Credit Language
AC 8: Responsible Research & Innovation – Version 3.0
Indicators
- 8.1. Published ethical code of conduct for research
- 8.2. Recognition of integrated, community-based, and extra-academic research
- 8.3. Inter-campus collaboration for responsible research and innovation
- 8.4. Support for open access publishing
Questions & Answers
How has this credit changed between STARS Version 2 and Version 3?
This is a new credit in STARS that captures information found in 2.2 research credits, as well as new indicators to recognize published research codes of conduct, community-based research, research outside of academic journals, and inter-campus collaboratives. A comprehensive list of differences can be found in the STARS 3.0 Summary of changes.
What qualifies as a published ethical code of conduct for research (Indicator 8.1)?
To count, a publicly accessible set of guidelines related to ethical procedures for conducting research at an institution must be provided. Examples include:
- University of California, San Francisco – Code of Conduct & Integrity of Research
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Research Code of Conduct Standard
- University of Leicester – Research Code of Conduct
What qualifies as inter-campus collaboration for responsible research and innovation (Indicator 8.3)?
To claim point for indicator 8.3, the institution must be engaged in a cross-institution collaborative or network that has an explicit mission to promote responsible research and innovation (RRI) that actively addresses at least one of the following:
- Public engagement in research and innovation (e.g. a participatory research community of practice or citizen science initiative)
- The accessibility of scientific results (e.g., a network that aims to expand open access to published scientific research).
- The take up of gender and ethics in research and innovation content and process (e.g., a collaborative that aims to advance gender balance on research teams or gender equality in research proposals).
- Formal and informal science education (e.g., organized initiatives to make science education more inclusive, open, and responsive to community needs).
Examples that qualify include (but are not limited to) the following:
- Institutional member of the Responsible Research and Innovation Networked Globally (RRING)
- Institutional member of Open Access Australasia
- Institutional member of SPARC
Suggestions for Institutions
- Work with your institution’s libraries and responsible research partners to collect and report on the information found under this credit.
Example Responses
Potential Data Quality Issues
- Indicator 8.1. Ethical code of conduct for research – If reporting Yes, documentation provided must reference a code of conduct or similar policy statement that is focused on ethical research practices. Policies that don’t reference ethics in research are not sufficient.
- Indicator 8.2. Integrated, community-based, and extra-academic research – “Yes” responses must be supported in the descriptive fields.
- Indicator 8.3. To qualify, an inter-campus collaborative or network that promotes responsible research and innovation must be referenced.
- Indicator 8.4. To support a Yes response under Criterion 8.4.B and/or 8.4.C for open access policies, a policy requiring employees to publish scholarly works open access is required. The policy may allow for publisher embargoes and/or provide a waiver option, but this must be clarified in the descriptive text or policy upload.