CIRAD Code of Ethics8 Pages

table of contents: Preamble; Parties to the Code; Research for Development Partnerships: A Specific Aspect of the Code; Implementation of the Code

Recommendation 1/2023, of 16 th May, concerning multiple affiliations in scientific journals (CIRCAT)5 Pages

On 25 April 2023, the CIR-CAT Plenary met in extraordinary session to consider the request submitted by the Director General for Research on 19 April referring to several frequently cited researchers who are linked to universities and research centres in Catalonia but have declared that they had changed their preferred professional affiliation, in some cases presumably with financial incentives, in order to promote or strengthen the status of other foreign institutions in terms of scientific production and institutional reputation. The information available did not indicate that the research had been conducted, supported or approved in the foreign institutions. Nor was it clear whether the researchers' own university or centre had received this information. The CIR-CAT was asked to analyse this situation and the position of these scientists, whose actions could be damaging the image of Catalan institutions and misusing public funds. The Plenary of the Committee considered that the facts briefly described by the Director General, on the basis of the information available, did have aspects that could have an impact on good scientific practice and the integrity of research, affecting the principle of honesty and proper authorship. They could also have an impact on proper compliance with the legal framework applicable to the case. The Plenary of the Committee thus unanimously decided that, within the framework of the powers assigned to it by Article 97 of Law 9/2022 on Science in Catalonia, it is competent to rule on the matter raised in the petition, as regards good practice and research integrity.

Recommendation 2/2023, October 17th , on the Institutional affiliation in scientific publications (CIRCAT)3 Pages

The proper attribution to institutions of the results of their scientific activity is an important aspect of research integrity. The correct, honest declaration of affiliation is a prerequisite for the fair recognition and positioning of the institutions to which the authors belong, and a fair return to these institutions for the resources used. It is not always easy to determine an author's affiliation, given the increasing mobility of researchers and the existence of multiple affiliations. This document outlines some concepts and situations related to affiliation and sets out some recommendations for good practice in the declaration of affiliation, in order to promote correct, fair attribution of affiliation between institutions and to prevent possible conflicts.

Annual Report LOWI 20229 Pages

Table of contents: composition, status, tasks, affiliated institutions, advisory opinions issued in 2022, 2022 in figures

Authorship of scientific publications and contribution to research (2023)https://recercaiuniversitats.gencat.cat/en/detalls/article/Autoria-de-publicacions-cientifiques-i-contribucio-a-la-recerca

Table of contents: Justification, Definition and determination of authorship, Order of authorship and conflicts

Framework for ensuring research integrity in collaborative agreements by Irish National Research Integrity Forum (2022)12 Pages

Table of contents: Context, Research Integrity Principles, General Responsibilities, Roles and Responsibilities, Customary Practices and Assumptions, Protection of Good Research Practice, Governance, Compliance, Responding to Research Misconduct, Transparency, Dissemination, Communication & Exploitation of Research Results, Authorship and Acknowledgement, Inventorship, Open Research, Checklist, Useful Resources

Recommendations for the Investigation of Research Misconduct by ENRIO (2019)35 Pages

Table of contents: Preamble, Recommendations for the Investigation of Research Misconduct, Code of Conduct, Definition of research misconduct and other unacceptable/irresponsible practices, Setting up or improving a Research Integrity (RI) system, Conflict of interest, Composition and competence of investigation committees, Transparency versus confidentiality, Receiving allegations or concerns including guidance, Handling allegations, Appeal or second opinion, Sanctions and follow-up, Dissemination and communication during and after an investigation, Cross-boundary allegations/investigations, How to learn from each other. Acknowledgements, Appendix.

Upright – a tool for teaching research integrity by PRINTEGERhttps://printeger.eu/upright/

Upright is an interactive educational tool on research integrity. It was developed within the Horizon 2020 project PRINTEGER. This web-based educational tool approaches research integrity from the vision that RI is more than merely following rules (What should I do?), but a matter of identity (What kind of researcher should I be?). It is freely available and can be adjusted to your own requirements under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Online guide to best practices in the Finnish research communityhttps://www.responsibleresearch.fi/

The Responsible Research website www.responsibleresearch.fi provides information about best practices in research integrity, research ethics, research communication, and open science in Finland.

Integrity in Practice toolkit by UKRIO (2018)https://ukrio.org/integrity-in-practice-toolkit/

Integrity in practice is a toolkit for those who wish to continue to improve research integrity and support a positive research culture within their organisation. The Integrity in Practice toolkit features a series of case studies of positive interventions made by individuals and organisations from across the globe, to improve research culture and integrity. It contains seven ways that could help individuals and organisations bring life to the codes, concordats and pledges they are committed to.

Ethical Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research by etikkom (2018)https://www.etikkom.no/en/ethical-guidelines-for-research/ethical-guidelines-for-the-use-of-animals-in-research/

Table of contents: About the guidelines, ethics and experiments on animals, definitions, guidelines.

Checklist – WHO best practices in clinical trial transparency by TranspariMED (2018)https://www.transparimed.org/single-post/2018/08/22/How-strong-are-your-clinical-trial-reporting-policies-New-checklist

The checklist summarizes WHO best practices based on the WHO Joint Statement on public disclosure of results from clinical trials, which has so far been signed by six of the twenty largest medical research funders worldwide. Research funders and clinical trial sponsors, including universities, can use this checklist to identify and address gaps in their current policies.

How to tackle clinical trial transparency: University of Bristol case study by TranspariMED (2018)https://www.transparimed.org/single-post/2018/09/18/How-universities-can-get-all-clinical-trial-results-reported-%E2%80%93-Bristol-case-study

The case study details how the University of Bristol approached the issue, discusses how it overcame various challenges along the way, and outlines future plans for embedding best practices in clinical trial transparency.

Research integrity: Sixth Report of Session 2017–19 by House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2018)https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/350/350.pdf

Table of contents: Introduction, Understanding and measuring ‘research integrity’, The Concordat to Support Research Integrity, Supporting and promoting the integrity of research, Detecting and responding to problems with research integrity, Regulating research and researchers, Conclusions and recommendations, Annex.

Research Integrity statement of cooperation by Russell Group (2018)https://russellgroup.ac.uk/policy/policy-documents/research-integrity-statement-of-cooperation/

The Statement is intended as a set of principles regarding the approach to managing the review of cross-institutional research misconduct allegations. It is not intended to direct how the review process itself is conducted as this is dictated by the relevant institutions policies.

Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI)https://lari.lu/

Established in 2016, the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI) is the national agency promoting and investigating research integrity in Luxembourg.

Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2018)32 Pages

Table of contents: .Preamble, Scope and transitional provisions, Principles, Standards for good research practices, Institutions’ duties of care, Non-compliance with standards: measures and sanctions, Appendix.

Think. Check. Attend. Choosing the right conference to attend and present your research.https://thinkcheckattend.org/

Think. Check. Attend. is an initiative that aims to guide and assist researchers and scholars to judge the legitimacy and academic credentials of conferences in order to help them decide whether to or not attend the same.

Think. Check. Attend. Choose the right journal for your research.https://thinkchecksubmit.org/

Think. Check. Submit. is a campaign to help researchers identify trusted journals for their research. It is a simple checklist researchers can use to assess the credentials of a journal or publisher.

Guidelines for research ethics on human remains by etikkom (2016)https://www.etikkom.no/en/ethical-guidelines-for-research/guidelines-for-research--ethics-on-human-remains/

Table of contents: Scope of the Guidelines, Guidelines for research ethics on human remains: 1. Respect for the deceased, 2. The same consideration irrespective of origin, 3. Respect for descendants, 4. Respect for other groups, 5. Respect for the rarity of the material, 6. Assessment of the feasibility and consequences of the research project, 7. Respect for other researchers, 8. Taking into consideration the context and provenance of a discovery, 9. The importance of complying with existing laws and rules and obtaining authorisations.

Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings (2018)http://www.globalcodeofconduct.org/

This Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings counters ethics dumping by: providing guidance across all research disciplines presenting clear, short statements in simple language to achieve the highest possible accessibility.

Misconduct Investigation Procedure by UKRIO (2008)http://ukrio.org/publications/misconduct-investigation-procedure/

Table of contents: Foreword, Procedure for the investigation of misconduct in research, Part A Background for the use of the Procedure, Part B Preparatory steps, Part C The Procedure, Annexes.

The National Science Centre (NCN)https://ncn.gov.pl/o-ncn/zadania-ncn?language=en

The National Science Centre (NCN) is a government agency, supervised by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, set up in 2011 to support basic research in Poland. Furthermore, the agency is aiming to prevent questionable and unacceptable research practices (at best research misconduct) and to raise awareness by offering lectures and workshops on “good scientific practice” to the research institutions. Additionally, the agency provides advice related to research integrity.

World Conferences on Research Integrity Foundationhttps://www.wcrif.org/

Website from the World Conferences on Research Integrity Foundation. Information about all Word Conferences on Research Integrity, all documents and the foundation.

Open Data in Science in Europe: Statement by the European Members of the International Council for Science (2018)http://www.euro-icsu.org/thematic_work/opendata/documents/European_ICSU_Members_Open_Data_Statement_2018.pdf

This statement with recommendations is based on the workshop “Open Data in Science: Challenges and Opportunities for Europe” that the European ICSU Members organised in Brussels in January 2018, in partnership with the All European Academies (ALLEA). Table of contents: General, FAIR Principles, Data repositories, Data skills, Incentives and reward systems, Research Data Management, Research culture.

Bonn PRINTEGER Statement: Working with research integrity – guidance for research performing organisations (2018)http://printeger.eu/the-bonn-printeger-statement/

Table of contents: Guidance for organisations’ work with research integrity: Providing information about research integrity, Providing education, training and mentoring, Strengthening a research integrity culture, Facilitating open dialogue, Wise incentive management, Implementing quality assurance procedures, Improving the work environment and work satisfaction, Increasing transparency of misconduct cases, Opening up research, Implementing safe and effective whistle-blowing channels, Protecting the alleged perpetrators, Establishing a research integrity committee and appointing an ombudsperson, Making explicit the applicable standards for research integrity.

European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (revised edition) by ALLEA (2017)11 Pages

Table of Contents: Preamble, Principles, Good Research Practices, Violated of Research Integrity, Annex I: Key Resources, Annex II: Revision Process and List of Stakeholders, Annex III: ALLEA Permanent Working Group on Science and Ethics

Annual report 2017, Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI)14 Pages

The report of the Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI) describes the developments, opinions and decisions of 2017.

Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017)23 Pages

Table of contents: Preface, Values, Principles of action (Planning of Research, Conduct of Research, Authorship, Publishing and application of research results), Researcher in the Research Community, Observance, Promotion and application of Research Integrity

Fiction movies for RCR educationhttps://www.nrin.nl/fiction-movies-for-rcr-education/

Fictional narratives can be very useful in exploring the tough choices scientists have to make. In this internship project for the practical assignment of the master Philosophy, Bioethics and Health at VU University Amsterdam, performed by Christiaan Grigoleit, Bob Hoogenes and Isabella Vos, they investigated the usefulness and applicability of a selection of fiction movies for RCR education.

Workshop report: Advancing Research Integrity Practices and Policies: From Recommendation to Implementation (2017)12 Pages

This report maps existing policies, procedures and practices for promoting research integrity and makes a number of key recommendations for improving it. The report encompasses a set of 18 recommendations which fall into four groups: Policies and Procedures; Raising Awareness; Training; and Collaboration and Mobility.

LOWI summaries (2017)https://www.lowi.nl/en/Opinions

The Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI) publishes its opinions (in anonymised form).

Summary of LOWI opinion 2017-092 Pages

Keywords: cooperation (agreements), reuse of data, data management Relevant provisions: Elaboration 3.3, 5.3 of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice

Summary of LOWI opinion 2017-052 Pages

Keywords: violation of duty of confidentiality, online publications, social media, competence to discontinue complaints proceedings Relevant provisions: Article 2(4) of the VSNU Model Academic Integrity Complaints Procedure, Article 10 of the LOWI Regulations

Summary of LOWI opinion 2017-042 Pages

Keywords: LOWI’s competence to investigate, new CWI opinion, popular science publication Relevant provisions: Article 8.3 of the LOWI Regulations

Summary of LOWI opinion 2017-032 Pages

Keywords: negligent source reference, confidential reports, authorship Relevant provisions: Principle 3 of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice, Elaboration 1.1 and 1.4 of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice

Summary of LOWI opinion 2017-011 Pages

Keywords: accusation of plagiarism, assessment criteria, book not essential source Relevant provisions: Elaboration 1.3 of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice

Curriculum “Good Scientific Practice” by Gerlinde Sponholz, Josef Leidenfrost (2013)37 Pages

Provider: Gerlinde Sponholz and Josef Leidenfrost
Name and contact details for further information: Gerlinde Sponholz, Team Scientific Integrity, sponholz@scientificintegrity.de
Type of the document: non changeable
Target group: Academic teachers, all academic discipines
Short descriptions and recommendations how to use: Short introduction and information about the historical background of teaching RI in Germany. Definition of teaching goals. Recommendations and detailed description of contents and competencies for RI workshops. Resources and links to official documents, case study examples and guidelines. This curriculum was developed on behalf and in cooperation with the German research Ombudsman and the German Research Foundation (DFG).
Special commentary from the provider: The Curriculum is currently under revision (2019). It would be fine if you can share your experience with this curriculum.

5th World Conference on Research Integrity (2017)http://www.wcri2017.org/

5th World Conference on Research Integrity, Amsterdam, May 28-31, 2015

Diederik Stapel (Netherlands)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel

Field: Psychology. Diederik Alexander Stapel is a Dutch former professor of social psychology at Tilburg University and before that at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. In 2011 Tilburg University suspended Stapel for fabricating and manipulating data for his research publications. This scientific misconduct took place over a number of years and affected at least 55 publications.

Report: Flawed science. The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel (2012)https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/over/profiel/kwaliteit-voorop/commissie-levelt/

Information about the Diederik Stapel case: Report: Flawed science. The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. English Version: Speech Rector Philip Eijlander. Rejoinder to commentary on the Stapel fraud report.

Case Study on authorship: Dr Jones and Dr Smith4 Pages

With kind permission of UKRIO. Topic: Authorship in academic research.

A Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors by COPE (2016)7 Pages

Table of contents: Background/structure, Initial assessment of journal when you take over, Relations with the outgoing editor, Relations with the other editors/editorial board, Relations with authors, Transparency, The submission system, Relationship with reviewers, The peer-review process, Can editors publish in their own journal?, Editorial independence/relation with publisher/journal owner, Commercial issues, Responding to possible misconduct/inappropriate behaviour and dealing with complaints, Closing remarks

Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area by ESG (2015)32 Pages

Table of contents: Foreword, Context, scope, purposes and principles, European standards and guidelines for quality assurance in higher education, Annex: Summary list of standards

Research Integrity in the Nordic countries – national systems and procedures by Nordforsk (2014)29 Pages

Table of contents: What does the global scene look like, Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland, The situation in Norway, Research integrity: Guidelines and procedures in Iceland, Building a framework for research integrity in Denmark at the national, institutional and individual levels, Research misconduct in Sweden: The system and the problem, Science communication and research integrity. . Concluding remarks and reflections emerging from the Nordic seminar on research integrity organised by NordForsk in Oslo, April 2014

Movie: How to become an ethical scientist by University of Leidenhttps://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2016/03/film-how-to-be-an-honest-scientist

Scientists are regularly confronted with questions of integrity. A new film teaches students how to handle this issue.

Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010)http://www.singaporestatement.org/

The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity was developed as part of the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, 21-24 July 2010, in Singapore, as a global guide to responsible conduct of research.

Authorship in scientific publications by Scientific Integrity Committee of the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (2013)30 Pages

Table of contents: Background, Analysis of existing authorship guidelines, Recommendations on authorship and Appendix.

Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology by etikkom (2016)https://www.etikkom.no/en/ethical-guidelines-for-research/guidelines-for-research-ethics-in-science-and-technology/

Table of contents: Foreword, Summary, Guidelines (Research ethics, The overriding obligations of research, Good research practice, Uncertainty, risk and the Precautionary Principle, Protection of research subjects, Protection of animals in research, Relationship with traditional and alternative sources of knowledge, Openness, contract research and conflicts of interest, Whistle-blowing and ethical responsibility, Research and popularization, Proposal for a scientific oath) References

Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology by etikkom (2016)44 Pages

Table of contents: Preface, Introduction, Research, society and ethics, Respect for individuals, Respect for groups and institutions, The research community, Commissioned research, Dissemination of research.

Draft Council conclusions on research integrity by European Commission (2015)6 Pages

The Luxembourg Presidency (2015) considers research integrity as one of its top priorities in the R&I domain. In this context, the Presidency has proposed draft Council conclusions on the issue.

European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity (ENERI)http://eneri.eu/

The “European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity” (ENERI) establishes an operable platform of actors in the fields of research ethics and research integrity.

The Reward Alliance | Research Wastehttp://researchwaste.net/

researchwaste.net is a place to share and exchange documentation, information, and resources on how to increase the value of both basic and applied research and reduce or avoid wasting research.

International standards for editors and authors, documents by COPEhttp://publicationethics.org/node/11184

Position statements setting out international standards for responsible research publication for editors and authors.

Statement of Principles for Research Integrity by Global Research Council1 Pages

Table of contents: Preamble, Principles (Leadership, Promotion, Education, Transparent Processes, Response to Allegations of Misconduct, Conditions for Research Support, International Cooperation)

Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals by ICMJE (2018)19 Pages

These recommendations are intended primarily for use by authors who might submit their work for publication to ICMJE member journals.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)http://www.icmje.org/

The ICMJE is a small group of general medical journal editors and representatives of selected related organizations working together to improve the quality of medical science and its reporting.

Blog: Retraction watchhttp://retractionwatch.com/

Retraction Watch is a blog that monitors and reports on retractions from scientific journals. Managed by scientist writers, the blog holds researchers and journals accountable by keeping track of their activities.

Case Study on Plagiarism and Mentoring: Diane Archer1 Pages

With kind permission by Kenneth Pimple. Topic: Plagiarism, Mentoring.

The European Charter for Researchers: The Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers by the European Commission (2005)36 Pages

The European Charter for Researchers is a set of general principles and requirements which specifies the roles, responsibilities and entitlements of researchers as well as of employers and/or funders of researchers.

Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice by Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft (1998, Update 2013)112 Pages

Table of contents: Proposals for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice, Forewords, Overview of the Additions and Updates, Recommendations, Problems in the Scientific Systems, Experiences outside Germany, Other National and International Standards, Notes.

Flemish Commission for Research Integrity, Belgiumhttp://www.vcwi.be/

The five Flemish universities, the Academies for Sciences and for Medecine and the two main funding agencies took the joint initiative in 2013 to establish a national commission for research integrity. This Flemish Commission on Research Integrity can give a second advice about complaint files on research integrity, already handled by the research institution.

Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI)http://www.oeawi.at/en/index.asp

The agency is responsible for investigating alleged cases of research misconduct in Austria. Furthermore, the agency is aiming to prevent research misconduct and to raise awareness offering lectures and workshops on the "good scientific practice" to its member institutions.

Agency for Science and Higher Education (AZVO), Croatiahttps://www.azvo.hr/en/

The Croatian Agency for Science and Higher Education (ASHE) was modelled after the best European practices in quality assurance in science and higher education.

The Danish Committee on Research Misconduct (DCRM)https://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/councils-and-commissions/The-Danish-Committee-on-Research-Misconduct?set_language=en&cl=en

The Danish Committe on Research Misconduct (DCRM) handles Danish cases of research misconduct.

Team Scientific Integrity (SciInt), Germanyhttp://www.scientificintegrity.de/en-index.html

The members of Team SciInt conduct workshops and trainings and give presentations on good scientific practice/research integrity. They give advice to research institutions that intend to implement or revise regulations or procedures concerning GSP/RI and counsel individuals on protecting their scientific integrity. They develop curricula and teaching materials for courses, workshops, presentations and trainings.

Geschäftsstelle für Ombudsangelegenheiten der Universität Hamburg, Germanyhttps://www.uni-hamburg.de/en/forschung/service/gute-wissenschaftliche-praxis.html

Beside the administrative support of the five-member ombuds’ committee, the tasks of the Ombudsstelle are to offer presentations and workshops about GWP, to counsel those who are seeking advice or need information and support in a conflict situation.

German Research Ombudsmanhttp://www.ombudsman-fuer-die-wissenschaft.de/

The main task of the German Research Ombudsman is to arbitrate between researchers in cases of conflict and to investigate cases of scientific misconduct.

Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK)http://www.tenk.fi/en

Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK) founded in 1991 to address ethical questions relating to research and to the advancement of research ethics in Finland (Decree 1347 of 15 November 1991).

French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm)http://www.inserm.fr/qu-est-ce-que-l-inserm/organigramme/comites/dis

As a research public organisation, the main missions of Inserm to understand improve human health.

French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD)http://www.cirad.fr/en/home-page

The office for ethics and research integrity has 3 main objectives : 1) implementation of the national charter for research ethics 2) raising awareness, training on RI, and management of alerts and misconduct. 3) support for ethic appraisal of research activities.

Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR), Greecehttp://www.rcr.gr/index.php/en/

The aim of "RCR-Greece" is to foster "Research Integrity" and generally "Responsible Conduct of Research" in Greece.

National Technical University of Athens (NTUA)http://earthnet.ntua.gr/?lang=en

The Ethical Aspects in Research and Technology for Human network (EARTHnet) is active through NTUA (earthnet.ntua.gr).

Royal Irish Academy (RIA), Irelandhttps://www.ria.ie/

The Royal Irish Academy is a member of the National Research Integrity Forum. The Forum was established in late 2015 on foot of the publication of a National Policy for Ensuring Integrity in Irish Research. The National Research Integrity Forum does not have a statutory function, but is rather an advisory and harmonising body.

Health Research Board (HRB), Irelandhttp://www.hrb.ie/home/

The Health Research Board (HRB) was founded in 1986 as a statutory body of the Irish Department of Health. In addition to supporting research across the broad spectrum of health research, from applied biomedical research through to applied health services research, the HRB supports five National Information Systems.

National Research Council (CNR), Italyhttps://www.cnr.it/it/ethics

The National Research Council (CNR) is the largest public research institution in Italy, the only one under the Research Ministry performing multidisciplinary activities

Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR)https://www.fnr.lu/

The Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR) is the main funder of research activities in Luxembourg. The FNR invests public funds and private donations into research projects in various branches of science and the humanities, with an emphasis on selected core strategic areas. Furthermore, the FNR supports and coordinates activities to strengthen the link between science and society and to raise awareness for research. The FNR also advises the Luxembourg government on research policy and strategy.

Netherlands Research Integrity Network (NRIN)https://www.nrin.nl/

The Netherlands Research Integrity Network (NRIN) aims to facilitate collaboration, exchange and mutual learning among all actors in the field of Research Integrity (RI) and everybody who is interested in the topic.

Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI)http://www.lowi.nl/en/netherlands-board-on-research-integrity-lowi?set_language=en

The Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI) is an independent advisory body, established in 2003 by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), and the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU).

National Research Ethics Committees (Etikkom), Norwayhttps://www.etikkom.no/en/

The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees are independent agencies for questions regarding research ethics, and investigation of misconduct, within all subject areas.

Foundation for National Scientific Computation (FCT), Portugalhttp://www.fct.pt/index.phtml.en

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) is the national funding agency that supports science, technology and innovation, in all scientific domains, under responsibility of the Ministry for Science, Technology and Higher Education.

Central Ethical Review Board (CEPN), Swedenhttp://www.epn.se/en/start/

The Expert Group on Research Misconduct shall, at the request of a university or other Higher Education Institute issue a statement on cases concerning investigations of suspected misconduct in research, artistic research and development work.

Ethics Committee of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)http://www.csic.es/etica-en-la-investigacion

The Ethics Committee of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) was created by Royal Decree 1730/2007 as a permanent and advisory collegiate body tasked with reflecting, issuing reports and making recommendations on ethical principles concerning research.

Commission for the Scientific Integrity of the Czech Academy of Sciences (CAS)http://www.avcr.cz/en/about-us/cas-structure/academy-council/advisory-committees/

The Commission discusses: a) general and specific question from the area of the ethics of scientific work, b) submissions, initiatives and complaints of employees or scientific workplaces of the CAS, which are related to the observance of the ethics of scientific work, c) exceptionally also submissions of other parties, if they concern the ethics of the scientific work at the Czech Academy of Sciences.

Commission for Ethics in Science (Poland)https://institution.pan.pl/index.php/institution/science-ethics-committee

The major tasks of the Commission for Research Integrity is promotion of good manners in science and expressing opinions on submitted cases concerning a breach of ethics in science by members of staff of higher education institutes , scientific units of the Academy and research institutes.

Estonian Research Council (ETAg)http://www.etag.ee/en/

The Estonian Research Council is the main funding organisation of R&D in Estonia. ETAg has taken the lead in introducing and implementing the Research integrity, Open science/open access/open data, and Gender mainstreaming in Estonia.

Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (SAMW)http://www.akademien-schweiz.ch/en/index/Portrait/Kommissionen-AG/Wissenschaftliche-Integritaet.html

In 2006, the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences established the commission «Scientific Integrity», which follows national and international developments and takes position on general questions related to scientific integrity.

UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO)http://ukrio.org/

The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) is an independent charity, offering support to the public, researchers and organisations to further good practice in academic, scientific and medical research.

RCR Data acquisition and managementhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_data/winResources.html

Table of Contents: Annotated References on Data Management, Web Resources on Data Management, References on Data Management, Video Materials

League of European Research Universities (LERU)http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/home/

The League of European Research Universities (LERU) has emerged as a prominent advocate for the promotion of basic research at European universities.

Global Ethics Observatory (GEObs)http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/global-ethics-observatory/

The observatory is a system of databases with worldwide coverage in bioethics and other areas of applied ethics in science and technology such as environmental ethics, science ethics, and technology ethics.

RRI-Toolshttps://www.rri-tools.eu/

The outcome of RRI Tools is to develop a set of digital resources to advocate, train, disseminate and implement RRI under Horizon 2020.

NordForskhttps://www.nordforsk.org/en?set_language=en

NordForsk is an organisation under the Nordic Council of Ministers that provides funding for and facilitates Nordic cooperation on research and research infrastructure.

EthicsCOREhttps://nationalethicscenter.org/

EthicsCORE is a website designed to help a scientific community share resources and work together with one another.

Higher Educations Institutions & Responsible Research and Innovation (HEIRRI)http://heirri.eu/

HEIRRI mainly works around the six RRI «key aspects» identified by EC (societal/public engagement, gender equality, open access, science education, ethics and governance in R&I), but above all those six “keys”, HEIRRI wants to stress the potential of RRI as a transformative, critical and radical concept.

Pan-European Platform on Ethics, Transparency and Integrity in Education (ETINED)http://www.coe.int/en/web/ethics-transparency-integrity-in-education

The Pan-European Platform on Ethics, Transparency and Integrity in Education (ETINED) will try to address this challenge through a genuinely European dialogue and by drawing upon the materials and norms developed by the Council of Europe over the years.

Stakeholders ­Acting Together On the ­ethical impact assessment of ­Research and Innovation (SATORI)http://satoriproject.eu/

SATORI is a platform for the consolidation and advancement of ethical assessment in research and innovation.

Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research (PRINTEGER)http://printeger.eu/

PRINTEGER is a project funded by the European Union in the framework of Horizon 2020. Its mission is to enhance research integrity by promoting a research culture in which integrity is part and parcel of what it means to do excellent research, and not just an external and restrictive control system.

European Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC)http://www.eurecnet.org/index.html

EUREC is a network that brings together already existing national Research Ethics Committees (RECs) associations, networks or comparable initiatives on the European level.

European Network of Ombudsmen in Higher Education (ENOHE)http://www.enohe.net/

ENOHE is the European network of ombudsmen in higher education (with several associates from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Australia).

ALL European Academies (ALLEA)http://www.allea.org/

ALLEA was founded in 1994 and is the Federation of 59 Academies of Sciences and Humanities in more than 40 European countries.

Case Summary: Jon Sudbo by ORIhttps://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-sudbo-jon

Information about the Jon Sudbo Case.

Case Summary: Eric Poehlman by ORIhttps://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-poehlman-eric-t

Detailed information about the Poehlman Case by ORI. Press Release, Case Summary, List of Retracted / Corrected Publications (Updated - March 23, 2005) (PDF), Voluntary Exclusion Agreement (PDF, 1.6MB), University of Vermont Report (PDF, 19MB), Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Notice, Civil Complaint and Settlement (PDF).

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (Germany)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg

Field: Political sience. In February 2011 it was discovered that Guttenberg's thesis contained texts of other authors without citation. This led to plagiarism accusations against Guttenberg. Guttenberg denied any plagiarism, but asked the University of Bayreuth to revoke his title, admitting "severe errors in workmanship".

Marc Straus (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Straus

Field: Oncology. Marc Straus has admitted that as lead researcher he took responsibility for fabricated data in oncology studies at the Boston University School of Medicine in the late 1970s.

Dipak Das (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipak_K._Das

Field: Cardiovasculary research. Dipak Das was found guilty of 145 counts of fabrication or falsification of data at the University of Connecticut Health Center.

John Darsee (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Darsee

Field: Cardiology. Data fabrication as well as errors/discrepancies on 16 of 18 full-length research articles, and an unknown number of over 100 additional abstracts and book chapters.

Yoshitaka Fujii (Japan)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshitaka_Fujii

Field: Anesthesiology. Fujii was found to have fabricated data in at least 172 scientific papers, setting what is believed to be a record for the number of papers by a single author requiring retractions.

Jan Hendrik Schön (Germany)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal

Field: Semiconductors. Schön forged results, using the same graph image in different contexts.

Silvia Bulfone-Paus (Germany)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvia_Bulfone-Paus

Field: Immunology, 13 peer-reviewed journal articles retracted following investigations of alleged misconduct

Joachim Boldt (Germany)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Boldt

Field: Anesthesiology, Drug research. Joachim Boldt stripped of his professorship, under criminal investigation for possible forgery of up to 90 research studies.

Milena Penkowa (Denmark)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milena_Penkowa

Field: Neuroscience. Milena Penkowa (neuroscience), resigned her professorship after accusations of scientific misconduct, fraud, and embezzlement of research funds.

Bruno Frey (Switzerland)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Frey

Field: Economics. In 2011, Frey was criticised for and admitted to self-plagiarism.

Danut Marcu (Romania)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%83nu%C8%9B_Marcu

Field: Mathematics Dănuț Marcu, a Romanian mathematician and computer scientist, who was banned from several journals due to plagiarism. He had submitted a manuscript which was more-or-less word for word the same as a paper written by another author.

Mart Bax (Netherlands)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart_Bax

Field: Antropology. Various kinds of serious scientific misconduct. For example, in two cases Bax stated to have relied on one single local informant who told him improbable stories about public events that were not confirmed by anyone else. Bax did not check the stories and wrote them down in detail as if these they were historical facts. The commission that investigated Bax' research was unable to interview these two informants, so data fabrication by Bax could not be proven.

Jon Sudbo (Norway)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Sudb%C3%B8

Field: Medicine. Jon Sudbø is a Norwegian dentist, physician, and former medical researcher, who was exposed as a scientific fraudster in 2006. Over a period of several years, he fabricated results in the field of oncology which he published in leading medical journals. The article that led to his downfall, which was published in The Lancet, was based on 900 patients Sudbø had fabricated entirely. The editor of The Lancet described this as the biggest scientific fraud conducted by a single researcher ever.

Hwang Woo-Suk (Korea)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk

Hwang Woo-suk is a South Korean veterinarian and researcher. He was a professor of theriogenology and biotechnology at Seoul National University (dismissed on March 20, 2006) who became infamous for fabricating a series of experiments, which appeared in high-profile journals, in the field of stem cell research. Until November 2005, he was considered one of the pioneering experts in the field, best known for two articles published in the journal Science in 2004 and 2005 where he reported he had succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning.

Raj Persaud (United Kingdom)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_Persaud

Field: Psychiatry. Rajendra Persaud, also known as Raj Persaud (born 13 May 1963) is an English consultant psychiatrist, broadcaster and author of popular books about psychiatry. In October 2008, Persaud resigned from his position as consultant psychiatrist at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, following a 3-month suspension by the General Medical Council for dishonesty.

Andrew Wakefield (United Kingdom)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

Field: Medicine. Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 3 September 1956) is a British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease

Eric Poehlman (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Poehlman

Eric T. Poehlman (born c. 1956), a scientist in the field of human obesity and aging, was the first academic in the United States to be jailed for falsifying data in a grant application. He had published fraudulent research alleging hormone replacement injections as a therapy for menopause, when in fact they had no proven medical benefits at all.

Dick van Velzen (United Kingdom)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alder_Hey_organs_scandal

The Alder Hey organs scandal involved the unauthorised removal, retention, and disposal of human tissue, including children’s organs, during the period 1988 to 1995. During this period organs were retained in more than 2,000 pots containing body parts from around 850 infants.

William Summerlin (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Summerlin

Field: Medicine. William T. Summerlin (born 1938) is a dermatologist who, as a medical researcher, perpetrated a notorious scientific fraud.

Piltdown Man (1912)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human.

A Guidebook for Teaching Selected Responsible Conduct of Research Topics to a Culturally Diverse Trainee Group by M. Alexander and W. R. Williams73 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction and Background, Summary of Results from RCR Focus Groups, Small Culturally Diverse Groups for Case-based RCR Instruction: Format and Script, Teaching Materials for Data Management, Sharing, and Ownership, Teaching Materials for Intellectual Property, Teaching Materials for Research Misconduct, Appendix Sources and Resources

ORI Casebook, Stories about Researcher worth discussing, Instructor’s Manual54 Pages

Tables of contents: Foundational issues, Strategies for teaching using cases and reflection questions, Strategies for teaching using role plays, Index Case study pack can be found on: https://ori.hhs.gov/rcr-casebook-stories-about-researchers-worth-discussing

Good Research Practice – What Is It? by The Swedish Research Council (2006)90 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction, Good research practice – some basic requirements, Planning research, Conducting research, Publishing research results, Research collaboration, Other roles of the researcher, Research misconduct, key documents researchers should be familiar with.

Co-ordinating Committee for Facilitating International Research Misconduct Investigations by OECD and GSF16 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction and Background, Objectives of the Committee, General principles for conducting investigations in international settings and practical guidelines, Sharing information and establishing networks, Annex

Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity and Preventing Misconduct by OECD and GSF13 Pages

Table of Contents: Rationale, Background, The Varieties of Misconduct, and its Consequences, Options for Dealing with Misconduct Allegations, Responding to Misconduct Allegations, Investigating Misconduct, International Considerations, Causes, Contributing Factors, and Prevention

RCR Casebook: Stories about Researchers Worth Discussing by ORIhttps://ori.hhs.gov/rcr-casebook-stories-about-researchers-worth-discussing

Case study packs with the following topics: Authorship and Publication, Research Misconduct, Collaboration, Data Acquisition and Management, Conflict of Interest, Peer Review, Mentor and Trainee Relationships, Social Responsibilities. An accompanying Instructors’ Manual can be found on: https://ori.hhs.gov/images/ddblock/Instructor's%20Manual_Final_edited.pdf

The Research Clinic – Interactive Training Video by ORI and OHRPhttps://ori.hhs.gov/the-research-clinic

The interactive training video educates clinical and social researchers on the importance of appropriately protecting research participants and avoiding research misconduct.

The Lab – Interactive Movie on Research Misconduct by ORIhttps://ori.hhs.gov/thelab

In "The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct," you become the lead characters in an interactive movie and make decisions about integrity in research that can have long-term consequences. The simulation addresses Responsible Conduct of Research topics such as avoiding research misconduct, mentorship responsibilities, handling of data, responsible authorship, and questionable research practices

ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research by Nicholas H. Steneck (2007)184 Pages

Table of contents: Part I: Shared Values (Rules of the Road, Research Misconduct), Part II: Planning Research (The Protection of Human Subjects, The Welfare of Laboratory Animals, Conflicts of Interest), Part III: Conducting Research (Data Management Practices, Mentor and Trainee Responsibilities, Collaborative Research), Part IV: Reporting and Reviewing Research (Authorship and Publication, Peer review), Part V: Safe Driving and Responsible Research

Policy for Dealing with Alleged Research Misconduct in Applications Made to the HRB3 Pages

Table of contents: Background, Scope, Policy, Initial Action, Contact with the Complainant, Contact with the Institution, HRB Action

HRB Guidelines for Host Institutions on the Handling of Allegations of Research Misconduct5 Pages

Table of contents: Background, Definitions of Research Misconduct, Host institution policy and procedures, Essential content of the host institution policy and procedure, Stages of the investigation process, Right of appeal, Final decision, Possible sanctions

Fostering Research Integrity in Europe, Executive Report by ESF (2010)20 Pages

Table of contents: Preface, Background and Rationale, European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, Defining and Implementing Awareness and Structures for Research Integrity, Need for Further Evidence on Research Integrity, Next Steps: Recommendations for the Future, Annexes

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (2013)5 Pages

Table of contents: Expectations during the peer-review process, Expectations post review

Guidance for Editors: Research, Audit and Service Evaluations by COPE (2014)1 Pages

Table of contents: Guidance for Editors: Research, Audit and Service Evaluations

Text recycling guidelines for editors by BioMed Central (2016)5 Pages

Table of contents: How can editors deal with text recycling?, When should action be considered?, What action should be taken if text recycling is discovered?

Sharing of Information Among Editors-in-Chief Regarding Possible Misconduct by COPE (2015)3 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction, Background, Guidance, References

Journals’ Best Practices for Ensuring Consent for Publishing Medical Case Reports: guidance from COPE (2016)5 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction, General principles, Information to be collected in publication consent forms, Examples of forms for consent to publication of cases and relevant guidance,

Responsible research publication: international standards for authors by L. Wager, S. Kleinert (2010)6 Pages

A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)http://publicationethics.org/

COPE is a forum for editors and publishers of peer reviewed journals to discuss all aspects of publication ethics.

How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers by COPE (2003)3 Pages

Content: How to reduce the incidence of authorship problems, How to handle authorship disputes when they occur, What you can do if authorship issues are not resolved, Key concepts in authorship

Guidelines for retracting articles by COPE (2009)6 Pages

Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases by COPE (2012)9 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction, Scope, Background principles, Defining misconduct, Recommendations for cooperation between research institutions and journals, References

Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing by COPE (2015)3 Pages

16 Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers by COPE1 Pages

Stanford’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavorial Scienceshttp://bps.stanford.edu/?page_id=25

A website where you find information about best practices in Science.

The culture of scientific research 2014, Analysis of responses to an online survey by Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2014)84 Pages

Table of contents: Executive summary, Introduction, Demographics, Research findings, Appendix

The concordat to support research integrity by Universities UK (2012)26 Pages

Table of contents: Summary of commitments, Foreword by the Minister for Universities and Science, Foreword by the signatories to the concordat, Introduction, Maintaining the highest standards of research integrity, Embedding a culture of research integrity, Dealing with allegations of research misconduct, A commitment to strengthening research integrity, Annexe I-III

Reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research: improving research practice. Symposium report (2015)80 Pages

Table of contents: Summary, Introduction, What is the scale of the problem?, What can we learn from disciplines within biomedical sciences and beyond?, Strategies to address the irreproducibility of biomedical research, Public trust – how do we talk about reproducibility?, Conclusions and next steps, Annex 1-3

Responsibilty Navigatorhttp://responsibility-navigator.eu/

Res-AgorA is a three-year, EU FP7 project (2013-2016) which has co-constructed a good-practice framework, the “Responsibility Navigator”.The Res-AgorA´s “Co-construction Method” for RRI is a methodology designed to support and facilitate the practical use of the Responsibility Navigator with stakeholders.

National systems for handling cases of research misconduct by The Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation (2013)24 Pages

Table of contents: Background, Definition of research misconduct, National legal instruments regarding research misconduct, Institutions involved in handling cases on research misconduct, Procedure for handling cases on research misconduct, Transparency and confidentiality in cases on research misconduct, Positive elements and challenges in systems for handling cases on research misconduct, Annex A-B

General guidelines for research ethics by etikkom1 Pages

Responsible Research Data Management and the Prevention of Scientific Misconduct by Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science (2013)84 Pages

Table of Contents: Foreword, Introduction, Responsible Research Data Management, Integrity in Scientific Research, Preparation for Scientific Research in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and during researcher training, Summary

RCUK Policy and Guidelines on Governance of Good Research Conduct (2013)10 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction, Section 1: Good Research Conduct: Scope and Expectations, Section 2: Guidelines on the Promotion of Good Research Conduct, Section 3: Unacceptable Research Conduct, Section 4: Guidelines on the Reporting and Investigation of Unacceptable Research Conduct

Final report to ESF and ORI, First World Conference on Research Integrity: Fostering Responsible Research (2007)50 Pages

Table of Contents: Summary, Planning, Organization, and Outcomes, Conference Evaluation, Conclusions and Recommendations, Appendix 1. Planning Committee Members, Appendix 2. Final Programme, Appendix 3. Participants List, Appendix 4. Tindemans Report, Appendix 5. Analysis of Feedback Forms, Appendix 6. Articles and Press Coverage

Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise. A Policy Report by InterAcademy Council (2012)62 Pages

Table of contents: Foreword, IAP-IAC Committee on Research Integrity, Preface, Report review, Introduction, An Overview of Research Values, Responsible Conduct in the Process of Research, Recommendations for Researchers and Institutions Involved in Research, References, Biographical Sketches of Committee Members

Briefing Paper: Text and Data Mining and the Need for a Science-friendly EU Copyright Reform by Science Europe (2015)10 Pages

Table of Contents: ‘Text and Data Mining’or ‘Content Mining’?, Benefits of TDM Techniques, Uses of TDM Techniques: Indirect or Autonomous, Pre-conditions for TDM, Legal Claims of Rights Holders, Difficulty of Assessing the Legality of Content Mining, Necessary Advocacy for a Science-friendly Copyright Law, Suggested Way Forward for Research Organisations, Sources.

Science Europe: Working group on Research Integrityhttp://www.scienceeurope.org/policy/working-groups/research-integrity/

The Working Group has three main focuses: Promoting research integrity, Preventing misconduct and Increasing transparency when investigating cases of misconduct. In their work, the group’s experts liaise with other relevant stakeholders in this field in Europe and globally.

3rd World Conference on Research Integrity (2013)http://wcri2013.org/

3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, Montreal, May 5-8, 2013

4th World Conference on Research Integrity (2015)http://www.wcri2015.org/

4th World Conference on Research Integrity, Research Rewards and Integrity: Improving Systems to Promote Responsible Research, May 31 - June 3, 2015

Case Study on Review process4 Pages

With kind permission of UKRIO and Elizabeth Wagner. Topic: Using information gathering by reviewing a paper

Case Study on Data Management3 Pages

With kind permission of UKRIO. Topic: Data Management (Collecting of data by someone else)

Case Study on Authorship3 Pages

With kind permission of UKRIO. Topic: Authorship

Case Study on Informed consent4 Pages

With kind permission of UKRIO. Topic: Informed consent.

Case Study on Plagiarism: Charlie West2 Pages

With kind permission of Kenneth Pimple. Topic: Plagiarism.

Case Study on Changing agreements: Jenny Ito2 Pages

With kind permission of Kenneth Pimple. Topic: Changing of agreements retropectively in studies with animals.

Developing a Well-Reasoned Response to a Moral Problem in Scientific Research by Muriel J. Bebeau (1995)7 Pages

With kind permission of Kenneth Pimple. A guideline how to find out and formulate a response to the training cases.

Case Study on Omitting of data: Marty Brown1 Pages

With kind permission of Kenneth Pimple. Topic: Omitting of data.

Case Study on Ownership of data: Jessica Banks1 Pages

With kind permission of Kenneth Pimple. Topic: Ownership of data.

Case Study on Mentorship and Conflict of Interest: Bob Bailey2 Pages

With kind permission of Kenneth Pimple. Topic: Relationship among professor and graduate student (impact on the lab team, favouritism of the graduate student).

Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research. Cases for Teaching and Assessment by Bebeau, et al. (1995)

With kind permission of Kenneth Pimple. Content: Developing a Well-Reasoned Response to a Moral Problem in Scientific Research, The cases, The response sheets for each case.

Website of Researcher Daniele Fanellihttp://danielefanelli.com/index.html

Webpage of Danielle Fanelli who is of the first natural scientists who specialized in the study of scientific misconduct, bias and related issues, and has produced some of the largest studies assessing the prevalence of bias across disciplines and countries.

The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty – Decisionshttp://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/councils-and-commissions/the-danish-committees-on-scientific-dishonesty/decisions

Here you can find decisions from the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in anonymised form.

The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) – Case Summarieshttps://ori.hhs.gov/case_summary

This page contains cases in which administrative actions were imposed due to findings of research misconduct.

Online Ethics Center (OEC) – Caseshttp://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/profpractice/ppcases.aspx

List and description of cases that are at least loosely based on real incidents, in order to give a realistic impression of the moral problems that face engineers.

Biometrics: Use and Abuse in the Review of Research Performance, Wenner-Gren International Series, volume 87http://www.portlandpress.com/pp/books/online/wg87/default.htm

Table of contents: Part 1: Basic Considerations, Part II: Instruments of Measurement, Part III: Indicators for Rankings, Part IV: Journals, Editors and Publishers, Part V: Bibliometrics in the Humanities and Social Sciences and Part VI: Conclusions.

Good Research Practice by The Swedish Research Council’s expert group on ethics (2011)131 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction, About his book, What ethics dictate and the law demands, About research - What, why, how and for whom?, Ethics and other approval review, Handling of research material, Research collaboration, Publishing research results, Other roles of the researcher, Research misconduct and Key documents researchers should be familiar with.

Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Editors by S. Kleinert, L. Wager (2010)10 Pages

A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. This article gives information about editorial principles (Accountability and responsibility for journal content, Editorial independence and integrity, Editorial confidentiality, General editorial policies, Editorial policies relevant only to journals that publish research in humans or animals and Editorial Processes).

Research Integrity Practices in Science Europe Member Organisations by Science Europe (2016)50 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction, The Survey: Rationale and Methodology, Summary of the Survey Results, Raising Awareness of Research Integrity, Research Integrity Training, Strengthening Collaboration and Monitoring Mobility, Sanctions.

Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors by COPE (2011)12 Pages

Table of contents: General duties and responsibilities of editors, Relations with readers, authors, editors, editorial board members, journal owners and publishers, Editorial and peer review processes, Protecting individual data, Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals), Dealing with possible misconduct, Ensuring the integrity of the academic record, Intellectual property, Encouraging debate, Complaints, Commercial considerations, Conflicts of interest. ,

Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research by NHMRC41 Pages

Table of contents: About the Code, Principles and Practices to encourage Responsible Research Conduct, Breaches of the Code, Research Misconduct, and the framework for resolving allegations, Appendices

A Code of Conduct for Biosecurity. Report by the Biosecurity Working Group (2008)44 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction and background, Biosecurity Code of Conduct, Explanatory notes to the text of the code of conduct, Background to a Biosecurity Code of Conduct, Appendices .

Office of Research Integrity (ORI)https://ori.hhs.gov/

The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) facilitates the responsible conduct of research through educational, preventive, and service activities. On the ORI website (RCR Resources) you will information on Collaborative Science, Data Management, Ethics, Mentorship, Plagiarism, Publication/Authorship and Research Misconduct)

Integrity needs common values more than common procedures by Nicole Föger (2013)1 Pages

Paper published on Research Europe, 2013.

Guidance for researchers on retractions in academic journals by UKRIO, COPE (2010)6 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction, Contents and suggested distrubution, Standards for retractions, corrections and expressions of concern, The responsibilities of researchers, organisations and authors, Further information.

Stewards of Integrity. Institutional Approaches to Promote and Safeguard Good Research Practice in Europe by ESF (2008)56 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction, Data Basis, Approaches in individual countries, Summary and Outlook, References, Responsible officials and contact details.

A Guide to ethical writing by Michael Roig54 Pages

The primary purpose of this instructional resource is to identify the various types of unethical writing practices and to derive a set of guidelines to prevent individuals from committing them.

Code of Practice for Research. Promoting Good Practice and Preventing Misconduct by UKRIO (2009)27 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction, Principles, Standards for organisations and researchers, Appendix: Acknowledgements and bibiography.

Integrity in scientific research. Principles and procedures by Swiss Academies of Arts and Science (2008)29 Pages

Table of contents: Preface, Memorandum on scientific integrity and the handling of misconduct in the scientific context, Principles and procedures concerning integrity. IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH A. Introduction 13 B. Principles of scientific integrity 14

Regulations/guidelines concerning scientific integrity issued by Swiss higher education institutions (2013)2 Pages

List of links

National Statement of Scientific Integrity by CSIC (2015)8 Pages

In English and Spanish. The  present National Statement establishes  ethical  principles  and  professional responsibilities relating to research activity, and at the same time calls for joint efforts  and commitment by all actors involved. 

Manual of Conflicts of Interest by CSIC (2015)50 Pages

Table of contents: Prologue, Aims and scope of the institutional policy on conflicts of interest, Conflicts of interest. Actual, apparent and potential conflicts, Activities, scenarios and situations that may involve conflicts of interest within CSIC, Implementation of the institutional conflicts of interest policy. Procedures and actions. Body responsible for implementation and oversight, Regulatory framework, Annex

The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice by VSNU (2012)15 Pages

This Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice was drawn up at the request of the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (Vereniging van Universiteiten, VSNU). The Code consists of this preamble, the principles and the best practices. The Code is divided into five parts: I. Scrupulousness, II. Reliability, III. Verifiability, IV. Impartiality, V. Independence.

National policy statement on Ensuring Research Integrity in Ireland (2014)24 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction, Commitments to foster and ensure research integrity, Commitment 1: Standards, Commitment 2: Education, Commitment 3: Collaboration for continuous improvement, Commitment 4: Action to address misconduct. confidence in the Irish research system.

HRB Guidelines for Host Institutions on Good Research Practice5 Pages

Table of contents: Background, General principles on which these guidelines are based, Host institution policies and procedures, Integrity, Openness, Guidance from professional bodies and legislation, Supervision, Training, Ethical practice, Conducting the research, Primary data/samples, Publication of research results, Applying and exploiting results, Other relevant information sources.

Recommendations on Academic Integrity: Position Paper by German Council of Science and Humanities (2015)53 Pages

Table of contents: Preliminary remarks, Preamble: The term Academic Integrity, Taking stock (Recommendations and guidelines on good scientific practice, Implementation in Germany) Areas of action and recommendations (Enabling academic integrity, Research process and publication practice, Dealing with disputes, Influential factors and evaluation criteria, Areas of responsibility of stakeholders), Annexes

Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland by Finnish Advisory Board on RI (2012)44 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction, The responsible conduct of research, Violations of the responsible conduct of research, Guidelines for handling alleged violations of the responsible conduct of research.

The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity by Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2014)27 Pages

Table of contents: Foreword, Principles of Research Integrity, Responsible Conduct of Research, Research integrity teaching, training, and supervision, Research misconduct and breaches of responsible conduct of research, Appendix 1-3

Code of Ethics for Scientific Research in Belgium11 Pages

This “Code of Ethics for Scientific Research in Belgium” establishes the major principles of ethically justified scientific practice.

Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice by Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (2015)20 Pages

In line with international declarations on integrity in research, this document lays down fundamental principles of scientific and scholarly integrity and the resulting fundamental obligations for researchers. On the basis of those principles and fundamental obligations, it then proceeds to define requirements for the behaviour of scientists and researchers (Standards of Good Scientific Practice) as well as key forms of research misconduct.

Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Research Projects by OECD (2009)14 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction, Boilerplate Text for International Collaborative Research Projects, Requirements for misconduct investigation agreements in international research collaborations, Overarching Principles for Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Projects, Procedures for Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Research Projects, Communication Strategy.

Fostering Research Integrity in Europe by European Science Foundation, Final report (2010)44 Pages

Table of contents: Introductory Note, Executive Summary, The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, Implementing Research Integrity: Elements of a framework for research integrity governance, Conclusions and Recommendations.

Briefing Paper: Research Integrity: What it Means, Why it Is Important and How we Might Protect it by Science Europe Working Group on RI (2015)32 Pages

Table of contents: Introduction, What Are Research Integrity and Research Misconduct?, Efforts to Ensure Research Integrity, Conclusions, Bibliography and Notes

Seven Reasons to Care about Integrity in Research by Science Europe Working Group on RI (2015)12 Pages

This paper sets out seven key reasons why Science Europe Member Organisations, and research organisations in general, should be concerned about promoting research integrity amongst their research community.

European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity by ESF and ALLEA (2011)24 Pages

Table of contents: Foreword, Executive Summary (The Code, The Principles of Research Integrity, Misconduct, Good Research Practices), The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (The Code of Conduct, Background and Elucidation, Guidelines for Good Practice Rules, International Collaborative Research), Annexes, ESF Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity and list of members, ALLEA Standing Committee on Science and Ethics and list of members

Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations (2013)

The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations was developed as part of the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, 5-8 May 2013, in Montreal, as a global guide to responsible conduct of research.