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
O
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. +
Retraction Watch brings in the case of a chemist researcher who has had several papers retracted due to a number of research ethics misconduct issues, mainly falsification and fabrication of results. +
On Being a Scientist is a book published by the United States (US) National Academies Press and developed jointly by the US National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. The resource aims to inform ethics teaching and supervision. The ethical foundations of scientific practice are described, as well as typical challenges and dilemmas encountered by researchers in practice.
<br /> +
This blog deals with the ethics in ethnography, using the factual case of Goffman's research. Alice Goffman's ethnographic research with Black men in low-income neighbourhoods has been the focus of controversy since its publication. Michaela Benson'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' discusses this case.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
This factual case is about a political science PhD student, who was accused of scientific fraud. He did not agree with the retraction of his paper which was requested by his co-author. +
Retraction Watch brings in questions on how to deal with one's publication when it is heavily relied on research that might contain errors or misconduct issues. A researcher was faced with a difficult dilemma when she realised that a large proportion of the papers on her review on vitamin D links to Parkinson's Disease had been retracted. +
This tool provides information on what is appropriate in image processing in research and what is not. It contains guidelines, questionable practices, case study, misconduct cases and the continuum. It is intended for students and faculty members with aim of promoting research integrity. +
The aim of this online module is to inform the researchers on research misconduct, how to report it, how to cope with it and how to engage in practices that could decrease the possibility of research misconduct. +
This online course is an introduction to responsible conduct of research practices. It focuses on authorship and peer review through three cases, Q&A and some theoretical background. +
A complaint was made to a university against a lecturer in technology, who, it was claimed, had hindered the complainant's work by publishing disparaging and derogatory remarks about them on the internet. This is a factual anonymized case. +
This web-based book provides information on Responsible conduct of research, particularly in the field of biomedicine. It uses a problem-based approach to cover a wide array of topics important to scientists conducting clinical and biomedical research. Some of the topics covered are: ethics and rules of research in humans, importance of appropriate study design, conflict of interest, genetics and stem cell research, etc. +
The resource sets out Switzerland’s national guidance on open access, making openness the default while balancing ethics, privacy, and intellectual property. It requires researchers to provide open access to publications (via repositories or open journals), use Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and follow FAIR data principles. Responsibilities are outlined for researchers (rights retention, funding acknowledgment, data management), institutions (training, repositories), funders (supporting infrastructure), and publishers (interoperability, author rights). Exceptions for sensitive or commercial data are allowed but must be justified. Monitoring emphasizes quality metadata, transparency, code and data sharing rather than just counting outputs. Equity and responsible openness are key themes, promoting zero-embargo access when possible and supporting multilingual, inclusive communication. The policy aligns with international initiatives (Plan S, EOSC) and provides clear, practical steps to help Swiss researchers and institutions comply efficiently. +
