project teams in ensuring that the AI technologies they build, procure, or use are ethical, safe, and responsible.
This workbook is the first in a pair that provides the concepts and tools needed to put AI Sustainability into practice. +
In 2021, the UK's National AI Strategy recommended that UK Government’s official Public Sector Guidance on AI Ethics and Safety be transformed into a series of practice-based workbooks. The result is the [https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-projects/ai-ethics-and-governance-practice AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Programme]. This series of eight workbooks provides end-to-end guidance on how to apply principles of AI ethics and safety to the design, development, deployment, and maintenance of AI systems. It provides public sector organisations with a Process Based Governance (PBG) Framework designed to assist AI project teams in ensuring that the AI technologies they build, procure, or use are ethical, safe, and responsible.
This workbook is part two of two workbooks on AI Sustainability in Practice. +
AIOLIA is a Horizon Europe project that transforms the EU AI Act’s ethical principles into practical tools for researchers, developers, and policymakers. Through real-world use cases, AIOLIA develops co-created guidelines, modular training materials, and interactive content like podcasts and chatbots. These resources are made accessible via the Embassy of Good Science. With a strong European foundation and global partnerships, including universities and UNESCO platforms in Asia, Africa, and North America, AIOLIA promotes culturally aware, socially robust, and ethically sound AI development. It empowers communities to implement responsible AI practices grounded in real-world relevance and global impact. +
ALLEA has been a long-standing voice in the fields of research ethics and research integrity via its Permanent Working Group Science and Ethics, which has covered a wide-range of issues relating to ethics and integrity. The flagship publication of the group is the ''European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity,'' which was revised in 2017 and is regarded as one of the most comprehensive guides outlining how researchers should conduct their work. +
ALLINTERACT was a Horizon 2020 project (2020–2023) focused on expanding and diversifying citizen engagement in science, especially among young people and groups that are often excluded from scientific participation. It examined how increasing public awareness of the social impact of research can transform people’s willingness to engage into active involvement. The project concentrated on key societal challenges such as quality education and gender equality, using methods like social media analysis, surveys, focus groups, and real-world interventions. Through this work, ALLINTERACT developed new insights and practical, replicable strategies for motivating a broader range of citizens to interact with, contribute to, and benefit from scientific research. +
APEC Guiding Principles for Research Integrity (2022) is a international framework authored by nan, in english, targeting Asia Pacific. Originating from Asia Pacific, it aims to formalise principles of research integrity and open practice. It emphasises honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust in research. The text covers responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, spelling out expectations for good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Common provisions include clear authorship criteria, proper citation and acknowledgement, management of conflicts of interest, transparency of methods and data, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It also establishes procedures for handling breaches of integrity, defining misconduct, and setting up investigation mechanisms that ensure due process, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities. By aligning with international standards, it connects local policy to global norms, reinforcing mobility of researchers and comparability of practices across borders. The document integrates the principle of education—training for students and staff on responsible conduct—ensuring that integrity is taught as a core skill rather than assumed knowledge. It also incorporates guidance on emerging issues such as data management, digital tools, open science, and new forms of dissemination, embedding integrity in contemporary workflows. Practical tools often include checklists, codes of behaviour, reporting templates, and FAQs, translating high-level principles into day-to-day actions. The intended audience spans researchers, supervisors, institutions, and policymakers, all of whom need clarity on their roles in safeguarding the credibility of research. Equity and diversity appear as cross-cutting themes, recognising that integrity involves creating inclusive environments free from discrimination, harassment, or exploitation. Overall, the resource situates research integrity as both a personal commitment and an institutional responsibility, embedding it into the full research cycle from design to dissemination. Annexes may provide case studies, historical context, and references to international declarations such as Singapore or Montreal statements. Definitions and glossaries support consistent interpretation, and contact points or ombudsperson systems are described to lower barriers to reporting. These features help the resource serve not only as a policy but also as a practical handbook.
<div>
The ARC’s policy requires that research outputs arising from ARC‑funded projects be made openly accessible within 12 months of publication, with metadata deposited in an institutional repository within three months and including the ARC Project ID and persistent links. The policy applies across output types (e.g., journal articles, books and chapters) for projects funded under guidelines released since 1 January 2013. Where immediate open access is not possible due to legal or contractual constraints, researchers must justify non‑compliance in final reporting. The policy page consolidates the current version and directs readers to related guidance on research data and integrity, tying open access to national evaluation exercises (e.g., ERA) and sector‑wide dissemination norms. It positions open access as a public benefit mandate, aiming to maximise the reach and utility of publicly funded research.
</div><div><div><div><div></div><div><div><div><div></div></div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div> +
A complaint was made to the Executive Board at VU Amsterdam regarding a research report submitted by a researcher affiliated with the university but who produced the report in a personal capacity. Nevertheless, the report stated that the researcher carries out work with a VU Amsterdam research group. A subsequent petition was made to LOWI on the basis that the Executive Board had informed the complainants that it is not the university's responsibility to conduct an investigation or make statements about the research due to the fact that the assignment was issued to the author in a personal capacity. This is a factual anonymized case. +
This online tutorial provides an overview of the importance of academic integrity. Participants will have the opportunity to learn strategies of how to identify plagiarism, conduct academic research, and properly cite citations. +
Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition +
This study addresses perverse incentives and decreased funding as potential causes for unethical behavior. The authors conclude that academia and federal agencies should better support research and emphasize altruistic and ethical outcomes, not the output. +
This case presents four factual anonymised cases of misconduct practices occurring in PhD supervision. More specifically: a) engagement with regulatory processes (i.e., the case of deviation from the initially ethics-approved data collection procedures without informing the relevant regulatory body);b) problems of knowledge or understanding transfer (i.e., a misunderstanding between student and supervisor in relation to intellectual property);c) culturally specific issues in the PhD study (i.e., the writing of disjoined, sometimes plagiarised, paragraphs in the thesis of a student whose first language was not English);d) academic theft (i.e., a student discovered her ex-supervisor had published work containing a literature review very similar to her own). +
This handbook outlines important information you will need to know about correctly acknowledging your sources when you write a report, research paper, critical essay, or position paper. It provides guidelines for collaboration on assignments and writing code. The handbook also provides information about what constitutes violations of academic integrity and the consequences of committing such violations'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
This flyer contains a wealth of small pointers for writing a paper, conducting research and working with others. You’ll find advice to help you on your way, and handy hints'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'. +
This study presents different challenges in medical research, such as the need to manage public expectations for new discoveries and maintain the public trust as well as consider the gap between research costs and funding sources. The authors examined these and other challenges and offered recommendations to medical schools and teaching hospitals on dealing with them. +
This article informs on the best research record-keeping practices developed as an adjunct to a research project on research ethics. These practices provide separate standards for individual researchers, research group leaders and departments or institutions and are offered as ethical and practical guidelines for researchers. +
Access to Scientific Information (2013), produced by the InterAcademy Panel, is an international framework promoting open access and open science globally. It establishes openness as the default, balanced by ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, linking transparency to research quality, reproducibility, and equitable access to knowledge. The guidance encourages depositing publications in trusted repositories, using Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and FAIR-aligned data management plans. Responsibilities are shared across researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers, with clear instructions on planning for openness, rights retention, funding acknowledgment, and efficient use of infrastructure. Embargoes and exceptions for sensitive or commercial data must be transparently justified. The policy emphasizes equity, zero-embargo access, multilingual communication, and publisher-agnostic routes, while prioritizing the quality of openness metadata, reproducibility, and interoperability over output counts. By consolidating international principles into a coherent reference, it provides practical guidance for implementing transparent, inclusive, and accessible scientific communication worldwide. +
Carrie Mediln is a researcher who took a teaching position without completing her doctorate. She is routinely addressed by students as "Doctor" and is often introduced as "Doctor" Medlin during academic events and public speaking opportunities. She never clarifies that she did not receive a PhD degree. The case study asks whether Medlin has a responsibility to clarify her credentials. +
Achieving Equitable Research Partnerships by Facilitating Visas for short-term Researcher Mobility +
The Visa Brief, part of the PREPARED project and published in 2025, focuses on the ethical dimensions of short-term researcher mobility aimed at promoting equitable international research partnerships. Funded by the European Union and supported by UK and Swiss research bodies, the brief outlines the importance of facilitating ethical researcher mobility particularly in contexts where power imbalances, resource disparities, and differing institutional capacities exist. Although only the licence and authorship details were directly accessible, the title itself “Ethics Brief: Achieving Equitable Research Partnerships by Facilitating Short-Term Researcher Mobility” speaks volumes: it underscores the dual aim of ensuring mobility does not perpetuate inequities, and embedding fairness, mutual benefit, respect, and integrity into collaborative research practices, especially across the Global North–South divide. Drawing from PREPARED’s broader values-driven framework (modeled on the earlier TRUST Code built around fairness, respect, care, and honesty), the brief offers guidelines and ethical considerations for institutions, funders, and researchers on how to structure short-term exchanges in ways that advance equity and responsible research engagement. +
