v-sign Mind the GAP - Online training on research integrity
home-icon
    • checkmark References for module 4 - Violations of research integrity
    • checkmark How to deal with violations of research integrity
    • checkmark Other Unacceptable Practices
    • checkmark Plagiarism in research
    • checkmark Falsification of research results
    • checkmark Fabrication of research results
    • checkmark Threats to research integrity
    • checkmark What are violations of research integrity?

Category: Violations of research integrity

References for module 4 - Violations of research integrity

jumping-icon base

References

References

Previous page Next page

How to deal with violations of research integrity

jumping-icon base

How to deal with violations of research integrity

As mentioned before, ‘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’ (ALLEA, 2023). Therefore, it is also part of your professional responsibility to report possible breaches of research integrity

mindthegap

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.

Nowadays, most institutions have a policy or procedure in place that deals with violations of research integrity. 

Not every situation will require you to file a complaint. In some cases you will ‘just’ have questions, experience lack of clarity about applicable rules and standards or feel you need someone to talk to and express your concerns to. In every university there are people to talk to, ranging from a network of local confidents in relation to research integrity, to ombudspersons (or confidential counsellors), either central (university wide) or specifically for (PhD-)researchers and their supervisors. 

Committee for Research Integrity (Commissie voor Wetenschappelijke Integriteit – CWI)

Within Europe, investigations of potential breaches of research integrity are in most cases not a ‘legal’ issue. Instead, they are based on a framework of self-regulation in which the research community itself develops practices to take responsibility for integrity and the proper handling of violations of research integrity. To do so, many research institutions have an procedure in place that deals with violations of research integrity.  

A central role is reserved for the Committee for Research Integrity. A committee consists of peers (researchers) and holds the responsibility to investigate possible violations of research integrity. After passing a formal procedure, the committee makes a decision about whether or not a violation has occurred. For this, the ALLEA Code is the framework used. Procedures are often long and intense but guarantee an objective and precise assessment of the complaint. Although differences between procedures between institutions may exists, the main characteristics are usually the same: 

  • evaluation by peers  
  • objective and neutral 
  • in depth investigation to the complaint 
  • input from all parties concerned  
  • respect for ‘rights of defence’ 

Your local CWI can also answer questions on possible protection of whistleblowers in case necessary. 

mindthegap

Please note that, depending on the country you are working in, specific legislation regarding research integrity and misconduct may be in place, with the handling of misconduct followed up by national investigation committees instead of the local institutions. 

mindthegap

It must be clear that only complaints made in good faith are admissible for investigation by a CWI. All complaints must also be well substantiated and contain an evidence base that is as precise and complete as possible. ‘Accusing a researcher of misconduct or other violations in a malicious way’ is considered an unacceptable practice, according to the ALLEA Code. 

In many cases complaints regarding possible breaches of violations of research integrity are situated in existing conflict situations. In other cases it is the complaint itself that will cause a conflict situation. All universities are concerned with the well-being of complainants and take measures to minimize the potential risks of negative consequences, following a complaint made in good faith. At the minimum, every procedure guarantees confidentiality. It is also possible to make a complaint anonymously. In some universities this can be done in complete anonymity, in other universities you can only remain anonymous towards the person against whom you are filing a complaint. 

Flemish Committee for Scientific Integrity

Also, for those parties feeling unheard or unhappy with the outcome of the CWI investigation, a second opinion can be requested from the Flemish Committee for Scientific Integrity (VCWI). You have 30 calendar days to do so, after receiving the final advice from the university CWI. 

Collaborating

The core principles on research integrity are universal. This means that science, wherever it is undertaken, builds on the same set of values and norms. Although they are not always summarised in this particular order and described with this phrasing, they all come down to reliability, honesty, respect and accountability, as put forward in the ALLEA Code. 

Interpretation of the values and principles, however, may be affected by social, political or technological developments and by changes in the research environment. It allows for local or national differences in its implementation. Therefore, a code of conduct is also a living document that is updated regularly. Many countries in Europe, but also beyond, have adopted the ALLEA Code as the leading document for daily research practice, but not all. Some have also made additional national and/or discipline specific codes. Other (non-)European countries might work with other codes to guide them. 

As already indicated in Module 1, it is therefore important when engaging in collaborations, especially with non-European partners, to explicitly discuss views and definitions of the main aspects in the code. All parties should make specific arrangements at the start of their collaboration about how to put the principles into practice and what to do when issues arise. 

Take home messages

mindthegap

After module 4, I:

  • know what FFP and OUP stands for
  • understand the difference between FFP, violations of research integrity including OUP
  • know I can make an honest mistake and how to respond to it
  • understand that the prevalence of research misconduct is lower than for violations of research integrity but that both can have a significant impact on the scientific work understand the stakeholder roles and their importance when it comes to research misconduct
  • understand the nuanced view on the causes of research misconduct
  • know about the risks and opportunities of collaborative working when it comes to research misconduct and how to prevent it
  • understand what fabrication is, the stages of the research cycle it is most likely to appear and the stakeholders involved, also in collaborations
  • understand what falsification is, including the difference with fabrication, and its impact
  • understand what plagiarism is, including self-plagiarism, its impact, and the challenges in collaborations
  • understand the scope of OUP’s and their impact
  • know who to turn to when confronted with a (suspicion of) violation of research integrity
mindthegap

This might seem confusing at first. Discuss the guiding research integrity framework and the way to deal with possible violations when working with other colleagues, independent of where they come from. This should be done as soon as possible, and at the latest at the actual start of the research. It is advisable to include a research integrity policy in formal research administration agreements for collaborations, if it is possible to do so.

Previous page Next page

Other Unacceptable Practices

jumping-icon base

Other Unacceptable Practices

The ALLEA Code provides examples of unacceptable research practices. The list is not exhaustive. In most cases, universities have regulations for research integrity that allow their integrity committees to decide if a particular practice is unacceptable.

mindthegap

The Slippery Slopes on this website are situations in which unacceptable research practices may occur.

Module 1: introduction

  • Research integrity isn’t relevant for me
  • I’m experienced enough not to fall for a slippery slope

Module 2: supervision and mentoring

  • Micromanagement
  • The (im)possible aim for high impact publications

Module 3: good academic research practices

  • “Unreliable research findings due to flawed study design” and “Gender-blind research”
  • HARKing and data snooping
  • P-hacking
  • Double dipping
  • Unavailable (raw) data
  • Lack of detailed documentation
  • Image manipulation
  • Honory, gift and guest authorship
  • Providing a wrong or false affiliation or failing to disclose a relevant affiliation
  • Secondary referencing
  • Predatory publishers/conferences
  • Biased or fake peer review
  • Duplicate submission/publication 
  • Undisclosed conflict of interest

Module 4: violations of research integrity 

  • Honest mistakes 
  • Detection doesn’t always stop publishing 

Supplementary module on the General Data Protection Regulation

  • Lack of transparency
  • Pseudonymisation and anonymisation
  • Inadequate risk assessment

Supplementary module on ethics rules and regulations

  • Ethics Dumping
  • Extra (course) credits for students

Like the list provided by ALLEA, this list is not exhaustive and other situations might occur.

One other set of practices that is normally not covered by research integrity committees is bullying, harassment and discrimination. Such practices, while totally unacceptable, can also arise between university staff who are not involved in research. As such, they are covered by universities’ human resource regulations. Cases of bullying, harassment, and discrimination should be reported to the appropriate contact person at your university, faculty or department. A UKRI survey (Metcalfe et al, 2020) found that incidents of bullying and harassment were cited as the top factor negatively impacting research integrity. This means that research integrity committees and integrity officers should work together with services that deal with bullying and harassment, both to prevent and investigate violations of integrity. 

Impact

The main impact of fabrication, falsification, and sometimes plagiarism is on research itself. Such practices introduce false, misleading and fraudulent information into the research record, and thus directly damage science itself. 

Some of the other violations of research integrity may have a less direct impact on the scientific record itself, but they still damage science as a practice. Such practices may lead to wasted resources, undermine co-operation among scientists, or damage the societal reputation of science. But they can also lead to: 

  • Undermining the research process

While research is often a competitive process, the competition should be fair and should not involve deliberate attempts to undermine the work of others. For example: withholding research results or delaying or inappropriately hampering the work of other researchers. Another example is ‘Salami publication’ (sometimes called bologna or trivial publication), which is the practices of dividing one significant piece of research into a number of small experiments (least publishable units or LPUs) to publish on separately, simply to increase the number of publications (Source: ORI introduction to RCR, Retrieved May 27). That way your CV looks more impressive which can give an (unfair) advantage in job applications. 

  • Practices that undermine integrity procedures

Universities have policies and procedures to promote integrity and to investigate violations of research integrity. Failure to respect these efforts to keep science ‘clean’, and actions that undermine them, are unacceptable. Examples of such unacceptable practices include: misusing seniority to encourage violations of integrity, ignoring or covering up putative violations of integrity by others, and accusing researchers of misconduct or other violations in a malicious way. 

  • Dishonesty about research 

Researchers are expected to be responsible in presenting their research to funders, sponsors, and to society as a whole. Dishonesty about research undermines the important role that scientific research plays in society, being a reliable and independent partner in knowledge accumulation. Examples of dishonest practices include: misrepresenting research achievements and exaggerating the importance and practical applicability of findings.

Previous page Next page

Plagiarism in research

jumping-icon base

Plagiarism in research

mindthegap

The ALLEA Code defines plagiarism as: using other people’s work or ideas without giving proper credit to the original source.

While the definition is quite simple, the practical implications are more complicated. The following are examples of actions that can be considered to be plagiarism (plagiarism.org, examples retrieved February 17, 2024):

  • turning in someone else’s work as your own
  • copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
  • failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
  • giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
  • changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
  • copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not.

Cartoon by Patrick Hochstenbach under a Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 license

Please note that the term ‘plagiarism’ is also used outside academia to refer to violations of ethics in fields such as journalism and the arts. The standards used in such fields may be different from those in academia. 

Finally, plagiarism has a rather complex relationship to intellectual property rights. While plagiarism itself is not a crime, some forms of plagiarism may involve infringement of copyright, moral rights, or other legal infringements that could lead to prosecution. There are some (rare) cases in which academics have been prosecuted for plagiarism (f.e. India, Poland). See the discussion on PlagiarismToday for more information. 

Impact 

As with other forms of integrity violations, plagiarism undermines the credibility of academic research, and causes loss of valuable resources. It can also undermine trust and collegiality between researchers. 

Who is involved?

Senior Researcher

Senior researchers may be implicated in plagiarism by copying others’ work themselves, or by failing to ensure that their students and colleagues do not plagiarise.

Junior Researcher - Phd student

It is important for junior researchers to understand and apply the relevant rules relating to plagiarism, and to understand the difference between legitimate and illegal uses of others’ work.

Journals - Publishers

Journal editors and peer reviewers are on the front line in identifying plagiarism.

Other Researchers

Other researchers have a moral responsibility to report plagiarism if they identify it.

mindthegap

Self-plagiarism

Is it acceptable to reuse one’s own work? This is referred to as ‘self-plagiarism’ and is a contentious area.

Researchers in some fields argue that some degree of self-plagiarism is unavoidable because they are developing nuanced variations of their own ideas. How could you plagiarize work of which you yourself are the original author?

mindthegap

The ALLEA Code defines plagiarism as using ‘other people’s work or ideas without giving proper credit to the original source’. In addition, it defines ‘self-plagiarism’ as ‘re-publishing substantive parts of one’s own earlier publications, including translations, without duly acknowledging or citing the original’ as an unacceptable practice.   

Whether you use other people’s work or your own, it is necessary to give credit and include the proper references to the original publication.

There may, however, be situations where reuse of your own text without crediting the previous work can be accepted. For example, small scale reuse of short passages of your own text in the introduction. theory development and/or descriptions of the method applied may not be problematic.  

 On the other hand, extensive self-referencing may be seen as a negative practice as it artificially inflates the number of citations to your own work (KNAW Committee on Citation Practice, 2014).   

It may seem like a challenge but balance is key. Given the different angles, every case is different, so take the above considerations into account when writing a text. When in doubt, check the guidelines to authors of the journal you want to publish in. 

Collaborating

Local collaborations

Accusations of plagiarism often occur in local collaborations where the researchers involved already have shared ideas. Keeping accurate records such as emails, notes, lab notebooks, etc. can help, as can organising regular seminars so that ideas can be shared and attributed clearly.

Interdisciplinary collaborations

Interdisciplinary research raises risks of accusations of plagiarism because of different practices for citation. More difficult cases arise when different disciplines have different practices for what is considered to be original work and if that work has to be published across different journals: original ideas may be presented in one publication for a journal in one of the disciplines involved, and the same ideas may need to be republished in a journal in the other discipline.

International collaborations

Cultural differences around plagiarism and higher education practices in general are quite well documented (Liu et al, 2010). International collaborations may therefore pose a problem for plagiarism: clear expectations and definitions need to be identified. In general, the practices of peer-reviewed journals will take precedence as the source of guidance to prevent plagiarism, since the research will not be publishable if such practices are not respected.

mindthegap

Some guidelines:

 

Do you know what’s acceptable and what’s unacceptable? Video produced by the Office of Student Judicial Affairs, University of Alberta (Canada), and Townend Films.
Previous page Next page

Falsification of research data

jumping-icon base

Falsification of research results

mindthegap

The ALLEA Code defines falsification as: manipulating research materials, equipment, images, or processes, or changing, omitting, or suppressing data or results without justification.

Falsification or fabrication?

There is often confusion between falsification and fabrication. In general, if results report on experiments that never took place, it is fabrication (making up results). If the experiments did take place, but the results were altered, it is falsification. However, there are some borderline cases: if the same image is used to represent two different experiments, this could be falsification (changing the data), or fabrication (making the data up). The difference may be significant for investigators and other scientists: if the ‘real’ data from a falsified experiment is available somewhere, it may be possible to correct the scientific record based on this data. If the data has been entirely fabricated, it is essentially worthless. However, this does not make falsification any less serious than fabrication.

Impact

The impact of falsification on science is similar to the impact of fabrication: it causes damage to the scientific record and to the careers of researchers involved. It will also damage the careers of collaborating researchers who were not aware of the falsification. Falsification imposes costs in terms of wasted research resources and the cost of investigating cases.

In contrast to fabrication, falsification also has negative impacts on research participants (since falsified results are based on real experiments). For human participants, this may range from wasted time and damage to their faith in science, to undergoing distressing or painful procedures for no good reason. This was particularly notable in the Wakefield case, where nurses were required to carry out painful procedures on children. Laboratory animals will also suffer for no good reason if they are used for experiments for which the results are later falsified.

mindthegap

Image manipulation

Although it is sometimes justifiable to alter images as discussed in Module 3, some types of image manipulation are fraudulent.

In the video below, Dr. Thorsten Beck of the Humboldt-Elsevier Advanced Data and Text Centre (HEADT Centre) in Berlin talks about some of the fundamental challenges of dealing with image manipulations. 

Detection of potential mistakes, fabrication and/or fabrication

mindthegap

Similar to the solutions used by many journals and institutions to detect plagiarism, there is a variety of commercial and non-commercial tools and strategies available to help detecting other specific irregularities. Some examples:  

  • Tools to detect potential issues with the statistical analyses in studies or the underlying dataset:  
    • The Grim test evaluates whether the reported means of summary results are consistent with the given sample size and number of items (Brown and Heathers, 2017). Simply put, when working with whole numbers and a fixed number of observations, some means cannot be obtained, indicating there is something wrong with the analysis and/or the underlying dataset.  
    • Statcheck checks whether the reported p-values are consistent with the accompanying test statistic and degrees of freedom and flags results where the computed p-values don’t match as an error (Nuijten et al, 2016).  
  • The tortured phrases detector may be used to detect unexpected weird phrases which could be the results of questionable AI-generated or rewritten texts attempting to evade plagiarism detection software (Cabanac, 2021).  
  • Within the biomedical field, Seek & Blastn may help to verify the nucleotide sequence reagents in publications and manuscripts (Labbé, 2019).  
  • There are multiple commercial tools available to assist in the detection of alterations and duplications of scientific images. An overview of interesting tools has been compiled by the STM Image Alterations & Duplications Working Group. 

 Although the above tools have great value in detecting potential issues, it is, however, important to note that none of these tools are 100% accurate and may therefore create both false positive as false negative hits. Validity of the observations always has to be checked in person. Moreover, a confirmed hit does not automatically mean falsification or fabrication have occurred. Mistakes because of honest errors cannot be ruled out.  

Previous page Next page

Fabrication of research results

jumping-icon base

Fabrication of research results

mindthegap

The ALLEA Code defines fabrication as: making up data or results and recording them as if they were real.

Other codes provide some more detail on what may be involved in fabrication or differ according to local culture:

‘Fabrication is the construction and/or addition of data, observations, or characterizations that never occured in the gathering of data or running of experiments. Fabrication can occur when ‘filling out’ the rest of experiment runs, for example. Claims about results need to be made on complete data sets (as is normally assumed), where claims made based on incomplete or assumed results is a form of fabrication’. (Erich W. Schienke, definition copied from website PennState) 

mindthegap

Bias

Fabrication may be related to research bias in some of the following ways:

  • Fabrication may be (a symptom of) an extreme version of confirmation bias: researchers may become so convinced that their hypothesis is correct that they may fabricate results to support it (or fabricate initial results to enable further research).
  • Hot stuff bias: failure to detect fabrication may result from an uncritical approach to ‘hot’ topics on the part of journal editors, peer reviewers, or funders.
  • Positive results bias: fabrication may be more likely to arise because of pressure to publish positive results.

Impact

As with other forms of misconduct, fabrication damages science because it distorts the scientific record. In particular, by introducing results that have no empirical basis. Fabrication involves fraudulent behaviour (obtaining and misusing financial resources), and costs in terms of waste of efforts of peer reviewers and publishers, of other researchers involved in the project who were not aware of the fabrication, and of researchers who subsequently take up the results in further research.

mindthegap

Some high profiles cases:

Senior Researcher

Senior researchers may be involved by fabricating results themselves, by putting junior researchers under pressure to fabricate results, or by failing to take steps to prevent others from fabricating results. Conversely, senior researchers play a key role in preventing or detecting cases of fabrication, both in their own work and in the work that they are supervising.

Junior Researcher - Phd student

Junior researchers may be involved in fabrication either by fabricating results themselves or by facing pressure to fabricate results. They may also play an important role in preventing fabrication by following correct practices, and may become involved in reports or investigations of cases of fabrication. In the ‘Stapel’ case, Diederik Stapel’s PhD researchers detected his fabrication, and reported it to their university.

Funders - Journals Journals - Publishers

Journal editors and peer reviewers are often on the front line in detecting fabrication. They are among the first people to see publications in their final version, and they bear responsibility for setting up protocols to try and detect fabrication.

Other Researchers

Many cases of fabrication have been detected by researchers carrying out reviews of their colleagues’ work. For example, John Carlisle (2017) analysed demographic factors of (supposedly) randomised clinical trials, using statistical features of the demographics to show that the distribution of the factors could not be random, and that there was a possibility that the results of the trials were fabricated.

mindthegap

Detection doesn’t always stop publishing

The following sometimes happens when fabrication is detected by journals. The authors first submit an article with fabricated data to a higher profile journal. The article is rejected, possibly because the fabrication is detected by the peer reviewers. The authors then submit the article to a less vigilant journal, possibly with changes to hide the fabrication. Because the article is published in a less vigilant journal, there might be less chance that the fabrication will be detected (but the authors still get credit for the article). 

mindthegap

When to think about this?

Fabrication can appear at almost any stage of the research lifecycle, up to the point that the research is actually submitted for publication: 

  • Poor initial planning of data management and unrealistic promises at the proposal stage may increase the temptation to fabricate results at later stages in the project. 
  • Formulation of research questions and goals may influence the temptation to fabricate data: if such questions are poorly or unrealistically formulated, this may increase the temptation and opportunity to fabricate results. Poor project management structures may also increase the temptation and opportunity to fabricate results: practices such as well-developed plans for data collection and clear record keeping can prevent fabrication. 
  • Data gathering and analysis phase: this is obviously the phase at which data fabrication is most likely to occur. 
  • Fabrication may also arise at the write-up phase if researchers are tempted to fabricate data to improve the (apparent) results of their research. 
Collaborating

Collaborations may reduce the risk of fabrication occurring: collaborative working increases openness and scrutiny. Several of the most high-profile cases of fabrication involved senior researchers who appear to have worked alone when fabricating data, and only involved others in the analysis of their results.

Local collaborations

Local collaborations require vigilance to reduce the risk of fabrication of research results occurring. Clear and transparent plans for data storage and management will help reduce the risk. Open data practices are also a positive approach: you can contact your university’s data management service or team for advice on protocols.

Interdisciplinary collaborations

On the one hand, interdisciplinary collaboration may pose additional risks for fabrication, since researchers working together from different fields may not be able to recognise the anomalies that are indicators that research has been fabricated. On the other hand, approaches such as triangulation (using mixed methods to approach a single research question) may help prevent fabrication.

International collaborations

The distance between researchers in international collaborations may make it harder to monitor data production. However, data management and open data practices may help.

 

Previous page Next page

Threats to research integrity

jumping-icon base

Threats to research integrity

There has been a great deal of fascination and speculation about the causes of violations of research integrity. For a long time, it was assumed that publication pressure was the main cause of violations of research integrity. The last decennia research, however, increasingly gives science-based insights on why researchers commit all kinds of violations. This shows a much more complicated story than a single cause explanation.

Throughout this course, we have mentioned several times the importance of looking at science as an eco-system with different stakeholders, different interests, roles and responsibilities, each of which has its impact on increasing the quality of research and preventing and dealing with violations of research integrity.

Not surprisingly, influencing factors, whether to increase or decrease the likelihood of engaging in violations of research integrity, lie in each of these aspects and together make up the explanatory framework. This also means that improving the quality of research/preventing violations of research integrity must be composed of different initiatives, targeting different stakeholders and different goals, to make an integrated impact. It entails that no single stakeholder stands alone in this: each must take responsibility and contribute.

Davis et al. (2007) analysed the purported causes of research misconduct and grouped them into 7 categories:

  • personal and professional stressors, such as pressure to produce, insufficient time, stressful jobs but also psychological problems, overcommitting, …
  • organizational climate, such as professional conflicts, insufficient supervision/mentoring, poor communication/coordination, …
  • job insecurities, such as inappropriate responsibility, strong competition for positions, …
  • rationalizations like jumping the gun to disseminate findings, lying in order to preserve the truth, …
  • personal inhibitions, such as a too difficult job/task, frustrations,
  • rationalizations coming from fear, apathy/dislike, avoiding degradation by others, …
  • personality factors that incline weaknesses in character like impatience, laziness, too much personal need for recognition, etc.
  • All these factors will come into play to a greater or lesser extent in an individual situation and  are likely to interact with each other.

Tijdink et al (2016) focussed on personality traits and showed that Machiavellianism is most strongly associated with research misbehavior. Machiavellianism being a person’s tendency to “be unemotional, detached from conventional morality and hence inclined to deceive and manipulate others, to focus on unmitigated achievement, and to give high priority to their own performance”. The association for narcissism and psychopathy was less clear.

Fanelli et al (2015) looked more closely at the research environment and supports that “scientific misconduct is more likely in countries that lack research integrity policies, in countries where individual publication performance is rewarded with cash, in cultures and situations were mutual criticism is hampered”. He also showed that “high-impact and productive researchers, and those working in countries in which pressures to publish are believed to be higher, are less-likely to produce retracted papers, and more likely to correct them.” Then again, committing misconduct is more likely in the earliest phases of a researcher’s career.

Treats to research integrity. Training video developed by the University of Amsterdam in which the following QRPs are explained: harking, p-hacking, cherry-picking and selective omission. 
Collaborating

Collaborative working can imply both risks and opportunities for researchers in terms of integrity. On the one hand, researchers are seen as collectively responsible for the integrity of the projects on which they work, so violations of research integrity may reflect badly on all involved, even if some partners were not involved in the violation. On the other hand, collaboration may provide extra controls and more rigorous checks that can reduce the chance of violations of research integrity occurring. 

Information on specific aspects of violations of research integrity in collaborative projects are covered in the other chapters. The ALLEA Code provides advice for preventing misconduct in collaborative projects: 

  • All partners in research collaborations take responsibility for the integrity of the research and its results. 
  • All partners in research collaborations formally agree at the outset, and monitor and adapt as necessary, the goals of the research and the process for communicating their research as transparently and openly as possible. 
  • All partners in research collaborations formally agree at the outset, and monitor and adapt as necessary, the expectations and standards concerning research integrity, the laws and regulations that will apply, protection of the intellectual property of collaborators, and procedures for handling conflicts and possible cases of misconduct. 
  • All partners in research collaborations are consulted and formally agree on submissions for publication of research results and other forms of dissemination or exploitation of the results. 
Previous page Next page

What are violations of research integrity?

jumping-icon base

What are violations of research integrity?

Living up to the standards of research integrity is a professional responsibility. It is therefore important for all researchers to be aware of what are considered violations of research integrity. Knowing the concept of violations can help you in case you find yourself in a challenging situation, when you are doubting the right choice or when you are asked to do something you don’t feel comfortable with. Knowledge of the concept is additionally useful in attending or delivering training, supporting or collaborating with colleagues who may not be aware. Finally, (alleged) violations are the subject of investigations by the Committee for Research integrity. 

Traditionally, violations of research integrity have focused on fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP). In recent years, however, the scope has widened beyond actions that directly affect the scientific record.  

mindthegap

The ALLEA Code defines the framework of good and bad research practices for all European (and beyond) subscribers to the code, including all Flemish Universities.  The code identifies three different types of violations of research integrity: 

  • Research misconduct: fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP categorisation)  
  • Violations of good research practice that distort the research record or damage the integrity of the research process or of researchers  
  • Other unacceptable practices, see non-exhaustive list in the ALLEA Code (p.10, pdf).
mindthegap

Honest mistakes

Reviewers, other researchers and integrity committees may use a variety of different techniques to check if research data are reliable and credible. Honest mistakes can (also) be picked up during these checks. Typical examples of honest mistakes can be:

  • Typos  
  • Inclusion of the wrong figure / graph 
  • Forgetting to account for missing data 
  • Mistakes during the data collection, such as errors in measurements, mislabelling of samples, or problems with data recording. 
  • Errors in the statistical analysis of data, such as miscalculations, misinterpretation of statistical tests, or overlooking assumptions of statistical methods. 
  • Misunderstanding the context of existing studies.  
  • Unintentionally misrepresenting the findings of others. 

Note that all of the above happen in an unintentional way, as an error. 

mindthegap

These possibilities emphasize the importance of being clear and accurate in conducting and reporting research: if the description of the research fails to include details such as those referred to above, it could appear that data has been falsified or fabricated. 

Honest mistakes are not considered a violation of research integrity if these are made unintentionally, researchers take precautions to avoid them, and as soon as they become aware communicate about it transparently and do the necessary to correct them. Researchers must develop a behaviour that allows them to work carefully in order to avoid (repeatedly making) mistakes. 

Some numbers and how things evolved

Fanelli carried out a meta-analysis of surveys about misconduct (Fanelli, 2009). He found that 1,97% of researchers admitted having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once. In addition, 34% admitted other questionable practices. Furthermore, the analysis suggested that 14% of respondents admitted that colleagues had been involved in falsification, and up to 72% admitted that colleagues had been involved in other questionable research practices.

Fanelli’s research raises some interesting questions on the researchers’ willingness to admit to misconduct, when it was committed by themselves or by others: 

  • Researchers seem more willing to identify misconduct when it is committed by others. This may be explained by the ‘Mohammed Ali-effect’, whereby people perceive themselves as more honest than others. Indeed, researchers may even be overzealous in judging others: in one study, 24% of supposed integrity violations observed by respondents did not meet an official definition of misconduct (Titus et al, 2008). 
  • There might be a decrease in self-reporting of misconduct. This can be accompanied by more training and awareness of integrity issues. However, training in integrity does not seem to decrease propensity to commit misconduct. So it may be that researchers are aware of misconduct, but are more likely to identify it in others than admit it to themselves. 

A 2018 survey in Belgium about research misconduct in the domain of the biomedical sciences confirmed the findings from Fanelli (Godecharle, 2018). The more recent Dutch National Survey on Research Integrity (NSRI) found the prevalence of fabrication and falsification to be 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6), respectively (Gopalakrishna G, 2022). The survey also found the prevalence of QRPs ranging from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. It is difficult to interpret the reasons behind these higher prevalences compared to the 2009 Fanelli study. One possible explanation is an increased awareness among researchers about what constitutes violations of research integrity and questionable research practices and/or a higher willingness to admit engaging in these practices.

Who is involved?

General public

Academic research can have a large impact on the general public. Overviews of the history of misconduct (Lafolette, 2000) suggest that the public tends to hold scientists in high regard, and to view fraud as the action of a few ‘bad apples’. In some cases, the public has tended to deny that serious fraud has taken place. This seems to be particularly prevalent when scientists have a high public profile and are working in areas that the public considers to be important. Andrew Wakefield (who falsely claimed a link between the Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine and autism in children in a high profile publication) still has a career as an anti-vaccine advocate, despite the comprehensive debunking of his work and the withdrawal of his medical qualifications. 

Other Researchers

Fanelli suggested that scientists are more likely to report others of fraud than to admit to it themselves (Fanelli, 2009). He suggested that better education and greater awareness about misconduct mainly encourages researchers to report the misconduct of their colleagues as it can lead to reputation damage when admitting it for themselves. At the same time, scientists have tended to resist political and public pressure for external regulation of misconduct. This has led to the dominance of practices of self-regulation and peer-regulation of misconduct in many countries. 

Funders - Journals Journals - Publishers

In the past, journals and publishers demonstrated an ambivalent attitude to violations of research integrity, sometimes ignoring problems with the work they have published. Fortunately, more and more journals and publishers take action to correct and retract faulty research. In addition, publishers and journals now often issue overall integrity statements (such as their adherence to the guidelines drafted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)) together with good research practices by which they communicate their expectations towards researchers considering submitting their research for publication.

Governing bodies

Interactions between government and the scientific community in relation to research integrity have often been marked by conflict. When a government suggested possible legislation to deal with violations of research integrity (even as a last resort), some scientists have responded in an outspoken way by arguing against government interference with science. Some sources suggest that this has been counterproductive (Lafolette, 2000), with these outspoken demands drowning out more constructive proposals to address violations of research integrity. One area that is disputed is the claim that certain countries (including particularly Asian countries) have a competitive advantage because science is less regulated. In fact, it has been argued that the high–profile Hwang affair in South-Korea was actually a response to increased regulation and governance of science. The researchers involved wanted to undermine ethics regulation in their field by presenting spectacular (and ultimately fraudulent) results that would create public pressure to allow their research to continue (Bogner & Menz, 2006). 

Previous page Next page