Who's involved?
General public
The public tends to hold scientists to a high standard. However, they often only see the outcome of research and don’t have the knowledge to judge the process.
Researchers in general
Better education about misconduct could reduce the number of violations. Researchers are more likely to accuse others than to admit to violations themselves. However, the system relies mainly on peer- and self-regulation.
Journals - Funder
Journals and funders should have clear internal policies in place and should be quick to respond to possible misconduct. Publishers often emphasise individual cases and portray themselves as the victims, rather than admitting possible responsibility.
Policy makers
There can be conflicts between the interests of governments and the scientific community. Scientists often consider government interference as counterproductive. Governmental legislation can lead to competitive advantage for the countries who don’t have the same interference by the government.
Many people, besides the person who commits the violations of integrity, are involved and possibly affected when research misconduct occurs. By extension, many of those involved have an (in)direct responsibility to ensure the principles of research integrity and responsible conduct of research are respected. The research environment can be considered as an ‘ecosystem’ in which all components and players must act in synergy and work together to contribute to the trustworthiness of science.
Doing research is a dynamic and collaborative process. This means that your research environment (and thus ‘ecosystem’) consists of a lot more people than those directly involved or present in your local research unit. It is advisable to treat these people as direct colleagues as well, even if they are not always physically nearby and take responsibility for how collaborative work is carried out.
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 rresearch 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
Bracke, N., & Van der Burght, S. (2021). Zonder wetenschappelijke integriteit geen kwaliteitsvol onderzoek. In A. Verhage (Ed.), Deontologie en integriteitsbewaking voor criminologen (2de, herziene uitgave ed., pp. 131-153).
Gompel & Svacina. De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk About the Ethics of Research. Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 1(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43
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
Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity. PLOS ONE, 10(6), Article e0127556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127556
Godecharle, S. (2018). Trust me, I’m a scientist: Research integrity and misconduct within biomedical research [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven]. D/2018/1869/7.
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953
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
Kretser, A., Murphy, D., Bertuzzi, S., Abraham, T., Allison, D. B., Boor, K. J., Dwyer, J., Grantham, A., Harris, L. J., Hollander, R., Jacobs-Young, C., Rovito, S., Vafiadis, D., Woteki, C., Wyndham, J., & Yada, R. (2019). Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices: Recommendations from a Scientific Integrity Consortium. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(2), 327–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00094-3
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a
Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460687
All European Academies, ALLEA (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Revised Edition 2023. Berlin. DOI 10.26356/ECOC
Van der Burght, S. (2019, August). Standard ‘dobré’ vědecké práce. Akademická integrita ve Vlámsku a její podpora na Univerzitě Gent. Dějiny a současnost, 8, 17–20. http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8689917
Verbeke, R. (2013). Wetenschapsfraude: De harde cijfers. EOS, 4, 24-28. Retrieved December 10, 2021, from https://docplayer.nl/12020908-Wetenschapsfraude-de-harde-cijfers.html