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
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. +
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has developed a series of infographics addressing the Responsible Conduct of Research and the handling of research misconduct. +
The blog presents the case of a researcher in chemistry who was found guilty of performing a series of ethics violations in both her doctoral thesis and in subsequent papers. +
This book provides introduction to responsible conduct of research, by discussing both different topics from RCR as well as providing different cases. Some of the topics covered include research misconduct, research planing, work with laboratory animals, conflict of interest, data management, mentor and trainee roles, as well as authorship and peer review. The book ends with possible reasons and obstacles to responsible conduct of research. +
Dr Donnelly received an offer to conduct research for an employment-training firm in order to assess the effectiveness of thier job training and placement program. The offer is tied to $125,000 in funding for the purposes of the project, regardless of the results, and a promise of future collaboration if the results demonstrate the efficacy fo the program. The case study asks the questions about potential biases tied to financial and other incentives. +
This case is about a controversial study design of a clinical trial and the related publication. A letter to the editor briefly lists three ethical issues that makes the published trial ethical questionable: clinical equipoise, unfavourable risks-benefit ratio, and the use of deception. +
OeAWI Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice (2018) is a national framework authored by nan, in english and german, targeting nan. Originating from Austria, 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.
A series of short tutorials created by Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) aims to help professionals of human research protections. All the materials regarding the topic can be publicly used and distributed. +
Office of Science and Technology Policy Memorandum on Open Access (2022), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) +
''Office of Science and Technology Policy Memorandum on Open Access'' (2022), published by the OSTP, sets national expectations for open science and open access in the USA, aligning them with international standards. Written in English, it frames openness as the default while balancing ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, following the principle “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” The memorandum emphasizes open access publishing through trusted repositories, Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and FAIR data principles supported by data management plans. Responsibilities for researchers, institutions, and funders are clearly defined, including rights retention, funding acknowledgment, and transparent rules for embargoes or exceptions. Enabling infrastructure repositories, registries, discovery services, and research information systems supports compliance and visibility, while alignment with initiatives such as Plan S and national networks ensures interoperability. Equity, inclusion, and responsible openness are central, with safeguards for sensitive or Indigenous data. Serving as both a benchmark and practical checklist, it offers actionable steps to improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access to research in the USA. +
Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India National Policy on Academic Ethics (2024) +
The document 'National Policy on Academic Ethics', developed in 2019 in India, is a national guideline that addresses the principles of research integrity. Authored by Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India, and available in English, it targets the research community in India. 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. +
