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
T
Sharing research results with the world is key to the progress of your discipline and career but with so many publications. However, not all researchers receive the same level of training and support in how to choose a trustworthy journal or publisher to submit their work to. How can you be sure you can trust a particular journal? ''Think. Check. Submit.'' provides an easy-to-use checklist that researchers can refer to when they are investigating whether a journal or publisher can be trusted. +
Although a fictional scenario, the case shows that there are not always straightforward answers in dealing with issues that may challenge the values, rights and rules of different cultural or ethnic groups. +
This outlines a common dilemma for many researchers in regions without access to medical resources. +
This Guide is important because many organisations struggle to operationalise integrity-codes: having principles is one thing, embedding them in day-to-day processes is another. The Toolbox and RIPP framework bridge that gap by offering actionable guidelines and templates. For research institutions and funders, this means stronger prevention of misconduct, clearer accountability, and a culture where integrity is built rather than assumed. Given the increasing societal demand for trustworthy research and transparency, implementing such structured tools contributes significantly to credibility, reproducibility, and ethical practice in research. +
This policy brief matters because it highlights the need for coherent, coordinated development of institutional publishing across Europe especially as many universities and research organisations build their own open access publishing services outside traditional commercial models. By calling for alignment across regions, academic fields, and institutional roles, the document points to structural barriers that can limit the effectiveness, sustainability, and interoperability of institutional publishing efforts. Improving alignment can help reduce duplication, share best practices, and strengthen the role of institutional publishing as a strategic component of open science and scholarly communication. +
In a world where pandemics, climate change and social inequalities are pressing, the way we train researchers and professionals matters. This document reminds us that research must not be isolated, it has to be responsive to societal needs and inclusive of broader populations. By reframing training to focus on transversal skills, ethical values and adaptability, institutions can prepare people to thrive and make positive impact. It underscores that research and higher-education must align with sustainability, inclusion and innovation, not just traditional metrics. This makes the document important for anyone involved in education, research policy, and workforce development. +
TRREE is important because it helps standardize ethical training across diverse research contexts, promoting fairness, transparency, and accountability in studies involving human participants. It empowers researchers and ethics committee members with the knowledge to identify and prevent ethical violations, ensuring participant safety and public trust in research. By being freely accessible, it bridges educational gaps in regions where formal ethics training is limited. Moreover, TRREE contributes to global harmonization of ethical standards, supporting collaboration and compliance in international research projects. +
High quality mentorship is an enabler of RI. This is because mentorship provides to postgraduate students the guidance needed to conduct reliable research. +
The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.
They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.
The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.
According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:
1) Research Environment
2) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063900#.X3dC2pNKhjU '''Training, Supervision and Mentoring''']
3) Research Procedures
4) Safeguards
5) Data Practices and Management
6) Collaborative Working
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing +
This initiative contributes to the fostering of open science from a perspective of journals, from a relatively new viewpoint. The initiative contributes to more transparency of editorial policies and support editors with suggestions on potential editorial improvements. +
It raises questions about the definition of fabrication and its difference with bad science, and whether journal editors should/could take into account the mental state of authors who submit articles.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2021), Canadian Institutes of Health Research Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada +
Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research distils national expectations for research integrity in Canada and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Canada (but also researchers funded by Tri-Agency funding) 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 Canadian Institutes of Health Research Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada in 2021, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
This policy brief is important because policy makers play a crucial role in creating the frameworks that shape how research is conducted, funded, and communicated. Public trust in science depends on transparent, ethical, and inclusive policies that promote research integrity and responsible innovation. Without clear and supportive governance, even high-quality research can lose credibility and public confidence. By implementing the recommendations in this brief, policy makers can strengthen evidence-based decision-making, ensure accountability in publicly funded research, foster societal engagement, and build a more trustworthy, transparent, and resilient research ecosystem that benefits both science and society. +
This report is important because it helps bridge a major gap in how scientific knowledge informs public policy. By systematically analysing how policymakers access, interpret, and use scientific information, it identifies barriers and opportunities in science–policy communication. Its insights are particularly valuable in contexts where misinformation and rapid digital transformations challenge evidence-informed decision-making. The document highlights emerging trends (e.g., digital tools, visualisation, fact-checking) that can improve trust and effectiveness in such communication. It also provides concrete recommendations that could help institutions design better science-to-policy engagement strategies. For researchers, communicators, and policymakers seeking to strengthen evidence-based policies in health, innovation, and digital governance, this work provides a structured understanding of what works and why. +
U
This article may be used as a source of case studies in the context of research integrity training. +
The article may be used as a case study in the context of research integrity training. +
It highlights that using pseudonyms affects the reliability of claims and could result in the erosion of trust in academic publications. +
It provides a national framework for research integrity in the UK. +
A commitment to good research conduct lies at the heart of an effective research system. High standards of research integrity underpin the quality and reliability of the research outcomes generated and of decisions made in the light of those outcomes. +
Each case study is accompanied by some suggested points for discussion. These are intended as a starting point for debate and reflection, drawing on the major themes of the case study. Certain approaches are proposed but discussion of the cases may well suggest others – there is often no single ‘right’ answer +
