 So, hello everyone. This is ENAI monthly webinars hosted by the Center for Research Ethics and Bioethics at Uppsala University in collaboration with European Ethical Academic Integrity, my name is Sonya Biobaba. And today with us we have Rita Santos and Salim Razi from The Faith Project and they are going to talk about support for victims of academic misconduct and interactive portal and support network that's developed as a part of a faith project in collaboration with ENAI. So, Rita, would you like to tell us a couple of words about yourself? About me? Yeah, so thank you first Sonya and ENAI for the invitation and the Center for Research Ethics and Bioethics from Uppsala University. It's a pleasure to be here. It's a pleasure to talk, to give the space to talk about the topic that it's often not really talked in our community and it's such an important topic, a topic to raise awareness on the victims of academic misconduct. So, my name is Rita Santos. I'm currently replacing our bill of data, which is in maternity leave as an ENAI executive director. I'm also a senior researcher and project manager at ENAI. And I'm going to share my screen now. Before you do, perhaps we can just give a few minutes to Salim as well to present himself. So, you are the leader of The Faith Project and coming from Chanakali University. Thank you Sonya for the invitation, for this presentation to disseminate the project further to our ENAI colleagues and for ENAI partners. Indeed, I'm the coordinator of The Faith Project and I'm also joining from Chanakali University, Turkey. I'm the director of the Center for Academic Integrity there and I've been involved in the ENAI board as well. It's our pleasure here today to talk about The Faith Project and mainly the third project result of The Faith Project, which is support for victims portal, which is led by ENAI, I mean, Rita. So, we will all have a lot to learn from Rita here about recent developments regarding the portal. Thank you. So, Rita, you will tell us more about this portal and afterwards I'll get back to you, Salim, to tell us more about The Faith Project and what's more to expect that. So, Rita, the floor is yours. Thank you and thank you Salim for the introduction. I'm going to share my screen and reduce. So, again, thank you for this invitation and today I want to start by, well, I already start a brief introduction, but I want to contextualize more my who I am and my background, and then I want us to reflect together on whether victims of academic misconduct feel supported and this is an important topic for us today to discuss. Before, so then we can go and talk and go in detail about our victim support portal as Salim said is one of the outputs of The Faith Project and the rationale that we had to develop this portal. And I want to, I want to take the last few minutes of this webinar today to talk about the lessons that we learned so far from the victims that we have been supporting. And of course, answer your question and answers. You are welcome to leave your questions in the chat throughout this presentation today, and then we will reserve some time to answer your questions. And then, as Sonia said, we'll have Salim again to talk about the future of the Rasmus was faith project and the victim support portal. So who am I already said I'm an executive director senior researcher and project manager, and I'm the coordinator of the victim support portal and the working group that we have at and I about supporting victims victims of academic misconduct. And I think it's important for you to understand my background and how I ended up working in academic integrity. You see, I was my background is in marine biology, but then I went to the UK to do my PhD. And when doing my PhD, I was a victim of miss academic misconduct. But I took the my experience and the situation that I was facing on the positive side on on on on on an expert that how can I help others in the future. So having that in mind, then when I finished my PhD, I enrolled as a junior researcher at the age 2020 integrity project. You will have this presentation so then you can have a look at the project. This was a project that already finished and had as a name to develop educational materials on academic integrity and responsible content for for students from high school PhD level. And then I wanted to continue I wanted to continue working with with the expert in this area and I couldn't find a better family to work with than and I to continue to raise awareness on on on academic integrity and the importance of fostering academic integrity. Because when we talk about quality of academic work of the scientific output. We are talking about the principles of academic integrity, the honesty respect respect with others accountability for your research and your work ethical values morality, but we need to consider also the dark side, what I like to call the dark side academic misconduct, and this unfortunately happens in our community we have cases of plagiarism, data manipulation contract cheating, those kind of behaviors that undermine the trust in the in the scientific output in the quality of the work and in the relationship among peers, when you think about the imbalance of the relationship between a supervisor and this and the student. And I was recently interviewed to talk about the victim support portal by a check magazine magazine for universities, universities. And the journal is she asked me, Rita, how prevalent, how common are our, our academic misconduct practice, do all researchers engage in this is this so frequently. And I said to her, I'm saying that it's it's frequently that we all do know we don't but perhaps the what we need to take into account is that we are raising attention to these cases we are researching about these cases, we have the example from finale that says that 2% of researchers admitted having manipulated data and 34 other personal practice. But with the interesting part here, although this is alarming but the interesting part is when, when we assess the, the, the behavior of the colleagues, the perception of colleagues who have seen or suspect that they are fellows are engaging in any questionable practice or, or misconduct itself, the admission rates are much higher. And I wonder, and I would like us today to reflect how many of these cases are actually reported to the institutions, and how we as a community can work. So these numbers, instead of rising, they drop. And this is the important. This isn't important as a take off message that we need to work with. Especially when we when we see also the results from the this year nature postgraduate survey. It's alarming, and it is shocking that our students and master and PhD students, they face high levels of stress and poor work life balance and anxiety or depression. And then when we go deeper on these results. Then we see that when we have the question, do you feel that you have experienced bullying doing a graduate degree. I understand said yes, this is shocking. And this should bring us to reflect what we are doing wrong, or how we as an institution are failing to our students. And then, when we talk about, are you able to speak without fearing the consequences. Even the house said no. I mean, we have our students. And when I say students, this might be translated also and this is likely to be transferred to researchers itself. People are feeling afraid to speak about being mistreated during their studies doing their research about bad actions that they see. And they feel afraid of speaking up of raising their voice, because of the fears of the consequences. And this is alarming this is shocking. This shows that we as a community, instead of building this secure place for people to report. We are actually building this fear for someone to speak up to speak up about an act about action, afraid of the consequences afraid of not getting a PhD master degree afraid of not having a career afraid of being judged by the peers. And who was the perpetrator, the supervisor, how we as a community can can can work on better supervision, how supervisors are failing. This needs to be to be reflected. So we don't end up in having students saying that I would do nothing to change. Is this nothing because they are hopeless, because they don't see a point of reporting, because they are afraid of reporting. Ultimately, supervisors should be the role models. And as I said at the beginning, I was affecting of misconduct, and without going into details about what happened. I just want to say that sometimes if you need to fish on sharks, you should fish on sharks, you know, if the imbalance of the relationship between a supervisor and the student and the supervisor is already high. And supervisors should think about how they, they, they, they, they supervise their students and the institution itself needs to protect the student and the student law. So sometimes if we need to go to the higher fish, let's fish that that without fearing the consequence without fearing the bad reputation that that that might bring. But we need to think clearly how each one of us can work in our own institutions. And having that in mind, there's also the concept who is a victim. Well, there's a negativity side and emotional context about a context about a victim, because often someone who is facing me was being mistreated with facing some kind of misbehavior from other, don't want to really assume that I am a victim because of the connection with a strong connection with the words, but we see this we see this when we have either the PhD that stole the data we see this when, even as a teacher you see your materials being sell on the internet or the paper was Yes, you are a victim and you have a voice and your voice needs to be heard. And this is an important thing to consider. Not be afraid to speak up, but but it needs to be given the space to speak to tell your your issue to tell with confidence and with the hope that what you are the issue that you are raising will be heard and will be dealt appropriately in your own institution in your own setting. So I have here different types of different, different situations, different actions that bring us as a victim, even, for example, people that both the whistle, the whistle, whistleblowers. How are these people protected, how they, they can blow the whistle and still have a career and I will go back to this just in a minute later in the presentation. So, when I ask, do victims of academic needs kind of feel supported. There's few research. First, there's few research on report on actually reporting academic research misconduct and the impact on both the victims and the people they they they accuse. And it's important to have in mind that filling charges can be risky and can be risky because, as I said, the fear of the consequences the fear of the for career for for the reputation among peers. But ultimately, this is a responsibility for all of us. This is a responsible as a community to speak when we see when we suspect of something is not right. But speaking, when we speak, we need to speak with responsibility. And this is a very, very important word that that I would like us all to have it in mind here. There's always two sides of every story. There's always two sides. There's two sides of the con. We have the victim perspective and the, the, the responders perspective and both need to be protected. And having that in mind, when, when we see that something is not right. This paper from Gonzales bring us and very, very important perspective that we need, perhaps to consider before raising the formal complaint. And this is the, there's a set of rules that are very important and all rules go back to the first one. So when you, when we see something that it might, this might not be look good. Let's, is this really a misconduct? There might be other explanation. And consider that you might be wrong. You might not have the clear picture of everything. You might, you might not have are, you might not be in the possession of all the information you need to make a claim that yes, this is a misconduct. Let's first ask questions. Approach the person that you are with some kind of suspicion. And if the person doesn't answer your questions, then ask yourself rule number three, what documentation supports my concern? Do I have all the data I need, all the proofs that I need to go ahead with my claim? Do I have access to it? Do I have it written and in my, in my foot, because this will be important later on if you decide to raise a complaint. This will be critical, critical to show to the investigation committee that you actually have supporting documents from for your claims and not, not based on someone said this, said that, said that actual facts, actual facts. And rule number four is also crucial here. Separate your personal from your professional concerns. How many cases do we know that are actually motivated by some sort of jealousy, misinterpretations, miscommunication among teams? How many cases do we know that are actually miscommunication and mistreatment than the ones that are actually misconduct cases? And this is important. Stick to the facts, stick with your professional relationship and not your personal conflict with someone. And rule number five, assess your goals. What are you seeking from this situation? Ask yourself, what do I want from this situation? Is this just a matter of making what is right, being a responsible academic, being a responsible student, being a responsible researcher, making, raising a complaint because someone is going to publish a paper based on data that was somehow, for example, fabricated. But are you sure what you're saying? Because this is, these are very serious accusations. You need to be aware and what are you seeking? How many cases we see dealt at the public eye that people go to the journals and they report the situation? And without actually based on a clear process on all the evidence. But if you pick all the boxes for all these rules, you have seen something or if you are experiencing something that doesn't look right. You have approached the person, you have tried to understand the situation, you have asked all the questions, you have all the data, you need to support your claims, you have all the evidence, you separate, it's not a matter of personal, you know, a work dispute, a personal problem with someone. You have assessed your goals, what you are seeking from this situation, then talk with someone that might be unbiased and seek the advice and listen to it. Please, for example, could be the ethics officer from your institution that would then help you on the process to make a formal complaint. So if you are sure about your allegation, you will need to initiate the formal proceedings, but please be prepared for the long process. These are processes that challenge you on the personal and professional level and learn from the process, learn from the entire process, how the institution supported you during the process, how the policies that are in place or the procedures that are in place should be revised. How can I work with the institution to make these policies and procedures more clear and more straightforward? How the process itself could evolve? And when the investigation reached to the end and the person that is accused is found guilty or not, but has gone through the process. Let's avoid continue blaming the person because, and this is an important, this is a very, there's a very interesting article from Lex Balter and Hendricks about both whistleblowers and the scientists they accuse are vulnerable and deserve protection. And this is something, as I said at the beginning, if we need to fish some sharks, let's fish some sharks, but let's also try to return the shark to the sea and help navigate in the right side, in the right waters. Because we as a community, we should report the cases that we see, but also help the person, help the person to retreat, to be better, to make better next time. How many cases do we know of students that have committed plagiarism? Because they actually were not taught in the right way. They were not taught on academic integrity, on good academic, on academic practice. We need to raise these cases, but support each other and support both the victim and the person that did something not good. If the person show willingness to improve, to make better for the next time, how many of us have a second chance in life, you know? So let's contribute for making this community, this scientific community a space for making better, helping each other to be better researchers, be better teachers, be better students. And having that in mind, and because NI has received over the years, requests for support, for people asking for support from NI on the cases that they were dealing. In 2019, NI established a new working group, the support for victims of academic misconduct. And the work developed during this working group was the prototype of the interactive web portal for victims of academic malpractice. And this prototype was presented at NI annual conference in 2020 in Dubai. And later on was included in the FATE project. And this was important to enable further development and continue this supporting platform for victims of academic misconduct and to allow long term support for victims. So as Salim already mentioned at the beginning, and I'm going to explain this briefly, the Erasmus Plus FATE project is a project that is currently running until February of 2025. And NI is a partner along with four other partners, and it's coordinated by Salim from the Chanako University in Turkey. It has three, I mean three outputs, and the victim support portal is part of the PR3, where we aim to establish an interactive portal and support network for victims of academic misconduct. So what we have done so far in PR3, we are currently trying to understand the different needs of our potential victims. We are doing this through a literature review about the different target groups, students, researchers, academics, on their perception, experience, and the important aspect here is supporting the service available at institutions for victims. We are trying to do a literature review on the supporting mechanisms for victims. And we are also working on developing an online survey to assess the needs of victims of academic and research malpractice. And then we have our victim support portal that in PR3B. And along with the victim support portal, we are developing educational materials and mentoring support. This webinar, for example, will be available, will be made available in our victim support portal. But we have also developed other materials. We have developed videos explaining how to navigate in the portal. We have developed presentations, and we are giving this mentoring support that I'll be talking just in a minute. So I invite you all to have a look at the victim support portal. You might have seen through an eye newsletter and an eye social media. We have been promoting a lot our portal. We have been every month there's the presentation of our mentors. There's also the presentation of our resources, for example, on the story section, on the blog, on the resource as well. And as I said, our aim in the victim support portal is to establish a confidential support network for anyone who is facing any issue related to academic or research malpractice. We have a secure space to report the situation and obtain advisory service from our mentors. We have mentors that are experts in academic and research integrity and dedicate their time in supporting people. And ultimately, we'll raise awareness on the need to implement effective supporting mechanisms for victims to have a space to share their concerns and to be guided on the kind of actions that they might do. So, ultimately, why we have developed this portal, I have already explained our aims, but to whom was this portal built? Anyone, absolutely anyone seeking the advice. We provide advice for anyone who might be struggling with the case, with an issue who might be trying to find some sort of actions to take some steps to follow. From students, researchers, academic staff, journal editors, ethics officers, integrity officers, we help anyone. And we provide advice to anyone globally. Although we have currently our portal in English, we also provide advice to people that reach to us in different languages. For example, the interview that I gave is currently available both in English and in Czech. And how can you obtain support from us? You simply describe your problem to us, and I'll show you how, just in a second. You describe your problem and you will receive the advice from our mentors. And this communication will be 100% private, will be private from the minute you submit your case to the advice that the mentor will provide you. So, in terms of workflow, you describe your issue, and it's private by default when asking for support, then your request for support is only visible to the administrators and the mentors of the portal. That as I said that were our experts in academic and research integrity, these mentors are researchers and academics from the FATE project, but also from the NIH extended network. They assess your case and how we decide on the mentor, we decided based on the nature of the case and the expertise of the mentor. So, for example, I am an administrator. When I receive a request for support, I along with the two other administrators, we assess together who is the mentor more suitable to provide the advice. And the mentor, maybe one or two, they assess and discuss the case and provide the set of advice to the person that reported the situation through the portal. All communications are made through the portal. And this is important to secure confidentiality, privacy. It's important to keep all conversations through the portal. So, if you are facing any issue and you'd like to get support, or if you know someone who might be struggling with the case and would like to receive support, you can do it in the ask questions section. As I said, private posts are private by default. You might select the category, and this help us because it might help us then to facilitate the allocation of the mentors. No match the category with the expertise of the mentor. And you might select the mentor, but this is optional. And you might select the mentor based on their expertise. If you go in the victim support portal section menu and then you click, there's the list of mentors. I'm going to show you in a minute, but each mentor has their expertise there. You just click on the mentor and you are able to see the expertise. And then if you want, you choose the mentor that you would like to obtain support from. Something that is important to consider here is we ask for the email of the person when submitting the request for support. This email is only for sending a notification email when the mentor has reached you and to send you a notification email that your case was successfully sent to our team. And this is only available to the administrators of the portal. So we don't, of course, for privacy concern, we only use the email for that for sending notification emails. And this is explained in the frequently asked questions in the portal. So when you submit your question, your request for support, you are guaranteed that your case will be dealt privately. It won't be visible publicly in the portal and only visible to the administrators and mentors of the portal. So as I said, who are our mentors, there are researchers and academics from the FATE project and I, experts in different topics of research and they are here to dedicate their time in supporting anyone. So this is actually an opportunity that other places don't have, especially institutions, that we gather here, the minds, the expertise of people that have been dedicating their life in doing great work in integrity issues and they are notable in terms of what actions can be done according to the nature of the case. And they are here to support and that's the important part, without any judgment, they are here to support anyone. Let me just be caution on time. Okay, so, as I said, I've been advertising every month our mentors, for example, this month will be advertising Irene from the Conventry University at UK. And you are welcome to click on each mentor, learn their expertise, but you can only connect with them by asking for support. We don't offer the emails from the mentors to be contacted privately. We also make some cases public in our portal in the discussion forum. And these cases are made public with the informed consent from the victim and with anonymization of all details and why do we see this important to make some cases public. First, some cases that reach to us reflect common situations, situations that we have seen, that we have been asked for support before, and they have some common grounds. And we see this making a case public. Of course, as I said, anonymizing all the personal details. And particularly making the advice that mentors gave to this specific case might actually be supporting other people facing a similar problem. So with the discussion forum, we aim to support other users that visit our portal and might be struck with the same situation. They read the situation, and they read the advice provided by the mentors, they feel empowered, they feel that they know the necessary steps to take to today a case if it's a similar case. And this way, we raise awareness, we support people, and we aim to people to interact. We allow users to comment on the cases, but be sure that anyone can comment on the case, on the public case in the discussion forum, on the stories, on the blog as well. But any comment that is made is first made private and pending approval, because we want to make sure the appropriate language that is used. There's no such sort of harassment, negative language, because as I said, ultimately, we want to make this as an engaging community, a supporting community that people feel secure to share their issues. Others may support by providing their advice as well, but we don't want any, we want to avoid any kind of bad language, some kind of harassment, so all comments are first assessed by our team. And we specify this in our aims and guidelines, in our portal. We have also dedicated a dedicated section to talk about the Erasmus Plus Faith project, the information is also about NI. And we have the set of stories, a blog and a resource. We have a set of resources available for our users. The story section, for example, is made of real cases that were advertised in reliable magazine, reliable articles in news. And that reflect different topics of academic misconduct, for example, we have plagiarism, we have bullying, we have data manipulation. The blog is an important component of our portal, where our mentors and the network share personal reflections related to academic integrity, to academic misconduct. And our resources provide relevant bibliography that people can download, guideline documents as well, and as I said, our webinar will be made available in the resource section. And I invite everyone to contribute, we are happy to receive, if you see that there's a case that was advertised in news, in, for example, plagiarism today or other resources. Feel free to email me this story. If you want to contribute with the blog, with the blog text, share your story. Also, feel free to send it. And we allow, as I said, open discussions and open and healthy, positive discussions. So in every story, you will see at the end a set of questions to promote this discussion, to get people to talk, to talk about the topics, to talk about their views, and how they see these problems could be tackled. And this is our way also to build this community, to try to change things, to try to make it our institutions to reflect on how to approach cases. As I said, this is just an example of our stories under topics of plagiarism, the manipulation, the blog as well, our blog will be out every two months. And you'll be happy to, you are welcome to leave your comments and contribute as well. I will get back to the blog at the end of my presentation today, of my webinar today. We have guidelines, bibliography. Again, we welcome your contributions. And we have the frequently asked questions section of the portal. And this is important to clarify some concerns that our users might have, particularly on privacy and disability issues. And to make sure that, and this is an important consideration to take, we can only provide advice. We can only provide a set of advice on the actions that the person that is requesting for our support may take. We don't have the power. We don't have, we are not a legal advisory service to influence and to contact third parties. And this is something that is important. We provide only advice. We don't interfere with the, we don't interfere. Sorry, it's not the word, but we don't contact the institutions or the person that is under the claim of misconduct. In terms of the impact of the victims support so far. We have made two conference presentations, one at during the NIH annual conference in Porto this year. Also, another, the portal was was presented in October this year in the TKI 10 year anniversary conference. We've made one leaflet that is available in our portal in the section vocational materials and was presented in the World Conference of Research Integrity. We have made also local disseminations on during the NIH PhD summer school this year. Presentations made also by product partners. And as I said, I gave an interview about about the portal that is available in in in the educational section as well available both in English and in Czech. And since the portal was officially launched in May, until now, we have supported cases privately, one case was made public after of course anonymization of all details, and with the consent consent from the person from the victim. And our cases are flat. I've been reflecting cases of plagiarism, working dispute working conflict between between between peers, about the peer review process itself, some, some issues about publication ethics and research data issues. And so far, we have had over 5,700 page views. And we have users from over 500, we have, sorry, we have over 500 users from 60 countries. So we are attracting attention we are supporting people we are building this amazing work on supporting people who have been mistreated and who feel, who feel the need to get guidance on the on on an ethical behaviors from others. But we would like you to spread the word so to, if you know someone who is struggling, feel free to direct to our portal and we will, we are here to support everyone. And lessons learns from the portal so far, and this reach the is reaching the end of my webinar. So, in terms of the lessons that we've learned from the cases that we have been supporting. I think the first lesson that we've been learned that we learned is, there's always an emotional context, when someone approach us to request for to explain the case and request for support there's always an emotional setting. And it's understandable because this situation are usually difficult situations. These are requests for help. But one thing that we've learned is that details matter. The more detailed your case is the better the support with our mentors can provide. If you remember, at the beginning of my webinar when I, when I mentioned rule number three from the article of Gonzales about to do, are you in, do you have all the data all the, all the, all the information that supports your claim this is critical. This is critical that we that that when someone approaches reports and provides all the details. And another thing is, as I said, we can only provide support we don't interact with anyone else. And it's something that we've been discussing and that we learn is that we only hear one side of the story. And in every story there's two sides, so we can only work with one side of the story we can only provide the advice based on one on on the story that is told by the victim or the person that is reporting itself. And sometimes there's been cases where we where we provide a set of actions, structure actions, or for the person on knowing what to do to deal with the case. But there's other, there's been other, other cases where the person have done everything in the power has done everything to to deal with the situation. And this tells a lot also to the institutions itself, about the procedures that they have about how transparent how accessible those procedures are, and how, and the mechanisms of the support that those institutions have, and how what needs to be changed. So, the majority of the lesson if I, if I, if I was asked to enumerate is, although the cases are bring some emotions, try to be as objective as possible, provide all the details. Be, be sure of your claims, and we are here to support, but we can only give the advice and not talk on your behalf with your institutions. And to finalize, positivity is, and learning from the process is key when dealing with cases of academic misconduct. And this, and this is something that I invite you to have a look at the blog text from, from, from a victim that shared her story with us. And it's a powerful testimony of someone that has taken her situation in a positive way, in a positive mindset to, to, to, to employ a set of actions, and to take the most about the situation to learn from the process and not be taking negativity, revenge, resentment, because this help this, this person to, to improve, to, to work with the institution and, and receive the support from the institution to, to, to, to, for example, to, to, to employ training in academic integrity. That's what is one of the actions that is mentioned in the, in the text to, to inspire the new generation of researchers on academic integrity training on the good practice. And this is something that is critical positivity and learn not, not assume your role as a victim, as always on a negative side, but on something to empower you to first speak up, tell your story, learn from the process, take the process and help others facing situations that, that, that are, of course, difficult, and that undermine, ultimately, academic misconduct that undermine the trust in, in, in science. And I thank you all for your attention, and I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you very much. So thank you so much, Rita. This is really an important aspect of academic integrity. And I wish you good luck with the portal. Salim, I would like to ask you just what's next in the project. Thank you, Rita, for the wonderful presentation. I believe this provides good insights to the audience today about what we have achieved so far relating to the portal. So, indeed, considering the FATE project, we have three main outputs. The first output deals with policies, institutional academic integrity policies, where we focus on give specific attention to good practice for this purpose in the first year, indeed, we haven't finished the first year yet, but so far, within the last eight or nine months, we tried to collect policies globally relating to institutional academic integrity policies. So, we are now creating a corpus. And at the end of the first year, we will have created our corpus. And for next year, we will conduct analysis to our corpus. In our corpus, we are collecting institutional policies with some good samples and also with some issues that should be developed. Our ultimate goal with the policy analysis is, indeed, providing exemplary policies to the institutions, because when we were drafting our proposal for the project, this was the issue that we called attention. Earlier, our colleagues such as, for example, Irene Glendenink and Tomas, they already conducted some research and some project relating to this. And we already know that institutions across Europe and beyond Europe, there are some institutions suffering from policies, poorly written policies, or there are still some institutions without any academic integrity policies. Our goal with the first project result is providing some suggestions for the institutions to develop or to revise their policies by taking exemplary policies into account. For this purpose, our first target group is, indeed, accreditation agencies. Since the project is coordinated by Çanakkale 16 Mart University, which is located in Turkey. So far, I contacted the higher education Turkish higher education accreditation agency, the president and the president of the agency is following our project very closely. And they ensure me that they will take our results into consideration so that, indeed, for the accreditation of Turkish higher education institutions, the project results seem to contribute in the accreditation process. And meanwhile, I received another invitation from Senka. This is central and I believe Eastern European higher education accreditation agency network. So I'll be familiarizing them with our projects and hopefully if they agree to collaborate or cooperate with us. Of course, we'll be sharing our results with them. So, which means that we will have a better impact through Europe for the European universities. This is the first aspect relating to project result one and the other one for the second project result. This time, we focused on our proactive approach to deter academic misconduct. For this purpose, for the second project result, we focused on educational materials. So indeed, throughout the project, we give priority to a pedagogical approach. As you can already remember from Rita's presentation, okay, we are dealing with academic misconduct cases. However, we are not blaming anyone. Indeed, we are trying to understand the roots of the problems. And we are trying to have an approach, have a preventive approach to prevent these problems occur. I mean, if this is because of students, let's say, for example, indicate of plagiarism. If this is because of students, then we try to teach students some issues, some preventive plagiarism strategies. Or if you realize that, oh, this is because of lectures, let's say, for example. So what is missing there? So we try to develop some materials, some pedagogical materials that will be helpful both for the promotion of academic integrity and for the prevention of academic misconduct. Since we proposed this project proposal during COVID, we also tried to include, give some priority to digitalization and also emergency remote teaching. And for this purpose, considering the educational pedagogical activities under the second project result. We also try to collect and develop some materials relating to this issue as well. And you already know about the third project result, which is support for victims. So indeed, they are all completing each other. Before, before I finalize, I'd like to inform the audience here about the summer schools in our academic integrity PhD summer school indeed reorganize the first summer school in 2021. And later this summer, the second one, the second in high summer school at the time of project proposal submission. There was no summer school, so it was not indeed included as summer school in the project proposal, however, later after organizing the first in high summer school, we decided to turn our learning teaching training activities into in high summer schools. And this year, we organized summer school in Chanakale, and it was indeed a pilot activity. Next year, we will be organizing the other summer school in Maribor. And it will be a collaboration at learning teaching training activity of the faith project. And for 2024, the summer school PhD summer school will be in constants as another learning training teaching activity of the project. So I'd like to encourage especially PhD students to take these PhD summer schools, which are free activities for PhD PhD students to take them into consideration. Maribor summer school will be in August. The third week August and constant summer school will be in the second week of September in 2024. Please subscribe to our newsletter in our newsletter so that you don't miss any of these free opportunities. And we have two multiplier events. We already organized the first multiplier event in Porto as the NIH annual conference and in 2024, we will be organizing the last multiplier event of the project as annual NIH conference in Chanakale. Probably the conference will be during summer, probably in August. So the delegates will be able to enjoy some here in addition to attending, attending sessions. Thank you once again for joining us today and thank you once again Rita for the wonderful presentation and Sonya for hosting us today. Thank you. Thank you so much. And what a finish of these in our webinars for this year. I wish you both good luck with the project. And please sign up for our newsletter. You can find more information on the project. And as well as the summer school and the conferences on our website, academicintegrity.eu. And next year, we will continue with the webinars. The first one is February 10th with Anna Albachina, who is going to talk about the rising threat of paper mills. After that, we will continue with many different subjects such as gamification in academic integrity, survey design, and we'll talk about our conference. And we will present a brand new working group that is within ENI called Ethical Academic Writing. So stay tuned. More information is coming. This webinar has been recorded. If you missed some of our previous webinars, you can find them on our website, as well as on the ENI YouTube channel. Thank you so much for today. Rita and Celine, and good luck with your project. Thank you.