How to deal with violations of research integrity
How to deal with violations of research integrity
As mentioned before, ‘failing to follow good research practices violates professional responsibilities. It damages the research processes, degrades relationships among researchers, undermines trust in and the credibility of research, wastes resources and may expose research subjects, users, society or the environment to unnecessary harm’ (ALLEA, 2023). Therefore, it is also part of your professional responsibility to report possible breaches of research integrity
The ALLEA Code is clear on this matter as:
- ‘Ignoring putative violations of research integrity by others or covering up inappropriate responses to misconduct or other violations by institutions’, is considered an unacceptable practice.
Nowadays, most institutions have a policy or procedure in place that deals with violations of research integrity.
Not every situation will require you to file a complaint. In some cases you will ‘just’ have questions, experience lack of clarity about applicable rules and standards or feel you need someone to talk to and express your concerns to. In every university there are people to talk to, ranging from a network of local confidents in relation to research integrity, to ombudspersons (or confidential counsellors), either central (university wide) or specifically for (PhD-)researchers and their supervisors.
Committee for Research Integrity (Commissie voor Wetenschappelijke Integriteit – CWI)
Within Europe, investigations of potential breaches of research integrity are in most cases not a ‘legal’ issue. Instead, they are based on a framework of self-regulation in which the research community itself develops practices to take responsibility for integrity and the proper handling of violations of research integrity. To do so, many research institutions have an procedure in place that deals with violations of research integrity.
A central role is reserved for the Committee for Research Integrity. A committee consists of peers (researchers) and holds the responsibility to investigate possible violations of research integrity. After passing a formal procedure, the committee makes a decision about whether or not a violation has occurred. For this, the ALLEA Code is the framework used. Procedures are often long and intense but guarantee an objective and precise assessment of the complaint. Although differences between procedures between institutions may exists, the main characteristics are usually the same:
- evaluation by peers
- objective and neutral
- in depth investigation to the complaint
- input from all parties concerned
- respect for ‘rights of defence’
Your local CWI can also answer questions on possible protection of whistleblowers in case necessary.
Please note that, depending on the country you are working in, specific legislation regarding research integrity and misconduct may be in place, with the handling of misconduct followed up by national investigation committees instead of the local institutions.
It must be clear that only complaints made in good faith are admissible for investigation by a CWI. All complaints must also be well substantiated and contain an evidence base that is as precise and complete as possible. ‘Accusing a researcher of misconduct or other violations in a malicious way’ is considered an unacceptable practice, according to the ALLEA Code.
In many cases complaints regarding possible breaches of violations of research integrity are situated in existing conflict situations. In other cases it is the complaint itself that will cause a conflict situation. All universities are concerned with the well-being of complainants and take measures to minimize the potential risks of negative consequences, following a complaint made in good faith. At the minimum, every procedure guarantees confidentiality. It is also possible to make a complaint anonymously. In some universities this can be done in complete anonymity, in other universities you can only remain anonymous towards the person against whom you are filing a complaint.
Flemish Committee for Scientific Integrity
Also, for those parties feeling unheard or unhappy with the outcome of the CWI investigation, a second opinion can be requested from the Flemish Committee for Scientific Integrity (VCWI). You have 30 calendar days to do so, after receiving the final advice from the university CWI.
The core principles on research integrity are universal. This means that science, wherever it is undertaken, builds on the same set of values and norms. Although they are not always summarised in this particular order and described with this phrasing, they all come down to reliability, honesty, respect and accountability, as put forward in the ALLEA Code.
Interpretation of the values and principles, however, may be affected by social, political or technological developments and by changes in the research environment. It allows for local or national differences in its implementation. Therefore, a code of conduct is also a living document that is updated regularly. Many countries in Europe, but also beyond, have adopted the ALLEA Code as the leading document for daily research practice, but not all. Some have also made additional national and/or discipline specific codes. Other (non-)European countries might work with other codes to guide them.
As already indicated in Module 1, it is therefore important when engaging in collaborations, especially with non-European partners, to explicitly discuss views and definitions of the main aspects in the code. All parties should make specific arrangements at the start of their collaboration about how to put the principles into practice and what to do when issues arise.
Take home messages
After module 4, I:
- know what FFP and OUP stands for
- understand the difference between FFP, violations of research integrity including OUP
- know I can make an honest mistake and how to respond to it
- understand that the prevalence of research misconduct is lower than for violations of research integrity but that both can have a significant impact on the scientific work understand the stakeholder roles and their importance when it comes to research misconduct
- understand the nuanced view on the causes of research misconduct
- know about the risks and opportunities of collaborative working when it comes to research misconduct and how to prevent it
- understand what fabrication is, the stages of the research cycle it is most likely to appear and the stakeholders involved, also in collaborations
- understand what falsification is, including the difference with fabrication, and its impact
- understand what plagiarism is, including self-plagiarism, its impact, and the challenges in collaborations
- understand the scope of OUP’s and their impact
- know who to turn to when confronted with a (suspicion of) violation of research integrity
This might seem confusing at first. Discuss the guiding research integrity framework and the way to deal with possible violations when working with other colleagues, independent of where they come from. This should be done as soon as possible, and at the latest at the actual start of the research. It is advisable to include a research integrity policy in formal research administration agreements for collaborations, if it is possible to do so.