What if research integrity is not respected?

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. And of course, it affects a professional career.

Research misconduct is traditionally defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (the so-called FFP-categorization) in proposing, performing, reviewing research or reporting research results.

The definition of research misconduct has expanded considerably in recent years. The ALLEA Code identifies three different types of violations of research integrity:

Research misconduct: fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP categorisation),
Violations of Good Academic Practices (GAPs) that distort the research record or damage the integrity of the research process or of researchers,
Other unacceptable practices (OUP). A few examples of the latter are:
- Manipulating authorship or denigrating the role of other researchers in publications.
- Citing selectively or inaccurately.
- Withholding research data or results without justification.
- Misrepresenting research achievements, data, involvement, or interests.
- Delaying or inappropriately hampering the work of other researchers.
- Misusing seniority to encourage violations of research integrity or to advance one’s own career.
- …

Some context

To define and describe a problem, often an estimation of size is used. To give a general and exact number of researchers who committed FFP or another unacceptable practice is impossible. Although universities are becoming more and more transparent about the numbers and nature of cases on research misconduct, most scientific studies are based on surveys, dependent on self-reporting. This method suffers from potential bias (Fanelli, 2009). Self-reports potentially lead to social desirable answers (a reputation of honesty and objectivity is fundamental for researchers) or inaccurate response; what researchers admit to is influenced f.e. by the perception of anonimity and confidentiality, by carelessness because of a lack of engagement or effort, by their dedication to protect the reputation of the field or, contrary, by their motivation to report from personal experience. Another issue are low response rates, causing a non-representative sample f.e. when those more interested in, aware of the topic or more eager to report on certain behaviour, are more likely to answer. All of this can compromise the results.

When it comes to misconduct, a pooled weighted average of 1.97% of scientists admitted having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% for falsification (Fanelli, 2009). On the prevalence of plagiarism researchers found that 1.7% of scientists reported their own plagiarism and that 30% reported the plagiarism of others (Pupovac & Fanelli, 2015).

More recent research shows various numbers of researchers admitting to FF(P), all within the 3% boundary (Xie et al. (2021): 2.9%; Kaiser et al. (2021) 0.2%, 0.3%, 0.5%). A recent survey in The Netherlands surprisingly showed prevalence over the last three years to be 4.3% for fabrication and 4.2% for falsification. One in twelve reported having falsified or fabricated their research at least once (Gopalakrishna et al., 2022).

Numbers are higher when it comes to questionable research practices and show variability amongst type of questionable research practices (QRP). In previous research the numbers for QRP go up to 33.7%. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleague’s numbers go up to 72%. (Fanelli, 2009). Also, more recent research shows occurrence between 10 and 20% for most types of QRP’s (Allum, 2023). The recent study in The Netherlands even suggests that questionable research practices may be as prevalent as 51.3%. This means that over the last three years one in two researchers frequently engaged in at least one QRP! (Gopalakrishna et al., 2022).

Looking into detail, numbers of QRP’s vary depending on the kind of unacceptable practice. For example, admitting having added at least one co-author without that person having a real input (gift authorship) is most common (Fanelli, 2009, Allum 2023), but also not conducting a thorough review and inadequate supervision are admitted by at least half of respondents (Allum, 2023). Also, in the recent Dutch study prevalence differs largely according to type of QRP, from 0.6% (improper referencing of sources), 4% (conclusions not sufficiently substantiated), over 14% (selectively cited references to enhance findings or convictions) to 17.5% (not submitting or resubmit valid negative studies for publication). (Gopalakrishna et al., 2022). Because of differences in the research design between the above studies, they are not directly comparable, and one cannot draw reliable conclusions on historic development, national differences or other background characteristics, as mentioned by Kaiser et al (2021).

Despite the unacceptable practices being less direct than FFP, and often considered ‘less serious’, Shaw (2019) suggests we may seriously underestimate their severity in many individual cases. According to Kaiser et al (2021) QRPs are still under-explored, and their precise boundaries and contents are in flux (Bouter et al., 2016; Martinson et al., 2005; Shaw, 2019).

“Publication pressure is the main reason researchers engage in violations of research integrity.”

For a long time, publication pressure was the most mentioned cause of violations of research integrity. However, more and in-depth research has shown a more complex story. After all, pressure in science is more diverse in form and scope than just publishing. As possible causes, reference was made to certain personal traits (please also see ‘Threats to research integrity’ in module 4) or even psychological dysfunction (Tijdink et al, 2016). More and more, researchers are looking at the research environment as a cause of misconduct such as the (lack of an) open research climate, the (dysfunctional) reward and evaluation system (Bouter, 2024). Recent work also points to the lack of responsible supervision and mentoring of junior researchers, the perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers and the subscription and perceived adherence to scientific norms (Gopalakrishna et al., 2022).

Although the chances of getting caught used to be very low, initiatives to detect problems in papers both pre- and post-publication are becoming more widespread and effective. For example, publishers are now developing and implementing a variety of tools to check submitted articles for research integrity issues. In addition, the scientific community has also taken a lot of initiatives to make pre-and post-publication peer review more effective at detecting misconduct and to encourage more replication studies. This is one of the reasons why Open Science, Open Data and team science are so important!

What to do when research integrity is not respected?

Every university in Flanders has an infrastructure in place that deals with fraud and misconduct in research. In every university there are people to talk to, ranging from a network of local confidants in relation to research integrity, to ombudspersons (confidential counsellors) at different levels. Each university has its own Committee for Research Integrity (Commissie voor Wetenschappelijke Integriteit, or CWI) that investigates complaints on potential breaches of research integrity. After carrying out a formal investigation, the committee advises the institution whether or not a breach has occurred. The ALLEA Code is the framework used to identify which type of violations have occurred.

The university’s Committee for Research Integrity is not a legal entity. This means – among other things – that there is no formal appeal procedure within the university setting. For those seeking a legally enforceable procedure or appeal, the complaint can be brought to court (instead of or after the CWI procedure).

Not as an appeal procedure, but in case parties feel unheard or are unhappy with the outcome of the CWI investigation, they can request a second opinion from the Flemish Committee for Scientific Integrity (Vlaamse Commissie voor Wetenschappelijke Integriteit, or VCWI).

Possibilities for dealing with issues:

Your local confidant within your research group, faculty or school
The faculty contact person for research integrity, the research integrity advisor at your institution, the official confidential counsellor
(the secretary of the) CWI
VCWI
Court for a legal procedure

Failing to follow good research practices violates professional responsibilities. Therefore, reporting possible breaches of research integrity is also part of your professional responsibility. 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.

If this all sounds a bit abstract you can always go through Module 4. FFP and other unacceptable practices are the main subject of Module 4: Violations of Research Integrity. The module also contains a number of guidelines for what to do when you have questions concerning research integrity issues and/or unacceptable practices occur.

Take home messages

After module 1, I:

Know that research integrity describes an attitude of researchers to conduct their research according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional standards
Understand that research integrity is inherently part of the quality assurance of daily research practice and that everybody (public, funders, researchers,) has a potential interest in the way research is done and its outcomes
Know that the ALLEA Code of Conduct for Research Integrity is a key document on responsible research and misconduct, describing the European perspective. Therefore, in collaborations, definitions and leading codes and documents on research integrity need to be discussed.
Understand that there are situations where good research practices are at risk, i.e. slippery slopes.
Know that research misconduct is traditionally defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, but that in recent years the definition of violations of research integrity has expanded considerably to also include violations of good research practices and Other Unacceptable Practices
Know that if research integrity is not respected, careers are at stake, but also the reputation of the research field, the university and science in general. It might also pose risks for public health and the wellbeing of research participants.
Understand that reporting possible breaches of research integrity is part of my professional responsibility and I am aware of the possibilities to do so.

References

ALLEA (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Revised Edition 2023. Berlin. DOI 10.26356/ECOC

Allum, N., Reid, A., Bidoglia, M., Gaskell, G., Aubert-Bonn, N., Buljan, I., Fuglsang, S., Horbach, S., Kavouras, P., Marušić, A., Mejlgaard, N., Pizzolato, D., Roje, R., Tijdink, J., & Veltri, G. (2023). Researchers on research integrity: a survey of European and American researchers. F1000Research, 12, 187. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128733.1

Andorno R. The Right to Science and the Evolution of Scientific Integrity. In: Porsdam H, Porsdam Mann S, eds. The Right to Science: Then and Now. Cambridge University Press; 2021:91-104.

Bouter, L.M., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N. et al. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Res Integr Peer Rev 1, 17 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5

Bouter, L. (2024). Why research integrity matters and how it can be improved. Accountability in Research, 31(8), 1277-1286. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2189010

Fanelli, D. (2009). How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLOS ONE, 4(5), Article e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

Gopalakrishna G, ter Riet G, Vink G, Stoop I, Wicherts JM, Bouter LM (2022) Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLoS ONE 17(2): e0263023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023

Ioannidis JPA, Pezzullo AM, Cristiano A, Boccia S, Baas J. Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors. PLoS Biol. 2025 Jan 30;23(1):e3002999. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002999. PMID: 39883670; PMCID: PMC11781634.

Kaiser M, Drivdal L, Hjellbrekke J, Ingierd H, Rekdal OB. Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Dec 21;28(1):2. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00351-4. PMID: 34932191; PMCID: PMC8692305.

Kembery, C., & Makarow, M. (n.d.). A new code of conduct for researchers: European Science Foundation. Retrieved November 8, 2019, from http://archives.esf.org/media-centre/ext-single-news/article/a-new-code-of-conduct-for-researchers-624.html

Shaw, D. The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A Conceptual Schema. Sci Eng Ethics 25, 1085–1093 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0052-2

Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1331–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6

The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct. https://ori.hhs.gov/TheLab/

Tijdink JK, Bouter LM, Veldkamp CLS, van de Ven PM, Wicherts JM, Smulders YM (2016) Personality Traits Are Associated with Research Misbehavior in Dutch Scientists: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS ONE 11(9): e0163251. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0163251

Xie, Y., Wang, K. & Kong, Y. Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sci Eng Ethics 27, 41 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9

Previous page Next page