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
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 +
The principles in the code might serve as milestones for organizations to help them attain the funding and regulatory requirements. Besides, the code guarantees that important issues are considered and is endorsed by the European Association of Social Anthropologists. +
'UK Research and Innovation policy and guidelines on governance of good research conduct' 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. +
Authorship is a highly visible and valued aspect of research. It recognises intellectual contribution, signals expertise, and shapes careers, while also strengthening collaboration and clarifying expectations across research teams.
In practice, however, authorship decisions can be complex. Unclear criteria, disciplinary differences, power imbalances, and large collaborations can lead to disputes over contribution, order, or inclusion. If unresolved, such issues can damage relationships and undermine research integrity.
The tools developed through this project provide practical, sector-informed guidance to support good authorship practice, encourage clear communication, and help prevent or resolve disputes. +
This document highlights some of the key ethical and regulatory issues in internet research, such as personal data protection, maintaining confidentiality and what constitutes informed consent. While it does not aim to be prescriptive, it intend to encourage further debate and exploration of these challenging areas. +
Good publications practices constitute an important part of research integrity, since dissemination through scientific publications is one of the main goals of research. In case research output is seriously flawed, it is necessary that this is acknowledges and retracted as transparently as possible. This document provides practical guidance on when and how to do so. +
Research misconduct is a serious threat to scientific integrity. Therefore, organizations should be well-equipped to investigate and resolve allegations of misconduct. While most institutions have existing frameworks, this document aims to provide additional considerations and guidance in this area. +
While the Concordat enumerates the principles and standards of research integrity, this document takes on a practical approach and breaks down the content of the concordat into five themes. Each theme has a list of "yes/no" questions through which research integrity officers or administrators could assess their institution's performance in that specific domain. Guidance on what constitutes good evidence for each question is also provided. This document, therefore, ensures that Research Integrity is assessed as objectively as possible against the standards of the concordat. +
The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a key international human rights treaty that provides protection to the political and civil rights of individuals in UN member states. At the moment 173 parties ratified the treaty, which is endorsed by the European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research. +
