{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-e07eb81b0b2e8e8e","slug":"2021-12-03-open-science-implications-for-research-governance-access-and-integrity","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2021-12-03","last_modified_date":"2021-12-03","title":"Open science: implications for research governance, access and integrity","summary":"Sets out the scope, decision criteria and evidential basis relevant to open science: implications for research governance, access and integrity.","category":{"code":"STANDARDS_INTERPRETATION","label":"Standards Interpretation"},"article_type":"Standards interpretation","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"Recommendation adopted on 23 November 2021","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The present attention to open science follows the recommendation adopted on 23 November 2021 and requires a careful distinction between public commitment, institutional practice and demonstrated result. The analysis of the stated expectation proceeds on the basis that interpretation should begin with the intended outcome, then identify the controls and evidence needed to show that the outcome is achieved across the declared scope. The unit of review should correspond to the full reach of the decision, including significant differences in provision and population."]},{"heading":"Meaning in practice","paragraphs":["The formal status of the recommendation adopted on 23 November 2021 should be preserved in any public account. For open science, the instrument should be used to identify the intended direction, the actors addressed and the implementation measures that remain necessary.","The Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence was adopted in November 2021. It establishes a global ethical framework addressing human rights, fairness, transparency, accountability, privacy, data governance, human oversight and environmental and social effects. In education, these principles require use-specific assessment: a system supporting routine administration does not carry the same risk as one influencing admission, assessment, progression or learner welfare.","Implementation of the stated expectation should be organised around a decision that can be tested. The analysis of the stated expectation proceeds on the basis that a provider should be able to trace the expectation from approved policy through implementation, monitoring, identified exceptions and corrective action. In relation to open science, the implementation record should link purpose, authority, resources, operation and reported result.","The principal risks in relation to the control are reasonable adjustment altering the assessed outcome, inconsistent judgement between markers or locations, results used beyond the evidence they support, and tasks that do not assess the stated outcome. In relation to open science, the relationship between the risks is material: one failed safeguard may remove the evidence needed to activate another. Review should follow the sequence of decisions and records rather than assess documents in isolation.","A focused examination of the assurance question requires a clear analytical discipline. The analysis of the stated expectation proceeds on the basis that the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. A failure at an interface may have greater learner impact than a weakness confined to one function. An imprecise scope or measure may produce a credible-looking record that does not answer the relevant decision question.","Assurance of the control should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include analysis of results and differential outcomes, appeal and correction records, authorship and identity controls proportionate to risk, approval and change-control records, and marking criteria and calibrated judgement."]},{"heading":"Responsibilities and material risks","paragraphs":["Interpretation of open science should avoid two errors: treating a formal commitment as proof of effect, and treating one adverse case as proof that every part of the system has failed. In reviewing the assurance question, reliability without validity produces consistent but potentially irrelevant results. Validity without adequate consistency may expose learners to unequal judgement. For the relevant requirement, the volume of documentation is not a measure of conformity. Relevance, integrity and coverage are more important than the number of records produced.","Traceability is necessary for accountable decision-making and fair correction. For the control, the responsible body should be able to identify the evidence considered, the judgement made, the person or body authorised to make it and the action that followed. Material changes require a traceable effective date and explanation so that prior reliance can be reviewed fairly."],"bullets":["Align tasks and criteria with learning outcomes.","Calibrate assessors.","Control changes.","Moderate material variation.","Retain evidence sufficient for review before it is relied on for a decision with material effect."]},{"heading":"Basis for a reliable conclusion","paragraphs":["Implementation of open science can be tested without imposing unnecessary reporting. Review of the control should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. A case-by-case response is insufficient when evidence shows recurrence or a population beyond the cases already identified. Reuse of existing information is appropriate only where its purpose, scope and reliability correspond to the decision under review.","The final record on the stated expectation should identify the applicable expectation, the relevant scope, the evidence examined, the sampling basis, material exceptions and the reason for the conclusion. Equivalent methods should be assessed by demonstrated result, with the basis for acceptance retained. Unresolved limitations should be stated with the conclusion and carried forward for action."],"bullets":["What action is required by the finding?","Which evidence establishes operation?","Where do exceptions occur?","What outcome is intended?","Who controls each stage?"]},{"heading":"Maintaining effective oversight","paragraphs":["Where open science involves partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service. Governance between participating bodies should make information duties and corrective authority explicit. Division of delivery responsibilities must not create gaps in learner protection.","The system and institutional dimensions of the stated expectation should be considered together. In reviewing the assurance question, assessment should provide valid and sufficiently consistent evidence that the stated learning outcomes have been achieved by the learner receiving the result. Authorities and providers hold different responsibilities, both of which must be discharged for the arrangement to operate reliably. Neither public oversight nor provider control removes the responsibilities assigned to the other level.","The measure of progress on the control is not the amount of policy or documentation produced. Performance should be judged by outcomes and timely response to shortfalls, not by the volume of administrative activity."]}],"word_count":908,"content_hash":"sha256-ac4c89039d596ff462eb732cf95208230d64252e713bb45706a43f29fb28ed09","seo_keywords":["open science","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}