Various stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, res... more Various stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, research funders are prominently placed to foster research integrity by requiring that the organizations and individual researchers they support make an explicit commitment to research integrity. Moreover, funders need to adopt appropriate research integrity practices themselves. To facilitate this, we recommend that funders develop and implement a Research Integrity Promotion Plan (RIPP). This Consensus View offers a range of examples of how funders are already promoting research integrity, distills 6 core topics that funders should cover in a RIPP, and provides guidelines on how to develop and implement a RIPP. We believe that the 6 core topics we put forward will guide funders towards strengthening research integrity policy in their organization and guide the researchers and research organizations they fund.
Since the summer of 2020, researchers from ten projects pertaining to the Horizon2020 Science wit... more Since the summer of 2020, researchers from ten projects pertaining to the Horizon2020 Science with and for Society (SwafS) call have been meeting virtually as the SwafS14 Monitoring and Evaluation ecosystem. Topics of discussion were the trials and tribulations of their regional Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) projects as well as their strategies for monitoring and evaluation. In this paper we make a first attempt at presenting these issues as problems of translation between different kinds of stakeholders. After an exploration of the diversity of stakeholders and the process of translation in regional RRI, we suggest evaluative conversations as a way of improving regional RRI. We intend to develop this idea in the future and that these conversations will facilitate more responsible and engaged monitoring and evaluation and contribute to better R&I policies.
This report outlines the approach to evaluating the five Transformative Experiments (TEs) carried... more This report outlines the approach to evaluating the five Transformative Experiments (TEs) carried out within the framework of the TeRRItoria project. By bringing together a wide range of stakeholders in the development and implementation of five different TEs in four regions and one municipality, the project intends to address and mitigate territorial Research and Innovation (R&I) challenges through the advancement of "Territorial RRI" (TeRRItoria 2019). Overall, the internal evaluation of activities is designed to assess the implementation of TE actions/initiatives and their impacts produced throughout the project and use this knowledge to ensure long-term sustainability of the experimental activities commenced. The evaluation task comprises two distinct types of evaluations:<br> 1.A process evaluation (formative evaluation, inspired by the deliberative democratic evaluation perspective), which is an ongoing evaluation for internal learning throughout the project. T...
and Research Activities on Science in Society in Europe' (MASIS), funded by EU work programme 'Sc... more and Research Activities on Science in Society in Europe' (MASIS), funded by EU work programme 'Science in Society' (FP7 'Capacities'). It is based on analyses of 38 national reports accessible on www.masis.eu, which include data on research efforts, policies, and communication activities relating to science in society, different models and use of scientific advice and expertise for policy making, and activities related to assessment and ethical issues of science and technology in 38 EU and associated countries.
The report at hand presents the results of the process evaluation/formative evaluation of the TeR... more The report at hand presents the results of the process evaluation/formative evaluation of the TeRRitoria project. The process evaluation seeks to take stock of the five different territorial Transformative Experiments (TE) carried out in the project. It reviews their development and implementation progress in order to increase the awareness of potential challenges in time for adjustments to increase implementation success and foster reflection and internal learning. The process evaluation is a periodic and practice-oriented assessment of an ongoing territorial experimental process, and it aims to review the activities undertaken to date by identifying challenges to the experiments and corresponding mitigation strategies for the purpose of reflecting on the process of reaching TE strategic objectives and overall success criteria. In general, the evaluation asks to what extent the five Transformative Experiments are being implemented as designed and intended, addressing key issues suc...
London now shuns journal-based metrics in staff assessment; it relies more on peer judgement of r... more London now shuns journal-based metrics in staff assessment; it relies more on peer judgement of research quality. At Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand, all staff sign the university's code of good governance, agreeing to uphold integrity, impartiality and social responsibility, for example. These are just three of dozens of efforts we found when investigating how institutions worldwide are working to improve research integrity. They form part of our long-term study on this topic, a project that is funded by the European Commission (see Table S2 in Supplementary information for more examples).
Various stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, res... more Various stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, research funders are prominently placed to foster research integrity by requiring that the organizations and individual researchers they support make an explicit commitment to research integrity. Moreover, funders need to adopt appropriate research integrity practices themselves. To facilitate this, we recommend that funders develop and implement a Research Integrity Promotion Plan (RIPP). This Consensus View offers a range of examples of how funders are already promoting research integrity, distills 6 core topics that funders should cover in a RIPP, and provides guidelines on how to develop and implement a RIPP. We believe that the 6 core topics we put forward will guide funders towards strengthening research integrity policy in their organization and guide the researchers and research organizations they fund.
Since the summer of 2020, researchers from ten projects pertaining to the Horizon2020 Science wit... more Since the summer of 2020, researchers from ten projects pertaining to the Horizon2020 Science with and for Society (SwafS) call have been meeting virtually as the SwafS14 Monitoring and Evaluation ecosystem. Topics of discussion were the trials and tribulations of their regional Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) projects as well as their strategies for monitoring and evaluation. In this paper we make a first attempt at presenting these issues as problems of translation between different kinds of stakeholders. After an exploration of the diversity of stakeholders and the process of translation in regional RRI, we suggest evaluative conversations as a way of improving regional RRI. We intend to develop this idea in the future and that these conversations will facilitate more responsible and engaged monitoring and evaluation and contribute to better R&I policies.
This report outlines the approach to evaluating the five Transformative Experiments (TEs) carried... more This report outlines the approach to evaluating the five Transformative Experiments (TEs) carried out within the framework of the TeRRItoria project. By bringing together a wide range of stakeholders in the development and implementation of five different TEs in four regions and one municipality, the project intends to address and mitigate territorial Research and Innovation (R&I) challenges through the advancement of "Territorial RRI" (TeRRItoria 2019). Overall, the internal evaluation of activities is designed to assess the implementation of TE actions/initiatives and their impacts produced throughout the project and use this knowledge to ensure long-term sustainability of the experimental activities commenced. The evaluation task comprises two distinct types of evaluations:<br> 1.A process evaluation (formative evaluation, inspired by the deliberative democratic evaluation perspective), which is an ongoing evaluation for internal learning throughout the project. T...
and Research Activities on Science in Society in Europe' (MASIS), funded by EU work programme 'Sc... more and Research Activities on Science in Society in Europe' (MASIS), funded by EU work programme 'Science in Society' (FP7 'Capacities'). It is based on analyses of 38 national reports accessible on www.masis.eu, which include data on research efforts, policies, and communication activities relating to science in society, different models and use of scientific advice and expertise for policy making, and activities related to assessment and ethical issues of science and technology in 38 EU and associated countries.
The report at hand presents the results of the process evaluation/formative evaluation of the TeR... more The report at hand presents the results of the process evaluation/formative evaluation of the TeRRitoria project. The process evaluation seeks to take stock of the five different territorial Transformative Experiments (TE) carried out in the project. It reviews their development and implementation progress in order to increase the awareness of potential challenges in time for adjustments to increase implementation success and foster reflection and internal learning. The process evaluation is a periodic and practice-oriented assessment of an ongoing territorial experimental process, and it aims to review the activities undertaken to date by identifying challenges to the experiments and corresponding mitigation strategies for the purpose of reflecting on the process of reaching TE strategic objectives and overall success criteria. In general, the evaluation asks to what extent the five Transformative Experiments are being implemented as designed and intended, addressing key issues suc...
London now shuns journal-based metrics in staff assessment; it relies more on peer judgement of r... more London now shuns journal-based metrics in staff assessment; it relies more on peer judgement of research quality. At Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand, all staff sign the university's code of good governance, agreeing to uphold integrity, impartiality and social responsibility, for example. These are just three of dozens of efforts we found when investigating how institutions worldwide are working to improve research integrity. They form part of our long-term study on this topic, a project that is funded by the European Commission (see Table S2 in Supplementary information for more examples).
Uploads
Papers by Tine Ravn