What if research integrity is not respected?
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, studies based on surveys are dependent on self-reporting and response rates. International research (Fanelli, 2009) shows that 1 to 2% of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once. These numbers refer to the ‘big cases’ that often get a lot of media coverage, also in national newspapers.
However, in surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues, admission rates went up a lot higher. Over the years there have also been many estimates on the prevalence of unacceptable practices. The upper-boundary estimate was 94% but many studies end up at about 40%. Again, in surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues, admission rates go up a lot higher. Looking into detail, these numbers 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 far more common than having left out data or observations based on a gut feeling. Despite the unacceptable practices being less direct than FFP, and often considered ‘less serious’, research suggests that also because of the higher prevalence, the unacceptable practices are in fact more harmful for science than the FFP.
“Publication pressure is the main reason researchers engage in misconduct.”
For a long time, publication pressure was the most mentioned cause of misconduct. 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, being extra sensitive to pressures, or even psychological dysfunction. 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.
Also, the chances of getting caught must be considered, and these are still relatively low (but rapidly increasing). Initiatives to investigate misconduct are becoming more widespread and effective. The scientific community has also taken a lot of initiatives to make 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!
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 unacceptable practices occur.
What’s at stake?
- Your career
- The careers and reputations of colleagues, PI/supervisor, other relevant co-workers
- The reputation of your research field or discipline
- The reputation of the university/science in general
- Public health
- Wellbeing of research participants
- Public trust in science/scientists
- Progress of knowledge
- …
Reasons to commit fraud are numerous and in most cases the immediate goal is to gain something; meeting a deadline, a publication, a grant, a nice CV, etc. However, if we look at an isolated action (the decision to cheat) from a broader perspective, it is clear there is a lot more to lose, for various actors in the ecosystem and for science as a whole.
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. Parties that feel unheard or who are unhappy with the outcome of the CWI investigation, can request a second opinion from the Flemish Committee for Scientific Integrity (Vlaamse Commissie voor Wetenschappelijke Integriteit, or VCWI). The universities’ Committees for Research Integrity do not have the status of legal entities. 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).
Summary of possibilities:
- Your local confidant within your research group, faculty or school
- The official confidential counselor, ombudsperson or integrity officer at your institution
- 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 one’s 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.