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

Responsible Research and Innovation - RRI + (Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) refers to engaging the public in the research process to better align the goals and outcomes of research with the needs of society and to address societal challenges.)
One in six of the papers you cite in a review has been retracted. What do you do? + (Retraction Watch brings in questions on ho … Retraction Watch brings in questions on how to deal with one's publication when it is heavily relied on research that might contain errors or misconduct issues. A researcher was faced with a difficult dilemma when she realised that a large proportion of the papers on her review on vitamin D links to Parkinson's Disease had been retracted.to Parkinson's Disease had been retracted.)
Official notice published for chem paper slated for retraction in 2011 + (Retraction Watch brings in the case of a chemist researcher who has had several papers retracted due to a number of research ethics misconduct issues, mainly falsification and fabrication of results.)
Springer Nature ‘continuing to investigate the concerns raised’ about paper linking obesity and lying + (Retraction Watch presents a case where concerns have been raised about the methods and conclusions of a study linking obesity to lying.)
A bullshit excuse? My lab notebook “was blown into a manure pit” + (Retraction Watch presents the case of a researcher who failed to declare conflicts of interest in his research;he has also allegedly fabricated and falsified data on his research to reach certain conclusions.)
Retractions: correcting the scientific literature + (Retraction is the process of withdrawal fr … Retraction is the process of withdrawal from publication of those articles that display seriously flawed or erroneous data. Retraction aims to correct the scholarly literature and alert readers of an article’s serious mistakes. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' The flawed data can be the result of honest error or from research misconduct. When unnoticed, retracted papers are still seen as valid and decrease the trustworthiness of science that follows.'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"'lows. '"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"')
Plagiarism charge for Romanian minister - Scandal adds to fears that country’s research reform is in peril + (Romania’s new government was thrown into t … Romania’s new government was thrown into turmoil last week after its education and research minister, Ioan Mang, was accused of extensive plagiarism in at least eight of his academic papers.The allegations first began circulating on 7 May, just hours after Prime Minister Victor Ponta, a Social Democrat, announced the appointment of Mang and other ministers of the new government. Last week, former prime minister Emil Boc, of the Democratic Liberals, called for Mang’s resignation, dramatically waving the allegedly plagiarized articles and the original papers in front of television cameras.The scandal has dismayed many Romanian scientists, who are already nervous that the incoming centre-left coalition government might reverse some of the energizing reforms that were introduced by the previous centre-right coalition to improve the country’s sluggish research systemove the country’s sluggish research system)
SCImago Journal Rankings + (SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) i … SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) is online database developed by Felix de Moya in Spain in 2007 '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'. SJR uses Scopus indexed journals to provide bibliometric indicators, i.e. quality assesment. This factor was introducted in bibliometric indicators as a alternative metrics to Impact Factor '"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"'.o Impact Factor '"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"'.)
Science Foundation Ireland, Open Access Policy and Guidance + (SFI’s Plan S‑aligned policy requires SFI‑f … SFI’s Plan S‑aligned policy requires SFI‑funded publications to be made open access, with an expectation to apply CC BY and include rights‑retention wording. The policy hub explains compliant routes (including use of the Journal Checker Tool), clarifies that preprint deposition alone is insufficient for compliance, and offers FAQ and DMP guidance aligned to FAIR principles. It encourages broader open research practices while recognising cases where outputs beyond journal articles may need tailored approaches. Together, the documents provide a practical toolkit for Irish researchers and administrators implementing policy across projects and institutions.g policy across projects and institutions.)
SHERPA + (SHERPA is a European research project that … SHERPA is a European research project that examines how smart information systems especially AI and big data analytics affect ethics and human rights. Through stakeholder engagement (interviews, surveys, Delphi studies) and creative formats like case studies and artistic representations, SHERPA maps out the key ethical challenges of these technologies. It also develops practical tools including a workbook on responsible SIS development and proposes technical, regulatory, and governance options to promote more sustainable, human-centred information systems.inable, human-centred information systems.)
SOPs4RI + (SOPs4RI (Standard Operating Procedures for … SOPs4RI (Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity) aims to stimulate and foster responsible research practices across European Research Performing and Funding Organisations (RPOs and RFOs) with a toolbox that includes a collection of easy-to-use Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines that these organisations can use to develop their own Research Integrity Promotion Plans.ir own Research Integrity Promotion Plans.)
Salami publication + (Salami publication (also known as "salami slicing") is characterized by the spreading of study results over more papers than necessary. This article will briefly try to present what the criteria for and effects of salami publication are.)
Science Ethics Code of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (2010), Hungarian Academy of Sciences + (Science Ethics Code of the Hungarian Acade … Science Ethics Code of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (2010) is a national framework authored by Hungarian Academy of Sciences, in english, targeting nan. Originating from Hungary, 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.)
Research integrity - what is means, why it is important and how we might protect it + (Science Europe published a comprehensive r … Science Europe published a comprehensive review of developments in research integrity across Europe and the US. Research integrity is about "the performance of research to the highest standards of professionalism and rigour, in an ethically robust manner", says the report.ethically robust manner", says the report.)
Questionable Research Practices in Collaboration + (Science is increasingly a team effort. Collaborations, however, are not without their challenges. A fact that is evident in the variety of research misbehaviors related to collaborations.)
Scientist's code of ethics (2017) + (Scientist's code of ethics (2017) is a nat … Scientist's code of ethics (2017) is a national framework authored by nan, in lithuanian, targeting Lithuania. Originating from Lithuania, 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.)
Fresh Misconduct Charges Hit Dutch Social Psychology + (Scientists here are still searching their … Scientists here are still searching their souls about two previous scandals—involving Diederik Stapel of Tilburg University in 2011 and Dirk Smeesters of Erasmus University in Rotterdam a year later. Now they have learned that a national research integrity panel has found evidence of data manipulation in the work of Jens Förster, a social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam (UvA). The university has already announced that it will request the retraction of one of Förster's articles. bThe case is drawing widespread international attention as well, in part because Förster, who's German and came to Amsterdam in 2007, enjoys a sterling reputation. "He is among the most creative and influential social psychologists of his generation," says Jeffrey Sherman of the University of California, Davis.an of the University of California, Davis.)
Secondary corrections + (Secondary corrections, or errata, are corr … Secondary corrections, or errata, are corrections of articles that are made when an article that was cited was retracted or significantly changed. Secondary corrections follow the same format as regular corrections, but in this case, the correction is not about an author’s mistake or error in the publication process.stake or error in the publication process.)
How to select trustworthy repositories + (Selecting a digital data repository for s … Selecting a digital data repository for sharing and preserving research data is an important task because different repositories are suited for different kinds of data. Since it is not always easy to choose the right repository, researchers should use tools such as guides and checklists that can help them in this process.klists that can help them in this process.)
Selective citation + (Selective citation refers to biased ways of looking at the body of previously published work and involves cherry-picking when using available knowledge.)
Self-plagiarism + (Self-plagiarism is the practice of reusing … Self-plagiarism is the practice of reusing significant parts of one’s own publication in another publication. Self-plagiarism is also known as duplicate (or multiple) publishing. Keep in mind that self-plagiarism is different from duplicate submission. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"')
Faking it in academia- the rise of authorship fraud + (Selling authorship for scientific articles … Selling authorship for scientific articles is an unethical but increasingly prevalent issue in academia. This practice undermines the integrity of scientific research by allowing individuals to claim undeserved credit, creating mistrust in the scientific community. The topic investigates into how this trend threatens academic standards and highlights the challenges institutions face in combating this issue.Examples in real world:a)Authorship for sale platforms: Several online platforms (X, former Twitter, has had a public account with different price ranges for first (8 thousand dollars) to last author position (3 thousand dollars)), forums, or third-party brokers openly offer authorship on scientific papers. These services connect individuals willing to pay for co-authorship or even first authorship with researchers or predatory journals. The offer does not stop there, there all also sales for patent designs, book publications, conference abstracts.b) Predatory journals: Many predatory journals accept payment in exchange for authorship or even guarantee publication without rigorous peer review. These journals exploit the academic pressure to publish while ignoring ethical guidelines.c) Guest authorship: Senior academics or influential figures are sometimes added as authors, despite having no significant contribution, to increase a paper's credibility or likelihood of acceptance in prestigious journals.d) Ghostwriting services: Ghostwriting companies write entire papers and assign authorship to paying clients. These clients often have little or no involvement in the research or writing process, misrepresenting their expertise and contributions.e) Institutional pressure: In some institutions, there is an unspoken culture of rewarding quantity over quality in publications. This leads to unethical practices, such as honorary or undeserved authorship, particularly among faculty members seeking promotions or tenure.f) Coercive authorship: Supervisors or senior researchers might pressure students or junior colleagues to include them as co-authors, regardless of their actual contribution, perpetuating unethical practices.g) High-impact journal manipulation: Some researchers target high-impact journals by buying authorship on studies already accepted or under review, leveraging these publications for career advancement or securing funding.<div></div>dvancement or securing funding.<div></div>)
Serious gaming in research integrity education + (Serious games are designed to be more than … Serious games are designed to be more than just entertainment, and are often used for educational purposes. In responsible conduct of research (RCR) and research integrity (RI) education, interactivity is one of the key factors for success. Through serious games, RCR and RI can be taught and help develop responsible researchers. and help develop responsible researchers.)
Guideline for discussing work-related stress + (Set of questions to guide the conversation about about work-related stress and about stress influencing work. The guide addresses the following themes: # Work-related stress # Work-life balance # Atmosphere at work # Evaluation & agreements)
Manuscript Guidelines Journals + (Since it has experienced a number of submi … Since it has experienced a number of submissions of papers produced by paper mills, Springer has issued some additional submission requests:- institutional email address- supplemental original source data- supplemental immunoblot data - papers on molecular modelling or molecular dynamics must have pharmacological experiments or they will be rejected- authors must include the statement that all data were generated "in-house" and that paper mills were not used- to avoid fake reviews, only referees with institutional addresses will be taken into consideration.ddresses will be taken into consideration.)

Social Justice, Vulnerability And Inclusion Vid_Step 8 + (Social Justice, Vulnerability And Inclusion Vid_Step 8)

Robbers, Rogues or Revolutionaries: Handling Armed Intimidation + (Some armed men look for an anthropologist by name in Central America. When the researcher discovers that the armed men are working for the government, he does not inform this research subjects.)
Discipline specific codes and guidelines on research integrity + (Some codes of conduct and guidelines discu … Some codes of conduct and guidelines discuss foundational principles which are relevant for researchers across all areas of research, and practices which are applicable in all disciplines. But there are other codes and guidelines which concern specific disciplines or areas of research.specific disciplines or areas of research.)
Conducting research in high risk locations + (Sometimes SSH research can be conducted in … Sometimes SSH research can be conducted in sites that pose risks to researchers and research participants. That can include regions of conflict or countries with authoritarian regimes.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' In these situations it is important to find a strategy to keep the research participants safe and meet the research objectives.'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"'ives. '"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"')
Incidental research findings + (Sometimes findings occur that fall outside … Sometimes findings occur that fall outside of the scope of the research questions. These are known as ''incidental findings'' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'. These findings may be highly valuable to the participants of a study. They also raise ethical and legal issues, so researchers need to handle them with care.'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"'care. '"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"')
Perverse incentives + (Sometimes scientists can be faced with inc … Sometimes scientists can be faced with incentives that run counter to good science. For instance, in order to obtain a journal publication that will get them a grant or a promotion, scientists may be incentivised to exaggerate their findings, or even to drop out data points that do not fit a hypothesis. Some believe that the evaluation of scientists based on metrics alone (IF of journal publications, h-index, etc.) can encourage sloppy science or outright misconduct.Journals, peer reviewers, universities, and funding agencies may also be confronted with incentives that do not promote good science.centives that do not promote good science.)
Spin of research results + (Spin is the manipulation of language to po … Spin is the manipulation of language to potentially mislead readers from the likely truth of the results. Within quantitative empirical research, such as randomized controlled trials, spin is defined as the “use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite a statistically nonsignificant difference for the primary outcome [ie, inappropriate use of causal language], or to distract the reader from statistically nonsignificant results [ie, to focus on a statistically significant secondary result]”. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"')
Standards of authorship + (Standards of authorship regulate the allocation of credit when researchers collaborate on publications.)
Stanford University's Resources on Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research + (Stanford University's Resources and Institutional Policies on Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research.)
Statement of Principles and Practices for Research Ethics, Integrity, and Culture in the Context of Rapid-Results Research + (Statement of Principles and Practices for … Statement of Principles and Practices for Research Ethics, Integrity, and Culture in the Context of Rapid-Results Research is a international framework authored by nan, in english, targeting nan. 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.)
Earth to research podcasts + (Story telling has powerful pedagogical pos … Story telling has powerful pedagogical possibilities. In the podcast Earth to Research, stories are used to educate, engage and motivate researchers to action. In this module three podcast episodes are presented as food for toughts and reflection tools for aligning research methods and research ethics with environmental justice.esearch ethics with environmental justice.)
Being grossly unfair to your collaborators + (Successful and fruitful collaborations are … Successful and fruitful collaborations are one of the desired outcomes of research. Different partners can contribute to various aspects of the research project based on their expertise, which improves the strength and quality of findings. Successful collaborations also strengthen trust between the involved partners, which is essential for the advancement of knowledge. 1the advancement of knowledge. 1)
Supervision Guidelines + (Supervision guidelines concern good practises of how undergraduate and doctoral students should be supervised by a senior researchers.)
Supervision + (Supervision involves organizing, monitorin … Supervision involves organizing, monitoring and directing activities or, in other words, oversight and leadership. In academia, supervision refers to guidance of an undergraduate, graduate or postgraduate student in their research, while providing knowledge and support.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"')
Swiss Academy of Arts and Sciences Code of Conduct for Scientific Integrity (2021) + (Swiss Academy of Arts and Sciences Code of … Swiss Academy of Arts and Sciences Code of Conduct for Scientific Integrity (2021) is a national framework authored by Aebi-Müller Regina E., University of Lucerne, Swiss National Science Foundation;Blatter Inge, Swiss National Science Foundation;Brigger Joël, Innosuisse;Constable Edwin Charles, University of Basel, Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences;Eglin Noëmi, swissuniversities;Hoffmeyer Pierre, University of Geneva, Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences;Lautenschütz Claudia, Swiss National Science Foundation;Lienhard Andreas, University of Bern, swissuniversities;Pirinoli Christine, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Western Switzerland, swissuniversities;Röthlisberger Markus, Swiss National Science Foundation;Spycher Karin M., Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (, in english, targeting Switzerland. Originating from Switzerland, 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.)
THE MALAYSIAN CODE OF RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT IN RESEARCH (2020) + (THE MALAYSIAN CODE OF RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT … THE MALAYSIAN CODE OF RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT IN RESEARCH (2020) is a national framework authored by nan, in malaysia, targeting Malaysia. Originating from Malaysia, 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.)
THE SAN CODE OF RESEARCH ETHICS (2017) + (THE SAN CODE OF RESEARCH ETHICS (2017) is … THE SAN CODE OF RESEARCH ETHICS (2017) is a international framework authored by nan, in isixhosa and english, targeting To all who inted to do research in the San communities. Originating from San, 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.)
TIER2 + (TIER2 (enhancing '''T'''rust, '''I'''ntegr … TIER2 (enhancing '''T'''rust, '''I'''ntegrity and '''E'''fficiency in '''R'''esearch through next-level '''R'''eproducibility) will increase reproducibility of scientific research results that will bring trust, integrity, and efficiency to the European Research Area (ERA) and the global Research and Innovation (R&I) system. The project will boost knowledge on reproducibility, create tools, engage communities, implement interventions and policy across different contexts to increase re-use and overall quality of research results. TIER2 aims to build an evidence-base on the extent and efficacy of existing reproducibility practices and co-create new tools to enhance reproducibility across diverse contexts.Publications from and relating to the TIER2 project can be found [https://tier2-project.eu/library?type=3&Filter%5Bsort%5D=year+desc&search= here].pe=3&Filter%5Bsort%5D=year+desc&search= here].)
TIME4CS + (TIME4CS (Supporting sustainable Institutio … TIME4CS (Supporting sustainable Institutional Changes to promote Citizen Science in Science and Technology) is a Horizon 2020 project (2021–2023) that helps research organizations (like universities and institutes) redesign their governance, culture, and resources to better support public engagement and citizen science. It defines four key “intervention areas” research, education & awareness, infrastructure, and policy & assessment and works with experienced institutions (“Front-Runners”) and early adopters (“Implementers”) to develop tailored roadmaps for change. Through mutual learning, knowledge exchange, and evaluation, TIME4CS aims to create long-lasting, inclusive, and systemic institutional transformations that embed citizen science into everyday research.that embed citizen science into everyday research.)
TRESCA + (TRESCA (Trustworthy, Reliable and Engaging … TRESCA (Trustworthy, Reliable and Engaging Scientific Communication Approaches) was an EU-funded Horizon 2020 project that explored how to rebuild public trust in science. It focused especially on communication around social science and humanities research connected to digitalization, addressing hot-button issues like misinformation, digital safety, environmental health, and the future of work. The project used large-scale experiments, surveys, and qualitative dialogue to understand trust dynamics, and created three main tools: an animated science-communication video, a prototype “misinformation widget” for secure communication platforms, and a MOOC aimed at scientists, journalists, and policymakers to foster more credible and engaging science communication.edible and engaging science communication.)
Training and Resources in Research Ethics Evaluation (TRREE) e-learning + (TRREE is a free, web-based e-learning plat … TRREE is a free, web-based e-learning platform offering modular courses on research ethics and regulatory practices. Its training modules cover essential topics including research ethics evaluation, informed consent, good clinical practice, and ethical considerations in HIV and public health research. The program is multilingual and globally accessible, making it suitable for learners in both low- and high-resource settings. Each module includes readings, case studies, and quizzes to ensure comprehension. In addition, TRREE provides country-specific information on national ethical and legal requirements, allowing users to understand local adaptations of global ethical norms.local adaptations of global ethical norms.)
Taiwan Junior Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (?), Chien Chou + (Taiwan Junior Code of Conduct for Research … Taiwan Junior Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (?) is a national framework authored by Chien Chou, in english, targeting Taiwan. Originating from Taiwan, 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.)
Te Ara Tika: Guidelines for Māori research ethics: A framework for researchers and ethics committee members + (Te Ara Tika: Guidelines for Māori research … Te Ara Tika: Guidelines for Māori research ethics: A framework for researchers and ethics committee members () is a national framework authored by nan, in nan, targeting nan. 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.)
Teaching sensitive and controversial issues in divided societies + (Teaching sensitive and controversial issue … Teaching sensitive and controversial issues in history education helps students to develop critical thinking, analytical skills and understand the world we live in better. Scholars agree that the question is not ''should'' we teach these issues but ''how'' should we teach them.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' The Committee of Ministers'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' also highlight the importance of teaching sensitive and controversial issues in history education.'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"'tion. '"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"')
TechEthos + (TechEthos (Ethics for Technologies with Hi … TechEthos (Ethics for Technologies with High Socio-Economic Impact) is a three-year EU-funded project that project that deals with the ethics of the new and emerging technologies anticipated to have high socio-economic impact. TechEthos aims to facilitate “ethics by design”, namely, to bring ethical and societal values into the design and development of new and emerging technologies from the very beginning of the process.es from the very beginning of the process.)
Self-plagiarism case prompts calls for agencies to tighten rules + (Technology is bringing down instances of d … Technology is bringing down instances of duplication, despite variability in oversight. Is plagiarism a sin if the duplicated material is one's own? Self-plagiarism may seem a smaller infraction than stealing another author's work, but the practice is under increasing scrutiny, as the eruption two weeks ago of a long-standing controversy at Queen's University in Kingston, Canada, makes clear.iversity in Kingston, Canada, makes clear.)