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
V
Science Producers are central to the Ecosystem of Trust in Science, as they directly generate research outputs, knowledge, and innovations that influence society. However, trust in their work is constrained by opaque knowledge-production processes, competitive funding structures, and performance metrics that prioritise outputs over societal value or collaboration. This environment discourages open science, interdisciplinary work, and co-creation with the public, weakening perceptions of science as a collective good.
At the same time, scientific research faces profound systemic changes. The rise of artificial intelligence, new funding mechanisms, and cross-sector collaborations provide opportunities to accelerate research and broaden participation. Yet they also raise concerns about transparency, accountability, and fairness, particularly as science becomes increasingly politicised and privatised. Such pressures risk undermining freedom of inquiry, distorting agendas, and eroding public confidence in science’s neutrality.
To sustain trust, Science Producers must adopt transparent, reproducible, and ethical practices. Disclosing funding, addressing conflicts of interest, embedding co-creation, and rethinking incentive structures are essential. By actively engaging with communities, fostering inclusivity, and promoting open science infrastructures, Science Producers can build durable and reciprocal trust within society and across the broader ecosystem. +
Science-Society Facilitators are essential Stewards of Trust, linking research with diverse communities and ensuring science addresses real societal needs. Yet, engagement efforts often fall short, reduced to tokenistic exercises that meet funding requirements without genuinely empowering citizens. This risks reinforcing perceptions of science as top-down, inaccessible, and detached from public concerns—particularly among historically marginalised groups who may carry negative experiences with scientific or healthcare institutions.
Structural barriers such as short-term funding, limited institutional backing, and rigid project structures further constrain meaningful engagement. Power imbalances within participatory processes, data privacy concerns, and weak inclusion of underrepresented groups undermine credibility. Religious, ideological, or political tensions may complicate coalition-building, while citizen science projects often struggle to extend beyond organised civil society.
The recommendations in this resource are important because they shift engagement from consultation toward true co-creation. By integrating local knowledge, ensuring fair recognition of citizen contributions, and building inclusive platforms for dialogue, facilitators can create sustained, equitable, and responsive models of engagement. Adequate funding, training, and ethical safeguards are critical. Through these practices, facilitators transform science from an elite endeavour into a collaborative, accountable, and trusted societal enterprise rooted in shared values and mutual learning. +
The Scenario-Building Training is important because it bridges the gap between recommendations and practice. It helps stakeholders move from abstract guidance to concrete implementation, ensuring that strategies to foster trust in science are realistic, adaptable, and sustainable. By anticipating risks and uncertainties, identifying enabling and hindering factors, and planning practical steps, the training supports users to turn ideas into action both within VERITY and in broader contexts.
<span lang="EN-GB">Beyond its methodological value, the training also serves a wider purpose of fostering public trust in science. By guiding Stewards of Trust (SOTs) through the application of VERITY’s recommendations, it supports systemic improvements in key areas such as building trustworthy science, strengthening education, engaging the public in research, building effective science communication, and developing supportive policy frameworks. It highlights the importance of collaboration across diverse actors in the ecosystem of trust, from policymakers and researchers to educators, communicators and funders, ensuring that scientific practices remain transparent, inclusive and responsive to societal needs.</span> +
The train-the-trainer program has an aspirational approach, and focuses on what it means to be a good and virtuous researcher. Instead of teaching about rules and norms, the training focuses primarily on promoting reflection on personal attitudes and behaviors. Participants learn how to train others to reflect on concrete cases and moral dilemmas in research, and to use tools that foster reflection in others. This will foster skills that enable trainees to integrate the European Code of Conduct in their day-to-day professional life. +
This work is important because it provides empirical evidence and a conceptual framework showing how Open Science contributes to research and society. By validating impact pathways, it helps policymakers, funders, and institutions understand not just ''that'' Open Science matters, but ''how'' it creates real benefits such as faster knowledge dissemination, increased collaboration, and broader societal engagement. It also identifies barriers and equity issues, helping leaders design more inclusive and effective research systems. Importantly, the guidelines can inform strategic decisions about investing in open infrastructures and measuring research value beyond traditional metrics. In an era where publicly funded research is increasingly expected to deliver societal return, this model supports more evidence-based strategies for advancing Open Science. +
Researchers can encounter dilemmas whilst working with private industry due to competing priorities and obligations (e.g. immediate interests of certain patient groups vs. financial sustainability of companies). +
In codes of conduct for scientific research, the concepts of values and norms are often used interchangeably. Yet, it is crucial to distinguish between the two concepts '"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"'. Values are general ideals. They underlie norms, which are action-guiding rules. There are three kinds of such rules: permissions, orders or commands and prohibitions. Values show what persons and communities hold as important. Norms say what has to be done in order to realize values. Without a reference to underlying values, rules lack motivation and justification. Without corresponding norms, values lack specification and concrete direction.
Values and norms can be ''formal'' (that is: explicitly formulated) or ''informal'' (that is: implicitly assumed). Often, when values are discussed, corresponding norms are not explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, when norms are posed, the underlying values often remain implicit. Yet it is important to be aware of the concrete action-guiding rules envisaged when a certain value is mentioned, and of the general ideal behind a specific norm. An important aim of moral reflection is to provide such clarifications.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000008-QINU`"' +
This policy brief is important because it reframes science governance to include citizens as active partners rather than passive stakeholders. Doing so can strengthen democratic legitimacy, improve the social relevance of scientific outcomes, and boost public trust in science and policy. Particularly in contexts where science intersects with contentious issues (e.g., climate change, health policy), involving diverse publics early and meaningfully can reduce polarization and enhance collective decision-making. Its recommendations provide practical guidance to policymakers, research institutions, and civic actors on designing engagement methods that are inclusive, deliberative, and capable of integrating public values into science governance. +
==== Why use it? ====
* Improve your knowledge and application of equitable and responsible research practices
* Develop strong, comprehensive and deliverable research plans
* Articulate and evidence your research plans to funders
* Expand the real world impact of your research +
* Improve your knowledge and application of equitable and responsible research practices
* Develop strong, comprehensive and deliverable research plans
* Articulate and evidence your research plans to funders
* Expand the real world impact of your research
+
It shows that data and image integrity are part and parcel of modern research. +
It is crucial for participants to complete the online modules in advance of the face-to-face training in order to acquire a shared understanding of the program’s core concepts. +
It is crucial for participants to complete the online modules in advance of the face-to-face training in order to acquire a shared understanding of the program’s core concepts. +
Through reflection on the moral characters important for researchers, and how they guide action, participants gain an understanding of their personal motives for research practice. +
Researchers are often faced with dilemmas and questions which put their integrity at risk. In these situations, researchers must decide what is important for them and how to stay close to their values while protecting their integrity and respecting their professional codes of conduct. Reflecting on which moral characters are important for researchers, and on how these moral characters might guide their actions, can support researchers to understand personal motives for good conduct in science. +
Research integrity is not only about following rules. It also requires personal engagement and competence. These requirements show that research integrity requires virtues. A person who is virtuous, not merely follows methodological or moral rules, but embodies goodness or excellence . '"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"' Goodness or excellence in research depends on what we do, as well as on who we are, intellectually and morally. The possession of a virtue says something about this person as a person. So, to tell of a person that she is imaginative or honest, is to say something about this person’s character. Aristotle described virtue as ‘the state of character which makes a man good and which makes him do his work well.’ '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"' MacIntyre defined virtue as ‘an acquired human quality the possession and the exercise of which tends to enable us to achieve those goods which are internal to practices and the lack of which effectively prevents us from achieving any such goods’. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"' MacIntyre, therefore, emphasized the importance of practice for the expression and development of virtues.
Aristotle distinguishes between two kinds of virtues, intellectual and moral virtues. Examples of the first kind of virtues are critical thinking, curiosity, imaginativeness, perseverance and open-mindedness. Examples of moral virtues are courage, honesty, generosity, fair-mindedness, and justice. Although intellectual and moral virtues are distinct, they have in common that they are both character traits.
A number of attempts have been made to identify which virtues are essential for good scientific practice . '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"' These include: honesty;curiosity;attentiveness or observance;perseverance or patience;objectivity;humility to evidence;skepticism;meticulousness;courage;collaboration;resoluteness;accountability;availability;competency;reliability;sincerity;creativity;accountability;punctuality;truthfulness;selflessness;reflexivity;clarity of purpose;collaborative spirit;fairness;loyalty;moderation;positivity/open-mindedness;respectfulness.
According to Aristotle, a virtuous person has the disposition to act in accordance with the right middle. A virtuous person is able to see and do what is right in the specific situation, and knows how to avoid the extremes of showing too little or too much. An example of a virtue is courage. Someone who is brave knows how to find the right middle between the extremes of cowardice on the one hand and recklessness on the other. That applies not only to war, to the Greeks an important example of human action. It also applies to interacting with people with whom one collaborates. For example, if the person makes a mistake, it may be important to tell her ' the truth '. That requires courage, as the right middle between making an allusion in the hope that the other understands the message, and confronting the other in public with the fact that she does something wrong. What is the right middle depends on the situation, that is, the seriousness of the error, the openness of the other for the message, and the ability of the person who performs the act. In some cases the right middle is closer to being cautious;in other cases more emphasis is needed.
Being virtuous means living in accordance with one’s natural potential. Thus, virtues refer to human nature. Yet, developing virtues requires training and exercise in practice. In practice, one learns to see what is the importance of, for example, honesty as openness to criticism, and how it can be adequately shaped. How much attention should you devote to literature before you do a study? When does that literature help sharpen the mind, and when does it lead to confusion? Of course it is important to study existing investigations before one starts to research, for example by doing a systematic review. But how to ensure that this really gives an insight into what was previously found, and provides a connecting factor for further research? The same applies to the discussion of possible explanations for results of own research. What literature do you refer to, and how do you use it to sharpen the findings? Do the quoted articles really help them to better understand the outcomes of the study, draw conclusions and formulate new questions? The answer to such questions does not come from textbooks, but requires insights and skills that are already acquired in practice.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000E-QINU`"'
It is important to include mental health patients into society and so this study is very much admirable. But, no matter how much any project is important or admirable all individuals included in the study should know all about it prior to involvement. Since this step was skipped I suggest that all participants be informed about the study now. This means that some will not be willing to participate and will step out from the study.
The study may have sufficient number of participants in the and because there are not many studies dealing with the re-integration of mental health patients into society.
The drop out number can be used in the study for the statistical purposes and it can additionally improve overall study statistics. +
W
''<span lang="EN-US">Artificial intelligence presents new challenges for both organisations and individuals in terms of how to navigate and manage its use. As the guidelines developed at WIFO may be of interest to other research organisations facing similar challenges, we want to share them with the broader research community.</span>'' +
Want to make sure your paper gets published? Just do your own peer review like this researcher did +
Whilst researchers increasingly get the pressure of ‘publish or perish’, it is of paramount importance that the peer review process remains impartial and uncompromised. +
Im Wissenschaftsalltag begegnen wir oft Dilemmata und Fragen, die die eigene Integrität auf die Probe stellen. In diesen Situationen müssen Wissenschaftler:innen entscheiden, was ihnen wichtig ist und welchen Werten entsprechend sie sich verhalten wollen, während sie gleichzeitig ihre eigene Integrität bewahren und sich an berufsethischen Verhaltenskodizes orientieren möchten. Darüber nachzudenken, welche moralischen Charaktereigenschaften für Wissenschaftler:innen wichtig sind und wie diese Eigenschaften das Handeln leiten können, kann Wissenschaftler:innen dabei helfen, ihre persönlichen Motive für gutes Verhalten in der Wissenschaft zu verstehen. +
