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
N
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. +
Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2018), vsnu, Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences, De samenwerken organisaties in toegepast onderzoek, NFU, KNAW +
<article><article><article><div><div><div><div><div><div>
The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2018), developed by VSNU, the Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences, the Samenwerkende Organisaties in Toegepast Onderzoek, NFU, and KNAW, provides a national framework that aligns Dutch research practice with international standards such as the Singapore and Montreal Statements. Grounded in the values of honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship, it outlines responsibilities for researchers, supervisors, institutions, funders, and journals across the full research cycle, from planning and conducting studies to publishing and reviewing. The Code sets expectations for clear authorship, proper acknowledgement, conflict-of-interest management, transparency of methods and data, fair peer review, and responsible supervision, while also establishing procedures for addressing breaches of integrity with due process, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities. It embeds integrity in contemporary research through education and training, data management, digital tools, and open science, ensuring integrity is treated as a core skill rather than assumed knowledge. Equity, diversity, and inclusivity are integrated as essential to responsible research environments. Serving both as a policy benchmark and a practical handbook, the Code supports researchers, institutions, and policymakers in safeguarding credibility, reproducibility, and societal trust in Dutch research.
</div></div></div></div><div></div><div><div></div></div></div></div></article><div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><article><div><div>
<div></div><div><div></div></div></div></div></article><div></div></div></div></div></div><div></div><div><div></div></div></div></div></article><div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div>
</div></div></div></div><div></div><div><div></div></div></div></div></article><div></div> +
This position paper was developed by a coalition of Dutch public knowledge institutions and research funders (VSNU, FNU, KNAW, NWO and ZonMw). It calls for changes in the recognition and reward system for academics and puts forward a number of recommendations. +
"The Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP) describes the methods used to assess research conducted at Dutch universities and NWO and Academy institutes every six years, as well as the aims of such assessments." +
This is a factual case. +
New Zealand Code of Professional Standards and Ethics in Science, Technology, and the Humanities (2019) +
The document 'Code of Professional Standards and Ethics in Science, Technology, and the Humanities ', developed in 2019 in New Zealand, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Council of Royal Society Te Apārangi, and available in English, it targets the research community in Aotearoa - New Zealand. 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. +
A journal received a submission from author A with co-authors B, C and D. After review and revision it was published in mid-2012. In April 2013 we received a complaint from author X, saying that the work published in this paper was his work, and that although author A had been his research supervisor at the time the work was done, authors B, C and D had either little or no input to the work. Author X said that the correct authorship should be X and A in that order. +
This publication is about recornising 9 factors that lead to bad decisions by researchers and can be represented by the acronym TRAGEDIES. Each letter presents one factor, which poses for a specific behavioral aspect, that leads to pitfalls when conducting and analysing research data. +
Learn about the different norms of good research conduct, as listed in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 2023! +
This guideline describes general research ethics. It was made by the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees in 2014. +
This blog post reports on the controversy around the nutrition researcher who failed to disclose his conflict of interests in 20 publications, all of which have received an expression of concern. +
O
This toolkit covers topics related to open access books with am of helping book authors to better understand open access book publishing. It consists of articles that offer brief introduction to different aspects of open access book publishing following the research lifecycle. The articles contain a list of sources, further reading and links to definitions of key terms. +
