Search by property

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.

List of results

Öz beyan yaklaşımı, araştırmada iyiliğin farklı şekilleri üzerine fikir yürütme + (Bu alıştırma, “iyilik nedir ve nasıl kateg … Bu alıştırma, “iyilik nedir ve nasıl kategorize edilebilir?” sorusundan yola çıkarak sınıf ortamında araştırma doğruluğu üzerine fikir yürütmeyi teşvik etmek için tasarlanmıştır. İyilik türleri üzerine tartışmaya ve araştırmada iyilik kavramı üzerine fikir yürütmeye odaklanır. Bu alıştırma, daha kapsamlı ve esnek bir yaklaşım olan Öz Beyan Yaklaşımına (ÖBY) dayanarak geliştirilmiştir. Bu yaklaşımda, katılımcıların öz beyan formunda verdikleri yanıtlar, araştırma doğruluğu (AD) alanındaki spesifik bir konu üzerine geliştirilecek fikir yürütme süreçlerini yapılandırmak için kullanılır. Tartışma içerisine katılımcıların sezgilerini de dahil etmek bu yaklaşımın en ayırt edici özelliğidir. Bu format, farklı AD konularına ve farklı hedef kitlelere uygulanabilirliği ve uyarlanabilirliği açısından oldukça esnektir.rlanabilirliği açısından oldukça esnektir.)
Orta Yol + (Bu alıştırmada, klinik etik kapsamında duy … Bu alıştırmada, klinik etik kapsamında duygulara ilişkin Aristotelesçi bir ahlaki sorgulama yönteminden esinlenilmiştir. Aristoteles’e göre, erdemler iki ekstrem uç arasındaki orta nokta olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Bu nedenle, somut durumlarda araştırma doğruluğu kavramının ne ifade ettiği her zaman net olmayabilmektedir. Orta Yol alıştırmasının odak noktası katılımcıların araştırma doğruluğu (AD) ile ilişkili erdemlerin günlük araştırma uygulamalarındaki pratik manalarının nüanslarına eleştirel bir biçimde bakmalarını sağlamaktır. Alıştırma içerisinde katılımcılar cesaret, hesap verebilirlik, dürüstlük gibi Araştırma Doğruluğu ile ilişkili erdemler ve erdemli davranış sergilemenin ne anlama geldiği üzerine fikir yürütecektir.anlama geldiği üzerine fikir yürütecektir.)
Sertifika + (Bu eğitimi alan kişilerin, sertifikalı eği … Bu eğitimi alan kişilerin, sertifikalı eğitmen olabilmek için online ve yüz yüze dersleri tamamlamaları ve 10 araştırmacıya bu eğitimi vermeleri gerekmektedir. 10 araştırmacının eğitimi, program esnasında ya da program bittikten sonra gerçekleştirilebilir.gram bittikten sonra gerçekleştirilebilir.)
Araştırma doğruluğu konusuna giriş + (Bu interaktif modülü alarak aşağıdaki konu … Bu interaktif modülü alarak aşağıdaki konular hakkında bilgi sahibi olacaksınız:*[https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf Araştırmalarda Dürüstlük Konusunda Avrupa Davranış Kodu (ECoC)]: Kodun içeriğini öğrenirken aynı zamanda kodda tanımlanan iyi uygulamalar ve ihlaller üzerine de fikir yürütecek ve yorumlamalarda bulunacaksınız.*'''Sorumlu araştırma davranışı, kusurlu araştırma davranışı ve tartışmaya açık araştırma uygulamaları:''' sorumlu uygulamalar, kusurlu davranışlar ve gri alanlar arasındaki farklılıkları öğrenecek ve bunların ECoC içerisinde nasıl ele alındığına dair yorumlamalarda bulunacaksınız.*'''Araştırma davranışını etkileyen çeşitli faktörler: '''Araştırmacı olarak kendi sorumluluklarınız üzerine ve 1) bireysel araştırmacılar, 2) araştırma kültürü ve 3) araştırma sistemi düzeyinde iyi araştırma davranışlarının ihlal edilmesine yol açan muhtemel sebeplere dair fikir yürütecek ve yorumlamalarda bulunacaksınız.ürütecek ve yorumlamalarda bulunacaksınız.)
Eğitimi organize etme + (Bu kılavuz, araştırma doğruluğu konusunda eğitmenlerin eğitimine yönelik karma bir eğitim programını yürütmek için gerekli pratik talimatları içermektedir.)
Erdem etiği ve araştırma doğruluğu + (Bu modülde aşağıdaki konuları öğrenecek ve … Bu modülde aşağıdaki konuları öğrenecek ve bu konular üzerine yorumlamalarda bulunacaksınız:*'''[https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53 Erdem etiğinin] temel karakteristikleri:''' Erdem etiğine giriş niteliğinde bir video izledikten sonra erdem etiğinin konuyla ilgili karakteristiklerini özetlemeyi hedefleyen bir dizi soru yanıtlayacaksınız.*'''[https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34 Ahlaki çatışma ve ahlaki ikilem]:''' Kavramlara ilişkin bir giriş yapıldıktan sonra sizden Rotterdam Dilemma Oyunundan alınmış birisi bir ahlaki çatışma, diğeri ise bir ahlaki ikilem içeren iki vakayı analiz etmeniz ve verilen kavramları bu vakalar üzerinde uygulamanız istenecektir.*'''Daha erdemli bir araştırmacı olma yönündeki isteğiniz:''' Modülün sonunda araştırmacı olarak genel hedefleriniz üzerine yapacağınız yorumlamaların ardından sizden, olmak (ya da dönüşmek) istediğiniz araştırmacıyı tanımlayacak en önemli üç erdemi belirlemeniz istenecektir.*'''Ahlaki örneklerin ahlaki gelişim ve erdemleri hayata geçirme üzerindeki etkisi:''' Erdemlerin nasıl öğrenildiği ve öğretildiği ve iyi bir rol model/mentor olmanın neleri gerektirdiği üzerine yapacağınız yorumlamaların ardından sizden, örnek aldığınız bir kişinin sizi daha erdemli davranmaya yönelttiği bir durumu anlatmanız istenecektir. erdemli davranmaya yönelttiği bir durumu anlatmanız istenecektir.)
Mevcut araştırma koşulları altında erdem etiğinin uygulanması + (Bu modülde aşağıdaki konuları öğrenecek ve … Bu modülde aşağıdaki konuları öğrenecek ve bu konular üzerine yorumlamalarda bulunacaksınız:*'''Araştırma ile ilgili bir bağlamda yaşadığınız bir bilişsel çelişki deneyimi: '''Bilişsel çelişkinin dinamiklerini ve araştırma süreci ile olan ilişkisini fark etmeniz konusunda size yol gösterilecektir.*'''Kendini haklı çıkarma stratejilerinin gerekliliği ve riskleri: '''Kullanma ihtimalinizin bulunduğu kendini haklı çıkarma stratejileri ve bu stratejilerin yol açabileceği olası istenmeyen sonuçlar – bilişsel önyargıların ortaya çıkması gibi – üzerine fikir yürütmeniz ve yorumlamalarda bulunmanız istenecektir.*'''Araştırma doğruluğu konusunda kendi disiplininizle en ilgili olduğunu düşündüğünüz ihlaller ve muhtemel kendini haklı çıkarma stratejileri: '''Kendi disiplininizle en ilgili olduğunu düşündüğünüz araştırma doğruluğu ihlalini belirledikten sonra sizden, farklı kendini haklı çıkarma stratejileri yazmanız istenecektir.ıkarma stratejileri yazmanız istenecektir.)
Ethical issues of involving children with disabilities in research + (By definition, children with disabilities … By definition, children with disabilities are individuals under 18 years of age who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments that, in combination with various barriers, may affect their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. All this raises some ethical issues, connected to research, such as exclusion of children with disabilities, maladapted information giving, consent or assent and methodologies for data collection '"`UNIQ--ref-00000263-QINU`"'. collection '"`UNIQ--ref-00000263-QINU`"'.)
Telemedicine: Bridging Gaps or Creating New Challenges? + (By delivering medical expertise to remote … By delivering medical expertise to remote areas, telemedicine is transforming the healthcare industry. However, as this area develops, research needs to address issues including patient privacy, fair access, and upholding confidence in online consultations. The goal is to promote conversation about striking a balance between innovation and accountability by examining best practices and moral conundrums encountered by researchers in increasingly sophisticated telemedicine (1).creasingly sophisticated telemedicine (1).)
Creating and communicating a sustainable research culture + (By engaging in this activity participants … By engaging in this activity participants will learn how to develop a tailored climate communication strategy for their research environment (department, group, project). They will explore practical ways to implement small but impactful behavioral changes that promote sustainability within academic culture. Additionally, they will gain the skills to apply core sustainability values when planning and delivering events or conferences in their field. ng events or conferences in their field. )
VIRT2UE Certification + (By registering for the VIRT2&lt … By registering for the VIRT2UE train-the-trainer program participants have the opportunity to become certified research integrity trainers. The certificate confirms that they are didactically skilled research integrity trainers. Participants receive the certificate when they have completed the online and the face-to-face courses and trained ten further researchers. Ideally, trainees should participate in all training sessions, practice the five exercises in the interim period between the meetings, and train 10 further researchers in at least three of the five exercises. However, these requirements can be adapted if necessary (for example in small research communities where it is difficult to find 10 interested researchers to train) and it is at the discretion of the trainer if a trainee has completed enough of the course to merit the certificate. If they feel confident about their skills, trainees can already train 10 further researchers during the interim period between the face-to-face meetings, rather than only practicing the exercises.e meetings, rather than only practicing the exercises.)
Introduction to Research Integrity + (By taking eLearning modules you will learn … By taking eLearning modules you will learn about: *'''[https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for research Integrity (ECoC)]:''' You will be introduced to the content of the code while reflecting on the good practices and breaches described in the text. *'''Responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, and questionable research practice:''' You will learn about the differences between responsible practices, misconduct and gray areas and reflect on how these are addressed in the ECoC.*'''The variety of factors that influence research behavior:''' You will be guided in a reflection about a researcher's responsibilities and the possible reasons for violations of good research conduct at the level of: 1) individual researchers, 2) the research culture, and 3) the research system., 2) the research culture, and 3) the research system.)
Introduction to Responsible Supervision, Mentoring and Role-modeling + (By taking these eLearning modules you will learn about and reflect on: Responsible supervision, mentoring and role-modeling.)
Virtue Ethics under Current Research Conditions + (By taking these eLearning modules you will … By taking these eLearning modules you will learn about and reflect on: *'''Your experience of cognitive dissonance in a research related context:''' You will be guided in recognizing the relevance and dynamics of cognitive dissonance within the research process.*'''The necessity and risks of applying self-justification strategies:''' You will be guided and invited to reflect on the self-justification strategies you might use, and the possible unintended consequences they might lead to, like the development of cognitive biases.*'''The most relevant breaches of research integrity in your discipline and possible self-justification strategies:''' After identifying the most relevant violations of research integrity in your discipline you will be invited to write different types of self-justification strategies.ifferent types of self-justification strategies.)
Introduction to Responsible Supervision, Mentoring and Role-modeling + (By taking these eLearning modules you will … By taking these eLearning modules you will learn about and reflect on: Responsible supervision, mentoring and role-modeling.*'''General responsibilities:''' You will be introduced to the general responsibilities that can apply to anyone enrolled in research, regardless of the role.*'''Roles:''' You will be introduced to the different roles in a research environment and their corresponding responsibilities.*'''Virtue Ethics approach:''' Virtue ethics will be applied to supervision, mentoring and role-modeling with some interactive exercises*'''Role-modeling:''' You will be introduced to the concept of role-modeling, the responsibilities of a role model and how it can influence research practice and culture.n influence research practice and culture.)
Introduction of Virtue Ethics to Research Integrity + (By taking these interactive modules you wi … By taking these interactive modules you will learn about and reflect on: *'''Key characteristics of [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53 virtue ethics]''': After watching an introductory video on virtue ethics, you can self-assess your knowledge of the most relevant characteristics of virtue ethics.*'''[[Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34|Moral conflict and a moral dilemma:]]''' After an introduction to the concepts you will be asked to apply these concepts whilst analyzing two cases from the Rotterdam Dilemma Game, one of which portrays a moral conflict, the other a moral dilemma.*'''Your own aspirations to become a more virtuous researcher:''' After reflecting on your overarching goals as researchers, you will be asked to identify the three most important virtues that describe the kind of researcher you want to be (or become).*'''The influence of moral exemplar(s) on moral development and the cultivation of virtues:''' After reflecting on how virtues are learnt, and taught, and what a good role model/mentor entails, you will be asked to reflect on a particular situation, in which someone you looked up to inspired you to act more virtuously.up to inspired you to act more virtuously.)
CAS Issues Open Access Policy (2014), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) + (CAS Issues Open Access Policy (2014), prod … CAS Issues Open Access Policy (2014), produced by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, outlines China’s national expectations for open science and open access. Written in Chinese, it provides guidance for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers. The policy promotes openness as the default, balanced with ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security. It emphasizes open access to publications, FAIR data principles, use of persistent identifiers, and deposition in trusted repositories. Responsibilities are defined for authors and institutions, including rights retention, funding acknowledgement, and cost management. Embargoes and exceptions for sensitive data are documented transparently. The policy encourages enabling infrastructure, training, and monitoring, linking local practice to international efforts like Plan S. Equity, responsible openness, and inclusion are cross-cutting themes. For practitioners, it serves as a practical checklist to improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. Published in 2014, it is a key reference for implementing open research in China.e for implementing open research in China.)
CATALISI + (CATALISI (Catalysation of Institutional Tr … CATALISI (Catalysation of Institutional Transformations of Higher Education Institutions) is an EU-funded project launched in 2023 to support universities in implementing their own strategies for institutional change. It does this by offering “acceleration services” like Living Labs, counselling, community of practice, and predictive studies, focused on three core areas: research careers and talent development, open science and public engagement, and sustainable research and education. By fostering co-creation, peer learning, and capacity building, CATALISI helps higher-education institutions rethink their governance, adapt to societal challenges, and align with European Research Area priorities.gn with European Research Area priorities.)
CHANGER EU Project + (CHAllenges and innovative chaNGes in resea … CHAllenges and innovative chaNGes in research Ethics Reviews (CHANGER) is a three-year Coordination and Support Action (CSA) project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon WIDERA programme aiming to promote changes in research ethics reviews by strengthening the capacities of researchers to incorporate ethical judgements in the project design and implementation, and by supporting capacity building of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) to address new challenges posed by new technologies and new research practices.==Evidence and Gap Map (EGM)==The collected evidence base was used to create Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) – systematic and visual presentation of the availability of evidence for the identified challenges to ethics review. In this way, critically appraised evidence is provided in a clear and actionable format to all stakeholders. Rows represent the selected topics, and columns represent the challenges to ethics reviews. The data was visualised using Python (3.8.19) and ''Matplotlib'' library.[[File:Image EGM.png|thumb]]le:Image EGM.png|thumb]])
COALESCE + (COALESCE is a four-year European project ( … COALESCE is a four-year European project (2023–2027) focused on creating a European Competence Centre for Science Communication along with a Science Communication Academy. Its goal is to strengthen the connection between science and society by improving the quality, accessibility, and impact of science communication across Europe. The project works to build trust in research and counter misinformation by developing evidence-based resources, tools, and training programs co-created with scientists, communicators, policymakers, journalists, and civil society. Although the Competence Centre will operate virtually, it is supported by national and regional hubs that bring together diverse expertise. By integrating knowledge from past initiatives and promoting inclusive, interdisciplinary approaches, COALESCE aims to professionalize science communication and make it more effective and socially responsive across Europe.ive and socially responsive across Europe.)
CODE OF ETHICS FOR RESEARCH WORKERS (2017) + (CODE OF ETHICS FOR RESEARCH WORKERS (2017) … CODE OF ETHICS FOR RESEARCH WORKERS (2017) is a national framework authored by nan, in english, targeting nan. Originating from Poland, 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 policy but also as a practical handbook.)
CONCISE + (CONCISE is a Horizon 2020 project that inv … CONCISE is a Horizon 2020 project that investigates how science communication shapes European citizens’ beliefs, perceptions, and knowledge about controversial science topics like vaccines, complementary and alternative medicine, GMOs, and climate change. It carried out deliberative public consultations with about 500 participants across five EU countries Portugal, Spain, Italy, Slovakia, and Poland, to explore which communication channels people trust, how they form their opinions, and how to foster more effective, inclusive, and trustworthy dialogue between scientists, media, policy makers, and the general public.ia, policy makers, and the general public.)
CROATIAN OPEN ACCESS DECLARATION (2012), Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts + (CROATIAN OPEN ACCESS DECLARATION (2012) is … CROATIAN OPEN ACCESS DECLARATION (2012) is a national resource produced by Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, written in croatian, and intended for stakeholders in Croatia. It synthesizes expectations for open science and open access within Croatia, 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 CROATIAN OPEN ACCESS DECLARATION 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.nce without excessive administrative load.)
Journal Impact Factor based on the date of electronic publication + (Calculation of journal’s Impact Factor (IF … Calculation of journal’s Impact Factor (IF) is based on the date of print publication even though articles are available online and can be cited. This creates problems in citation record leading to artificial increase of IFs. From now on Clarivate Analytics, which issues IFs through Journal Citation Reports (JCR), will calculate IFs based on the date of electronic publication.sed on the date of electronic publication.)
Accuracy of Credentials and Competence in Public Communications + (Carrie Mediln is a researcher who took a t … Carrie Mediln is a researcher who took a teaching position without completing her doctorate. She is routinely addressed by students as "Doctor" and is often introduced as "Doctor" Medlin during academic events and public speaking opportunities. She never clarifies that she did not receive a PhD degree. The case study asks whether Medlin has a responsibility to clarify her credentials.responsibility to clarify her credentials.)

An issue with insufficient data in the survey-resulting in a non-representative sample + (Case describing poorly planned research study.)

ENRIO Collection + (Case studies collection)
Cases. Research Ethics Training Virtual Course + (Cases and assignments of the Research Ethics Training Virtual Course)
Protection of Research Participants + (Citizen science, according to the [https:/ … Citizen science, according to the [https://www.ecsa.ngo/ European Citizen Science Association (ESCA)], is "an ‘umbrella’ term that describes a variety of ways in which the public participates in science. The main characteristics are that: (1) citizens are actively involved in research, in partnership or collaboration with scientists or professionals; and (2) there is a genuine outcome, such as new scientific knowledge, conservation action or policy change."ge, conservation action or policy change.")
Ethical and Societal Foundations of Open Science + (Citizen science, according to the [https:/ … Citizen science, according to the [https://www.ecsa.ngo/ European Citizen Science Association (ESCA)], is "an ‘umbrella’ term that describes a variety of ways in which the public participates in science. The main characteristics are that: (1) citizens are actively involved in research, in partnership or collaboration with scientists or professionals; and (2) there is a genuine outcome, such as new scientific knowledge, conservation action or policy change."ge, conservation action or policy change.")
Rights of Citizen Scientists + (Citizen science, according to the [https:/ … Citizen science, according to the [https://www.ecsa.ngo/ European Citizen Science Association (ESCA)], is "an ‘umbrella’ term that describes a variety of ways in which the public participates in science. The main characteristics are that: (1) citizens are actively involved in research, in partnership or collaboration with scientists or professionals; and (2) there is a genuine outcome, such as new scientific knowledge, conservation action or policy change."ge, conservation action or policy change.")
Quality of research outputs and data sets + (Citizen science, according to the [https:/ … Citizen science, according to the [https://www.ecsa.ngo/ European Citizen Science Association (ESCA)], is "an ‘umbrella’ term that describes a variety of ways in which the public participates in science. The main characteristics are that: (1) citizens are actively involved in research, in partnership or collaboration with scientists or professionals; and (2) there is a genuine outcome, such as new scientific knowledge, conservation action or policy change."ge, conservation action or policy change.")
Conflicts of interest in citizen science + (Citizen science, according to the [https:/ … Citizen science, according to the [https://www.ecsa.ngo/ European Citizen Science Association (ESCA)], is "an ‘umbrella’ term that describes a variety of ways in which the public participates in science. The main characteristics are that: (1) citizens are actively involved in research, in partnership or collaboration with scientists or professionals; and (2) there is a genuine outcome, such as new scientific knowledge, conservation action or policy change."ge, conservation action or policy change.")
Risks to the environment, animals, plants, and ecosystems + (Citizen science, according to the [https:/ … Citizen science, according to the [https://www.ecsa.ngo/ European Citizen Science Association (ESCA)], is "an ‘umbrella’ term that describes a variety of ways in which the public participates in science. The main characteristics are that: (1) citizens are actively involved in research, in partnership or collaboration with scientists or professionals; and (2) there is a genuine outcome, such as new scientific knowledge, conservation action or policy change."ge, conservation action or policy change.")
Ten journals denied 2020 Impact Factors because of excessive self-citation or “citation stacking” + (Clarivate has issued expression of concern … Clarivate has issued expression of concern to 11 journals after noticing some odd patterns in their contribution to JIF (journal impact factor) values. It also suppressed a further 10 for excessive self-citation. The journals suppressed did not receive an impact factor for 2020.did not receive an impact factor for 2020.)
Grading the quality of evidence in clinical practice guidelines + (Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are de … Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to support the decision-making processes in patient care. A large number of guidelines are available both from medical associations and national health departments. The content of a CPG is based on a systematic review of clinical evidence - the main source for evidence-based care. Guidelines report the quality of the evidence used when they formulate the recommendations. For each recommendation in the guidelines, the level of evidence and strength of the recommendation are defined[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]. The quality of evidence has been defined as “reflecting the extent to which confidence in the estimate of an effect is adequate to support recommendations”[[#%20ftn2|[2]]]. The grading of the recommendations may vary across professional health agencies and scientific societies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group have developed the GRADE system, which is intended as a common, sensible and transparent approach to grading the quality of evidence for the use in clinical guidelines[[#%20ftn3|[3]]]. The GRADE approach has a wide dissemination, with endorsement from more than 50 organizations worldwide, including WHO and Cochrane.----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Cura Della Redazione A. La costruzione delle linee guida [Clinical practice guidelines: what they are and how are developed]. Assist Inferm Ric. 2014;33:214-8. [[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck‐Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE: what is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336:995–8.[[#%20ftnref3|[3]]] The GRADE working group [Internet]. GRADE [accessed 8 September, 2020]. Available online at: '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000016C-QINU`"' 2013. NIQ--nowiki-0000016C-QINU`"' 2013. )
Rules of Data-Sharing in Collaborative and Non-Collaborative Research + (Co-investigators plan on patenting a genetic test and want to share data with both collaborators and non-collaborators.)
Rules of Data-Sharing in Collaborative and Non-Collaborative Research + (Co-investigators plan on patenting a genetic test and want to share data with both collaborators and non-collaborators.)
Cochrane library + (Cochrane is an independent, non-profit org … Cochrane is an independent, non-profit organisation aiming to promote evidence-informed decision-making in healthcare, by gathering and summarizing the best and most relevant research in this field. The Cochrane-Library is a collection of high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence, that provides information for professionals and patients in order to enhance healthcare knowledge and decision making. The articles are translated into 14 languages and reviewed by consumers and patients, to ensure the content is easily understandable. The library is freely available and up do date contains over 7.500 articles.d up do date contains over 7.500 articles.)
Code of Ethics Young Scientists (2018) + (Code of Ethics Young Scientists (2018) is … Code of Ethics Young Scientists (2018) is a international framework authored by nan, in english, targeting International. Originating from International, 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 policy but also as a practical handbook.)
Code of Ethics of Estonian Scientists + (Code of Ethics of Estonian Scientists (?) … Code of Ethics of Estonian Scientists (?) is a national framework authored by ? Originating from Estonia, 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 policy but also as a practical handbook.)
Code of Good Scientific Practice (2014), FAPESP São Paulo Research Foundation + (Code of Good Scientific Practice (2014) is … Code of Good Scientific Practice (2014) is a regional (state of sao paulo) framework authored by FAPESP São Paulo Research Foundation, in portuguese and english, targeting Brazil. Originating from Brazil, 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 policy but also as a practical handbook.)
Code of Good Scientific Practice CSIC (2021) + (Code of Good Scientific Practice CSIC (202 … Code of Good Scientific Practice CSIC (2021) is a national framework authored by nan, in spanish, targeting Spain. Originating from Spain, 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 policy but also as a practical handbook.)
UK Research Integrity Office's Code of Practice for Research + (Code of Practice for Research UKRIO: Promo … Code of Practice for Research UKRIO: Promoting Good Practice and Preventing Misconduct. This Code of Practice for Research is aimed at promoting research practices and outcomes of the highest status, by encouraging good science and preventing misconduct among all stakeholders involved in the UK research community. To do so, the code issues a set of principles that highlight those values relevant in research communities and a set of standards that guide all parties involved in research, from researchers to organizations. The code promotes good practices, training, mentoring, supervision, and leadership, encourages collaborative working, and provides a framework to properly deal with conflicts of interests, research involving human subjects or animals, personal data, health and safety, finances, IP, etc.ata, health and safety, finances, IP, etc.)
Code of Professional Standards and Ethics in Science, Technology, and the Humanities (2019) + (Code of Professional Standards and Ethics … Code of Professional Standards and Ethics in Science, Technology, and the Humanities (2019) is a national framework authored by nan, in english, targeting Aotearoa - New Zealand. Originating from New Zealand, 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 policy but also as a practical handbook.)
Codul General de Etică în Cercetarea Științifică - General code of ethics in scientific research (2015) + (Codul General de Etică în Cercetarea Știin … Codul General de Etică în Cercetarea Științifică - General code of ethics in scientific research (2015) is a national framework authored by nan, in romanian, targeting nan. Originating from Romania, 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 policy but also as a practical handbook.)
High income and low- and middle-income country collaborations + (Collaborations between high income countries and low- and middle-income countries are increasingly common in a globalized world.)
Collaborative working + (Collaborative working is "the act of two o … Collaborative working is "the act of two or more people or organizations working together for a particular purpose". '"`UNIQ--ref-000001F9-QINU`"' Collaborative working can cover formal or informal ways to work together. Formal collaborations include research projects under specified research grants, informal collaborations include, for example, networks or alliances.'"`UNIQ--ref-000001FA-QINU`"' Collaborations can be permanent or last for a certain time period. Important for succesfull research collaborations is having good underlying principles providing the basis for agreements of collaborations.'"`UNIQ--references-000001FB-QINU`"'ions. '"`UNIQ--references-000001FB-QINU`"')
Responsible Research and Innovation resources for researchers and funders + (Collection of resources on Responsible Research and Innovation aimed at research-performing and research-funding organizations from the RRI-Practice H2020 project)
Lapses in Oversight Compromise Omics Results + (Commentary on the Anil Potti case discussi … Commentary on the Anil Potti case discussing relevant institutional changes in avoiding such misconduct. Potti was a researcher of cancer genomics at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. His studies had linked changes in the expression of patients' genes with how they responded to cancer treatments, and independent statisticians had raised concerns about published papers linked to the work before clinical trials were initiated based on them. As the commentary highlights, there were a list of failures in the system of research oversight and integrity at the research institution, which must be corrected.arch institution, which must be corrected.)
Infographic - SOPs4RI Guidelines on Responsible Supervision and Leadership + (Competent supervision and mentoring must b … Competent supervision and mentoring must be offered to researchers at all stages of their career development. The RIPP must specify procedures and criteria for qualifying as a supervisor or mentor and must include guidelines for supervision and mentoring of researchers at different career stages, with due attention to responsible conduct of research, research integrity and academic leadership should be valued. and academic leadership should be valued.)