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
P
Policy on Open Access (2017) is a international policy produced by NordForsk, written in english, and intended for stakeholders in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. It synthesizes expectations for open science and open access within Nordic region, translating high‑level principles into actionable guidance for researchers, institutions, funders and publishers. The document frames openness as a default—tempered by considerations of ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security—and promotes the maxim of being as open as possible and as closed as necessary. It links openness to research quality, reproducibility, speed of translation, and equitable access to knowledge, particularly for communities with limited subscription access. Core elements typically covered include open access to publications with clear routes to compliance, preferred licensing such as Creative Commons, the use of persistent identifiers, and deposition of the accepted manuscript or version of record in trusted repositories. The guidance also references FAIR data principles and encourages data management plans that specify stewardship, metadata standards, and repository selection. On the operational side, the resource explains responsibilities for authors and host institutions, including acknowledging funding, retaining rights where feasible, and budgeting for publication costs only when necessary. Embargoes, where still allowed, are circumscribed and justified, and exceptions exist for sensitive, commercial, or security‑relevant data;these exceptions are documented through transparent waiver or justification processes. To support adoption, the document points to enabling infrastructure—repositories, registries, discovery services, and research information systems—that help automate compliance and improve the visibility of outputs. It often aligns with or references international efforts such as Plan S, the European Open Science Cloud, or national repository networks, situating local practice within a broader, interoperable ecosystem. Assessment and monitoring are addressed through reporting requirements, progress indicators, and compliance checks at grant reporting or institutional review stages. Rather than counting publications alone, emphasis is placed on the quality of openness: machine‑readable metadata, persistent links, transparent methods, and, where appropriate, sharing of code and data under well‑described licences. The audience for the resource spans researchers who need practical steps to comply;research managers who design workflows and training;librarians and repository managers who provide infrastructure;and policymakers seeking to harmonise national strategies. Examples and FAQs translate policy statements into tangible actions, covering preprints, rights retention statements, and the handling of third‑party content. Equity is treated as a cross‑cutting theme: the document encourages zero‑embargo access when feasible, recognises the burden of author‑facing publication charges, and highlights publisher‑agnostic routes such as repositories and community‑owned platforms. It underscores that openness without attention to inclusion can reinforce disparities, and therefore pairs access with capacity building and multilingual communication where possible. Responsible openness features prominently, requiring safeguards for participants and communities, especially when dealing with personal, health, or Indigenous data. The resource endorses governance mechanisms—ethics oversight, data access committees, and secure environments—that balance public value with legitimate protections, while promoting transparency about any restrictions that remain. Implementation relies on clear roles and timelines. Researchers are encouraged to plan for openness at project inception;institutions to provide training and repository services;and funders to underwrite core infrastructure rather than pay‑per‑article charges where avoidable. Publishers are invited to support author rights, interoperability, and machine‑readable licensing and metadata. For practitioners, the value of Policy on Open Access lies in its specificity and coherence: it gathers dispersed rules into one dependable reference, connects them to global norms, and explains how to demonstrate compliance without excessive administrative load.
Policy on open access to research publications (2019), the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (TSV) +
The Policy on Open Access to Research Publications (2019) by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies sets openness as the default in Finland’s research system, guided by the principle “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” It provides practical guidance for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers on achieving open access, emphasizing repositories, Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, FAIR data principles, and transparent rights retention. While safeguarding ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, the policy limits embargoes to justified cases and calls for transparent waiver processes. It highlights equity by promoting zero-embargo access, multilingual communication, and affordable, publisher-agnostic routes, while stressing responsible openness for sensitive or Indigenous data through ethics oversight and secure environments. Implementation is supported by national infrastructure, compliance monitoring, and alignment with international initiatives like Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud, ensuring Finland’s practices are interoperable, inclusive, and sustainable. +
Policy statement on ensuring research integrity in Ireland (2020), National Research Integrity Forum +
The Policy Statement on Ensuring Research Integrity in Ireland (2020), published by the National Research Integrity Forum, provides a national framework to uphold responsible research practices across Ireland. It formalises principles of honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust. The policy defines responsibilities for researchers, supervisors, institutions, funders, and journals, outlining good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Key provisions cover authorship, citation, conflict of interest management, data transparency, supervision, and fair peer review. It also establishes procedures for addressing misconduct, ensuring due process, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities. Education and training are embedded to teach integrity as a core skill, while guidance on open science, digital tools, and data management reflects contemporary research challenges. Equity and diversity are emphasised as integral to credible research environments. By aligning with international standards, the policy reinforces comparability, researcher mobility, and global trust in Irish research. +
This guideline presents principles introduced by the scientific community in the belief that the primary duty of a researcher is to adhere to the established principles and honesty in scientific work. The Code of Ethics for Research Workers was prepared by the Science Ethics Committee and enacted by the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences. +
Polish Ministry of Science and Information Society Technologies' Good Scientific Research Practice Recommendations +
The effect of research misconduct on the credibility of science cannot be underestimated. To prevent misconduct and to address instances of breach of integrity, is is essential that researchers and research institutions have clear guidelines that can be followed. This document enumerates the principles of good research, the practices that follow and the procedures for addressing misconduct. +
The National Science Centre of Poland proposed a code to govern research integrity and applications for research funding. The code proposes multiple methods of operationalizing principles of integrity throughout the research process, from conception to publication. It also advocates for teaching, training, and supervision as fundamental ways of ensuring research integrity. Finally, the code spells out possible ways it can be violated, and mechanisms of enforcement including penalties and sanctions from the National Science Centre. +
A researcher is unsure how to disseminate potentially controversial findings regarding needle exchange programs and HIV infection rates. +
Política Nacional de Ciencia Abierta 2022- 2031 (2022), Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación +
Política Nacional de Ciencia Abierta 2022‑2031 (2022) is a national resource produced by the Colombian Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation, written in Spanish, and intended for stakeholders in Colombia. It provides comprehensive guidance on open science and open access, translating high-level principles into actionable steps for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers. The document positions openness as the default, tempered by ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, promoting “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” It emphasizes the link between openness, 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 like Creative Commons, persistent identifiers, deposition in trusted repositories, and adherence to FAIR data principles through detailed 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 Colombian practice with international norms, reduces ambiguity, and provides practical steps to enhance transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. Published in 2022, it is a credible reference for policy, training, and grant documentation. +
Política de acceso abierto a la información científica y a atos de investigación financiados con fondos públicos de la ANID (2022), Chilean National Agency for Research and Development +
The document is about Chile’s national open access policy for scientific information and research data (2022). It sets the rules and vision for ensuring that research funded with public money is openly available to everyone. The policy emphasizes that scientific knowledge is a public good and should not be locked behind expensive paywalls. Instead, it promotes depositing articles, theses, and research data in trusted repositories that follow international standards, ensuring visibility, interoperability, and long-term preservation. It also critiques commercial publishing models that create inequalities and highlights Chile’s role in regional open access initiatives such as SciELO and LA Referencia. Overall, it aims to make research outputs more transparent, reusable, and accessible supporting equity, innovation, and public benefit.<div><div></div></div><div><div><div><div></div><div><div><div><div></div></div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div> +
Mentors/supervisors of early career researchers (master students, doctoral students, post-doctoral fellows) very often are not aware of what is expected from them in the diadic relationship of a mentor and a mentee. This can lead to misunderstandings and poor research practices, which can finally lead to research misbehaviour and misconduct. [https://ori.hhs.gov/mentoring-and-research-misconduct-analysis-research-mentoring-closed-ori-cases Analysis of misconduct cases by the US Office for Research Integrity in the USA] showed that in man cases mentors failed to properly review research data collected by the mentee, did not teach them specific research standards, and did not ensure healthy, less stressful work environment. This is particularly relevant in large collaborative research collaborations, where the roles and responsibilities of all researchers in the collaboration may be unclear and blurred among different research groups. +
The ''Population Health Data Implementation Guide'' (Deliverable 7.1) is part of the WorldFAIR project, which aims to make research data in population health FAIR Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. The guide explains how to describe and share population health data using standard metadata so that both domain experts and broader users can understand and reuse it effectively. It focuses on how to use established models and tools especially the OMOP Common Data Model (CDM) from the OHDSI community to harmonise and structure health datasets. To support access beyond specialist communities like INSPIRE, the guide shows how general metadata standards such as Schema.org can be combined with domain-specific models to describe data resources in a way that is machine-readable and broadly accessible. A significant part of the guide highlights documenting not only the data itself but also the study protocols and analytical processes behind it. +
Portuguese National Council of Ethics for the Life Sciences Recommendation on Integrity in Scientific Research +
The Portuguese National Council of Ethics for the Life Sciences developed the Recommendation on Research Integrity both in response to the publication of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, and to provide concrete guidelines for practice in the national setting. The guidance outlines general principles that should be adhered to (reliability, honesty, respect, and responsibility) as well as the actions required to foster good scientific conduct. +
The main goal of the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) platform is to ensure that advances in research are carried out responsibly- with not only scientific progress in mind, but also the needs and concerns of society. This platform encourages knowledge sharing and transfer, promotes scientific collaboration and disseminates information and research results among the public and other stakeholders. Moreover, they promote the implementation of responsible research practices at various levels, from research institutions to national policy.
In their position paper, the RRI platform elaborates the different aspects of responsible research and provides recommendations as to how it can be implemented. In keeping with the European Commission's definition of RRI, six tenets of RRI are focused upon: public engagement, gender equality, science education, open access, ethics and governance. For each tenet, recommendations are made to strengthen and further develop RRI, with the Austrian context in mind. +
Currently, research in most countries is governed by self-regulation rather than by external regulatory bodies. Over the years, several debates have arisen regarding this model of regulation. There are also wide variations in who oversees self-regulation, based on the the research area and the location of the research. For instance, research involving human subjects is much more tightly regulated than non-human research.
This position paper gives an overview of the different models of research regulation and governance, with special focus on the UK context. This is useful for all stakeholders, but especially for research institutions, to know the extent and limits of self-regulation. +
A state employee who can influence the decision-making proceess around the awarding of private archaeological licences applies for a permit to run a private antiquities firm that might benefit from such licences. +
In 2013, a COPE member journal published a paper describing an observational study comparing two drugs (A and B) for the management of a chronic disease over a period of 10 years. The conclusion in the paper was that mortality was higher in group A (97 deaths) compared with the other group B (52 deaths) (hazard ratio 1.76, 1.22 to 2.53;P=0.003). This analysis was done after adjustment for a large number of confounders, and was approved by our statistical advisor. The authors of the papers did acknowledge that this was an observational study, and did state that residual confounding might be present.
In 2014 COPE received a letter of concern by a researcher, employed by the company selling drug A, who felt that the authors of the 2013 paper omitted essential information that might impact on the conclusions. It appears that the routine management of this disease has changed substantially over the 10 year period, and this should have been treated as a confounder for which statistical adjustments should have been made. This change in routine management of the disease is documented in a paper published in 2014, but the researcher felt that these authors were probably aware of this much earlier and should have disclosed this information during the review process of their 2013 paper.
In our initial response in July 2014 to the letter of concern, we asked the researcher who sent us the letter of concern to send us a detailed rapid response to the 2013 paper, which we could publish. We have also asked advice of our statistical advisor who reviewed the 2013 paper, and he acknowledged that this information might impact on the statistical calculations and thus the conclusions of the paper. But with the data available to him, he is not able to make a definitive assessment of how much impact it would have. He has suggested to put these questions to the authors of the 2013 paper. +
This blog post describes the process that led to the identification of image manipulation in a journal article. At the time of publication, the first author was a postdoc and seemed to have been under pressure to publish. +
A reader contacted the journal to raise concerns about a paper containing a potentially manipulated figure. The editor-in-chief agreed with the assessment that the figure had been manipulated and attempted to contact the corresponding author, without response. Following further contact with the co-authors and institution, it was established that the corresponding author had retired after publication of the paper, and no current contact details could be found.
No co-authors were able to confirm how the figure was constructed, but explained that it was an old image that was made by or for the corresponding author, and that the location of the raw image or original data was not known due to the corresponding author’s laboratory being dismantled on retirement. The figure is also present in a previous publication from 2007. The figure manipulation does not appear to affect the scientific results or conclusions of the paper. +
An anthropological consultancy is hired by two power companies to produce a report on the impact of these companies on the Native American communities who own the land in which the companies plan to operate. The companies ask for the reports to be secret. The Anthropologists have been hired by both the companies but feel moraly obliged to look after the interests of the Native Americans. +
This guide is intended for researchers, research organizations and funding organizations. It is divided into three parts. First part contains six aspects that every Data Management Plan should cover, with detailed guiding questions. Second part contains four topics detailing criteria that every trusted repository should meet. Third part provides detailed information and shares examples to encourage the implementation of the requirements and criteria into an organization’s policies. +
