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
The Montreal Statement presents 20 good principles underlying successful research collaborations. The message of the statement is that partners in collaborations need to "take collective responsibility for the trustworthiness of the overall collaborative research”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' The statement covers the topics of general responsabilities and the responsibilities of managing collaborations, relationships and outcomes of research.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations (2013), authored by the World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI), is an international framework that sets principles for responsible conduct in global, cross-border research. Written in English and targeting a worldwide audience, it emphasises honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and trust in research. The Statement addresses responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, including clear authorship rules, proper citation, management of conflicts of interest, transparency of data and methods, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It provides guidance for handling breaches of integrity with due process and proportional sanctions, while promoting education and training so that integrity becomes a core skill. A particular focus is placed on challenges in international collaboration, such as cultural differences, varying legal frameworks, and equitable participation of all partners. It promotes alignment with international standards to facilitate researcher mobility and comparability of practices, while encouraging inclusive, non-discriminatory environments. Practical tools like checklists, codes of conduct, and reporting templates help translate principles into daily action. The intended audience spans researchers, supervisors, institutions, policymakers, and funders, but it is especially important for international research teams and institutions engaged in cross-boundary collaborations, as it clarifies expectations, reduces ambiguity, and supports fair, transparent, and accountable partnerships worldwide. +
A moral conflict is a situation in which a person has two moral obligations, which cannot be met both at once. Behind these obligations lie conflicting values. Sometimes, the conflict can be resolved to the full satisfaction of the different parties involved, i.e. without leaving behind any regrettable remainder or residue. A moral dilemma is an irresolvable moral conflict, i.e. no fully satisfactory resolution is possible since all possible options for action leave behind a remainder that does not cease to be morally binding. +
In this fictional case, an assistant professor submits a paper manuscript for consideration to journal#1. Whilst awaiting for the journal’s decision that appears to be taking longer than expected, and feeling under pressure to meet certain deadlines in her career, the professor decides to submit the same manuscript to journal#2. +
From art-science collaborations to technological “fixes” like carbon capture to ancient myths, Sofia Greaves shares stories of projects at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and beyond. Presented by Lucy Sabin.
Created for EU project RE4GREEN. Supported by the European Commission and the VU Open Science. All views shared are the speakers' own. +
<span lang="EN-US">This activity builds on the content of the third episode of Earth to Research, titled</span> <span lang="EN-GB">Myths and Rituals: Art-Science, Sustainable Tech, and Degrowth. This episode explores how research and innovation can be re-imagined in the context of ecological crisis. Guest Sofia Greaves describes her nonlinear journey from classics studies to art-science collaborations and degrowth studies, showing how interdisciplinary knowledge can reshape how we understand sustainability.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">Degrowth is presented not as a singular doctrine but as a plural, evolving critique of economic growth that highlights the impossibility of infinite expansion on a finite planet. Sofia explains that degrowth involves questioning dominant assumptions, valuing multiple knowledge systems, and experimenting with alternative ways of organising society, science, and technology.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">A major theme is the importance of collaboration between artists and scientists. Art-science projects can help researchers slow down, reflect, and develop more caring and embodied ways of relating to the environment. Examples include ritual-based research on forever chemicals and artistic inquiries into lithium extraction that reveal unseen ecological relationships. These collaborations foreground uncertainty, challenge technological “fix” narratives, and generate new stories and perspectives. The conversation concludes that sustainability is a social, ethical and epistemic challenge (not just a technological one) and that creative, reflexive, cross-disciplinary approaches are vital in research.</span> +
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. +
Bu alıştırmada münazara ve diyaloğun değerini ve bu iki kavram arasındaki farkı deneyimleyeceksiniz. Bu alıştırma, diyaloğun ve diyalog becerilerinin genel olarak yorumlama ve fikir yürütme süreçlerinin ayrılmaz bir parçası olduğu ancak Araştırma Doğruluğu için özellikle önem arz ettiği kabulüne dayanarak geliştirilmiştir. Alıştırmada temel odak noktası münazara ve diyalog ortamlarının doğuracağı farklı etkileşim ve yorumlama şekillerini deneyimlemektir. Araştırma doğruluğu odaklı bir vaka üzerine münazara yaparak ya da diyalog kurarak bu iki etkileşim türünün yorumlama ve fikir yürütme süreçlerindeki güçlü ve kullanışlı yanlarını fark edecek ve anlayacaksınız. +
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. +
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. +
