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.

Module 2: Supervision and mentoring

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 Trust me, I’m a scientist: Research integrity and misconduct within biomedical research [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven].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

It’s not always easy or clear how to follow the principles, guidelines or regulations. As a result, there are situations where good research practices are at risk. This tool calls these situations “Slippery Slopes” – a ‘heads up’ to make you aware of the risks. For each slippery slope the tool also tries to provide an answer or solution. But every research setting is different so if you recognise a situation (throughout the tool) and you need extra information, don’t hesitate to contact your research integrity officer. You can find their references at the end of the training and in the contact information of this course.

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.

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.

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!

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.

There is no international consensus on the definition of research integrity but in general research integrity describes an attitude of researchers and those involved in research whereby they conduct their research according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.

Research integrity describes an approach for organising and conducting responsible scientific and scholarly work. Because of this, it is inherently part of the quality assurance of daily research practice and its results.

Why is Research Integrity important?

Scientific and scholarly research is used to understand the world we live in, as a basis for further research, and to solve concrete problems. The crucial role of science in society means that almost everybody has a potential interest in the way research is done and its outcomes. Academics, policy makers, government representatives, entrepreneurs, citizens, etc., all stand to benefit from reliable research results. Researchers bear the main and ultimate responsibility for ensuring that everyone can trust the findings of their work.

Integrity, quality and legitimacy of research are inextricably connected. “There can be no first-class research without integrity,” The former director of the European Science Foundation, Marja Makarow, said in 2010: ”Researchers build on each other’s results so they must be honest with themselves, and with each other, and share the same standards of fairness, which makes the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity a vital document.”

Research integrity describes an approach for organising and conducting responsible scientific and scholarly work. Because of this, it is inherently part of the quality assurance of daily research practice and its results.

The ALLEA Code a.k.a. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

Responsible conduct of research (RCR) takes many forms and is a prerequisite of high-quality research. Good research practices are based on the fundamental principles of research integrity according to ALLEA (All European Academies). They guide individuals, institutions, and organisations in their work as well as in their engagement with the practical, ethical, and intellectual challenges inherent in research.

These principles include:

• Reliability in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, methodology, analysis and the use of resources.
• Honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting, and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full, and unbiased way. 
• Respect for colleagues, research participants, research subjects, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage, and the environment. 
• Accountability for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision, and mentoring, and for its wider societal impacts. 

Some examples of good research practices:

• Research procedures: researchers share their results in an open, honest, transparent, and accurate manner, and respect confidentiality of data or findings when legitimately required to do so. 
• Data practices and management: researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary, and where appropriate in line with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable) for data management. 
• Publication, dissemination and authorship: authors formally agree on the sequence of authorship, acknowledging that authorship itself is based on: (1) a significant contribution to the design of the research, relevant data collection, its analysis, and/or interpretation; (2) drafting and/or critical reviewing the publication; (3) approval of the final publication; and (4) agreeing to be responsible for the content of the publication, unless specified otherwise in the publication.