Module 4 – Violations of Research Integrity [link!]

Design and conduct

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

Allen, C., & Mehler, D. M. A. (2019). Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLOS Biology , 17 (5), Article e3000246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246

Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533, 452–454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a

Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z

Center for Open Science. (n.d.). Registered Reports: Peer review before results are known to align scientific values and practices. Retrieved May 26, 2021, from https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports

Cochrane Methods Bias. (n.d.). Reporting Biases. Retrieved May 26, 2021, from https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/reporting-biases

Collaboration, O. S. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716

Data dredging. (2021). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Data_dredging&oldid=1023475448

Data driven hypotheses without disclosure (‘HARKing’). (2021, maart 26). The Embassy of Good Science. https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33

Dutilh, G., Sarafoglou, A., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2019). Flexible yet fair: Blinding analyses in experimental psychology. Synthese, 198, 5745-5772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02456-7

Eckers, J. C., Swick, A. D., & Kimple, R. J. (2018). Identity Crisis – Rigor and Reproducibility in Human Cell Lines. Radiation Research, 189(6), 551–552. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR15086.1

Enago Academy. (2018, September 20). Alarming Reproducibility Crisis Invading Social Sciences Journals. https://www.enago.com/academy/alarming-reproducibility-crisis-invading-social-sciences-journals/

Enago Academy. (2020, April 3). Should You Pre-Register Your Research Study? A Quick Guide. https://www.enago.com/academy/pre-registration-of-your-research/

Garner, H. R., McIver, L. J., & Waitzkin, M. B. (2013). Same work, twice the money? Nature, 493(7434), 599–601. https://doi.org/10.1038/493599a

Head, M. L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. T., & Jennions, M. D. (2015). The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science. PLOS Biology , 13 (3), Article e1002106. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005, August 30). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine , 2 (8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Jp, S., Ld, N., & U, S. (2011, October 17). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632

Kafkafi, N., Agassi, J., Chesler, E. J., Crabbe, J. C., Crusio, W. E., Eilam, D., Gerlai, R., Golani, I., Gomez-Marin, A., Heller, R., Iraqi, F., Jaljuli, I., Karp, N. A., Morgan, H., Nicholson, G., Pfaff, D. W., Richter, S. H., Stark, P. B., Stiedl, O., … Benjamini, Y. (2018). Reproducibility and replicability of rodent phenotyping in preclinical studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 87, 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.01.003

Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4

KNAW, NFU, NWO, TO2-Federatie, Vereniging Hogescholen, & VSNU. (2018). Nederlandse gedragscode wetenschappelijke integriteit. Data Archiving and Networked Services. https://doi.org/10.17026/DANS-2CJ-NVWU

Koul, A., Becchio, C., & Cavallo, A. (2018). Cross-Validation Approaches for Replicability in Psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(1117). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01117

Kupferschmidt, K. (2018, September 21). More and more scientists are preregistering their studies. Should you? Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav4786

MacCoun, R., & Perlmutter, S. (2015). Blind analysis: Hide results to seek the truth. Nature News, 526(7572), 187-189. https://doi.org/10.1038/526187a

Marshall, D. & Shanahan, D. (2016, February 12). It’s a kind of magic: how to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. BMC Series Blog. http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/2016/02/12/kind-magic-improve-adherence-reporting-guidelines/

Minikel, E. (2016, March 17). John Ioannidis: The state of research on research. CureFFI.org, https://www.cureffi.org/2016/03/17/john-ioannidis-the-state-of-research-on-research/

Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2019). Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303

Nissen, S. B., Magidson, T., Gross, K., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2016). Publication bias and the canonization of false facts. eLife, 5, Article e21451. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21451

Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114

Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). Registered Reports. Social Psychology, 45(3), 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000192

Pusztai, L., Hatzis, C., & Andre, F. (2013). Reproducibility of research and preclinical validation: Problems and solutions. Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology, 10(12), 720–724. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.171

Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M., & Lakens, D. (2020, February 5). An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard Psychology literature with Registered Reports . PsyArXiv . https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/p6e9c

Smith, J., & Noble, H. (2014). Bias in research. Evidence Based Nursing , 17 (4), 100. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2014-101946

Stanford University. (n.d.). Gendered Innovations. Retrieved May 26, 2021, from http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/index.html

Steegen, S., Tuerlinckx, F., Gelman, A., & Vanpaemel, W. (2016). Increasing Transparency Through a Multiverse Analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 702–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616658637

Union, P. O. of the E. (2014, September 5). Gender in EU-funded research: Toolkit. [Website]. Publications Office of the European Union. http://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c118ea10-58fa-4173-a2c4-65c746918c20

The Embassy of Good Science. (2021, March 26). Data driven hypotheses without disclosure (‘HARKing’). https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33

The Embassy of Good Science. (2021, March 26) Inappropriate study design. https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:E14104ce-3608-4069-b297-f93b2d77b095

U.S. National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). Research Reporting Guidelines and Initiatives: By Organization. Retrieved May 26, 2021, from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/research_report_guide.html

Research Data Management

Corti, L., Van den Eynden, V., Bishop, L., & Woollard, M. (2014). Managing and Sharing Research Data: A Guide to Good Practice. Sage Publishing. https://doi.org/10.25607/OBP-1540

GO FAIR (n.d.). FAIR Principles. Retreived May 27, 2021 from https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/

Lamprecht, A.-L., Garcia, L., Kuzak, M., Martinez, C., Arcila, R., Martin Del Pico, E., Dominguez Del Angel, V., van de Sandt, S., Ison, J., Martinez, P. A., McQuilton, P., Valencia, A., Harrow, J., Psomopoulos, F., Gelpi, J. L., Chue Hong, N., Goble, C., & Capella-Gutierrez, S. (2020). Towards FAIR principles for research software. Data Science, 3(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.3233/DS-190026

Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, Ij. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., … Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(1), 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Reporting results

All European Academies. (n.d.). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/

Bik, E. (2019, juni 4). False affiliations and fake authors. Science Integrity Digest. https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2019/06/04/false-affiliations-and-fake-authors/

Bik, E. M., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2016, May 17). The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications. BioRxiv, 049452. https://doi.org/10.1101/049452

Bourne, P. E., Polka, J. K., Vale, R. D., & Kiley, R. (2017). Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission. PLOS Computational Biology, 13(5), Article e1005473. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005473

Callaway, E. (n.d.). Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions: Nature News & Comment. Nature. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://www.nature.com/news/faked-peer-reviews-prompt-64-retractions-1.18202

Committee on Publication Ethics. (n.d.). Authorship and contributorship. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://publicationethics.org/authorship

COPE Council. (2018, March). COPE Discussion Document: Preprints. https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/COPE_Preprints_Mar18.pdf

Cornell University. (n.d.). ArXiv.org e-Print archive. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://arxiv.org/

Cromey, D. W. (2013). Digital images are data: And should be treated as such. In: D.J. Taatjes & J. Roth (Eds.), Methods in Molecular Biology: Vol.931. Cell Imaging Techniques. Methods and Protocols (pp. 1-27). Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-056-4_1

Directory of Open Access Journals (n.d.). Find Open Access journals or articles. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://doaj.org/ Ghent University. (n.d.). ORCID: what is it? (re)search tips. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://onderzoektips.ugent.be/en/tips/00001581/

HARKing. (2021). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HARKing&oldid=1020774842

Heidari, S., Babor, T. F., De Castro, P., Tort, S., & Curno, M. (2016). Sex and Gender Equity in Research: Rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6

Het uitgavecontract, Wetboek van economisch recht. Art. XI 196 § 2/1 (2018). http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/loi_a1.pl?language=nl&la=N&cn=2013022819&table_name=wet&&caller=list&N&fromtab=wet&tri=dd+AS+RANK&rech=1&numero=1&sql=(text+contains+(%27%27))#Art.XI.196

Het uitgavecontract, Wetboek van economisch recht. Art. XI. 197. (2014). http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/loi_a1.pl?language=nl&la=N&cn=2013022819&table_name=wet&&caller=list&N&fromtab=wet&tri=dd+AS+RANK&rech=1&numero=1&sql=(text+contains+(%27%27))#Art.XI.197

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (n.d.). Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

Jisc Digital resources. (n.d.). Sherpa Romeo. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/

Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4

Matosin, N., Frank, E., Engel, M., Lum, J. S., & Newell, K. A. (2014). Negativity towards negative results: A discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture. Disease Models & Mechanisms , 7(2), 171–173. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.015123

Mudrak, B. (n.d.). What Are Preprints, and How Do They Benefit Authors? AJE Scholar. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://www.aje.com/arc/benefits-of-preprints-for-researchers/

Open Access Belgium (n.d.). Open science in Belgium. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://openaccess.be/ SPARC Europe (n.d.).

OACA list. Retrieved May 27 Mei, 2021, from https://sparceurope.org/what-we-do/open-access/sparc-europe-open-access-resources/open-access-citation-advantage-service-oaca/oaca-list/

The Office of Research Integrity (n.d.) . Authorship practices to avoid conflicts. [Infographic]. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://ori.hhs.gov/infographics

The Open Knowledge Foundation. (n.d.). The Open Definition. (z.d.). Retrieved May 27, 2021, from http://opendefinition.org/

The Writing Center. (n.d.). When to Summarize, Paraphrase, and Quote. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/guides/when-to-summarize-paraphrase-and-quote

VWCI (2020) Authorship contribution statements. General advice (published 14 December 2020). https://vcwi.be/sites/default/files/VCWI_Advice_AuthorshipContributions-provisional.pdf  

Weissgerber, T. L., Milic, N. M., Winham, S. J., & Garovic, V. D. (2015). Beyond Bar and Line Graphs: Time for a New Data Presentation Paradigm. PLOS Biology, 13(4), Article e1002128. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002128

Weissgerber, T. L., Winham, S. J., Heinzen, E. P., Milin-Lazovic, J. S., Garcia-Valencia, O., Bukumiric, Z., Savic, M. D., Garovic, V. D., & Milic, N. M. (2019). Reveal, Don’t Conceal. Circulation, 140(18), 1506–1518. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037777

Declaration of Conflict of Interest

All European Academies (ALLEA). (n.d.). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/

European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity. (2009). Codes of ethics for scientific research in Belgium. https://eneri.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Codes-of-Ethics-for-scientific-research-in-Belgium.pdf

European Network of Research Integrity Offices. (2019) Recommendations for the investigation of research misconduct. http://www.enrio.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/INV-Handbook_ENRIO_web_final.pdf

Van der Burght, S., Vandevelde, K., & Van Cauwenberge, P. (2013). Potentiële belangenconflicten in wetenschappelijk onderzoek: Een bespreking in vogelvlucht. Deontologie en Tuchtrecht , 1 , 63–82.

Science Communication

Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Ecker, U. K. H., Albarracín, D., Amazeen, M. A., Kendeou, P., Lombardi, D., Newman, E. J., Pennycook, G., Porter, E. Rand, D. G., Rapp, D. N., Reifler, J., Roozenbeek, J., Schmid, P., Seifert, C. M., Sinatra, G. M., Swire-Thompson, B., van der Linden, S., Vraga, E. K., Wood, T. J., Zaragoza, M. S. (2020). The debunking handbook. Center for climate change communication. https://sks.to/db2020

Mersch, R. (2016). Waarom iedereen altijd gelijk heeft. Bezige Bij.

Van Dyck, M. (2020, October 3). Science communication with Maarten Van Dyck [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnCPNhupW4U

Research(er) assessment and evaluation

Curry, S., de Rijcke, S., Hatch, A., Pillay, D. (Gansen), van der Weijden, I., & Wilsdon, J. (2020). The changing role of funders in responsible research assessment: Progress, obstacles and the way ahead. Research on Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13227914.v1

Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., Coriat, A.-M., Foeger, N., & Dirnagl, U. (2019). The Hong Kong Principles for Assessing Researchers: Fostering Research Integrity. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/m9abx

Module 4 – Violations of Research Integrity

The quality and integrity of research heavily depends on the behavior of individual researchers. Nevertheless, their behavior is strongly influenced by the way their academic work in general and their research in particular are evaluated and assessed. Evaluation systems can encourage researchers to act with integrity. For instance, if data sharing is part of the evaluation criteria, researchers are stimulated to deposit and share their research data.

Assessment systems, however, can also discourage researchers to adhere to good academic research practices, e.g. if the number of papers a researcher has published is part of the evaluation criteria, a researcher might be tempted to cut up the outcomes of a study in as many articles as possible (salami slicing).

In recent years initiatives – such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) (2012), the Leiden Manifesto (2015) – have influenced the debate about responsible research assessment (RRA) (Stephen Curry et al, 2020). These initiatives are triggering the research community to include a broader set of indicators in the assessment systems to lower the importance given to quantitative output oriented indicators, and to focus on the assessment of the quality of the research. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers go one step further and explicitly link research assessment and research integrity. The principles were formulated during the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity in Hong Kong in 2019 and published in July 2020. They are designed to help research institutions to include considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor and transparency in the assessment of researchers for career advancement. Also within the Flemish universities, these principles can inspire and trigger discussions towards the further implementation of a responsible assessment in which behaviors that strenghten research integrity are recognised and rewarded.

The 5 Hong Kong Principles are:

1. Assess responsible research practices from conception to delivery.
2. Value the accurate and transparent reporting, regardless of the results.
3. Value the practices of open science, such as open methods, materials and data.
4. Value a diversity of types of research, such as replication, innovation, translation, synthesis and meta-research.
5. Recognise essential other tasks like peer review for grants and publications, mentoring, outreach and knowledge exchange.

Nowadays, more and more research institutions and funders are opting for the inclusion of a structured narrative or bio sketch in their evaluation processes. In these narratives, researchers can communicate their most important research contributions and can include less visible efforts, for instance with regard to research integrity and open science.

Module 4 – Violations of Research Integrity

Every university in Flanders offers a myriad of science communication activities for anyone interested in science and academic research, from young to old. As a researcher it is important to help foster this relationship between academic research and society. More and more, academic research is strongly embedded within society, rather than on the periphery, looking at society from its ivory tower. Trust in academic research is one of the key elements to foster more and better academic research as it is important to show the public institutions that the scientific endeavour is worth the (financial) investment. Although perhaps less strictly determined in a set of pre-defined rules and regulations, science communication needs to comply with quality standards and research integrity which makes research results more transparent, more understandable and thus more trustworthy. In a way, communicating your research to a broader audience comes with a shared responsibility of researchers because there are no peer reviewers checking the validity of your ideas before you post a blog or appear in a panel on national television; there are no ethics reviewers making sure no one in the audience takes offense with what you have to say about a certain topic.

Regarding integrity and science communication ‘the main lesson’ you should always take into account is that ethics and integrity don’t stop just because you have finished a project or published a scientific article.

Impact

Communicating your research results to non-peers, be it specific stakeholders or citizens in general, is a prerequisite for societal impact. Not every scientific article should be translated to be understood by these target groups, but most research programs and lines of research can and should strive to have an impact outside of academia, and thus contribute to healthier citizens, evidence-based policies, a better world, … The past century it became common for governments to legitimise their policies by appealing to science (cf. Maarten Van Dyck). As a consequence, clear, comprehensible, accurate and honest communication about the knowledge that is gathered by researchers, has become more and more important.

When communicating about your (or others’) research:

• Keep in mind you’re representing science (and your university, but you’ll mostly be remembered as a scientist). Be honest about the limitations of your conclusions (to what extent do they apply to the real problem/solution in society, in what way do they help better understanding) and of science in general. Behave modestly when possible but stand up for science when needed.
• Listen to the stakeholders of your research, both the ordinary citizens as well as the more specific stakeholders. Learn how they look at your research subject. How do they define certain situations or problems you’re researching, what are their questions and worries, what do they find important, in what wordings do they talk about it, what are their misconceptions, … A better understanding of your stakeholders can help in your communication, but in your research too!
• Anticipate how your message will be received. How might citizens or journalists misinterpret your message, possibly deliberately? Make it impossible for them to transform what you want to say in what they want to hear, by explicitly expressing what your sayings don’t mean, and what you can’t conclude from them. Try to control your narrative as much as possible, e.g. by publishing your story yourself on an own blog. Think – especially in certain disciplines for example concerning health issues – about expectation management: e.g. when will people be able to use, benefit from your research?
• Ask the press office of your university to review the press release and make sure you’re comfortable with it. It ought to be understandable for the target group but still needs to be correct (pay especially attention to the conclusions; keep in mind the title has to make people want to read the article; make an accurate summary for quick reading).
• Ask the press office of your university to review the press release and make sure you’re comfortable with it. It ought to be understandable for the target group but still needs to be correct (pay especially attention to the conclusions; keep in mind the title has to make people want to read the article; make an accurate summary for quick reading).
• Especially in delicate issues such as climate change, vaccination, evolution theory, etc. communication can be difficult because of emotions or strong beliefs that get in the way of a balanced conversation. It is therefore of great importance to start or respond to every communication with an openness that includes understanding and mildness for the dialogue partner. Do not see the conversation as a competition for being right but focus on finding common understanding, listen instead of trying to convince, establish creative thinking and problem solving. This requires a specific communication style that is called dialogue (versus debate). More on this approach and exercises on: the dialogue approach.
• Always separate fact from opinion. You’re entitled to your own opinions, and there’s nothing wrong with being an activist, but make it crystal clear to what extent your opinion is founded in scientific consensus among peers. This is of the greatest importance for science as a whole. Remember that trust is hard to earn, but easy to lose.
• Sometimes there is a need to delay the communication about specific parts of your research, especially when, in the framework of a future technology transfer, the decision is made to protect the outcome of your research with intellectual property rights, such as a patent or design. Ask advice to the Technology Transfer Office of your university on when the communication can be made. 

Some basics of science communication training

• It is always good to ask yourself the basic communication questions: What (do I want to communicate), Why (do I feel this is important / would an audience be interested), How (would I like to communicate) and Who (do I want to reach). When considering your objective it can help to look at it as the change you want to bring about in your target group: what do you want people to do, to consider, to be convinced of, to know … that they didn’t before. Use your answer on the objective and target group to answer the other questions ‘how’ and ‘when’ and even to reconsider what you should communicate to achieve this goal. In answering the ‘what’, look for the intersection of what you want to tell and what they want to know, or think of an angle that can grab their attention and pull them in your story.
• Communication is not a one-way process. Rather, it is preferably two-way, making it a dynamic process from which both parties can learn and gain. Therefore, consider communication as an interactive process and focus as much on what you can learn from your audience. After all, your readers are an important source of knowledge with added value for your research.
• Know there’s lots of ways to communicate. To name a few; talks, blog articles, social media posts, 1-on-1 interactions, videos, podcasts, newsletters, books, events, … Don’t wait until your first results to communicate. Instead start small and practice. Experiment, evaluate, adapt.
• Know where your target group is. Don’t expect them to come to you. E.g. don’t expect them to go looking for and find your blog post, but point them to it using a channel (of your own or from a third party) that reaches them.
• You’re not alone, nor are you solely responsible for the communication about your research topic. Define your communication goals and look for others with overlapping goals (your research group, your faculty, your university, an international research consortium). Identify the aggregation level where your efforts will generate the most impact (e.g. for shared goals you might want to use existing channels with a greater reach, instead of starting a new one). Participate in larger, professional projects for less overhead.
• Cut out the middle man if you can: the more specific communication goals the less likely, you need a journalist to reach your target group.
• Use stories instead of news. People respond much more to emotions than to facts. Make it personal: how will your research help people, how did your research change you? Stories will be remembered.
• Get attention by connecting emotionally, use recognisable situations, intriguing questions or facts. Understand the concept of news value: news is what is near, unique, new, important for society, unexpected, or another angle on an already hot topic.
• Imagine the effect of your communication. Will you choice of medium/message have the effect you want? Really? Try imagining how your mother or neighbour would react.
• Already in the exploratory phase, it certainly pays off to contact the science communication team in your university. They have a very good overview of opportunities for science communication and ways to support you and get you started.

Examples of science communication initiatives in Flanders. There are many ways for a researcher to reach out. Just a few examples:

Universiteit van Vlaanderen (online videos and podcasts on science)

Ik heb een vraag (researchers answer questions from citizens) 

Dag van de Wetenschap (yearly science festival all over Flanders) 

EOS Wetenschap blogs 

Iedereen wetenschapper (citizen science) 

Sound of Science (the first open air science festival in Flanders)

Jaarprijzen wetenschapscommunicatie KVAB 

Pint of Science Belgium 

A conflict of interest (COI) is any kind of situation in which a researcher’s own interests might influence his or her professional behaviour or judgement. These interests can for instance be:

• financial (e.g. secondary employment, research funding coming from private companies, stock ownership);
• non-financial (e.g. receiving product samples, media attention);
• personal (e.g. family relationships, career ambitions).

Because perceptions of conflicts of interest can sometimes be as damaging as real conflicts, it is important to uphold the practice of being open and honest about all such potential conflicts.

A conflict of interest may compromise the impartiality and independence of a researcher in all steps of the research process (study design, data collection, data analysis, reporting etc.). It may interfere with peer review procedures, funding decisions etc. It may also affect hiring, evaluation and promotion procedures. A (non-dosclosure of) conflict of interest risks compromising the integrity of the research(er), and could cause damage to the (perception of the) reputation of the researcher, research unit(s), department, faculty and university.

Therefore researchers should disclose and if necessary withdraw from involvement in decisions on publication, funding, appointment, promotion or reward whenever a conflict of interest arises (or the perception thereof) that might influence their decision making is impartial. They should disclose any conflict of interest according to their university’s policy. Also financial or other types of support for the research or for the publication of its results should be disclosed as detailed and specific as possible. It is not up to you to decide whether or not an ‘interest’ represents a ‘conflict of interest’: it is up to the university, funding body, editor, reviewers and readers to manage and evaluate this. This transparency not only allows the university, funding body or journal to identify (potential problematic) conflicts of interest. It also allows for openness within the research community and towards society at large, and diminishes the risk that research and researchers are perceived as being compromised by conflicts of interest. Correct author affiliation is also one of the steps that can be taken in order to prevent a possible conflict of interest. 

Giving all your data the credit they deserve, especially when they are negative, isn’t always an easy thing to do. 

In addition, ALLEA points to the responsibility of researchers, research institutions and organisations to acknowledge data as legitimate and citable products of research. Giving all your data the credit they deserve, isn’t always an easy thing to do.

For researchers

In most cases researchers start their research based on a hypothesis or theory. If for any reason, the results of the research don’t confirm or match the theory, this is often considered a ‘failure’, or at least a setback. In some cases, it might even be seen as a personal failure, as the person seems ‘unable to deliver’, or contain the fear of being associated with flawed or poorly designed research. However, it’s important to stress that negative results aren’t ‘bad’ results; they can be obtained through sound and rigorous work and they help us move forward in research. Simply because we can learn from them, we avoid unnecessary repeating of things that don’t work, leading to waste in time, money (e.g. public funds). Claiming the value of your negative results requires a positive mindset to convince those remaining sceptic or ignorant and it demands some creativity to ‘sell’ your story. Luckily, researchers can benefit from a general tendency in research towards upgrading negative research results.

For research leaders, supervisors

As young researchers enter the field, they are often focused on getting the ‘right’ results, achieving success but not so much on how to deal with negative results, or worse, failure. This aspect should be present in the professional guidance. Leading by example is key for all aspects of the supervisor role but in particular when it comes to negative results. Respecting their value, staying true to well-designed plans, thinking about ways to formulate and link negative results to meaningful stories should be part of that role.

For representatives of journals or any other kind of communication

Because of the impact on science, there is a growing tendency towards respecting all research outcomes and upgrading the importance of negative results, with initiatives/journals such as Journals of Negative Results in Biomedicine, PLOS ONE, and The All Results Journals that encourage researchers to publish their negative results.

For funders

Even funders mainly reward researchers who can report on a ‘positive’ story. This may come from a well-meant conviction to keep investigating in what works. Negative results however move the field forward just as much.

The aim of publications is to make new research outcomes known. That is why researchers are expected to publish their research in a timely manner, and not to withhold research results. Authors also have to be aware, that apart from a few exceptions, the same work should not be published multiple times. Exceptions to this good practice include the use of preprints and subsequent formal publication in a journal discussed earlier in this module, the publication of important content in a number of journals to reach a bigger audience, or translations of the work. For instance, new insights in the 19th-century history of Belgium, can first be published in an international journal in English and later be translated to be published in a local historical journal in Flemish as long as both journals are informed, have agreed and the later pubblication refers to the firs. Authors should always be transparent and honest regarding the novelty of their work.

Below you can find some illustrations of unacceptable and questionable practices related to the novelty of the work.

Although this goes against the commonly accepted paradigm of only making research results publicly available after they have been peer-reviewed, the use of preprints has some advantages compared to the traditional publication pathway. Already common practice in fields as physics and mathematics, the preprint practice is now also accepted in a variety of other fields, in part facilitated by a reduced resistance by traditional publishers, the availability of discipline-specific preprint platforms and the increased support of funders.

Advantages of preprints

Preprints provide researchers with the opportunity to share their findings in a much faster way, allowing to inform peers and colleagues of the work and the results, thereby avoiding being dependent on the review process which can harper timely dissemination.

Moreover, given the open access character of the publication, authors that publish preprints have the possibility to receive broader feedback on the work as this will not be limited to the typical 2-3 reviewers that are assigned to review a paper in traditional peer review. This community-driven feedback can be used to revise the work before submitting the work to a traditional journal. Getting the work out in the open, might also facilitate getting in touch with other researchers working on the topic, potentially leading to collaborations and further improvement of the paper.

In addition, as most preprints are assigned a DOI (Digital Object Identifier), the research can be cited and credit for the work can be claimed. The work thus becomes part of the scholarly record, meaning authors do not have to fear that their work will be scooped as the preprint can be shown to demonstrate who was first.

Finally, preprints may provide a dissemination route for research that encounters problems to be published in a traditional way. Examples are publications with negative data or research that is deemed of low priority because not innovative enough (e.g. replication studies). Just because journals are not interested this does not mean that the results are not relevant to the research community. Here preprints may provide a way out, preventing the money and time spent on the research to go to waste.

Can I still submit to a traditional journal?

Just because it is available as a preprint in many cases does not prevent the work subsequently to be submitted to, reviewed by and finally published in a traditional journal. However, when doing this authors should be aware of potential copyright restrictions and are advised to acknowledge the existence of the first version upon submission of the work for peer review. In addition, upon acceptance and publication of the work in a traditional journal, a clear link should be made between the preprint and the journal version of the work, this to illustrate the evolution of the research and to direct readers towards the final, peer-reviewed version of the work which will receive a different DOI than the preprint.

Where to publish preprints?

Some examples of well know disciplinary preprint servers are:

• SocArXiv (social sciences)
• PsyArXiv (psychology)
• medRxiv (health sciences)
• ChemRxiv (chemistry)
• arXiv (focus on, but not limited to physics and mathematics)
• bioRxiv (biological sciences)

OSF Preprints is designed for any researchers in any field to share their work.

Peer review is at the core of the traditional publication system. It is designed to assess the quality and validity of new research work, to provide suggestions for further improvement before publication, and to make sure that invalid or low quality articles are not published.

Reviewers should be aware of their ethical responsibilities when reviewing studies submitted by their peers. Below you can find some guidelines on how to behave when asked to review a manuscript.

ACCEPTING TO REVIEW:

• In most cases, review invitations contain the title, the author list and the abstract of the study. Ideally, a reviewer is working in the same discipline as the topic of the paper. Are you the right person to review the manuscript? Consider declining the invitation if the topic is too far outside of your expertise.
• When in doubt, contact the editor and discuss your concerns. This allows the editor to determine whether you would have the required expertise, and will also allow to invite an additional reviewer to complement the area that is not covered by the current reviewers. It is not because a specific part of the manuscript is outside your expertise, that you cannot give input on the rest of the study.
• Decline to review if you would have a competing interest that could interfere with the objective evaluation of the manuscript, such as a financial conflict of interest (COI), a close personal relationship or present/recent collaboration with one or more of the authors.
• Although useful for their own work, reviewers should decline to review work directly related to their own research. The information in the manuscript should not be used to benefit your own work. Finally, please also decline to review papers coming from your direct environment (same department or even same host institution).
• Upon declining to review, try to make suggestions for alternative reviewers.
• Check the journal’s policies and guidelines to understand what is expected with regards to the review of manuscripts.

BE RELIABLE

• Most journals expect their reviewers to provide feedback within a limited time period. Reviewers should not accept to review a paper if they won’t be able to do this within the allotted timeframe. In case unforeseen issues arise, preventing you from reviewing in time, the editor of the journal should be informed.
• Similarly, decline and accept review invitations in a timely fashion.
• Editors often rely on the profile of the reviewers as available in the database of the journal to select potential reviewers. Please make sure your profile is up to date by checking your keywords and preferred research topics.

CONFIDENTIALITY

• Manuscripts under review are confidential documents until they are made public upon publication. Depending on the journal, the accompanying reviewer reports might remain confidential, even after publication of the accepted manuscript.
• Reviewers should contact the editor before involving other parties in the review process (for example a student or a co-worker) and the names of these additional reviewers should be provided in the confidential comments to the editors. This will also assist the editor in identifying potentially interesting new reviewers to be invited for future reviews.
• Reviewers should never contact the authors directly. All communication should be arranged via the journal.

BE OBJECTIVE, CONSTRUCTIVE AND RESPONSIBLE WHILE REVIEWING

• Manuscripts should be judged without bias towards the authors, both in positive and negative sense.
• The primary role of a reviewer is to advise the journal and to make sure flawed manuscripts are withheld or corrected before being made available for the scientific field.
• Reviews should be written in clear language and be helpful to both the editors and the author. Be respectful and keep a professional stance when providing comments. Reviewers should not hide behind their anonymity to provide rude reviews and personal criticism. Provide constructive critiques, as this will help the author to focus on the problems in the proposed work, instead of giving the feeling that the comments are the result of a personal vendetta.
• Report ethical issues such as potentially undisclosed conflicts of interests, the lack of ethical approval or concerns on the experimental protocol in human or animal studies. In addition, suspicions of misconduct, such as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism or other questionable research practices should be reported to and disclosed with the editor.

Upon finalising you research project, the traditional ultimate step is to make the work available to the research community by publishing it, for instance in a journal. Given the extensive time spent on your research, and the potential implications for your career, authors should carefully select a proper place for their work. With thousands of journals listed in the main bibliographical databases such as Web of Science and PubMed, or local initiatives such as the Flemish Academic Bibliography for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW), researchers can become overwhelmed by the possibilities. Moreover, as journals are not always indexed in the most frequently used databases, the number of journals to choose from is almost unlimited. Therefore, when assessing potential journals to publish your work, critical factors to look into are the reputation and the quality of a journal and its publisher, together with the scope of the journal.

The scope of the journal is important as it can impact who will get to read your work. Although you might have the most interesting/important paper ever, if it doesn’t get published in a place where it gets appropriate visibility, your work might not get picked up. This of course doesn’t mean that you should not publish your work in journals that have a broad scope. Nevertheless, try to identify the profile of the readers of the journal. Is your work relevant to them?

When it comes to the reputation of the journal, authors are encouraged to look further than the journal impact factor and instead assess the quality of the journal and the papers previously published by the journal and its publisher. Does the journal appear trustworthy and does it have policies in place to make sure that the submitted research is evaluated according to the internationally accepted principles? For example, does the journal provide clear instructions to authors and is a solid peer review system in place?

Predators in publishing

Some general recommendations

• Think. Check. Submit. provides a checklist to help you identify the right journal for your research.
• Does VABB-SSHW list the journal?
• Is the journal a member of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)? Members adhere to the Core practices.
• Does a learned society sponsor the journal?
• Is the publisher or journal one of the signatories of the Transparency & Openness Initiative
• Have (many of) your trusted peers published in this journal?

Predatory conferences

Open access refers to the practice of making peer-reviewed scholarly research and literature freely available online to anyone interested. Open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose, subject, and at most, to requirements that preserve provenance and openness. It does not affect authors’ freedom to choose where to publish or the right not to publish.

There are two major ways to make publications open access:

• Self-archiving:
  Depositing a publication in an open repository and making it available, allows you to make a publication available in open access, regardless of the platform in which your publication originally has been published. The repository can be subject specific, e.g. arXiv; linked to an institution, e.g. each Flemish university hosts an open repository; or can be a general one, like e.g. Zenodo. Most publishers allow self-archiving in repositories. However, conditions may apply to which version you can make available, the author’s final peer-reviewed manuscript or author’s accepted manuscript – AAM, a version which is peer-reviewed but does not show the publisher’s layout, or the publisher’s version. An embargo period might be in place (usually 6 months for STEM and 12 months for SSH). Sherpa/Romeo, the database of publishers’ policies on copyright and self-archiving, can be used to determine the open access policy of journals and/or publishers. Moreover, the Belgian law allows authors to make scholarly peer-reviewed articles available in open access, in the final peer-reviewed manuscript and after an embargo period (Art. XI.196 §2/1).
• Publishing scholarly works in an open access journal
  Open access journals provide direct open access upon publication. To find a qualitative open access journal, you can consult the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The DOAJ reviews open access journals before acceptance in the directory. You can browse the open access journals by subject or by publisher. Some open access journals require authors to pay a fee, the so-called article processing charge (APC).

No matter where you choose to publish, always remember to upload your publications to your local/institutional open access repository.

Why is open access to publications important?

The main advantage of making research open access is often summed up in two words: visibility and impact. Open access articles are much more widely read than those which are not freely available on the internet. Webwide availability leads to increased use, which in turn, raises citation rates, a fact that has been empirically supported by several studies (OACA, Open Access Citation Advantage). Open access also underpins the idea that everyone should be able to consult research outcomes, whether a (young) researcher, a professional in the form of a concerned citizen, without having to pay an extra fee. And this is certainly the case for research funded with public funds.

The fact that the public sector has to fund research three times is often criticised: firstly, the scholars and scientists carrying out research and submitting their findings for publication are often paid by the public sector. Secondly, the submitted manuscripts are peer-reviewed by colleagues who are also mainly funded by public means. And thirdly, when the articles are published they must be purchased from the publishers by publicly-funded libraries and institutes. Taking these reasons into account, more and more funders opt to require open access to publications resulting from research they funded, to ensure the wider dissemination of research outcomes.

What if you don’t choose for open access?

When researchers don’t choose open access for their publications it can result in a lack of visibility: only readers with access to journals whose content isn’t open are able to read that content. This means many possible interested parties don’t know about your research. It can also result in a lack of funding: many funders mandate open access to publications and are inclined to take measures if you don’t.