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
M
Bu alıştırma, eğitmenlerin diğer kişilerde diyalog becerilerinin gelişimini teşvik etmelerine ve diyalog yoluyla fikir yürütmenin teşvik edilebilmesi için neler yapılması gerektiğini açıklamalarına yardımcı olmaktadır. Bu alıştırma, diyaloğun ve diyalog becerilerinin genel olarak yorumlama ve fikir yürütme süreçlerinin ayrılmaz bir parçası olduğu ancak Araştırma Etiği ve Doğruluğu (AED) için özellikle önem arz ettiği kabulüne dayanarak geliştirilmiştir.
Bu alıştırmayı kullanarak:
- Deneyimsel öğrenme yoluyla başkalarında fikir yürütme/yorumlama süreçlerini teşvik edebilecek
- Diyaloğu fikir yürütme süreçlerinde bir araç olarak kullanacak ve diyaloğun bu şekilde kullanılmasını nasıl destekleyeceğinizi/teşvik edeceğinizi öğreneceksiniz.
Bu alıştırma aynı zamanda daha derinlikli fikir yürütme/yorumlama araçlarına ya da alıştırmalarına geçmeden önce bir başlangıç çalışması olarak da kullanılabilir. +
N
These role-play scenarios are designed as teaching tools with aim of developing problem solving skills. Learners are casted as characters in realistic research ethics dilemmas which they have to deal with. +
NERQ is a new initiative that results from two EU projects, namely Path2Integrity and Integrity. NERQ stands for network for education in research quality, and takes a broad perspective on research quality, namely that high standards in research integrity, research ethics, open science and responsible research & innovation meet in training and courses for students and researchers throughout various stages of their career. +
1.1 This policy serves to provide the framework for research integrity in NTU to ensure staff and students engaged in research will adhere to good research practices and to conduct research responsibly and with impeccable integrity.
1.2 This policy forms part of the [https://www.ntu.edu.sg/research/research-integrity-ethics/The-University-Code-of-Conduct University's Code of Conduct]. +
NTU (Nanyang Technological University) Responding to Allegations/Complaints of Research Misconduct +
Procedure for handling of Allegation/ Complaints of possible misconduct in research, received by NTU +
The Nagoya Protocol (effective from 12 October 2014) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity ensures reasonable distribution of benefits emerging from the use of genetic resources. As of March 2021, the protocol has been ratified by 130 parties. +
The Nanyang Technological University Singapore (NTU) Research Data Policy gives detailed advice on how to manage data I research (e.g. ownership DMP, sharing etc.) and what important roles and responsibilities are. +
National Guidelines for Promoting Open Science (2024), National Library of Sweden (Kungliga biblioteket, KB) +
The National Guidelines for Promoting Open Science (2024), produced by the National Library of Sweden, provide guidance for open science and open access in Sweden, framing openness as a default while respecting ethics, privacy, IP, and security. The guidelines link openness to research quality, reproducibility, rapid knowledge translation, and equitable access, covering open access publications, FAIR data principles, data management plans, persistent identifiers, and trusted repositories. Responsibilities for researchers and institutions, justified embargoes, and exceptions for sensitive data are outlined, supported by enabling infrastructure and alignment with international frameworks like Plan S. Emphasis is placed on equity, responsible handling of sensitive data, and the quality of openness, with practical examples, FAQs, and guidance for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers to implement open, interoperable, and inclusive practices. +
The National Open Access (OA) Policy of Ethiopia (2019), published by the FDRE Ministry of Science and Higher Education, provides a national framework for open research in Ethiopia. It clarifies what researchers and institutions need to do to comply with national expectations while aligning local practice with international norms. The policy reduces ambiguity and offers actionable steps that promote transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access to research outputs. Key elements include guidance on open access publishing, rights retention, deposition in trusted repositories, and alignment with FAIR data principles. It serves as a practical checklist for authors and administrators and a benchmark for policymakers seeking to develop or harmonize national open research strategies. The policy also supports the development of enabling infrastructure and institutional workflows to facilitate compliance and improve the visibility of outputs. By clearly defining responsibilities for researchers, institutions, and funders, it helps embed openness into research planning and execution while balancing ethical, privacy, intellectual property, and security considerations. Implementation guidance ensures that institutions can provide training and resources, and that researchers can plan for openness from project inception. The policy is a credible reference for institutional policies, training, and grant documentation, promoting equitable and responsible access to knowledge in Ethiopia. +
National Policy on Academic Ethics (2019), Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India +
National Policy on Academic Ethics (2019) is a national framework authored by Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India, in english, targeting India. Originating from India, it aims to formalise principles of research integrity and open practice. It emphasises honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust in research. The text covers responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, spelling out expectations for good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Common provisions include clear authorship criteria, proper citation and acknowledgement, management of conflicts of interest, transparency of methods and data, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It also establishes procedures for handling breaches of integrity, defining misconduct, and setting up investigation mechanisms that ensure due process, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities. By aligning with international standards, it connects local policy to global norms, reinforcing mobility of researchers and comparability of practices across borders. The document integrates the principle of education—training for students and staff on responsible conduct—ensuring that integrity is taught as a core skill rather than assumed knowledge. It also incorporates guidance on emerging issues such as data management, digital tools, open science, and new forms of dissemination, embedding integrity in contemporary workflows. Practical tools often include checklists, codes of behaviour, reporting templates, and FAQs, translating high-level principles into day-to-day actions. The intended audience spans researchers, supervisors, institutions, and policymakers, all of whom need clarity on their roles in safeguarding the credibility of research. Equity and diversity appear as cross-cutting themes, recognising that integrity involves creating inclusive environments free from discrimination, harassment, or exploitation. Overall, the resource situates research integrity as both a personal commitment and an institutional responsibility, embedding it into the full research cycle from design to dissemination. Annexes may provide case studies, historical context, and references to international declarations such as Singapore or Montreal statements. Definitions and glossaries support consistent interpretation, and contact points or ombudsperson systems are described to lower barriers to reporting. These features help the resource serve not only as a policy but also as a practical handbook.
The National Policy on Open Access (2015) from Luxembourg’s National Research Fund (FNR) establishes that research funded with public money should be openly available, with openness as the default but balanced against ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security. It requires open access to publications, preferably under Creative Commons licences, deposited in trusted repositories with persistent identifiers and FAIR-aligned data management plans. Researchers must plan for openness early, acknowledge funding, and retain rights where possible, while institutions provide infrastructure and training, and funders support repositories rather than costly publication fees. Embargoes and exceptions are limited and must be justified transparently. The policy promotes equity by encouraging zero-embargo access, minimizing author charges, and enabling multilingual communication. Assessment focuses on the quality of openness—metadata, reproducibility, interoperability—rather than sheer output numbers. By aligning with international initiatives such as Plan S and EOSC, it offers a coherent, practical framework that connects local practice to global open science norms. +
National Principles for Open Access Policy Statement (2013), National Steering Committee on Open Access Policy +
National Principles for Open Access Policy Statement (2013) is a national policy produced by the National Steering Committee on Open Access Policy, written in English, and intended for stakeholders in Ireland. It provides detailed guidance on open science and open access, translating high-level principles into practical steps for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers. The document frames openness as the default, balanced by ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, advocating the principle “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” It emphasizes the connection between openness, research quality, reproducibility, rapid translation, and equitable access, particularly for communities with limited subscription access. Key elements include open access to publications, preferred licensing such as Creative Commons, use of persistent identifiers, deposition in trusted repositories, and adherence to FAIR data principles through data management plans. Operational guidance covers author and institutional responsibilities, funding acknowledgment, rights retention, budgeting, and justified embargoes or exceptions. The policy highlights enabling infrastructure, monitoring mechanisms, and governance for responsible openness. For practitioners, it consolidates national rules, aligns Irish practice with international norms, reduces ambiguity, and provides actionable steps to improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. Published in 2013, it is a credible reference for policy, training, and grant documentation. +
National Research Integrity Framework of Tanzania (2020) is a national framework authored by nan, in english, targeting Tanzania. Originating from Tanzania, it aims to formalise principles of research integrity and open practice. It emphasises honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust in research. The text covers responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, spelling out expectations for good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Common provisions include clear authorship criteria, proper citation and acknowledgement, management of conflicts of interest, transparency of methods and data, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It also establishes procedures for handling breaches of integrity, defining misconduct, and setting up investigation mechanisms that ensure due process, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities. By aligning with international standards, it connects local policy to global norms, reinforcing mobility of researchers and comparability of practices across borders. The document integrates the principle of education—training for students and staff on responsible conduct—ensuring that integrity is taught as a core skill rather than assumed knowledge. It also incorporates guidance on emerging issues such as data management, digital tools, open science, and new forms of dissemination, embedding integrity in contemporary workflows. Practical tools often include checklists, codes of behaviour, reporting templates, and FAQs, translating high-level principles into day-to-day actions. The intended audience spans researchers, supervisors, institutions, and policymakers, all of whom need clarity on their roles in safeguarding the credibility of research. Equity and diversity appear as cross-cutting themes, recognising that integrity involves creating inclusive environments free from discrimination, harassment, or exploitation. Overall, the resource situates research integrity as both a personal commitment and an institutional responsibility, embedding it into the full research cycle from design to dissemination. Annexes may provide case studies, historical context, and references to international declarations such as Singapore or Montreal statements. Definitions and glossaries support consistent interpretation, and contact points or ombudsperson systems are described to lower barriers to reporting. These features help the resource serve not only as a policy but also as a practical handbook.
The National Statement on Scientific Integrity (2015), authored by COSCE, CRUE, and CSIC, is a national framework designed to promote responsible research practices in Spain. Issued in both Spanish and English, it articulates principles of honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship, connecting them to reproducibility, credibility, and public trust in science. The statement outlines responsibilities for researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, covering good practices in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. It includes provisions on authorship, citation, conflict of interest management, transparency of data and methods, supervision, and peer review. Procedures for addressing misconduct are detailed, ensuring fair investigations, proportional sanctions, and opportunities for improvement. Education and training are emphasised, embedding integrity as a teachable skill. The statement also addresses emerging issues like open science, digital tools, and data management, while highlighting equity and diversity as central to trustworthy research. By aligning with international standards, it enhances researcher mobility, global comparability, and institutional credibility. +
National Strategy of Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Slovenia 2015 - 2020 (2015), Government of the Republic of Slovenia +
National Strategy of Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Slovenia 2015–2020 (2015) is a national resource produced by the Government of the Republic of Slovenia, written in Slovenian, and intended for stakeholders in Slovenia. The document provides guidance for implementing open science and open access principles, framing openness as the default while considering ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security. It emphasizes the principle of being “as open as possible, as closed as necessary,” linking open practices to research quality, reproducibility, rapid knowledge translation, and equitable access, particularly for communities with limited subscription access. Key elements include open access to publications, preferred licensing such as Creative Commons, persistent identifiers, deposition in trusted repositories, and adherence to FAIR data principles. The strategy outlines responsibilities for researchers, institutions, and funders, addresses embargoes and exceptions, and promotes enabling infrastructure, monitoring, and compliance. Equity, responsible openness, and inclusion are central, with attention to multilingual communication and capacity building. The strategy serves as a coherent national reference, aligning Slovenia with international norms, and is a practical checklist for policymakers, researchers, and administrators. Published in 2015, it is a credible source for policy, training, and grant documentation. +
The Green Transition calls for more than technological change—it requires a reimagining of our relationship with the natural world. This micromodule introduces Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) and Multispecies Thinking as key frameworks for sustainable and inclusive research and innovation. NbS leverage ecosystems to address climate, biodiversity, and social challenges by working with natural processes. Multispecies Thinking broadens our perspective, recognizing the interconnectedness of all life forms and the need to include non-human beings in our ethical and research considerations. Together, these approaches can help foster more regenerative and just innovations. Through case studies and critical reflection, this micromodule equips learners to contribute to a Green Transition grounded in ecological and relational awareness. +
Despite contemporary tourism research being more inclusive of previously neglected groups, the views of children with disability are still largely absent, reflecting a disregard for both their agency and voice. My research sought to address this gap by focusing on understanding the holiday experiences of disabled children, using their self-reported narratives.
Locating the study in New Zealand, I invited children and young people aged 5-18 years who have a disability and who had holiday experiences in the past 12 months (domestic or international) to take part. This included children and young people with a range of intellectual, cognitive and physical disabilities. I utilised child/age/disability-friendly consent procedures (e.g., easy-read pictorial versions) and obtained dual consent from children and parents. To meet the unique characteristics and requests of the participants, I tailored the interviews (face-to- face or online), adopting a variety of approaches such as photo-elicitation. Overall, I worked hard to facilitate a respectful and participatory research process. However, a central challenge was addressing questions about disability identity (Who are disabled children? Is that the ‘right’ language?). In struggling to understand and address such foundational issues, I consulted a wide range of literature. However, navigating questions related to disability identity and language was tough in practice, given diverse expectations, interests and beliefs among the different groups of people with whom I was working (e.g., disability service providers, disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) and parent groups). +
In 2015, the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse contracted us to complete a study to understand what children need to be safe and feel safe in organisations such as schools, sporting groups, religious institutions and holiday camps. In focus groups, children and young people considered what it meant to be safe, what adults and organisations were doing and could do to improve their safety and prevent safety concerns (such as abuse) and to ensure that adults and organisations responded in child-friendly ways.
In our participatory research projects we have worked with a number of child and youth advisory groups to guide and strengthen our practice. We seek their feedback on the nature and purpose of our studies and advice on the ethical challenges of conducting sensitive research with groups often deemed ‘vulnerable’. For the Children’s Safety Study we recruited three groups of advisers: one was made up of primary-school-aged children (11-12 year olds), another from high-school-aged young people (15-16 years) and a group comprising young people from an alternate education program (aged 13-17 years). +
The ''Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2018)'' sets out the national framework for responsible research conduct across all academic disciplines in the Netherlands. It defines '''five core principles of research integrity''' honesty, scrupulousness, transparency, independence, and responsibility which should guide all stages of research, from design and data collection to publication and supervision. The Code clarifies standards for good research practices, including data management, authorship, supervision, peer review, and collaboration, while also addressing questionable research practices and research misconduct. It emphasises the shared responsibility of individual researchers and institutions to foster a culture of integrity through training, leadership, and clear procedures. The Code also provides guidance on handling allegations of misconduct, including fairness, confidentiality, and due process. Overall, it aims to strengthen trust in science, ensure research quality, and promote accountability within the Dutch research system. +
NWO adheres to the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity as the guiding principle for its integrity policy. The Code of Conduct has entered into force on 1 October 2018. +
