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
C
Case-based ethics instruction: the influence of contextual and individual factors in case content on ethical decision-making +
Cases can help making research ethics training more efficient. +
This policy brief is important because the evolving geopolitical landscape and advanced technologies present new vulnerabilities for scientific research vulnerabilities that can compromise knowledge, national security, and public trust. Without clear frameworks and institutional capacity, HEIs and RPOs risk exposure to misuse, undue influence, or loss of control over sensitive research outputs. The concept of research security if left undefined can create confusion and weak implementation. By proposing a “by-design” approach and concrete policy measures, the brief helps bridge the gap between open science values and necessary safeguards. It also prompts institutions, funders, and policymakers to proactively address security without undermining collaboration and autonomy in research. +
The current peer review system may not work positive for everybody. It is important how to react when your proposal as a researcher is rejected for funding without deception. +
A series of 9 articles provide a set of guidelines on a variety of topics related to archaeological heritage to ensure its protection and management. Among others, the charter focuses on protection policies, legislation and economy, surveys, investigation, maintenance and conservation, reconstruction and presentation, information, professional qualifications, and international cooperation. Besides, the charter has been endorsed by the European Association of Archaeologists in their Code of Practice. +
Charter of ethics and guiding principles of scientific research in Lebanon (2016), Mouin Hamzé, Nayef Saade, Fawaz Fawaz +
Charter of ethics and guiding principles of scientific research in Lebanon distils national expectations for research integrity in Lebanon and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Lebanon 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 Mouin Hamzé, Nayef Saade, Fawaz Fawaz in 2016, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
These documents provide a basis for engagement with ecofeminist issues as they arise in project implementation and in thinking about the green transition more broadly. +
The case demonstrates supervisory responsibilities in relation to the health and safety of young researchers who are working in a laboratory. +
Code of Conduct for Responsible Research' 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. +
In an interview, the director of the National Natural Science Foundation of China states that the standards set in the document are relevant for the creation of a culture of fairness and honesty. He claims that this is crucial to preserve the public trust in research findings and set guidelines to create concrete policy for managing an increasing quantity of funds. +
The library provides accessible, credible information to support informed decision-making for professionals and patients. In the Internet age, people have much greater access to health information, but little way of knowing whether that information is accurate and unbiased. The initiative provides a tool to make evidence based decisions in order to improve health and healthcare from multiple perspectives. +
Code of Conduct for Research Integrity distils national expectations for research integrity in Ireland and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Ireland (but also researchers funded by Royal Irish Academy) 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 The Royal Irish Academy in 2020, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Code of Ethics Young Scientists distils international expectations for research integrity in International and clarifies what researchers and institutions in International 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 nan in 2018, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Code of Ethics for Researchers of the Czech Academy of Sciences' 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. +
Code of Ethics for Scientific Research in Belgium (2009), Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux Arts de Belgique, the Académie Royale de Médecine de Belgique, the Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten and the Koninklijke Academie voor Geneeskunde van België +
Code of Ethics for Scientific Research in Belgium distils national expectations for research integrity in Belgium and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Belgium-funded research 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 Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux Arts de Belgique, the Académie Royale de Médecine de Belgique, the Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten and the Koninklijke Academie voor Geneeskunde van België in 2009, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Code of Ethics for Scientific Research in Belgium' 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. +
Code of Ethics of Estonian Scientists distils national expectations for research integrity in Estonia and clarifies what researchers and institutions in nan 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 ? it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Code of Ethics of Estonian Scientists' 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. +
Code of Good Scientific Practice distils regional (state of sao paulo) expectations for research integrity in Brazil and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Brazil 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 FAPESP São Paulo Research Foundation in 2014, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
Code of Good Scientific Practice CSIC distils national expectations for research integrity in Spain and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Spain 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 nan in 2021, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
This document lays down prerequisites that need to be upheld by all researchers and research institutions that are supported by the CSIC. It is divided into 4 domains: principles of research, the researcher as a science professional, publications and communication and institutional framework. The legal bases for these good conduct practices are included in the Annex. +
