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

Not acknowledging contributors who do not qualify for authorship + (Every contribution to research should be p … Every contribution to research should be properly acknowledged. When someone provides help, but does not qualify for authorship, they should be mentioned as contributors in the acknowledgment section. Not acknowledging contributors is considered a questionable research practice.nsidered a questionable research practice.)
Institutional codes of conduct for research integrity + (Every institution where research is carrie … Every institution where research is carried out should have codes that regulate research procedure from its conceptualization to publication. Besides institution guidelines, there should be rules on a national or an even larger scale. Every researcher needs to get familiar with codes that apply to themselves.iliar with codes that apply to themselves.)
Insufficiently reported study flaws and limitations + (Every research has its flaws and limitatio … Every research has its flaws and limitations, a failure to report these however is a questionable research practice. Insufficiently reported study flaws and limitations are considered one of the most common questionable research practices or examples of ‘sloppy science’. Since these ‘sloppy’ practices are much more frequent, they are arguably more detrimental to science than research misconduct (falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism) '"`UNIQ--ref-00000180-QINU`"'.'"`UNIQ--references-00000181-QINU`"'U`"'. '"`UNIQ--references-00000181-QINU`"')
Universal Declaration of Human Rights + (Every research project that involves humans should balance harms and benefits.)
Balancing harms and benefits + (Every research project that involves humans should balance harms and benefits.)
Ara dönem uygulama çalışması + (Eğitim verdiğiniz katılımcılar, birinci ve … Eğitim verdiğiniz katılımcılar, birinci ve ikinci yüz yüze oturumlar arasında, yüz yüze eğitimin ilk kısmında öğrendikleri ve deneyimledikleri 5 alıştırmayı kolaylaştırıcı olarak yöneteceklerdir ([https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:36e82c9c-dc83-46cc-a043-df9d93f1801f Öz Beyan Yaklaşımı]; [https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:628b20aa-3ad4-41b8-919b-e45ad17b3d8f Münazara ve Diyalog]; [https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:35961b2d-6734-4bf9-a1d0-5893be9be3a5 Erdemler ve Normlar], [https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:D1cde436-f9a2-41fa-8706-95ee6389f009 Orta yol] ve İkilem oyunu). Katılımcıların bu deneyimleri hakkında bilgi sahibi olmak ve son yüz yüze grup oturumunu hazırlamak için eğitmenlerin katılımcılardan [https://www.dropbox.com/s/1fmppqv189jxlqj/Self%20reflection%20form.pdf?dl=0 özdüşünüm formlarını] toplamaları ve analiz etmeleri gerekmektedir. Bu formlar, eğitimin son oturumunda hangi konuların üzerinde durulması ve hangi alıştırmalar için daha fazla pratik yapılması gerektiğini belirlemede eğitmenlere yardımcı olacaktır.ası ve hangi alıştırmalar için daha fazla pratik yapılması gerektiğini belirlemede eğitmenlere yardımcı olacaktır.)
Fabrication + (Fabrication is one of the most severe viol … Fabrication is one of the most severe violations of research integrity. It is considered serious research misconduct. In the European Code of Conduct fabrication is defined as “making up results and recording them as if they were real”. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000212-QINU`"' Presenting fabricated data to be true can have serious adverse consequences for the general public and the scientific community.'"`UNIQ--references-00000213-QINU`"'nity. '"`UNIQ--references-00000213-QINU`"')
Forensic Statistics to detect Data Fabrication + (Fabrication of numerical data is frequently described as an example of research misconduct that can occur in all areas of research. It can be detected by statistical tools, like the chi-square test for uniformity of digit distributions.)
Facebook Manipulated 689,003 Users' Emotions For Science + (Facebook is the best human research lab ev … Facebook is the best human research lab ever. There’s no need to get experiment participants to sign pesky consent forms as they’ve already agreed to the site’s data use policy. A team of Facebook data scientists are constantly coming up with new ways to study human behavior through the social network. When the team releases papers about what it's learned from us, we often learn surprising things about Facebook instead -- such as the fact that it can keep track of the status updates we never actually post.the status updates we never actually post.)
Bioethicists Call for Investigation Into Nutritional Experiments on Aboriginal People + (Factual cases of research on people without their approval.)
Fake peer-reviewing + (Fake reviewing, or self-reviewing, involve … Fake reviewing, or self-reviewing, involves recommending a fake reviewer during the peer-review process.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000254-QINU`"' Fake or self-review manipulates the review process and guarantees a paper receives a positive review. This is considered a questionable research practice.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000255-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000256-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000256-QINU`"')
Falsification + (Falsifcation is altering a part of the res … Falsifcation is altering a part of the research process, often to let the results appear more sensational and relevant than they are in reality. Next to fabrication and plagiarism, falsifcation is considered as serious research misconduct. It is defined by the European Code of Conduct as “manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing, ommitting or suppressing data or results without justification”.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000CC-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-000000CD-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-000000CD-QINU`"')
The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity + (Five principles to reward researchers' beh … Five principles to reward researchers' behavior to foster research integrity: *responsible research practices;*transparent reporting;*open science (open research);*valuing a diversity of types of research;*recognizing all contributions to research and scholarly activitybutions to research and scholarly activity)
Research integrity in practice: dealing with everyday dilemmas + (For some, an important aspect of research … For some, an important aspect of research integrity (RI) training is to make clear links between educational material and the “real life” practices of researchers. Discussing dilemmas in practice can be a valuable method to reflect broadly on how to be ‘good’ researchers.t broadly on how to be ‘good’ researchers.)
Framework to Enhance Research Integrity in Research Collaborations (2022), National Research Integrity Forum + (Framework to Enhance Research Integrity in … Framework to Enhance Research Integrity in Research Collaborations (2022) is a national and international (ireland-funded research collabs) framework authored by National Research Integrity Forum, in english, targeting International (research outside Ireland). Originating from Ireland, 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.)
Statements About Professional Experience + (Franklin Academic is asked by his PI to im … Franklin Academic is asked by his PI to improve a grant proposal by exaggerating his experience in conducting complex surveys. The case study asks about the ways academics should present their experience and the appropriate course of action in situations similar to the one described.n situations similar to the one described.)
Myths and Rituals: Art-Science, Sustainable Tech, and Degrowth + (From art-science collaborations to technol … From art-science collaborations to technological “fixes” like carbon capture to ancient myths, Sofia Greaves shares stories of projects at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and beyond. Presented by Lucy Sabin.Created for EU project RE4GREEN. Supported by the European Commission and the VU Open Science. All views shared are the speakers' own.e. All views shared are the speakers' own.)
Funders + (Funding for research comes from many sourc … Funding for research comes from many sources, including from universities, industry, philantrophists and research funding organizations (RFOs). RFOs are the financiers of many research projects and provide grants to research projects, collaborations and individual researchers. The responsibility for ensuring that the funds and resources are utilized optimally without any misconduct lies with researchers, research performing organizations, ethics committees, and the funding organizations. This calls for the development of a code for appropriate utilization of funds, and to ensure academic autonomy, integrity, freedom and the rights of scholars in academic–industry relationships.holars in academic–industry relationships.)
GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY (2019), CNR Research Ethics and Integrity Committee - (64 RI GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY - Italy, p. 1) + (GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY (2019) i … GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY (2019) is a national framework authored by CNR Research Ethics and Integrity Committee - (64 RI GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY - Italy, p. 1), in english, targeting nan. Originating from Italy, 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.)
Gene Editing: Ethical Frontiers and Scientific Integrity + (Gene editing holds immense promise for med … Gene editing holds immense promise for medicine and agriculture, but ethical and scientific integrity challenges must be addressed. Researchers must navigate issues such as informed consent, unintended consequences, and potential misuse. This thematic page explores the responsibilities of scientists in ensuring gene editing is conducted ethically, balancing innovation with societal concerns.lancing innovation with societal concerns.)
General Guidelines for Research Ethics + (General guidelines for Research Ethics (?) … General guidelines for Research Ethics (?) is a national framework authored by nan, in english, targeting nan. Originating from Norway, 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.)
Researchers Pressured to Store Animal Subjects + (Geneticists working on groundbreaking research and funded by a large NIH grant fail to find a safe place to store their lab rats. Their haphazard solution may cost them.)
The ethical dilemmas of genome editing + (Genome editing (also called gene editing) … Genome editing (also called gene editing) is a group of technologies that give scientists the ability to change an organism's DNA. These technologies allow genetic material to be added, removed, or altered at particular locations in the genome. Several approaches to genome editing have been developed. A well-known one is called CRISPR-Cas9, which is short for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and CRISPR-associated protein 9.However, this groundbreaking technology also raises profound ethical concerns that challenge society's moral boundaries.that challenge society's moral boundaries.)
Feedback of findings in genome-wide association studies + (Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) tes … Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) test the association between genomic variants and diseases or quantitative traits. In order to perform such analyses, researches are genotyping a large number of genomic variants for a large number of individuals. The information from a GWA scan is derived from DNA, which is a powerful personal identifier and can provide information not just on the individual, but also on the individual’s relatives, related groups and populations.relatives, related groups and populations.)
The influence of pharmaceutical company on drug availability + (Given that the research is sponsored by a pharmaceutical company and that they deliver the drug to Croatia (drug is not available in Croatia), shipments of the drug may be delayed.)

Integrity Factor Glossary + (Glossary on research integrity terms.)

Good Scientific Research Practice (2004), Ministry of Science and Information Society Technologies (63 RI Good scientific research practice - Poland, p. 1) + (Good Scientific Research Practice (2004) i … Good Scientific Research Practice (2004) is a national framework authored by Ministry of Science and Information Society Technologies (63 RI Good scientific research practice - Poland, p. 1), 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.)
Good research practice (2017) + (Good research practice (2017) is a nationa … Good research practice (2017) is a national framework authored by nan, in english, targeting Sweden. Originating from Sweden, 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.)
Good scientific practice for courses in science and medicine + (Good scientific practice for courses in science and medicine: report; german)
Guidance on the Management of Clinical Trials during the COVID-19 Pandemic + (Guidance for all stakeholders involved in … Guidance for all stakeholders involved in clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. This document aims to provide guidance and prevent the disruption of clinical trials during the ongoing crisis. Even when health systems reach their limits, the integrity of trials, the rights, and the safety of the trial participants and staff must be preserved and protected. For this reason, this guideline provides harmonized, simplified and pragmatic measures.onized, simplified and pragmatic measures.)
Guide to Recommendations for Responsible Practices -2013 (2013), Brazilian Academy of Sciences + (Guide to Recommendations for Responsible P … Guide to Recommendations for Responsible Practices -2013 (2013) is a national framework authored by Brazilian Academy of Sciences, in portuguese, 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.)
Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice (2022), German Research Foundation + (Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research … Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice (2022) is a national framework authored by German Research Foundation, in german and english, targeting Germany. Originating from Germany, 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.)
Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Data (2016), Research Council of Lithuania + (Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Pu … Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Data (2016), produced by the Research Council of Lithuania, outlines national expectations for open science and open access. Written in Lithuanian, it provides guidance for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers. The guidelines promote openness as the default, balanced with ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security. Key elements include open access to publications, FAIR data principles, persistent identifiers, and deposition in trusted repositories. Responsibilities are defined for authors and institutions, covering rights retention, funding acknowledgement, and cost management. Embargoes and exceptions for sensitive data are transparently documented. The document encourages enabling infrastructure, training, and monitoring, aligning local practice with international standards 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 2016, it is a credible reference for implementing open research in Lithuania.r implementing open research in Lithuania.)
Guidelines to the Rules on Open Access to Scientific Publications & Open Access to Research Data in Horizon 2020 (2017), European Comission + (Guidelines to the Rules on Open Access to … Guidelines to the Rules on Open Access to Scientific Publications & Open Access to Research Data in Horizon 2020 (2017), produced by the European Commission, is an international policy resource written in English and designed for stakeholders across Europe and beyond. It sets openness as the default for research, while balancing ethical, privacy, intellectual property, and security considerations under the maxim “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” The guidelines link openness to improved research quality, reproducibility, translation speed, and equitable knowledge access, particularly for under-resourced communities. They outline requirements for open access to publications, Creative Commons licensing, persistent identifiers, and deposition in trusted repositories, while also promoting FAIR data principles and detailed data management plans. Responsibilities are assigned to researchers and institutions, including rights retention, funding acknowledgement, and justified use of embargoes. Infrastructure such as repositories, registries, and discovery systems supports compliance, while monitoring occurs through grant reporting and progress indicators. The resource emphasizes responsible openness with safeguards for sensitive or commercial data and encourages capacity building, multilingual communication, and equity. It aligns European practices with initiatives like Plan S and the European Open Science Cloud. For researchers, managers, librarians, funders, and publishers, it offers a clear, actionable reference, reducing ambiguity, harmonizing practices internationally, and serving as a benchmark for transparency, reproducibility, and open research. Published in 2017, it remains a credible reference for policy, training, and grant compliance.ce for policy, training, and grant compliance.)
Data driven hypotheses without disclosure (‘HARKing’) + (HARKing i.e. Hypothesizing After the Resul … HARKing i.e. Hypothesizing After the Results are Known or post hoc testing, as it is more widely known, is not unfamiliar to many researchers. In scientific methodology or statistics class in grad school, many of us have been told that such practice was flawed, but few of us has ever heard the rationale behind it. HARKing is considered to be a detrimental research practice.'"`UNIQ--ref-000002BD-QINU`"' This thematic page will try to address the logic behind HARKing and hopefully shed some light on its nature and validity.'"`UNIQ--references-000002BE-QINU`"'dity. '"`UNIQ--references-000002BE-QINU`"')
HEA Principles of Good Practice in Research within Irish Higher Education Institutions (2020) + (HEA Principles of Good Practice in Researc … HEA Principles of Good Practice in Research within Irish Higher Education Institutions (2020) is a national framework authored by nan, in english, targeting nan. Originating from Ireland, 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.)
HEIRRI courses + (HEIRRI is a Horizon 2020 project that crea … HEIRRI is a Horizon 2020 project that created training programmes for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). There are ten HEIRRI training programmes in total, for high school level, undergraduate and graduate students, PhD students, and a train-the-trainer course. They can be used independently and allow great teacher flexibilty.dently and allow great teacher flexibilty.)
Humanities in the European Research Area (HERA) + (HERA is a network that includes 26 nationa … HERA is a network that includes 26 national funding agencies with aim of leading and developing funding opportunities for humanities researchers in Europe. Together with the European Commission, HERA has funded 55 transnational humanities-focused projects.transnational humanities-focused projects.)
Honorary or gift authorship + (Honorary authorship and gift authorship ar … Honorary authorship and gift authorship are two types of authorship frauds in research. Both honorary and gift authorship refers to assigning authorship to those who have not contributed significantly to study but are named authors for other reasons, such as enhanced funding and publication opportunities.ced funding and publication opportunities.)
Transformative Research, Part 1: Storytelling & Solidarity + (How can researchers reflect on their value … How can researchers reflect on their values, imagine alternative futures, and build solidarity in the face of shared struggles? Josie Chambers, Rianne Janssen, and Lucy Sabin explore transformative research in the first episode of our series. Created for EU project RE4GREEN. Supported by the European Commission and VU Open Science. All views shared are the speakers' own.e. All views shared are the speakers' own.)
Transformative Research, Part 2: Emotions & Justice + (How can we connect knowledge with action i … How can we connect knowledge with action in pursuit of more just futures? This is part 2 of our conversation on "transformative research" with Josie Chambers, Rianne Janssen, and host Lucy Sabin. Featuring original stories and music.Created for EU project RE4GREEN. Supported by the European Commission and the VU Open Science. All views shared are the speakers' own.e. All views shared are the speakers' own.)
How to be a good lab partner + (How to coexist in the laboratory without c … How to coexist in the laboratory without committing a homicide/suicide? A few of the most typical laboratory difficulties that need to be handled are organization and staff issues. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000269-QINU`"'Because of that, it is important to nourish the virtues of collaborative spirit, patience, and humility at the workplace.'"`UNIQ--references-0000026A-QINU`"'lace. '"`UNIQ--references-0000026A-QINU`"')
Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing) + (Hypothesizing after the results are known … Hypothesizing after the results are known ('''HARKing''') refers to the practice of presenting unexpected findings as a priori hypotheses or failing to report empirically unsupported hypotheses that were derived a priori and guided the research. In other words, research reports suffer from HARKing if they include one or more post hoc hypotheses (that is, hypotheses developed after the results of the data analysis are known) that are misrepresented as a priori (that is, as developed prior to the data analysis) or if they exclude one or more a priori hypotheses that were empirically disconfirmed. Consequently, HARKed reports misrepresent the ratio of empirically confirmed and disconfirmed a priori hypotheses by elevating exploratory findings to a priori expectations and suppressing a priori expectations unsupported by the data at hand. Thus, HARKing misportrays the research process by falsely describing hypothesis generating exploratory research as hypothesis testing confirmatory research or by failing to report hypotheses that could not be corroborated and therefore deceives readers.This theme page describes the practice of HARKing and its detrimental consequences on research in some more depth, briefly explains how initiatives such as preregistration aim to reduce HARKing and differentiates pure HARKing from transparent forms of HARKing that are not necessarily detrimental to the research endeavor.rily detrimental to the research endeavor.)
IANUS + (IANUS is a Horizon Europe funded project f … IANUS is a Horizon Europe funded project focused on strengthening justified trust in science, research, and innovation through inclusive and co-creative approaches that reflect societal needs and values. Emphasizing value-driven and participatory research, it encourages scientists to address global challenges while staying responsive to public concerns. Building on insights from related initiatives, IANUS analyzes the dynamics of trust in science, develops conceptual frameworks, and promotes engagement between researchers and citizens. By offering policy recommendations and creating interactive platforms for collaboration, the project aims to rebuild confidence in the scientific community and foster stronger connections between science and society.r connections between science and society.)
INTEGRITY + (INTEGRITY: Empowering students for Responsible Research Conduct (RCR) through evidence-based, scaffolded learning.)
Independent Research Fund Denmark – Open Access Policy and Dissemination Guidelines + (IRFD outlines an open access policy adopte … IRFD outlines an open access policy adopted jointly in Denmark in 2019 that aims to increase public access to taxpayer‑funded research while balancing publisher contracts and embargo periods. The fund’s website provides high‑level principles, references national policy, and offers practical grant‑management pages on dissemination and publication, terms and conditions, and openness in assessment. It notes that while the fund supports open dissemination, it does not currently fund APCs and allows limited embargoes within national guidelines. Applicants and grantholders are directed to follow the conditions specified in individual grant letters and to use repositories to achieve compliance when feasible.ories to achieve compliance when feasible.)
ISEED + (ISEED (Inclusive Science & European De … ISEED (Inclusive Science & European Democracies) is a Horizon 2020 research project (2021–2024) that explores how lessons from citizen science can be used to foster more inclusive, deliberative democracies in Europe. It investigates democratic participation along four dimensions , knowledge, institutions, technology, and emotion using empirical research like focus groups, discourse analysis, and digital tool development. Led by Ca’ Foscari University of Venice and involving partners across Europe and beyond, ISEED runs experiments and co-creates mechanisms for citizen engagement, especially around science-based policy debates such as climate change and public health.ates such as climate change and public health.)
Ignoring substantial safety risks of studies + (Ignoring safety risks when planning and co … Ignoring safety risks when planning and conducting a study is a questionable research practice in study design. Not considering potential physical, psychological, social, legal or economic risks can harm researchers, research participants, and wider community.esearch participants, and wider community.)
The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct + (In "The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct, … In "The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct," you become the lead characters* in an interactive movie and make decisions about integrity in research that can have long-term consequences. The simulation addresses Responsible Conduct of Research topics such as avoiding research misconduct, mentorship responsibilities, handling of data, responsible authorship, and questionable research practices.'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000035-QINU`"'The four available perspectives are: graduate student, postdoctoral researcher, principal investigator, research administratorcipal investigator, research administrator)
Mad Scientist: The Unique Case of a Published Delusion + (In 1951, entomologist Jay Traver published … In 1951, entomologist Jay Traver published in the ''Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington'' her personal experiences with a mite infestation of her scalp that resisted all treatment and was undetectable to anyone other than herself. Traver is recognized as having suffered from Delusory Parasitosis: her paper shows her to be a textbook case of the condition. The Traver paper is unique in the scientific literature in that its conclusions may be based on data that was unconsciously fabricated by the author’s mind. The paper may merit retraction on the grounds of error or even scientific misconduct “by reason of insanity,” but such a retraction raises the issue of discrimination against the mentally ill.f discrimination against the mentally ill.)
Imposter Syndrome + (In 1978, the term "imposter syndrome" was … In 1978, the term "imposter syndrome" was used for the first time. According to research, high-achieving women did not internalize their achievement; rather, they attributed it to chance or luck. These women admitted that they were afraid that their peers would suspect them of being incompetent imposters despite their degrees and achievements. Since then, other studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that many academics and professionals suffer from imposter syndrome. For instance, in a study conducted in 2016 with more than 100 medical students, approximately two-thirds of students expressed having those symptoms [1].ents expressed having those symptoms [1].)