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

Suspected image manipulation involving four journals + (Editorial office staff at journal A notice … Editorial office staff at journal A noticed possible image manipulation in two figures of a new paper submitted by author X. These suspected manipulations involved images of gels which appeared to contain multiple duplicated bands. This prompted editorial staff to look at the submission history of author X to journal A in more detail.It was found that author X had previously submitted to journal A numerous times. All previous submissions had been rejected for reasons unrelated to the concerns raised here but one paper had been accepted for publication. Unfortunately, this author X paper which journal A had published appeared to contain possible band duplications in two gel images, as did an earlier submission which had been rejected at the start of 2015. As at least three papers received by journal A from author X has suspected image problems, authors X’s recent publication history was examined.Similar possible gel issues along with a suspected image duplication relating to a photo of bacterial colonies were identified in three papers published in three different journals (journals B, C and D). Two members of editorial staff along with the editor-in-chief of journal A have considered all of the suspected issues and feel confident they are legitimate. As it currently stands, journal A has rejected the most recent submission from author X on the grounds of possible gel issues identified. However, the suspected issues identified in the four published papers in journals A, B, C and D were not mentioned in the rejection letter to allow time for an appropriate course of action to be decided.As the paper was only recently (12 August) rejected by journal A, it has yet to hear back from author X, if indeed it does at all.Journal A feels that it is important that journals B, C and D are made aware of the issues in the papers they have published. However, they also feel that it is important that they are made aware of all of the papers involved so they can appreciate the full picture as this may determine how they choose to handle the issues in their own respective journals.e issues in their own respective journals.)
Community's of Practice Datamanagement & Privacy + (Een online Community of Practice omgeving … Een online Community of Practice omgeving die specifiek is ingericht is samen met anderen te werken aan je onderzoeksvaardigheden. In de Communityomgeving kun je op elk gewenst moment (mede)studenten in een besloten online omgeving uitnodigen om samen te werken, te leren, te discussiëren en te delen. en, te discussiëren en te delen. )
Teaching methods for strengthening research ethics and integrity + (Effective RE/RI training benefits from act … Effective RE/RI training benefits from active learning, reflective practices, experiential learning, and ongoing feedback.'"`UNIQ--ref-000003CE-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000003CF-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-000003D0-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000003D1-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000003D2-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000003D3-QINU`"' This module provides an overview of methods and approaches to teaching, which according to extant research, are the best ways to support learning in the context of research ethics and integrity. These methods and approaches are compatible with the training materials and resources produced within the selected EU-funded projects and presented in the BEYOND trainer guide. Indeed, many of the activities described in the project materials draw on a case-based approach, scaffolding and collaborative learning. To underpin the use of these methods and approaches, this guide provides an overview of why and how they support RE/RI learning, so that trainers may make their teaching choice based on research evidence.'"`UNIQ--references-000003D4-QINU`"'ence. '"`UNIQ--references-000003D4-QINU`"')
Teaching methods for strengthening research ethics and integrity + (Effective RE/RI training benefits from act … Effective RE/RI training benefits from active learning, reflective practices, experiential learning, and ongoing feedback.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000039C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000039D-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-0000039E-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000039F-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000003A0-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000003A1-QINU`"' This module provides an overview of methods and approaches to teaching, which according to extant research, are the best ways to support learning in the context of research ethics and integrity. These methods and approaches are compatible with the training materials and resources produced within the selected EU-funded projects and presented in the BEYOND trainer guide. Indeed, many of the activities described in the project materials draw on a case-based approach, scaffolding and collaborative learning. To underpin the use of these methods and approaches, this guide provides an overview of why and how they support RE/RI learning, so that trainers may make their teaching choice based on research evidence.'"`UNIQ--references-000003A2-QINU`"'ence. '"`UNIQ--references-000003A2-QINU`"')
Eigenfactor + (Eigenfactor is a method developed as an al … Eigenfactor is a method developed as an alternative metric to the impact factor (IF). Since IF does not consider sources of citations, those from prestigious journals seem to be worth no more than citations from less influential publications.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000015B-QINU`"' Eigenfactor, on the other hand, aims to evaluate the influence of journals in order to help researchers navigate the scholarly literature.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000015C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000015D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000015E-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-0000015F-QINU`"'NU`"' '"`UNIQ--references-0000015F-QINU`"')
HYBRIDA + (Embedding a comprehensive ethical dimension to organoid-based research and related technologies)
Empathy in History Research and Education + (Empathy refers to ability to put oneself i … Empathy refers to ability to put oneself in someone else’s, shoes even if the other person has different viewpoint.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000003F-QINU`"' In history research and education empathy is an important and useful tool that helps researchers and students to better understand historical figures and events,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000040-QINU`"' and to avoid superficial, stereotypical and biased interpretations. stereotypical and biased interpretations.)
EnTIRE + (EnTIRE: developing The Embassy platform for the Research integrity and ethics communities)
RE4GREEN + (Environmental and climate-related challeng … Environmental and climate-related challenges are global and reach all sectors of society. However, research and innovation (R&I) activities that address these challenges, may carry substantial unintended implications. RE4GREEN aims to contribute to a European Research Area ethics and integrity framework for R&I activities designed to reduce the risk from such implications and to support the transition to a sustainable economy and society as envisioned by the European Green Deal. RE4GREEN will reflect diverse stakeholder views and relate them to cross-cutting environmental and climate ethics issues by applying a bottom-up social lab methodology. RE4GREEN’s framework will consist of operational research ethics and integrity guidelines, recommendations, and training materials for researchers, ethics and integrity experts and advisors, and ethics reviewers to ensure R&I activities support the Green Transition.nsure R&I activities support the Green Transition.)
Epistemic virtues + (Epistemology is a branch of philosophy tha … Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge and its relations to concepts and definitions of truth, belief and justification of belief.'"`UNIQ--ref-000002FC-QINU`"' Virtue is often defined as moral excellence, and epistemic virtues are described as intellectual virtues. A critical, conscientious thinker, could also be described as epistemically virtuous.'"`UNIQ--references-000002FD-QINU`"'uous. '"`UNIQ--references-000002FD-QINU`"')
Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017) + (Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Inte … Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017) is a national framework authored by nan, in english, targeting nan. Originating from Estonia, it aims to formalise principles of research integrity and open practice. It emphasises honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and stewardship of resources, linking these values to reproducibility, credibility, and societal trust in research. The text covers responsibilities of researchers, institutions, funders, and journals, spelling out expectations for good practice in planning, conducting, publishing, and reviewing research. Common provisions include clear authorship criteria, proper citation and acknowledgement, management of conflicts of interest, transparency of methods and data, responsible supervision, and fair peer review. It also establishes procedures for handling breaches of integrity, defining misconduct, and setting up investigation mechanisms that ensure due process, proportional sanctions, and learning opportunities. By aligning with international standards, it connects local policy to global norms, reinforcing mobility of researchers and comparability of practices across borders. The document integrates the principle of education training for students and staff on responsible conduct ensuring that integrity is taught as a core skill rather than assumed knowledge. It also incorporates guidance on emerging issues such as data management, digital tools, open science, and new forms of dissemination, embedding integrity in contemporary workflows. Practical tools often include checklists, codes of behaviour, reporting templates, and FAQs, translating high-level principles into day-to-day actions. The intended audience spans researchers, supervisors, institutions, and policymakers, all of whom need clarity on their roles in safeguarding the credibility of research. Equity and diversity appear as cross-cutting themes, recognising that integrity involves creating inclusive environments free from discrimination, harassment, or exploitation. Overall, the resource situates research integrity as both a personal commitment and an institutional responsibility, embedding it into the full research cycle from design to dissemination. Annexes may provide case studies, historical context, and references to international declarations such as Singapore or Montreal statements. Definitions and glossaries support consistent interpretation, and contact points or ombudsperson systems are described to lower barriers to reporting. These features help the resource serve not only as a policy but also as a practical handbook.a policy but also as a practical handbook.)
Research Ethics + (Ethical research conduct implies the appli … Ethical research conduct implies the application of fundamental ethical principles and legislation to scientific research in all possible domains of research – for example biomedical research, nature sciences, social sciences and humanities. The ethics review procedure of the EC including ethics screening and ethics assessment is explained.eening and ethics assessment is explained.)
iRECS + (Ethics in research is an essential ingredi … Ethics in research is an essential ingredient for good science. Maintaining high ethical standards is essential to winning public trust in scientific work. However, there are many challenges such as new technologies, increasing international collaboration in academic research and the absence of standardisation across Europe. The EU-funded irecs project will reinforce the reliability of science by advancing research ethics expertise and competencies. It will improve the understanding of research ethics in Europe and provide interactive, sustainable training programmes. Building on the European Network for Research Ethics and Research Integrity and the Embassy of Good Science as well as close collaboration with key stakeholder organizations, irecs will create a horizontal community unifying research ethics practitioners, policymakers and other stakeholders. The project has produced four policy briefs, [https://zenodo.org/records/11101576 on AI in health and healthcare], [https://zenodo.org/records/11102003 extended reality], [https://zenodo.org/records/11102042 genome editing], [https://zenodo.org/records/11101907 and biobanking] providing advice on how to improve research ethics expertise in practice. A [https://zenodo.org/records/17737002 fifth policy brief] provides recommendations on implementing research ethics governance at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and Research Performing Organizations (RPOs). You can have a look at the project's deliverables [https://zenodo.org/communities/irecs/records?q=&l=list&p=1&s=10&sort=newest here].ords?q=&l=list&p=1&s=10&sort=newest here].)
Gender bias + (Even though a majority of university stude … Even though a majority of university students are female, in most research areas a minority of senior professors are female. It is thought that one of the important causes of this is gender bias: women not being given the same professional opportunities as men. Often this bias is unconscious (so-called “implicit bias”)'"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"'. Gender is often considered to be different from ‘sex’(male/female). It can be perceived as a social construct of what it means to be a man, woman or non-binary. '"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"'ry. '"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"')
Evaluating the content of learning outputs + (Even though analysing content of texts pro … Even though analysing content of texts produced by learners as authentic learning outputs is time-consuming and difficult in case of large numbers of participants, it is possible to use deductive content or thematic analysis to extract specific topics. We introduce some possible criteria for content/thematic analysis with examples. We will illustrate the criteria based on possible answers to the following case:{| class="wikitable"|+!Your research team is doing research involving preschool children. Part of your data collection scheme is to video record some planned activities during a regular day at the school. You have asked the children’s’ parents for informed consent. Slightly over half of the parents have consented, and you feel pretty good about your upcoming data collection. On the day of the activities and recording the children whose parents had not consented to their child participating in research had to be taken to another room for the duration of the data collection. You have planned that it like this because, it will be easier to set up the cameras and to manage the data if you have only those children in the room for whom the parents have given their consent. As you then, with the help of a preschool teacher, guide the remaining children out of the room, they begin to scream and some start to cry. They feel that they are being punished for something and that they will miss out on a fun activity that the others will do.|}a fun activity that the others will do. |})
Ethics and you - PREPARED + (Ever wondered about the ethical compass gu … Ever wondered about the ethical compass guiding scientific discovery? This video highlights the long history of teaching and learning, tracing it all the way back to Plato's Academy. While the specific subjects taught have evolved over time, the underlying ethical questions remain relevant. Ethics in research is not merely about compliance but also about moral reflection. Drawing on real-world examples, our training module aims to provide guidance and support for researchers in navigating ethical considerations.hers in navigating ethical considerations.)
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`"')