This is an outdated version published on March 2, 2022. Read the most recent version.

The Embassy of Good Science – a community driven initiative to promote ethics and integrity in research

Marc van Hoof ,
Natalie Evans ,
Giulia Inguaggiato ,
Ana Marušić ,
Bert Gordijn
,
Kris Dierickx ,
David van Zeggeren
,
Harald Dunnik
,
Alexander Gesinn
,
Lex Bouter ,
Guy Widdershoven ,
EnTIRE and VIRT2UE consortia

Article

Authors & roles Authors

Peer review record Peer review

Metrics

Cite

Section

Open Letter

Published

March 2, 2022

DOI

https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.14422.1

Versions

January 12, 2023 (Version of Record 2.0)
March 2, 2022 (Version of Record 1.0)

European Commission

Grant ID(s): 787580, 741782

Views

278

Downloads

Citations

See full metrics

Research integrity, research ethics, responsible conduct of research, open source, policy, education

Abstract

The Embassy of Good Science ( https://www.embassy.science) aims to improve research integrity and research ethics by offering an online, open, 'go-to' platform, which brings together all information on research integrity and research ethics relevant for researchers, and makes that information accessible, understandable, and appealing. It effectively organizes and describes research integrity and research ethics guidelines, educational materials, cases, and scenarios. The Embassy is wiki-based, allowing users to add -- when logged in with their ORCID researcher id -- new information, and update and refine existing information. The platform also makes the research integrity and research ethics community visible and accessible in pages dedicated to relevant initiatives, news and events. Therefore, the Embassy enables researchers to find useful guidance, rules and tools to conduct research responsibly. The platform empowers researchers through increased knowledge and awareness, and through the support of the research integrity and research ethics community. In this article we will discuss the background of this new platform, the way in which it is organized, and how users can contribute.

Corresponding author

Natalie Evans

0000-0001-7124-9282

n.evans@amsterdamumc.nl

Grant information

This research was financially supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the grant agreement No 741782 [EnTIRE] and 787580 [VIRT2UE].

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

© 2022 Marc van Hoof (Co-Author); Natalie Evans (Corresponding Author, Co-Author); Giulia Inguaggiato (Co-Author); Ana Marušić (Co-Author); Bert Gordijn (Co-Author); Kris Dierickx (Co-Author); David van Zeggeren (Co-Author); Harald Dunnik (Co-Author); Alexander Gesinn (Co-Author); Lex Bouter (Co-Author); Guy Widdershoven (Co-Author); EnTIRE and VIRT2UE consortia (Co-Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

First version published

March 2, 2022 (https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.14422.1)

Latest version published

January 12, 2023 (https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.14422.2)

Plain language summary

The Embassy of Good Science (https://www.embassy.science) aims to improve the conduct of research in Europe and beyond by presenting information of research integrity and ethics in an accessible, understandable and appealing way. The Embassy is wiki-based, allowing anyone to contribute. The platform also brings the research community together in novel ways in a dedicated community section. Therefore, The Embassy enables researchers to find useful guidance, rules and tools to conduct research responsibly. The platform empowers researchers through increased knowledge and awareness, and through the support of the research integrity and research ethics community. In this article we will discuss the background of this new platform, the way in which it is organized and how users can contribute.

Background

The trustworthiness of research results is increasingly being questioned¹. In practice, research often leads to results that cannot be reproduced^2–5. Several internal and external factors of human, operational and methodological origins have been identified⁶. However, their interplay is anything but clear^7,8. There is much attention to the classic triad of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, partly in response to high profile cases of misconduct^9–12. However, other factors such as 'sloppy science' and 'questionable research practices' seem to have more effect and impact on research and researchers because of the sheer volume of these “small” misdemeanours¹³. Researchers sometimes experience inadequate support from the institutions where they work in ensuring the quality of research. They are often promoted based on superficial outcome measures. The number of publications (‘publish or perish’¹⁴), impact factors, citations, patents and the grants received dominate the evaluation and reward of researchers and science¹⁵. The competition between researchers themselves is reinforced by the limited number of places that are available. Within this competitive system, the same researchers are also expected to act as independent judges of the work produced in their field; prior to publication or when awarding a grant, they assess the work of their direct competitors. It seems that individual poor research practices can be associated with common pitfalls and psychological coping mechanisms, adequately captured in the mnemonic TRAGEDIES (Temptation, Rationalization, Ambition, Group and authority pressure, Entitlement, Deception, Incrementalism, Embarrassment and Stupid systems)¹⁶.

Without denying current day problems, we are convinced that most researchers want to do their job well, but sometimes lack information about how to recognise the perverse incentives and pressures experienced in hyper-competitive academic environments, or how to find solutions to specific day-to-day practical, methodological and ethical questions. "The Embassy of Good Science" (https://www.embassy.science)¹⁷ is at the service of every researcher who wants to build up a practice of good research both by increasing knowledge and awareness of the best guidance and practices in research integrity and ethics and by sharing and collaboratively building new knowledge. We do this, for example, by making initiatives within the biomedical sciences easy to find and understand. In the case of REWARD¹⁸, which aims to reduce waste in (medical) science and promote rigor and reproducibility, we sum up its best practices and make them shareable. The platform has been developed in consultation with stakeholders across Europe, whose needs and preferences are reflected in the platform’s content.

Sharing knowledge, experiences and good practices

The purpose of the Embassy of Good Science is both to inform researchers and to enable them to share experiences and good practices surrounding research integrity and ethics. The Embassy brings together, and makes smart connections between, relevant guidelines and regulations, cases and scenarios, and teaching materials. ‘Theme’ pages provide engaging, bite-sized introductions to single topics related to good research practices, research principles, or misbehaviours. Complex guidance and practices are made accessible by describing why they are important, for whom they are important, and how can they guide the practice of research. Essentially, these theme pages provide the context in which all of the relevant resources on that topic across the platform are brought together and made usable and understandable. Users interested in, for instance ‘p-hacking’, ‘predatory publishing’, or ‘research virtues’, can read a Theme page of the topic, which links to resources (relevant guidance, online training, and misconduct cases) about the topic across The Embassy. Technically, specific information can be filtered and compared per discipline and country. In this way it is possible to organize a wide range of background information, examples of good practices, cases, (inter) national guidelines and regulations.

A dedicated ‘Training’ section provides access to free online training materials and courses, but also gives information about opportunities to follow more traditional in-person courses on integrity issues experienced in practice. The Embassy offers material that can be used by universities to provide training to researchers, (data) managers and other staff. Bespoke ‘Guides’ for training courses can also be constructed and made openly available directly on the platform. Guides consist of step-by-step instruction pages, describing individual exercises or activities, which users can make and group together themselves. The training guide for the European Commission funded VIRT2UE train-the-trainer programme, for example, is presented on The Embassy. VIRT2UE is a blended learning programme which gives trainees the knowledge and skills to conduct a research integrity course from a virtue ethics perspective. The VIRT2UE guide contains separate instruction pages for four series of e-learning modules and individual instruction pages detailing how to facilitate in person participatory exercises. In line with the ethos of the platform, VIRT2UE takes an aspirational approach, and focuses on what it means to be a good and virtuous researcher. The core of the training is to promote reflection on personal attitudes and practices.

The platform also makes the research integrity and ethics communities visible. Projects and consortia can inform, via The Embassy, an existing audience interested in research integrity and ethics about their initiatives, news and events. The repository function allows them to store their materials – such as reports, guidelines, leaflets - for the long term, allowing smaller initiatives to be represented online on The Embassy’s ‘Initiatives’ page rather than building their own websites from scratch.

Open science

The open-source platform is technically based on and inspired by Wikipedia (Wikimedia Foundation, USA). With approximately 47 million edits in November 2019 alone, and donations of 35 million dollars per year, this is a proven safe, scalable and well-maintained open-source system. Wikipedia is consulted 21 billion times a month worldwide¹⁹. Where there has been discussion for years about the reliability of Wikipedia’s content, studies show that it is comparable to traditional encyclopaedias^20,21. A review of specialist content, such as content from pharmacology²², shows a similar picture. Meanwhile, with a total of approximately 50 million articles²³, it has most likely become the largest encyclopaedia in human history.

Just like with Wikipedia, the entire content of The Embassy is freely accessible to everyone. In addition, the content can be supplemented and adjusted by users. The only requirement for making an adjustment is an ORCID account (Open Researcher and Contributor ID, ORCID Inc.). Currently, more than 7 million researchers worldwide already have such an ORCID²⁴. To guarantee quality, all changes and additions can be traced at all times and, if necessary, corrected.

An important technical addition to the platform is the Semantic Mediawiki²⁵ extension. This makes it possible to organize content in a smart way ("semantic web"). The information is easily searchable and different sources of information can be linked to each other. The system works well for people and machines, according to the FAIR principles²⁶. This also makes it possible to give automated systems access to the knowledge that is collected on the platform. A complete overview of the open-source software used can be found on the platform itself²⁷.

On a wiki-platform it can be difficult for users to create and edit content. A core group of experts provide most of the content and changes to Wikipedia²⁸. To lower the threshold, increase usability and be inclusive, the user interface of The Embassy has been rebuilt from the ground up. It has been designed to be intuitive. We hope that ‘passive’ users (readers) are encouraged to submit and edit content (see the video). In the future, substantial digital contributions will be provided with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) so that the content can be included in the scholarly literature and can be cited. Such micro publications²⁹ create the ability to transparently summarize, assess, discuss, verify, revoke, mix and expand information and knowledge.

The specific extensions and adjustments made by software developers within this project are also open source³⁰. This means that other organizations can reuse elements of the platform in a different configuration, for example by changing the design, structure and content.

The online community moderates itself

Unlike other scientific platforms such as ResearchGate³¹ (Berlin, Germany), The Embassy is not profit making. Compared to, e.g. Retraction Watch³², users have the freedom to moderate the content and submit content themselves. The tone of The Embassy is also positive. We believe that "Naming and shaming" of individuals does not contribute to improving research practice or culture. The first content has been developed by the European Commission funded projects EnTIRE³³ and VIRT²UE³⁴. In the coming years, the intention is that the online community will gradually take on further development and moderation. Just as with Wikipedia, there is a risk of incidents of online vandalism³⁵. This is expected to remain a limited problem. During the first year since going live, amongst a total of 7000 edits, just one edit could be considered as non-substantial ‘tinkering’. Clear versioning and tracked changes ensure good levels of control and enables editors to undo changes easily. In the case of Wikipedia, a study showed that about half of all entries that were vandalised and had a deletion of more than 90% were repaired within three minutes, while the overall average repair time was 8 days³⁶. A linked ORCID account ensures that the level and field of expertise of community members can be inspected, where relevant, when contributions are verified. Also, in cases of vandalism and a continued breach of the terms and conditions of the platform, users can be selectively blocked based on their ORCID.

Conclusion

The Embassy of Good Science is a platform that has the potential to inform and engage the research community on research integrity and ethics. The platform aims to support individual researchers, but also, thorough increased awareness and action, to incrementally improve the trustworthiness of research and the culture in which research is conducted.

Data availability

No data is associated with this article.

Software availability

Platform available at: www.embassy.science

Front-end design elements: https://github.com/the-embassy-of-good-science

Archived front-end design elements: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5925902³⁷

Back-end design elements: https://github.com/the-embassy-of-good-science/the-embassy-platform

Archived back-end design elements: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5925930³⁸

License: MediaWiki and The Embassy are licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later. Derivative works and later versions of the code must be free software licensed under the same or a compatible license. This includes "extensions" that use MediaWiki functions or variables; see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins for details. For the full text of version 2 of the license, see: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html. For full details of the licensing see: https://github.com/the-embassy-of-good-science/the-embassy-platform/blob/master/COPYING.

Acknowledgements

EnTIRE aims to create an online platform that makes RE and RI information easily accessible to the research community. The EnTIRE Consortium is composed Amsterdam UMC and VU University, Amsterdam, Gesinn.It, KU Leuven, University of Split School of Medicine, Dublin City University, the Central European University, University of Oslo, University of Manchester, European Network of Research Ethics Committees. The authors would also like to thank the EnTIRE consortium members: Alexander Gesinn, Ana Marusic, Andrijana Perković Paloš, Anna, Astrid Hooghiemstra, Bert Gordijn, Bjørn Hofmann, Dirk Lanzerath, Dorothee Gueth, Elsa Amin, Emma Mulder, Ferdy Pullens, Giulia Inguaggiato, Guy Widdershoven, Harald Dunnink, Hugh Desmond, Iris Lechner, Ivan Buljan, Jonathan Lewis, Kim Zandvliet-Oerlemans, Kris Dierickx, Lana Barac, Lisa Tambornino, Marc van Hoof, Mohammad Hosseini, Natalie Evans, Peter Kakuk, Raymond de Vries, Rea Scepanovic, Rosie Hastings, Rúben Nascimento, Ruzica Tokalic, Soren Holm, Stefan Veen, Talitha Ahmed, Tom Lindemann, Vicko Tomic

VIRT2UE aims to develop a sustainable train-the-trainer blended learning programme enabling contextualised research integrity and ethics teaching across Europe focusing on understanding and upholding the principles and practices of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. The VIRT2UE Consortium is composed of the VU Medical Center Amsterdam, KU Leuven, University of Split School of Medicine, Austrian Agency for Research Integrity, University of Oslo, European Network of Research Ethics Committees, Ankara University, National Technical University of Athens, University of Helsinki, University of Latvia, Universidade Catolica Portuguesa, University of Insubria, and Momkai. The authors would also like to thank the VIRT2UE consortium members: Ana Marusic, Ana Sofia Carvalho, Andrijana Perković Paloš, Armin Schmolmueller, Astrid Hooghiemstra, Bert Molewijk, Bjørn Hofmann, Costas Charitidis, Daniel Pizzolato, David van Zeggeren, Dirk Lanzerath, Eleni Spyrakou, Emma Mulder, Erika Lofstrom, Fenneke Blom, Franca Marino, Giulia Inguaggiato, Harald Dunnink, Ivan Buljan, Jan Helge Solbakk, Joana Araújo, Kim Zandvliet-Oerlemans, Kris Dierickx, Krishma Labib, Lana Barac, Laura Hartman, Lisa Tambornino, Marc van Hoof, Marco Cosentino, Margreet Stolper, Martina Garriga, Mustafa Volkan Kavas, Natalie Evans, Nicole Foeger, Panagiotis Kavouras, Rien Janssens, Rosemarie Bernabe, Rúben Nascimento, Ruzica Tokalic, Signe Mezinska, Solveig Corner, Stefan Veen, Teodora Konach, Vassilis Markakis, Vicko Tomic, Gamze Senyurek

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Edwards MA, Roy S: Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environ Eng Sci. 2017; 34(1): 51–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Mobley A, Linder SK, Braeuer R, et al.: A Survey on Data Reproducibility in Cancer Research Provides Insights into Our Limited Ability to Translate Findings from the Laboratory to the Clinic. PLoS One. 2013; 8(5): e63221. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Ioannidis JP: Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2(8): e124. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2019. Reference Source
5. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, et al.: A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2017; 1(1): 0021. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K: Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011; 10(9): 712. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Zeng A, Shen Z, Zhou J, et al.: The science of science: From the perspective of complex systems. Physics Reports. 2017; 714–715: 1–73. Publisher Full Text
8. Fanelli D, Costas R, Larivière V: Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS One. 2015; 10(6): e0127556. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
9. Pashler H, Wagenmakers EJ: Editors‘ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological SCience: A Crisis of Confidence? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012; 7(6): 528–530. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Godlee F, Smith J, Marcovitch H: Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ. 2011; 342(7788): c7452. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Kakuk P: The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences. Sci Eng Ethics. 2009; 15(4): 545–562. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Fostering Integrity in Research. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2017. Publisher Full Text
13. Bouter LM, Tijdink J, Axelsen N, et al.: Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016; 1(1): 17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
14. Fanelli D: Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS One. 2010; 5(4): e10271. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, et al.: The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biol. 2020; 18(7): e3000737. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Gunsalus CK, Robinson AD: Nine pitfalls of research misconduct. comment. Nature. 2018; 557(7705): 297–299. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Good practice from the grass roots. Nature. 2019; 576: 181. Reference Source
18. Chalmers I, Glasziou P: Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009; 374(9683): 86–89. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Wikipedia. 2019. Reference Source
20. Giles J: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature. 2005; 438(7070): 900–1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Mesgari M, Okoli C, Mehdi M, et al.: “The Sum of All Human Knowledge”: A Systematic Review of Scholarly Research on the Content of Wikipedia. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech. 2015; 66(2): 219–245. Publisher Full Text
22. Kräenbring J, Penza TM, Gutmann J, et al.: Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia: A comparison with standard textbooks of pharmacology. PLoS One. 2014; 9(9): e106930. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. Size of Wikipedia. Reference Source
24. ORCID. Reference Source
25. Semantic Mediawiki. Reference Source
26. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, et al.: The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016; 3(1): 160018. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. The Embassy of Good Science. Reference Source
28. Kittur A, Chi EH, Pendleton BA, et al.: Power of the few vs. wisdom of the crowd: Wikipedia and the rise of the bourgeoisie. 25th Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2007; 1(2): 19. Reference Source
29. Clark T, Ciccarese PN, Goble CA: Micropublications: A semantic model for claims, evidence, arguments and annotations in biomedical communications. J Biomed Semantics. 2014; 5(1): 28. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
30. The Embassy of Good Science. Reference Source
31. Researchgate. Reference Source
32. Retractionwatch. Reference Source
33. Evans N, van Hoof M, Hartman L, et al.: EnTIRE: Mapping Normative Frameworks for EThics and Integrity of REsearch. Res Ideas Outcomes. 2021; 7: e76240. Publisher Full Text
34. Evans N, Marusic A, Foeger N, et al.: Virtue-based ethics and integrity of research: train-the-trainer programme for upholding the principles and practices of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (VIRT²UE). Res Ideas Outcomes. 2021; 7: e68258. Publisher Full Text
35. Shachaf P, Hara N: Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls. J Inf Sci. 2010; 36(3): 357–370. Publisher Full Text
36. Viégas FB, Wattenberg M, Dave K: Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. 2004; 575–582. Publisher Full Text
37. Nascimento R, RZ: the-embassy-of-good-science/the-embassy-components: The Switch Release (Switch). Zenodo. 2022. http://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5925902
38. Alexander: the-embassy-of-good-science/the-embassy-platform: The Switch Release (switch). Zenodo. 2022. http://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5925930

Comments

Publication information

Section

Open Letter

Published

March 2, 2022

DOI

https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.14422.1

Versions

January 12, 2023 (Version of Record 2.0)
March 2, 2022 (Version of Record 1.0)

Included in

Funding data

European Commission

Grant ID(s): 787580, 741782

Metrics

Views

278

Downloads

Citations

See full metrics

Keywords

Research integrity, research ethics, responsible conduct of research, open source, policy, education

Comments

Marc van Hoof

Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, 1081 HV, The Netherlands

Roles

Co-Author, Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

0000-0001-9246-6817

marc.hoofvan@mumc.nl

Natalie Evans

Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, 1081 HV, The Netherlands

Roles

Corresponding Author, Co-Author, Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0001-7124-9282

n.evans@amsterdamumc.nl

Giulia Inguaggiato

Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, 1081 HV, The Netherlands

Roles

Co-Author, Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0003-2340-908X

g.inguaggiato@amsterdamumc.nl

Ana Marušić

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Split-Dalmatia, HR-21000, Croatia

Roles

Co-Author, Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0001-6272-0917

ana.marusic@mefst.hr

Bert Gordijn

Institute of Ethics, Dublin City University, Dublin, Leinster, 9, Ireland

Roles

Co-Author, Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

bert.gordijn@dcu.ie

Kris Dierickx

Interfaculty Center for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

Roles

Co-Author, Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0002-1016-1145

kris.dierickx@kuleuven.be

David van Zeggeren

Momkai BV, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, 1013 NJ, The Netherlands

Roles

Co-Author, Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Software, Writing – Review & Editing

david@momkai.com

Harald Dunnik

Momkai BV, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, 1013 NJ, The Netherlands

Roles

Co-Author, Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Software, Writing – Review & Editing

harald@momkai.com

Alexander Gesinn

Gesinn.it, Schwarzenfeld, 92521, Germany

Roles

Co-Author, Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Software, Writing – Review & Editing

alexander.gesinn@gesinn.it

Lex Bouter

Department of Philosophy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, 1081 HV, The Netherlands

Roles

Co-Author, Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0002-2659-5482

lm.bouter@amsterdamumc.nl

Guy Widdershoven

Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, 1081 HV, The Netherlands

Roles

Co-Author, Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

0000-0001-7620-6812

g.widdershoven@amsterdamumc.nl

EnTIRE and VIRT2UE consortia

Roles

Co-Author

admin@ore.testing.publicknowledgeproject.org

Downloads over the last 12 months:

Cited by

via Crossref

View citing articles

The Embassy of Good Science – a community driven initiative to promote ethics and integrity in research

List of Authors

Peer review

Publication information

Included in

Funding data

Metrics

Keywords

Comments

Abstract

Comments

Publication information

Included in

Funding data

Metrics

Keywords

Comments

Authors & roles

Marc van Hoof

Natalie Evans

Giulia Inguaggiato

Ana Marušić

Bert Gordijn

Kris Dierickx

David van Zeggeren

Harald Dunnik

Alexander Gesinn

Lex Bouter

Guy Widdershoven

EnTIRE and VIRT2UE consortia

Downloads over the last 12 months:

Cited by

via Crossref