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
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. +
Code of Professional Standards and Ethics in Science, Technology, and the Humanities distils national expectations for research integrity in New Zealand and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Aotearoa - New Zealand 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 2019, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
The Code is important because organoid research is advancing rapidly, but laws, regulations, and ethical frameworks have lagged behind. Without clear guidelines, researchers might inadvertently cross moral, legal, or societal boundaries, raising public concern and potentially undermining trust. The Code helps ensure that organoid development proceeds with accountability, transparency, and respect for human dignity. It supports ethics committees, institutions, and researchers in making better decisions about consent, usage, safety, and public engagement. Moreover, by defining responsible conduct, it contributes to harmonising practices across countries and institutions, which is vital in collaborative scientific research. Ultimately, it helps protect participants, donors, researchers, and society, while enabling innovation in a safer and more ethically informed manner. +
Codul General de Etică în Cercetarea Științifică - General code of ethics in scientific research (2015) +
Codul General de Etică în Cercetarea Științifică - General code of ethics in scientific research distils national expectations for research integrity in Romania 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 nan in 2015, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
In participating in the communal practice of science, we have to accept certain standards of excellence (related to values, like truth) and rules to follow (to give an accurate account of the authors’ contributions). Thus, we are likely to experience cognitive dissonance or moral distress, when confronted with conflicting imperatives (for instance the need to give an authorship to one’s superior, even if she did not contribute to the specific paper). Cognitive dissonance theory holds that when we experience cognitive or dissonance or moral distress, we tend to justify our behavior. The more often we engage in justifying our unethical behavior, the more we will perceive this unethical behavior as already justified and the more likely we are to engage in it again.
Although we will always be blind to our own ignorance to a certain degree, we can learn to recognize our self-justification strategies as indicators of our (evolving) vices. By recognizing why we engage in self-justification strategies and how they impact our decision-making, we can foster conditions for good research.
Virtue ethics emphasizes that we need to develop virtues in order to deal with imperatives that are detrimental to good research.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000026F-QINU`"' According to MacIntyre, “virtues serve three functions: to enable individuals to achieve excellence in practice, to protect the practice from threat of corruption by goods of efficiency, and to be constitutive components of the good human life”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000270-QINU`"' So virtues can be seen as crucial to counter corruptive tendencies in the research system. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000271-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000272-QINU`"'
Cultivating sensitivity for cognitive dissonance and moral distress is an important element of research integrity education.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000273-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000274-QINU`"'It may support us in our attempts to find the right middle between being lenient and being too harsh on ourselves. What is the right middle depends on situational factors, as well as individual capabilities of the researcher. Knowing the right middle is not something that we can learn solely by understanding the underlying dynamics. It has to be learned in practice, over and over again. If we keep in sight the goods of excellence to achieve, we can be prepared not to be discouraged if we fail to assess a situation appropriately, but rather use any mistake we make as a means to fine-tune our cognitive strategies and moral behavior.
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000275-QINU`"'
Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project +
The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf 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) Training, Supervision and Mentoring
3) Research Procedures
4) Safeguards
5) Data Practices and Management
6) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ '''Collaborative Working''']
7) Publication and Dissemination
8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing +
A lot of scientific work happens through collaboration. Yet, collaborations can also lead to conflict when there is lack of clarity about the roles of different collaborators, or when expectations are not met.
Collaborative work has become more important over the past few decades, partially due to the rise of interdisciplinary research. The number of co-authors on a paper is a potential indifcatar for the rise of collaborations, with the average number of co-authors on research papers for the PNAS rose from 3.9 in 1981 to 8.4 in 2001. '"`UNIQ--ref-000001FC-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000001FD-QINU`"' +
Columbia grad student faked data in study of socioeconomics and life experiences, says retraction notice +
It is important to present examples of retractions due to misconduct in areas such as economics and social sciences. A recent review'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' has found that ethics violations in social sciences and humanities are not as commonly encountered compared to medical and health sciences. +
