European Universities’ Guidance on Research Integrity and Misconduct

Abstract

Research integrity is imperative to good science. Nonetheless, many countries and institutions develop their own integrity guidance, thereby risking incompatibilities with guidance of collaborating institutions. We retrieved guidance for academic integrity and misconduct of 18 universities from 10 European countries and investigated accessibility, general content, principles endorsed, and definitions of misconduct. Accessibility and content differ substantially between institutions. There are general trends of common principles of integrity and definitions of misconduct, yet differences remain. Parallel with previous research, we distinguish different approaches in integrity guidance; one emphasizes broad values of integrity, and the other details negative behaviors of misconduct. We propose that a balance between both approaches is necessary to preserve trust, meaning, and realism of guidance on research integrity.

Keywords

research integrity misconduct research ethics ethical requirements code of conduct values of research guidance on research integrity European universities

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

M. S.

Steneck

N. H.

(Eds.). (2011). International research collaboration: Much to be gained, many ways to get in trouble. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bhattacharjee

(2013, April 26). The mind of a con man. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html?pagewanted=all&;_r=0

Bhutta

Z. A.

Crane

(2014). Should research fraud be a crime? The British Medical Journal, 349, 1-3. doi:10.1136/bmj.g4532

Boesz

C. C.

Fischer

P. L.

(2011). International cooperation to ensure research integrity. In Anderson

M. S.

Steneck

N. H.

(Eds.), International research collaborations: Much to be gained, many ways to get in trouble (pp. 123-135). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bosch

(2010). Safeguarding good scientific practice in Europe. EMBO Reports, 11, 252-257. doi:10.1038/embor.2010.32

Bosch

(2012). Research integrity on the horizon. The Lancet, 379, 1679-1680.

Brumfield

(2002, September 26). Physicist found guilty of misconduct. Nature News. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020923/full/news020923-9.html

Bungener

Hadchouel

(2012). Rôle des institutions dans la gestion de la fraude scientifique: l’exemple de la Délégation à l’intégrité scientifique de l’Inserm [Role of research institutions in management of scientific fraud: The example of Inserm Scientific Integrity delegation]. La Presse Médicale, 41, 841-846. doi:10.1016/j.lpm.2012.02.050

Callaway

(2011). Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities. Nature, 479, 15. doi:10.1038/479015a

10.

Collins

H. M.

Pinch

(1998). The golem: What you should know about science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. (2013). Safeguarding good academic integrity. Retrieved from http://www.dfg.de/en/research_funding/principles_dfg_funding/good_scientific_practice/index.html

12.

De Vries

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, 43-50.

13.

Dresser

(1993). Sanctions for research misconduct: A legal perspective. Academic Medicine, 68, S39-S43.

14.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Joutnal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107-115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

15.

European Commission. (2005). The European Charter for Researchers. Retrieved from https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/charter/european-charter

16.

European Science Foundation and All European Academies. (2011). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf

17.

Fanelli

(2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4, e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

18.

Ferguson

Masur

Olson

Ramirez

Robyn

Schmaling

(2007). Enhancing the culture of research ethics on university campuses. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 189-198. doi:10.1007/s10805-007-9033-9

19.

Franzoni

Scellato

Stephan

(2011). Changing incentives to publish. Science, 333, 702-703.

20.

Giorgini

Mecca

J. T.

Gibson

Medeiros

Mumford

M. D.

Connelly

Devenport

L. D.

(2015). Researcher perceptions of ethical guidelines and codes of conduct. Accountability in Research, 22, 123-138. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.955607

21.

Glänzel

(2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51, 69-115. doi:10.1023/A:1010512628145

22.

Glänzel

Schubert

(2004). Analysing scientific collaboration through co-authorship. In Moed

Glänzel

Schmoch

(Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 257-276). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

23.

Godecharle

Nemery

Dierickx

(2013). Guidance on research integrity: No union in Europe. The Lancet, 381, 1097-1098.

24.

Godecharle

Nemery

Dierickx

(2014). Heterogeneity in European research integrity guidance: Relying on values or norms? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9, 79-90. doi:10.1177/1556264614540594

25.

Goldacre

(2009). Bad science. London, England: Harper Perennial London.

26.

Handley

F. G.

(2011). Considerations upon setting out to collaborate internationally. In Anderson

M. S.

Steneck

N. H.

(Eds.), International research collaborations: Much to be gained, many ways to get in trouble (pp. 21-32). New York, NY: Routledge.

27.

Johnsson

Eriksson

Helgesson

Hansson

M. G.

(2014). Making researchers moral: Why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review. Research Ethics, 10, 29-46. doi:10.1177/1747016113504778

28.

Kalichman

Sweet

Plemmons

(2014). Standards of scientific conduct: Are there any? Science and Engineering Ethics, 20, 885-896.

29.

Lee

(2011). The past, present, and future of scientific misconduct research: What has been done? What needs to be done? Journal of the Professoriate, 6, 67-83.

30.

Lund University Vice Chancellor. (2005). Ethical issues at Lund University, notes for guidance. Retrieved from http://www5.lu.se/upload/RULESandREGULATIONS/Ethical_issues_atLundUniversity_Notes_for_guidance.pdf

31.

Mahmud

Bretag

(2013). Postgraduate research students and academic integrity: “It’s about good research training.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35, 432-443. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2013.812178

32.

Martinson

B. C.

Anderson

M. S.

de Vries

(2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737-738.

33.

Mojon-Azzi

S. M.

Jiang

Wagner

Mojon

D. S.

(2003). Journals: Redundant publications are bad news. Nature, 421, 209.

34.

Pincock

(2006, January 16). Lancet study faked. The Scientist. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/23607/title/Lancet-study-faked/

35.

Redman

B. K.

Caplan

A. L.

(2005). Off with their heads: The need to criminalize some forms of scientific misconduct. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 33, 345-348.

36.

Resnik

D. B.

Stewart

C. N.

(2012). Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement. Accountability in Research, 19, 56-63. doi:10.1080/08989621.2012.650948

37.

Sovacool

B. K.

(2005). Using criminalization and due process to reduce scientific misconduct. The American Journal of Bioethics, 5, W1-W7. doi:10.1080/15265160500313242

38.

Stainthorpe

A. C.

(2011). Scientific integrity in the context of Pan-European Cooperation. In Anderson

M. S.

Steneck

N. H.

(Eds.), International research collaborations: Much to be gained, many ways to get in trouble (pp. 137-149). New York, NY: Routledge.

39.

Steneck

N. H.

(2011). Research integrity in the context of global cooperation. In Anderson

M. S.

Steneck

N. H.

(Eds.), International research collaborations: Much to be gained, many ways to get in trouble (pp. 9-19). New York, NY: Routledge.

40.

VSNU-Working Group. (2004, revisions 2012). The Netherlands code of conduct for scientific practice: Principles of good scientific teaching and research. Retrieved from http://www.uva.nl/binaries/content/assets/uva/en/the-netherlands-code-of-conduct-for-scientific-practice-2012.pdf

41.

Wells

J. A.

Thrush

C. R.

Martinson

B. C.

May

T. A.

Stickler

Callahan

E. C.

Klomparens

K. L.

(2014). Survey of organizational research climates in three research intensive, doctoral granting universities. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9, 72-88.