Search

In the European Union (EU) a new framework was established in December of 2022, the “Safe and Sustainable-by-Design” framework. This framework was created to enhance the risk assessment of new chemicals in order to avoid regrettable substitutions, and integrate sustainable development goals in the invention of new thechnologies. To implement SSbD, interpretations of the framework were developed to facilitate its implementation. An example is the European Joint Research Centre (JRC) that developed an interpretation of SSbD. Perovskite are a broad class of crystalline materials of ABX3 chemical composition, where A and B are metal cations and X is a anion. The application of perovskites nowadays is very extensive from ferroelectrics, superconductors, solar cells and automotive catalysts. Oxide-perovskites are more specifically formed in the ABO3 formation. This thesis aims at presenting a case study of automotive catalysts oxide-perovskites LanthanumCobalt-Nickel (LaCoNi) and providing an overview of the JRC interpretation of the SSbD framework using the LaCoNi case study with a focus on environmental safety. For this, ecotoxic studies on the metal ions composing the perovskites and the material itself were conducted. The results were related to the JRC framework and a discussion on the relevance of the results was done to provide some insight of the application of the JRC SSbD framework. The ecotoxic study was conducted on R. subcapitata freshwater algae as well as D. magna freshwater daphids. The results showed an EC50 of 30.2 mg/L for LaCoNi on the algae and no effects on the daphnids in concentrations up-to 100 mg/L. These results showed that LaCoNi could be potentially harmful to the environment because of the leachability of nickel and cobalt, and that many more studies on the effect on human would be needed as required by the JRC framework. The applicability of the JR

Good academic practice is more than the avoidance of clear-cut cheating. It also involves navigation of the gray zones between cheating and good practice. The existing literature has left students’ understanding of gray zone practices largely unexplored. To begin filling in this gap, we present results from a questionnaire study involving N = 1639 undergraduate students from seven European countries representing all major disciplines. We show that large numbers of these students are unable to identify gray area issues and lack sensitivity to the context dependence of these. We also show that a considerable proportion of students have a poor understanding of concepts like plagiarism and falsification, not only in gray zone scenarios, but also in cases of relatively clear-cut cheating. Our results are similar across the faculties and countries of study, and even for students who have attended academic integrity training. We discuss the implications of this for academic integrity training.

Background Studies on academic integrity reveal high rates of plagiarism and cheating among students. We have developed an online teaching tool, Integrity Games (https://integgame.eu/), that uses serious games to teach academic integrity. In this paper, we test the impact of a soft intervention – a short quiz – that was added to the Integrity Games website to increase users’ interest in learning about integrity. Based on general principles of behavioral science, our quiz highlighted the intricacy of integrity issues, generated social comparisons, and produced personalized advice. We expected that these interventions would create a need for knowledge and encourage participants to spend more time on the website. Methods In a randomized controlled trial involving N = 405 students from Switzerland and France, half of the users had to take a short quiz before playing the serious games, while the other half could directly play the games. We measured how much time they spent playing the games, and, in a post-experimental survey, we measured their desire to learn about integrity issues and their understanding of integrity issues. Results Contrary to our expectations, the quiz had a negative impact on time spent playing the serious games. Moreover, the quiz did not increase participants' desire to learn about integrity issues or their overall understanding of the topic. Conclusions Our quiz did not have any measurable impact on curiosity or understanding of integrity issues, and may have had a negative impact on time spent on the Integrity games website. Our results highlight the difficulty of implementing behavioral insights in a real-world setting.

Background: Minimal research has been done to determine how well European nursing students understand the core principles of academic integrity and how often they deviate from good academic practice. Aim: The aim of this study was to find out what educational needs nursing students have in terms of academic integrity. Research design: A quantitative cross-sectional study in the form of a survey of nursing students was conducted via questionnaire in the fall of 2020. Participants: The sample was composed of 79 students in the BScN and MScN programs at Zürich University of Applied Sciences. Ethical considerations: An application for a non-competence clearance was approved by the Ethics Committee in Zurich (BASEC No. Req-2020-00868). The survey was anonymous, and informed consent was obtained prior to participation. Results: The participants had a high level of confidence in their own knowledge but were in many cases unable to correctly identify clear-cut examples of misconduct and to differentiate them from questionable practices. About 13% of the participants admitted that during their university education they had copied shorter passages from other sources into their own text without marking them as quotes. Conclusions: The study documents extensive knowledge gaps among nursing students regarding both academic misconduct and questionable practices and indicates a need for improved academic integrity training.

Jacob Marks sag om eksamenssnyd illustrerer, hvordan universiteterne lader de studerende i stikken, når det kommer til at formidle egne regler om eksamenssnyd.

Mange bachelorstuderende savner viden om, hvad der er god akademisk praksis, hvad der er snyd, og hvad der ligger i gråzonen.

Questionable authorship practices in scientific publishing are detrimental to research quality and management. The existing literature dealing with the prevalence, and perceptions, of such practices has focused on the medical sciences, and on experienced researchers. In contrast, this study investigated how younger researchers (PhD students) from across the faculties view fair authorship attribution, their experience with granting guest authorships to more powerful researchers and their reasons for doing so. Data for the study were collected in a survey of European PhD students. The final dataset included 1,336 participants from five European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland) representing all major disciplines. Approximately three in ten reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to “a person in power”. Half of these indicated that they had done so because they had been told to do so by the person in power. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they had granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties. We identified four general views about what is sufficient for co-authorship. There were two dominant views. The first (inclusive view) considered a broad range of contributions to merit co-authorship. The second (strongly writingoriented) emphasised that co-authors must have written a piece of the manuscript text. The inclusive view dominated in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. Participants from other faculties were more evenly distributed between the inclusive and writing oriented view. Those with an inclusive view were most likely to indicate that they have granted a guest authorship. According to the experiences of our participants, questionable authorship practices are prevalent among early-career researchers, and they appear to be reinforced through a, Questionable authorship practices in scientific publishing are detrimental to research quality and management. The existing literature dealing with the prevalence, and perceptions, of such practices has focused on the medical sciences, and on experienced researchers. In contrast, this study investigated how younger researchers (PhD students) from across the faculties view fair authorship attribution, their experience with granting guest authorships to more powerful researchers and their reasons for doing so. Data for the study were collected in a survey of European PhD students. The final dataset included 1,336 participants from five European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland) representing all major disciplines. Approximately three in ten reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to “a person in power”. Half of these indicated that they had done so because they had been told to do so by the person in power. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they had granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties. We identified four general views about what is sufficient for co-authorship. There were two dominant views. The first (inclusive view) considered a broad range of contributions to merit co-authorship. The second (strongly writing-oriented) emphasised that co-authors must have written a piece of the manuscript text. The inclusive view dominated in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. Participants from other faculties were more evenly distributed between the inclusive and writing oriented view. Those with an inclusive view were most likely to indicate that they have granted a guest authorship. According to the experiences of our participants, questionable authorship practices are prevalent among early-career researchers, and they appear to be reinforced through a combination of coercive power relations and dominant norms in some research cultur

Plagiarism and other transgressions of the norms of academic integrity appear to be a persistent problem among upper secondary students. Numerous surveys have revealed high levels of infringement of what appear to be clearly stated rules. Less attention has been given to students’ understanding of academic integrity, and to the potential misconceptions and false beliefs that may make it difficult for them to comply with existing rules and handle complex real-life situations. In this paper we report findings from a survey of European upper secondary students’ views on issues relating to academic integrity. We relate these findings to the students’ training about academic integrity, self-reported level of questionable behavior and country of study. A total of 1654 students at 51 institutions located in 6 European countries participated in the study. The participants generally believed they had a good understanding of the rules applying to them and knew how to behave in compliance with norms of academic integrity. The results indicate, however, that often, in practice, this belief was mistaken. Many students had an inadequate understanding of core elements of academic integrity. They were uncertain about how to act, and they struggled in the handling of complex situations that require context-sensitive judgement. While some differences between countries were identified, they were modest and exhibited no clear pattern. Our results also suggest that reducing students’ level of uncertainty and, to a lesser degree, improving their level of knowledge could lead them to engage less in certain types of questionable behaviours. Surprisingly, the effect of academic training is modest and ambiguous. The study also confirms that perception of peer behaviour has the strongest association with student engagement in questionable behaviours. Thus, academic integrity at the upper secondary level cannot be explained simply in terms of individual ethics or knowledge., Plagiarism and other transgressions of the norms of academic integrity appear to be a persistent problem among upper secondary students. Numerous surveys have revealed high levels of infringement of what appear to be clearly stated rules. Less attention has been given to students’ understanding of academic integrity, and to the potential misconceptions and false beliefs that may make it difficult for them to comply with existing rules and handle complex real-life situations. In this paper we report findings from a survey of European upper secondary students’ views on issues relating to academic integrity. We relate these findings to the students’ training about academic integrity, self-reported level of questionable behavior and country of study. A total of 1654 students at 51 institutions located in 6 European countries participated in the study. The participants generally believed they had a good understanding of the rules applying to them and knew how to behave in compliance with norms of academic integrity. The results indicate, however, that often, in practice, this belief was mistaken. Many students had an inadequate understanding of core elements of academic integrity. They were uncertain about how to act, and they struggled in the handling of complex situations that require context-sensitive judgement. While some differences between countries were identified, they were modest and exhibited no clear pattern. Our results also suggest that reducing students’ level of uncertainty and, to a lesser degree, improving their level of knowledge could lead them to engage less in certain types of questionable behaviours. Surprisingly, the effect of academic training is modest and ambiguous. The study also confirms that perception of peer behaviour has the strongest association with student engagement in questionable behaviours. Thus, academic integrity at the upper secondary level cannot be explained simply in terms of individual ethics or knowledge.

More and more research institutions are implementing courses in research integrity (RI). Recent studies indicate that teachers of RI courses are increasingly adopting a “phronetic” approach to their teaching, where the focus is on nurturing values and practical wisdom—what Aristotle called phronesis. When adopting a phronetic approach, it is important to understand what phronesis in relation to RI entails and how and to what extent an RI course can contribute to the development of research phronesis. This paper contains a practice-based discussion of the realistic aims of RI courses and a first step towards a specification of the skill set necessary for developing research phronesis drawing on experiences from the PhD courses on Responsible Conduct of Research at the University of Copenhagen. We discuss the limited extent to which research phronesis can be taught in short courses and examine the broader implications of this for the role of RI courses in the training of good researchers.

Students are often reluctant to report the academic dishonesty of their peers. Loyalty to friends and classmates has previously been identified as an important reason for this. This paper explores loyalty conflicts among students from upper secondary school, through bachelor’s, to Ph.D. level. Drawing on semi-structured qualitative interviews (N = 72) conducted in Denmark, Ireland and Hungary, we show that loyalty considerations among students can be complex and draw on a range of norms including responsibility. The study demonstrates how students are often willing to assume substantial personal responsibility for dealing with the academic dishonesty of a peer, often preferring this to reporting. However, when deciding on the right course of action, they also perceive tensions between the norms of the good researcher and student and their own norms of being a good friend and person. The loyalty considerations and tension were identified in all three countries and across the educational levels, which suggests that this is a cross-cultural challenge. We argue that institutions should formally decide whether they want students to take some degree of responsibility themselves for addressing less serious cases of academic dishonesty and communicate their decision to their students.