LoginSign up

Search by property

From The Embassy of Good Science

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

Search by property

A list of all pages that have property "What are the best practices?" with value "- Open access publishing". Since there have been only a few results, also nearby values are displayed.

Showing below up to 26 results starting with #1.

View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

    

List of results

  • [OLD] Swedish Research Council's Guidelines on Good Research Practice  + (- Planning research -Collaboration -Publication -Avoiding misconduct)
  • The Dutch Code on Prevention of Undue Influence through Conflicts of Interest  + (- Policy measures to prevent undue influence - Emphasis on personal scientific integrity)
  • UKRIO's Procedure for the investigation of misconduct in research  + (- Preparatoty steps -Steps of investigative procedure: pre-screening, screening, formal investigation)
  • Alliance of German Science Organisations' Principles for the Handling of Research Data  + (- Preservation and access - Developing infrastructure - Addressing interdisciplinary differences - Recognition of good data practices - Using standards)
  • Guidelines for Integrity in Scientific Research  + (- Procedures for misconduct investigation)
  • Code of Good Scientific Practices of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIS)  + (- Publication ethics - Supervision and mentoring - Institutional policy)
  • The Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sports' Law on Scientific Activity and Higher Education'  + (- Regulation and quality assurance in higher education - General provisions of scientific work - Academic freedom and responsibilities - Academic collaborations)
  • Confidentiality  + (- Research participants, whose safety, dig … - Research participants, whose safety, dignity, and trust depend on secure handling of their data.</br></br>- Undergraduate and graduate students, doctoral students, and early-career researchers who design and conduct studies and must learn good data-handling practices.</br></br>- Senior researchers and supervisors, who set standards, mentor junior colleagues, and are accountable for research integrity.</br></br>- Research ethics committees and institutions, which must provide frameworks, training, and infrastructure that support confidentiality.frastructure that support confidentiality.)
  • General Code of Ethics in Scientific Research (Romanian Ministry of Education, Research and Youth)  + (- Responding to misconduct)
  • The Swiss National Science Foundation and National Research Council's Regulations on scientific misconduct  + (- Responsibilities regarding misconduct proceedings and appeals)
  • The University of Iceland Code of Ethics  + (- Standards of Professionalism and trust - Equality - Academic freedom - Teamwork and mutual respect - Social responsibility - Integrity and loyalty - Response to misconduct allegations)
  • Position statement of the UKRIO: Statutory regulation of research integrity  + (- The pros and cons of self-regulation and statutory regulation - Who oversees self-regulation?)
  • Position Paper on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in Austria  + (- Tips to ensure public engagement - Promoting gender equality in research - Policy recommendations - Open access - Science education at schools)
  • Latvian Academy of Sciences' Code of Ethics for Scientists  + (-General Principles of Research Integrity: Respect, Honesty, Protecting Research Subjects, Publication and dissemination - Integrity in different aspects of research such as teaching, mentoring, reviewing, providing expertise and contributing to society)
  • 10 Things for Curating Reproducible and FAIR Research  + (10 Things for Curating Reproducible and FA … 10 Things for Curating Reproducible and FAIR Research</br></br>Thing 1: Completeness</br></br>Thing 2: Organization</br></br>Thing 3: Economy</br></br>Thing 4: Transparency</br></br>Thing 5: Documentation</br></br>Thing 6: Access</br></br>Thing 7: Provenance</br></br>Thing 8: Metadata</br></br>Thing 9: Automation</br></br>Thing 10: Reviewata Thing 9: Automation Thing 10: Review)
  • Declaration of Helsinki  + (<br /> '"`UNIQ--references-00000000-QINU`"')
  • Salami publication  + (<br /> '"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"')
  • Ethics challenges of new technologies: Human digital twins  + (<div>Addressing the ethical challeng … <div>Addressing the ethical challenges of human digital twins requires a combination of technological, regulatory, and social approaches.</div><div>One important best practice is privacy-by-design, meaning that systems are designed from the beginning to minimize data collection, protect sensitive information (e.g., federated learning to avoid central data storage), and ensure strong cybersecurity measures.</div><div>Another key principle is transparent governance. Developers and organizations should clearly explain how digital twins are created, what data they use, and how predictions or simulations are generated via open-source audits or explainable AI tools. Transparency helps build trust and allows users to make informed decisions.</div><div>Dynamic and ongoing consent mechanisms are also essential. Because digital twins evolve over time, consent should not be a one-time agreement but an ongoing process allowing individuals to update or withdraw permissions as technologies change, with easy “kill switches” for twins.</div><div>In addition, fairness and bias mitigation strategies must be implemented in AI models that power digital twins. This includes diverse training datasets (prioritizing global representation), continuous monitoring of algorithmic performance, and independent audits.</div><div>Finally, multidisciplinary collaboration is crucial. Ethical governance of digital twins should involve not only engineers and data scientists but also ethicists, legal experts, healthcare professionals, and representatives of affected communities. Research communities should pilot these in controlled studies to refine standards.</div>fected communities. Research communities should pilot these in controlled studies to refine standards.</div>)
  • Responsible use of AI in peer review  + (<span lang="EN-GB">Ethical guideline … <span lang="EN-GB">Ethical guidelines and recent literature recommend the following practices:</span></br></br>'''<span lang="EN-GB">Establish clear policies.</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">Journals should define and publish explicit rules on AI use in peer review – for example, specifying whether reviewers may use AI for language editing only, and requiring disclosure of any AI assistance. Review guidelines and submission systems can prompt reviewers to declare AI use.</span></br></br>'''<span lang="EN-GB">Preserve confidentiality.</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">Reviewers must protect manuscript data. Do not upload any confidential or unpublished content into public AI platforms, as this can breach privacy rules. Some publishers recommend using only approved (e.g. in-house or licensed) AI tools, since free online services may reuse data.</span> </br></br>'''<span lang="EN-GB">Ensure transparency.</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">If AI is used to help write a review (even for minor tasks like grammar or summaries), reviewers should disclose it. For instance, end reviewers’ reports with a statement like “This review was prepared with the assistance of [AI tool and version]”. Editors may request details (such as prompts and AI outputs) to verify how AI was used.</span></br></br>'''<span lang="EN-GB">Maintain accountability.</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">The human reviewer is fully responsible for the review content. Any AI-generated text must be carefully checked, corrected and contextualized. Reviewers should ensure that factual statements, critiques and citations are accurate and unbiased. Reliance on AI should never replace critical judgment; humans must verify all recommendations and conclusions.</span></br></br>'''<span lang="EN-GB">Limit AI’s role.</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">Use AI only for non-substantive tasks: language polishing, spelling/grammar, basic consistency checks or literature suggestions. Do not use AI to evaluate scientific merit, interpret novel results, or make editorial decisions. In other words, AI can assist with “the heavy lifting” of routine checks, but the core intellectual judgments belong to human experts.</span></br></br>'''<span lang="EN-GB">Guard against bias and errors.</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">Be aware that AI models can perpetuate biases in their training data and can “hallucinate” (provide plausible but false information). Reviewers should critique AI outputs as they would any source, and not assume the AI is infallible.</span></br></br>'''<span lang="EN-GB">Use detection and oversight.</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">Editors should remain vigilant for signs of undisclosed AI use. Some recommend using AI-text detectors (analogous to plagiarism checkers) to flag suspicious reviews. Journals may require reviewers to sign confidentiality agreements explicitly banning unauthorized AI use.</span></br></br>'''<span lang="EN-GB">Provide training and guidance.</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">Publishers and editors should educate reviewers on AI’s capabilities, limitations, and the ethics of its use. Many researchers seek guidance on “safe and responsible AI” – for instance, surveys show ~70% of scholars want publishers to offer AI literacy training. Training should emphasize when (and when not) to use AI, how to assess its output, and how to manage privacy concerns (L-O-C-A-D framework: limitations, ownership, confidentiality, accuracy, disclosure).</span></br></br>'''<span lang="EN-GB">Follow ethical codes.</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">All AI use should align with broader publication ethics. For example, the WAME recommends reviewers “specify any use of chatbots” in their reviews, and COPE stresses that any misconduct (whether AI-related or not) be investigated under existing ethics rules. In practice, this means avoiding plagiarism, unauthorized content sharing, or misrepresentation of authorship in AI-assisted reviews.</span>eir reviews, and COPE stresses that any misconduct (whether AI-related or not) be investigated under existing ethics rules. In practice, this means avoiding plagiarism, unauthorized content sharing, or misrepresentation of authorship in AI-assisted reviews.</span>)
  • Consent and assent in research on children  + (<span lang="EN-GB">Protecting the ri … <span lang="EN-GB">Protecting the rights and well-being of children and adolescents is a key reason for requiring parental consent and child assent in research.</span></br></br>According to the [https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans], prepared by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), published in 2016.</br></br>Children and adolescents should take part in health-related research unless there is a strong scientific rationale for excluding them. Their unique physiology and health needs require special attention from researchers and ethics committees. However, their developing emotional and cognitive abilities may render them more vulnerable;without proper support, they might not be able to fully protect their interests. Therefore, additional protections are essential to ensure their rights and well-being in research.</br></br>Before undertaking research involving children and adolescents, the researcher and the research ethics committee must ensure that: a parent or a legally authorized representative of the child or adolescent has given permission;and that the agreement (assent) of the child or adolescent has been obtained in keeping with the child’s or adolescent’s capacity, after having been provided with adequate information about the research tailored to the child’s or adolescent’s level of maturity.</br></br>In general, a child or adolescent's refusal to participate or continue in the research must be respected unless, in exceptional circumstances, research participation is considered the best medical option for the child or adolescent.d the best medical option for the child or adolescent.)
  • AI use in scientific writing  + (<span lang="EN-GB">The International … <span lang="EN-GB">The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) laid out the recommendations for the use of AI by authors</span> (5)<span lang="EN-GB">:</span></br></br><span lang="EN-GB">·       “The journals should require authors to disclose the use of AI-assisted technologies;</span></br></br><span lang="EN-GB">·       Level of AI use should be described;</span></br></br><span lang="EN-GB">·       Specific AI tools should not be listed as authors;</span></br></br><span lang="EN-GB">·       Authors should carefully review and edit the AI-generated content;</span></br></br>·      <span lang="EN">Authors should be able to claim that there is no plagiarism in their work.”</span></br></br>'''Use of AI tools for grammar and linguistic refinement'''</br></br>A doctoral student uses AI tools for language polishing and grammar correction while keeping full authorship responsibility for the scientific content. Non-native English-speaking researchers utilize AI-assisted editing to enhance clarity and readability before journal submission. Researchers use AI tools to structure abstracts and improve coherence without creating original scientific data or conclusions.</br></br>'''Transparent disclosure of AI assistance'''</br></br>Authors include an AI disclosure statement in the acknowledgments section that explains the use of AI for linguistic editing. A research team specifies the level and purpose of AI use (such as language refinement or summarization) in accordance with journal policies. Manuscripts submitted to journals following ICMJE recommendations explicitly disclose AI-assisted technologies used during writing.</br></br>'''Ethical debates on authorship and responsibility'''</br></br>Discussions in academic publishing about whether AI-generated text challenges traditional ideas of authorship and intellectual responsibility. Editorial debates focus on the responsibility of human authors for the accuracy and originality of AI-assisted content. Cases where journals clarified that AI tools cannot be listed as authors due to a lack of accountability and scientific responsibility.</br></br>'''Institutional recommendations on responsible AI use in doctoral research'''</br></br>Universities issuing guidelines for ethical AI use in thesis writing and doctoral research. Doctoral programs promoting supervised and transparent AI assistance for academic writing. Research institutions developing policies that mandate critical human oversight of AI-supported academic content.</br></br>'''Journal policies requiring acknowledgment of AI-assisted technologies'''</br></br>Major publishers, such as Elsevier and Springer Nature, are implementing mandatory AI disclosure policies for manuscript submissions. Editorial guidelines specify that AI can assist in writing but cannot replace human intellectual contribution. Journal instructions require authors to verify the originality and absence of plagiarism in manuscripts that utilize AI assistances.l instructions require authors to verify the originality and absence of plagiarism in manuscripts that utilize AI assistances.)
  • Standards of authorship  + (===Difficulties=== Common practises on sta … ===Difficulties===</br>Common practises on standards of authorship vary between scientific disciplines, and between countries, making standardizing difficult. They also change over time. As the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences note: </br></br>''“Customs have changed over the past few decades;for example, the practice of granting “honorary” authorship to an eminent researcher – formerly not unusual – is no longer considered acceptable.”'''"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"'</br></br>==='''European Code of Conduct '''===</br>''The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017)'' states the following:'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' </br></br>*All authors are fully responsible for the content of a publication, unless otherwise specified</br>*All authors agree on the sequence of authorship, acknowledging that authorship itself is based on a significant contribution to the design of the research, relevant data collection, or the analysis or interpretation of the results</br>*Authors acknowledge important work and intellectual contributions of others, including collaborators, assistants, and funders, who have influenced the reported research in appropriate form, and cite related work correctly</br>*All authors disclose any conflicts of interest and financial or other types of support for the research or for the publication of its results</br></br>==='''COPE'''===</br></br>*Guideline: [https://publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf12_0.pdf How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers]</br>*Guideline: [https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standard_editors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf Responsible research publication: international standards for editors]</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000004-QINU`"'tors] '"`UNIQ--references-00000004-QINU`"')
  • Improper data use (a bias distorting research results)  + (===Related tools=== By Jensen (2000) '"`UN … ===Related tools===</br>By Jensen (2000) '"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"'</br></br>*New data and cross-validation</br>*Sidak, Bonferroni, and other adjustments</br>*Resampling and randomization techniques</br></br>By Glenn & Cormier (2015) '"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"'</br></br>*Performing own reviews of the sources of data,</br>*Checking for retractions and corrections,</br>*Requiring full disclosure of methods,</br>*Acquiring original data and reanalyzing it,</br>*Avoiding secondary sources,</br>*Avoiding unreplicated studies or studies that are not concordant with related studies, and</br>*Checking for funding or investigator biases.</br></br>===Related cases===</br>Convenience, dichotomization, stratification, regression to the mean, impact of sample size, competing risks, immortal time and survivor bias, management of missing values . '"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000009-QINU`"'8-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000009-QINU`"')
  • Monitoring funding processes  + (==Bullying and harassment policies== Bully … ==Bullying and harassment policies==</br>Bullying and harassment policies allow RFOs to stimulate positive research cultures. Such policies can improve research culture, and their existence “sends a signal that certain ethical standards must be met by researchers and organizations in exchange for funding”.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' The US based funder National Science Foundation (NSF) requires RPOs receiving funding to inform the NSF about sexual harassment.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"' In addition, the Wellcome Trust has elaborate rules on what they expect from the organizations they fund (7):'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"'</br></br>1. The funded organization requires policies that set out:</br></br>*standards of behavior from staff</br>*the procedure for responding to complaints</br></br>2.  The funded organization should have an equivalent policy in place at sub-levels, where relevant.</br></br>3. The funded organization should investigate allegations of bullying and harassment in an impartial, fair and timely manner. It must:</br></br>*protect the rights of all employees involves</br>*take appropriate action.</br></br>4. The funded organization should contact the Wellcome Trust when an investigation has been opened.</br></br>5. The funded organization should contact the Wellcome Trust when the investigation has been completed.'"`UNIQ--references-00000007-QINU`"'leted.'"`UNIQ--references-00000007-QINU`"')
  • Funders  + (==Funders and research ethics== Reporting … ==Funders and research ethics==</br>Reporting standards and ethics regulations vary between funding organizations. The European Commission has developed an elaborate procedure for ensuring that funded projects satisfy ethical requirements. In order to complete one´s application for funding within Horizon 2020, one must fill out an extensive ethics self-assessment. All projects that qualify for funding are subject to an ethics review procedure. The outcome of the ethical committee can influence the requirements funders have for the study. If ethical issues are judged to be particularly severe or complex, certain monitoring procedures may be required, such as engaging an ethics advisor or an ethics board within the project.</br></br>The Missenden Code of Practice for Ethics and Accountability'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' was drawn up to promote ethical research in British universities in the face of growing pressure from industry and private funders. The Missenden code identifies eight difficulties that some universities have encountered through their collaborations with industry: i) Safeguarding Academic Freedom;ii) Tasking an ‘Ethics Committee’;iii) Defending the Academic’s Right to Publish;iv) Protecting Intellectual Property Rights;v) Meeting the Student Expectation;vi) Preparing for Controversy;vii) Managing the New Model University;viii) Sourcing Alternative Funding. The code addresses each one of the difficulties using case studies, and makes 14 suggestions to help universities respond to the development of commercial funding of university research. </br></br>==Funders and research integrity==</br>The current climate for research funding is highly competitive. Many high-quality grant applications are rejected. Research shows that ‘high ranked’ institutions in the US were 65% more likely to succesfully receive grants, and received 50% more awards.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' At the same time, lower ranked institutions had a higher impact with the research they performed.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"' This finding may be indicative of funding bias. Moreoever, a highly competitive funding climate can feed perverse incentives. On the one hand, funders rely on assessment criteria, which include publication records and journal impact factors. As a result, researchers may strive to get as many papers published as possible without due care for the integrity of their research. On the other hand, researchers may feel the need to exagarate the expected impact of the proposed research or exagarate their skills and qualitifications. </br></br>Nontheless, RFO’s can implement policies fostering research integrity. For example, the Wellcome Trust in the UK provides a ‘transition support fund’ for PhD students. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' The fund can be used after the completion of a PhD project, and the student can decide how they want to further their career by using the fund as they see fit. The fund can be used, for instance, to write another paper or to do an internship.</br></br>RFOs can also develop initiatives to combat perverse incentives. For instance, many funders have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, or DORA.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"' The declaration’s aim is to reduce the use of journal impact factors in funding evaluations.  Instead, other indicators, such as altmetrics, should be used. Implementing DORA in reviewing grant proposals can mean evaluating a researcher by asking about their most important publication, the impact of their previous research, and their other qualifications besides publications. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"'</br>'"`UNIQ--references-00000009-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000009-QINU`"')
Retrieved from "https://embassy.science:443/wiki/Special:SearchByProperty/:Has-20Best-20Practice/-2D-20Open-20access-20publishing"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
More information

Your platform for research integrity and ethics

Privacy statementTerms of serviceTake down policyContact
Let us keep you posted

Bluesky Logo.svg

The EnTIRE and VIRT2UE projects have received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research programme under grant agreements N 741782 and N 787580.

5.6.0