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
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:
1) Non-reflective thinking – which means showing habitual action and just repeating words
2) Descriptive level – which means describing what happens and how it is happening
3) 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. +
The document 'Code of Ethics for Researchers', developed in 2012 in Lithuania, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Academy of Sciences Presidium, and available in Lithuanian, it targets the research community in Lithuania. 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. +
Lithuanian Code of Ethics for Scientists (Mokslininko etikos kodeksas) was published in 2012. It consists of four main sections: general provisions;basic ethical provisions of research;dissemination of research results;and ethical provisions for the evaluation and examination of scientific works. The general provisions outline the important principles to be upheld and the professional competencies of a scientist. The basic ethical provisions of research covers both the transparency and trustworthiness of research, as well as ethical provisions for the protection of research subjects. The section on the dissemination of research results deals mainly with authorship, plagiarism, accessibility of research results, and correction of the scientific record. The final section, on ethical provisions for the evaluation and examination of scientific works, covers the expertise of evaluators, independence and potential conflicts of interest, and transparency of the evaluation process. +
This law, adopted in 2015, lays down newer regulations related to quality assurance and maintenance in all scientific education or research institutions. , adding on to the Law on Science and Studies (2009, please see "related resources)". +
This is a course developed by the Medical Neuroscience Program at Charité Berlin that illustrates why it is important to do good science as a PhD student, and provides guidance on how to do so. The educational resource provides the teaching materials and toolbox that instructors have used in last year's course for early career researchers. +
This case deals with an interdisciplinary and cross-country collaboration (between a theorist and an experimentalist). The case is detailed an involves a number of questions related to responsibilities in scientific collaborations, authorship, and publication review. This is a fictional case. +
Two research groups are collaborating remotely. One will provide the experimental results, the other will provide simulations.
One of the scientists from the simulating group discovers the other group has overlooked some fundamental physics. She decides this needs to be published immediately, and overnight writes a paper to demonstrate this, including experiments from their collaborators. The scientist who writes the article makes himself the first author.
He sends the draft to the collaborating group, who immediately respond angrily. They reject the idea that someone else could be first author with their experiments and they threaten to cancel the collaboration, retracting all funding. +
M
A interactive workshop aimed at <span lang="EN-US"> exploring what empowerment is for early career researchers (ECRs) and PhDs, in the context of daily life in academia. And to raise awareness of the role PhDs hold in influencing research culture.</span>
Find in depth instructions here: [https://osf.io/9t2mg/files/x5b9m M-Power Facilitator Instructions.pdf]
Print out for guiding questions here: [https://osf.io/rhw94 Guiding questions]
The slides for the workshop here: [https://osf.io/z97sb M-Power Workshop Slides] +
<span lang="EN-US">Explore what empowerment is for early career researchers (ECRs) and PhDs, in the context of daily life in academia. And to raise awareness of the role PhDs hold in influencing research culture. </span> +
A healthy research culture supports the practice of responsible science. However, the role of (research) culture is often underestimated or difficult to change. The goal of the (em)power groups to improve research culture project is to improve research culture. To this end, we are developing in two years’ time a conversation tool that allows research groups/departments to think and reflect on responsible research with the aim of raising awareness about the influence of research culture on the behavior of scientists how (young) scientists can change this culture. This conversation tool will use a novel series of videos and will be tailored to the needs within various disciplinary fields at departmental level. By actively seeking out departments needs and by offering the developed tool at department or research group meetings, we aim to reach a large group of early career scientists to empower them to speak up. +
