Text (Instruction Step Text)
From The Embassy of Good Science
Describe the actions the user should take to experience the material (including preparation and follow up if any). Write in an active way.
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
4
Open Access to scientific publications is one of several other policies that will accelerate the move towards Open Science.
Open Access to publications means that research publications like articles and books can be accessed online, free of charge by any user, with no technical obstacles (such as mandatory registration or login to specific platforms). At the very least, such publications can be read online, downloaded and printed. Ideally, additional rights such as the right to copy, distribute, search, link, crawl and mine should also be provided.
Two routes of open access
Open Access can be realised through two main non-exclusive routes:
* Green Open Access (self-archiving): The published work or the final peer-reviewed manuscript that has been accepted for publication is made freely and openly accessible by the author, or a representative, in an online repository. Some publishers request that Open Access be granted only after an embargo period has elapsed. This embargo period can last anywhere between several months and several years. For publications that have been deposited in a repository but are under embargo, usually at least the metadata are openly accessible.
* Gold Open Access (Open Access publishing): The published work is made available in Open Access mode by the publisher immediately upon publication. The most common business model is based on one-off payments by authors (commonly called APCs – article processing charges – or BPCs – book processing charges). Where Open Access content is combined with content that requires a subscription or purchase, in particular in the context of journals, conference proceedings and edited volumes, this is called hybrid Open Access.
The choice of a journal or a publishing platform may affect the availability and accessibility of the research results.
[[File:Et3.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
==== Preprints – a new method of publication dissemination ====
Preprints are widely used in physical sciences and now emerging in life sciences and other fields. Preprints are documents that have not been peer-reviewed but are considered complete scientific publication in the first stage. Some of the preprints servers include open peer review services and the availability to post new versions of the initial paper once reviewed by peers.
Further reading:
ALLEA. (2013). [https://allea.org/portfolio-item/allea-statement-on-enhancement-of-open-access-to-scientific-publications-in-europe/ ALLEA statement on enhancement of open access to scientific publications in Europe].
[https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page Open Access Directory (OAD)] – a wiki where the open access (OA) community can create and support simple factual lists about open access to science and scholarship.
[1] FOSTER consortium. (2018). The open science training handbook. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496
Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality, and originality of articles for publication. Its main goal is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out articles that are invalid or of poor quality.
==== What do we mean by ‘peer review’? ====
In academia, we keep referring to peer review as though it is something obvious, but it is not evident that there is a common definition. For journal publishers and universities, the most commonly used explanation is:
''“…the process of someone reading, checking, and giving his or her opinion about something that has been written by another scientist or expert working in the same subject area”'' (from [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peer-review Cambridge Dictionary, web edition])
The review process should include comments from reviewers who are not on the editorial board and so can make objective decisions. Reviewers should focus on the academic quality of the work in question and check the methods used. Peer review does not involve language editing or copy editing, done to make the final article or book read well, but ensures that the research has been properly done according to discipline-specific and relevant research practices. Different types of peer review are suitable for different disciplines and research communities.
A trustworthy journal should clearly and publicly define what type of peer review it uses. It is also recommended that journals follow the guidelines provided by the [https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)].
==== Models of peer review ====
Different journals use different types or models of peer review, all of which have various advantages and disadvantages. The most common types of peer review include:
* Single-blind: the peer reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report).
* Double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (but if the research is published reviewers can eventually know the names of the authors).
* Open: authors know who the reviewers are and the reviewers know who the authors are. In some journals, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the named review reports are also published alongside the article.
* Transparent: similar to open peer review in that if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the content of the reviewer reports is openly available, however the reviewers are not named.
Learn about the other types of peer review in the [https://publicationethics.org/node/34926 COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews]?
==== Fundamentals of peer review ====
Interested to learn more about the peer review fundamentals? [https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review Elsevier's Researcher Academy] prepared a series of modules explaining why it is important to get involved in peer review and the many benefits it can bring. You will hear how carrying out peer review can sharpen your own writing skills and discover the ethics guidelines you should comply with.
[1] COPE. (2017). COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews. https://doi.org/10.24318/rouP8ld4
[2] Elsevier. (2024). Fundamentals of peer review. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/navigating-peer-review/fundamentals-peer-review
[3] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). What do we mean by ‘peer review’? https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/peer-review/
Reflect on how Amber and her team address environmental justice in research and read the Global Code of Conduct for Research in Fragile Settings:
[https://www.globalcodeofconduct.org/trust-code-supplement/ PREPARED (2025) The TRUST Code Supplement – A Global Code of Conduct for Research in Fragile Settings, https://www.globalcodeofconduct.org/trust-code-supplement/]
What insights might be relevant for your own work? +
Gauge your knowledge on plastic waste management. +
'''Questions to consider:'''
• What do I assume to be necessary, normal, or unavoidable in my research?
• Do these assumptions reinforce patterns that could have environmental or climate implications?
• Could alternative approaches challenge or unsettle these assumptions?
'''Example :''' A public health research project on heatwave prevention relies mainly on data collected through smartphone apps , thus assuming that everyone has a smartphone. Reflecting on this assumption may reveal that people with limited digital access are underrepresented in the dataset, including groups living in poorly insulated housing or in urban areas with higher heat exposure. As a result, certain forms of climate-related environmental vulnerability may be insufficiently captured in the evidence base used to understand heat risk and inform adaptation measures. This raises ethical questions about how research assumptions shape which climate impacts, environments, and populations are made visible in research and which ones remain overlooked. +
Towards an expanded scope of research ethics committees: Integrating environmental and climate ethics +
From the RE4GREEN perspective, “expanding the scope” of RECs should not be understood as introducing new legal responsibilities, formal powers, or additional layers of ethics approval. Rather, it refers to supporting RECs to address environmental and climate considerations that are already recognised as ethically relevant within European and international research ethics frameworks, but that are not yet consistently operationalised in ethics review practice.
RE4GREEN emphasises that ethics review should remain proportionate, supportive, and appropriately authoritative in nature. Integrating environmental and climate considerations into REC practice is intended to encourage early ethical reflection, transparency, and responsible methodological choices, within the context of established ethics review and approval processes, without constraining scientific freedom or innovation and without increasing administrative burden for either researchers or RECs. In this sense, RECs are not expected to act as environmental regulators, but to ensure that ethically relevant environmental and climate issues are identified, assessed, and addressed where appropriate as part of their existing review and approval responsibilities. At the same time, RE4GREEN recognises that RECs cannot be expected to address environmental and climate ethics in isolation. Effective integration depends on a broader institutional ethics ecosystem that provides access to appropriate expertise, guidance, and support, and that situates ethics review within wider research governance structures. From the RE4GREEN perspective, supporting the integration of environmental and climate considerations into ethics review involves a limited number of practical enablers:
Clear recognition that environmental and climate risks may be ethically relevant, allowing such considerations to be addressed, where appropriate, within the existing scope of ethics review. • Access to guidance and training to support REC members in identifying and assessing environmental and climate-related ethical considerations alongside risks to human participants, animals, and society. At present, such materials are limited and further resources are needed. REC members are encouraged to consult the list of resources provided at the end of this guidance document, as well as the RE4GREEN training micromodules available via the Embassy of Good Science.
Integration of environmental and climate prompts into existing review tools, such as templates, checklists, or guiding questions, to support consistency and transparency without adding procedural burden. At present, such tools are limited and further development is needed. Readers are encouraged to consult the REC Environmental & Climate Ethics Reflection Tool presented in the next section as an illustrative example. Taken together, this approach aims to strengthen the capacity of ethics review to respond to environmental and climate-related ethical challenges, while remaining fully aligned with existing research ethics governance and appraisal frameworks.
'''Research Misconduct and other Unacceptable Practices'''
Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) are fundamental violations of research integrity. When research has environmental or climate relevance, these forms of misconduct may result in inappropriate environmental decisions or policies, or obscure potential harms. Beyond FFP, breaches of good research practice include activities that distort the research record or undermine the integrity of the research process, for example through misleading reporting, inappropriate influence, misuse of data, or harmful disclosure practices. In an environmental and climate context, these may include, but are not confined to
Misrepresenting or exaggerating environmental benefits, sustainability claims, or climate impacts (“greenwashing”), including withholding information regarding relevant uncertainties or limitations.
Selectively reporting environmental results in ways that mislead stakeholders, policymakers, or affected communities.
* Suppressing or failing to disclose environmental data, especially when such omission could hide potential risks, harms, or negative findings.
* Allowing funders or sponsors with environmental interests (e.g., industrial, political, or commercial stakeholders) to influence the independence or impartiality of the research or its reporting.
* Misusing environmental or community-generated data in ways that breach agreed conditions of use, ownership, or consent.
* Disclosing sensitive environmental information (such as the location of endangered species or fragile ecosystems) where such disclosure could cause harm.
* Accusing others of environmental misconduct or harm in a malicious or unsubstantiated way. Serious forms of such practices may be sanctionable. All require prevention and correction through training, supervision, and a supportive research environment.
'''Publication, Dissemination, and Authorship'''
* Claims about environmental impacts, benefits, or sustainability should be accurate, evidence-based, and presented without exaggeration or misrepresentation.
* Assessing potential harms should include identifying foreseeable environmental risks associated with the research and taking proportionate steps to avoid, minimise, or mitigate them.
* In projects involving public or community participation, environmental practices should be safe and responsible and communicated clearly.
* Transparency in publication should include, where relevant, assumptions about environmental conditions or impacts underlying the research, limitations, uncertainties, or contextual factors that affect interpretation or policy relevance.
* Acknowledgements should accurately reflect contributions from environmental data sources, field sites, or community-generated knowledge in line with prior agreements.
* Corrections or retractions should be issued promptly when environmental claims or assessments are found to be inaccurate or misleading
Engaging with citizen scientists: Integrating environmental and climate considerations into research practice +
This subsection highlights environmental and climate considerations relevant to the evaluation of activities, learning processes, and the long-term responsibilities associated with citizen science research.
'''1. Evaluation'''
Plan evaluation that covers scientific quality, participant experience (e.g. motivation, perceived respect, learning), ethical performance, and the environmental and social impacts of project activities. Where appropriate, use measurable and transparent indicators to support evaluation, for example indicators related to data quality and reuse, inclusiveness and fairness of participation, handling of ethical incidents or DNSH concerns, and observed environmental or climate-related outcomes of the project.
'''2. Oversight and long-term stewardship'''
Document lessons learned and integrate them into institutional policies for citizen science, future project design, and training or micro-modules on research ethics and integrity. For citizen science projects with long-term monitoring objectives, identify appropriate oversight institutions (e.g., public agencies, trusted repositories, community organisations or RPOs) that can advocate for the interests of all stakeholders. Develop a realistic transition plan for long-term data and platform stewardship, including open data preservation where compatible with privacy and safety, governance arrangements for ongoing access and use, and responsibilities and resources after project funding ends. +
Learning Pathway for Ethics Reviewers +
Drag each system to the correct box according to the EU AI Act definition (Article 3(1)). +
5
The overall goal of the follow up participatory session is to allow trainees to practice the facilitation of the exercises supervised by a trainer, reflect on their experiences with the exercises and on how to use and potentially adapt the training materials in their own particular context. Also, the session is dedicated to answering questions or solving issues that might have arisen for trainees when practicing the exercises in their own work setting. For instance, what facilitated/ impeded learning, how can those impeding factors be worked around or avoided in future trainings, and if reflection sessions supported learners’ learning process. When planning the follow up session you:
a. Plan enough time for practicing the exercises and for answering questions. If you have limited time, give priority to those exercises which trainees need more support with (based on their self-reflection forms). +
Based on your experience and expertise in facilitating and using the face-to-face exercises, you discuss with trainees the competence level and learning needs of the target group they will work with, what are things that the target group would like to discuss more in-depth, and how to implement those issues in the exercise(s).
Take some time to show trainees where they can find the training materials on The Embassy of Good Science. You may also instruct them how they can interact with the community by using the discussion section of the platform, and how they can suggest changes to the training materials. +
Ask the group how the conversation could be improved. List their suggestions on the black- or whiteboard or flip-over sheet in a new column. +
Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) +
Each subgroup receives a flip-over sheet and marker. The name of Variety of Goodness is written on top of the flip-over sheet. The participants think in subgroups of the link between the Variety of Goodness and research and make notes on the flip-over sheet. The trainer encourages them to also use arrows, drawings or other symbols that help to picture their reflection on this Variety of Goodness in research . +
This exercise fosters reflection on the concept of goodness and how it applies in the context of research.
[[File: VGE.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYJY50PRLvo&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=3]] +
During the 2019 World Conference on Research Integrity in Hong Kong, we asked experts on their opinions and views on Research Integrity education. <br />
[[File: Research Integrity Education3.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHKhvewTNP4&list=PLabbUwyulArzx9SIqxfDXbtTELS8uWdFD&index=6]] +
Ethical and unethical behaviors explained, in the context of research. By the VIRT2UE project for The Embassy of Good Science.
[[File: Ethical decision making4.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRBJxLo6k5s]] +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
The participants make a list of the relevant stakeholder perspectives, and, for each perspective, identify the values related to the dilemma and the possible actions that realize a specific value (we call this value a ‘norm’). The analysis of the perspective of the case presenter will lead to the identification of values and norms that support or undermine different options. +
If there are moral conflicts, examination of the relative hierarchy of values is required in order to determine the overriding duty or duties in the situation. +
Is there disagreement between members of the committee?
<br />
*On which issues and views do we disagree?
*What reasons are given that either support or undermine my Early View? +
