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
L
This module introduces a collection of learning cards developed by the EU funded initiative Path2Integrity. The following training material can be used within and/or outside the academic environment. +
This module introduces a collection of research ethics and integrity games developed by EU funded initiatives to deepen engagement with and reflection on research ethics and integrity topics. Research ethics and integrity games provide a dynamic approach to teaching responsible conduct of research. By simulating real-world challenges and dilemmas, these games encourage active participation and critical thinking in a gamified way. They create an engaging learning environment where players can explore complex questions in a safe, informal and interactive setting.
The games presented here can be used within and/or outside of the academic environment. The games presented here have been developed by the following EU-funded initiatives: INTEGRITY, BRIDGE, and VIRT2UE.
For each game developed by each project the target audience is indicated. +
This module introduces a collection of research ethics and integrity games developed by EU funded initiatives to deepen engagement with and reflection on research ethics and integrity topics. Research ethics and integrity games provide a dynamic approach to teaching responsible conduct of research. By simulating real-world challenges and dilemmas, these games encourage active participation and critical thinking in a gamified way. They create an engaging learning environment where players can explore complex questions in a safe, informal and interactive setting.
The games presented here can be used within and/or outside of the academic environment. The games presented here have been developed by the following EU-funded initiatives: INTEGRITY, BRIDGE, and VIRT2UE.
For each game developed by each project the target audience is indicated. +
This module introduces training materials developed to learn about responsible supervision and mentorship. These are designed to equip researchers and academic professionals with the skills needed to foster ethical and responsible mentoring relationships. By supporting good supervision practices, these materials contribute to the development of a good research environment and responsible practice of research. The materials presented have been developed by EU-funded initiatives, namely INTEGRITY, RID-SSISS, VIRT2UE, and Bridge.
For each set of materials developed by each project, the target audience is indicated. +
This module introduces training materials developed to learn about responsible supervision and mentorship. These are designed to equip researchers and academic professionals with the skills needed to foster ethical and responsible mentoring relationships. By supporting good supervision practices, these materials contribute to the development of a good research environment and responsible practice of research. The materials presented have been developed by EU-funded initiatives, namely INTEGRITY, RID-SSISS, VIRT2UE, and Bridge.
For each set of materials developed by each project, the target audience is indicated. +
This policy brief reports on the experiences of research-funding organisations (RFOs) across Europe that participated in ten pilot activities to explore participatory approaches in research and innovation funding processes. It highlights that involvement of citizens and non-traditional stakeholders enriches the research agenda setting and innovation programmes by bringing in diverse perspectives and societal needs. Key insights include: participatory processes are more complex than traditional ones (requiring flexible planning, careful recruitment, managing expectations and roles, and addressing power-relations). Institutional support and capacity-building (training, facilitation, ethical frameworks) are crucial for success. Concrete examples of pilot cases are given (e.g., a Belgian RFO involving citizens in programme theme-definition; a Norwegian “hub” for citizen participation). The brief concludes with recommendations for RFOs that wish to implement participatory models, emphasising learning-by-doing, resources, governance backing and ethical awareness +
The document 'Charter of ethics and guiding principles of scientific research in Lebanon', developed in 2016 in Lebanon, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Mouin Hamzé (National Council for Scientific Research), Nayef Saade (American University of Beirut), Fawaz Fawaz (National Council for Scientific Research), and available in Arabic and English, it targets the research community in Lebanon. It provides clear expectations for responsible conduct in research and defines practices that safeguard honesty, transparency, and accountability. The text outlines responsibilities of both individual researchers and institutions. It identifies misconduct such as plagiarism, data falsification, fabrication, and unethical authorship, while also promoting good practices in publication, peer review, and collaborative research. It emphasizes effective data management, openness in reporting, and respect for colleagues, participants, and the wider community. Institutions are encouraged to create supportive environments through policies, training, and oversight mechanisms. The document serves as an official reference for aligning national research standards with international expectations, reinforcing ethical norms across research fields. +
14 Lectures Research Ethics Training Virtual Course
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLL8T_N2tHeHMPJMXAmOyFCbX6wwzK1iC_&si=lHo3UxM_m65Auiak +
This resource describes the broad range of allegations that can be made against researchers involved in human subjects research, through reference to case law from North America. What unifies these cases described is that, first, a wide range of defendants were named, including principal investigators, university trustees, hospital administration, and medical school leadership. Second, these cases utilized higher standards for researchers than the medical malpractice standards commonly used in clinical settings. Finally, the authors note that these three cases are unusual in that they were argued in court; the majority of research-related cases are settled prior to trial. The article concludes that, although limited, this body of case law informs researchers on specific areas of vulnerability and precautions they must take to minimize legal liability.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000014B-QINU`"' +
A researcher was interviewing teenagers about their sexual activity, drug use, smoking and their general problems, when a nearby store was robbed. Police claimed that two of the suspects often visited the community centre in which the researcher was conducting her interviews and requested access to the research notes after having obtained a court order. The case study asks whether the researcher should protect her sources and risk jailtime for "contempt of court" or turn over the notes to the police. +
A researcher was interviewing teenagers about their sexual activity, drug use, smoking and their general problems, when a nearby store was robbed. Police claimed that two of the suspects often visited the community centre in which the researcher was conducting her interviews and requested access to the research notes after having obtained a court order. The case study asks whether the researcher should protect her sources and risk jailtime for "contempt of court" or turn over the notes to the police. +
This web page lays down both general principles of good conduct and what constitutes misconduct, as well as rules specific to the institute, such as those concerning industry partnerships, thesis preparation and employment policy. +
The Leiden Manifesto are ten principles about the measurements of research performance. +
Kember and his colleagues (Kember, 1999; Kember et al., 2000; for elaborations see also Kember et al., 2008; Bell et al., 2011) have specified Mezirow’s (1991) reflection levels:
-non-reflective thinking – which means showing habitual action and just repeating words;
-descriptive level – which means describing what happens and how it is happening;
-analytical level – may include other levels but also includes reflection on experience, i.e., what it means (to me);
-reflective/critical level – may include all previous levels but the crucial part is to display change or redirection, recognition of own pre-defined beliefs and values, and understanding how those influence any perspectives taken.
In a similar way, ethics sections in doctoral dissertations can be seen as one type of display of learning of REI, especially if the final piece of writing can be compared to earlier drafts. Based on an analysis of the ethics sections of 60 PhD dissertations, Marita Cronqvist (2024) has identified topic areas and corresponding criteria (Table 3). This framework could be applied in the analysis of the content and evaluating the quality of ethical considerations displayed in the research ethics section of dissertations (Table 3).
Both frameworks—the levels of reflective thinking and the framework for assessing ethics sections—can thus be used to monitor and analyse how reflection and ethical awareness are demonstrated and developed in the context of REI. +
Ley 26.899, Repositorios digitales institucionales de acceso abierto. (2013), Argentine National Congress +
''Ley 26.899, Repositorios digitales institucionales de acceso abierto'' (2013), enacted by the Argentine National Congress, establishes national expectations for open science and open access in Argentina. Written in Spanish, it frames openness as the default while respecting ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, guided by the principle “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” The law emphasizes open access to publications through trusted institutional repositories, preferred licensing such as Creative Commons, persistent identifiers, and FAIR data principles supported by data management plans. Responsibilities for researchers, institutions, and funders are clearly defined, including rights retention, acknowledgment of funding, and transparent management of embargoes or exceptions. Supporting infrastructure repositories, registries, discovery services, and research information systems—ensures compliance and visibility, aligning Argentine practices with international initiatives like Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud. Equity, inclusion, and responsible openness are central, with safeguards for sensitive and Indigenous data. Serving as both a benchmark and practical checklist, the law provides actionable guidance to enhance transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access to research in Argentina. +
Ley de la Ciencia, la Tecnología y la Innovación (2011), Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Gobierno de España +
Ley de la Ciencia, la Tecnología y la Innovación (2011), produced by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Gobierno de España, is a national policy written in Spanish that sets the framework for open science and open access in Spain. It establishes openness as the default, balanced with ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, following the principle “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” The law emphasizes that openness improves research quality, reproducibility, knowledge transfer, and equitable access, particularly for communities with limited resources. It requires open access to publications, encourages Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and deposition of manuscripts in trusted repositories, while also promoting FAIR data principles and data management plans. Authors and institutions are tasked with retaining rights, acknowledging funding, and justifying embargoes only in exceptional cases. Supported by national infrastructure like repositories and registries, the law aligns Spanish practices with international initiatives such as Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud. It also highlights responsible openness, ensuring safeguards for sensitive or commercial data. As a benchmark resource, it reduces ambiguity, provides a practical checklist, and serves as a credible reference for researchers, administrators, and policymakers in Spain. +
This study discussed how only 17% of 400 articles published in 2005 in journals with the highest number of citations used words 'limitation', 'caveat' or 'caution' in their texts, only 1% of articles used the word 'limitation' in their abstracts, whereas not one article mentioned limitations of their research that had impact on their conclusions. +
Janice Spencer conducts research on adolescents' contacts with juvenile justice system. After starting a second project assessing law enforcement's decision making concerning juveniles, she realises that her research covers many of the subjects studied in the first project. She decides to combine the data sets from the two projects as she believes it would provide much value, but realised that her consent procedures did not anticipate such possibility. The case study asks about the proper course of action in this situation. +
The ENERI document ''“Existing materials mainly for RECs”'' provides a curated overview of online training resources available for members of '''Research Ethics Committees (RECs)'''. It compiles a wide range of free or accessible e-learning courses, tutorials, and educational platforms that support REC members in understanding ethical principles, regulatory frameworks, and best practices in evaluating research involving human participants. The listed resources cover essential topics such as '''Good Clinical Practice (GCP)''', informed consent, vulnerability, research integrity, international guidelines, and case-based ethical decision-making. Key training options include TRREE, NIHR GCP training, FHI360’s ethics curriculum, Global Health Trials modules, and national or institutional ethics tutorials. Additional general ethics resources, such as ENERI Classroom and the Online Ethics Center, are included to support continuous learning. The document aims to strengthen REC capacity, harmonize ethical review standards, and ensure high-quality, ethically responsible research across diverse contexts. +
The ENERI document ''“Existing materials mainly for RIOs”'' provides a curated overview of online training resources designed to support the work of '''Research Integrity Offices (RIOs)''' and professionals responsible for promoting good research practice. It compiles freely accessible or low-cost e-learning modules, tutorials, case studies, and guidance materials covering a wide range of topics central to research integrity, including responsible conduct of research, handling misconduct, data management, authorship, peer review, conflicts of interest, and institutional responsibilities. The document highlights key platforms such as the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), ENRIO’s resource library, UKRIO guidance, the German Research Ombudsman curriculum, and broader Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) training tools. These resources vary in format from interactive cases and videos to structured learning modules allowing institutions and integrity officers to select materials that suit their needs. Overall, the compilation helps institutions strengthen their research integrity frameworks through accessible, high-quality training options. +
