Heterogeneity in European Research Integrity Guidance

Abstract

Similar forms of misconduct are perceived differently throughout Europe. There are no extensive surveys on the guidance on research integrity in the different countries of Europe. Therefore, we performed a systematic content analysis of (biomedical) research integrity guidance documents from all the countries of the European Economic Area. We show that there is strong heterogeneity concerning research integrity guidance on crucial aspects, for example, the defining of research misconduct, at both an international and a national level. We also sought to explain why the guidance documents differ by distinguishing the approaches that underlie them. We distinguished a value-based and a norm-based approach, as well as different perspectives on trust. The current confusing situation concerning research integrity guidance hampers international research and possibly wastes research funds. We risk talking past each other, if we do not take the distinction between these underlying approaches into account.

Keywords

authorship peer review publication ethics questionable research conflicts of interest research integrity research misconduct prevention science policy guidance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alberts

(2012). Voices of the next generation. Science, 335, 13.

Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. (2010). Code of Ethics for Researchers of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. Retrieved from http://www.cas.cz/o_avcr/zakladni_informace/dokumenty/eticky_kodex.html

All European Academies, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, & Association of Universities in the Netherlands. (2003). Memorandum on scientific integrity. Retrieved from http://www.allea.org/Pages/ALL/12/727.bGFuZz1FTkc.html

Anderson

M. S.

Horn

A. S.

Risbey

K. R.

Ronning

E. A.

De Vries

Martinson

B. C.

(2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82, 853-860.

Association of Universities in the Netherlands. (2012). The Netherlands code of conduct for scientific practice: Principles of good scientific teaching and research. Retrieved from http://www.tue.nl/uploads/media/The_Netherlands_Code_of_Conduct_for_Scientific_Practice_2012.pdf

Austrian Agency for Research Integrity. (2010). Annex I to the rules of procedure of the commission for research integrity: Guidelines for the investigation of alleged scientific misconduct. Retrieved from http://www.oeawi.at/en/downloads.html

Austrian Agency for Research Integrity. (2011). Statement of the Commission for Research Integrity on Handling Cases of Plagiarism. Retrieved from: http://www.oeawi.at/en/downloads.html

Beauchamp

T. L.

Childress

J. F.

(2008). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Belgian National Academy of Science. (2009). Code of ethics for scientific research in Belgium. Retrieved from http://www.kuleuven.be/research/integrity/procedures/Nationale%20code%20Belspo_en.pdf

10.

Benos

D. J.

Bashari

Chaves

J. M.

Gaggar

Niren

LaFrance

. . .Zotov

(2007). The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education, 31, 145-152.

11.

Bosch

(2011). Safeguarding good scientific practice in Europe. EMBO Reports, 11, 252-257.

12.

Bosch

Hernández

Pericas

J. M.

Doti

Marušić

(2012). Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51928. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051928

13.

Callaway

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

14.

Call the cops. (2013, December 4). Nature, 504(7478). Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/call-the-cops-1.14288

15.

Campbell

E. G.

Clarridge

B. R.

Gokhale

Birenbaum

Hilgartner

Holtzman

N. A.

Blumenthal

(2002). Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 473-480.

16.

Chopra

Eagle

K. A.

(2012). Perioperative mischief: The price of academic misconduct. The American Journal of Medicine, 125, 953-955.

17.

Cyranoski

(2014). Cloning comeback. Nature, 505, 468-471. doi:10.1038/505468a

18.

Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. (2009). Guidelines for good scientific practice. Retrieved from http://fivu.dk/en/publications/2009/the-danish-committees-on-scientific-guidelines-for-good-scientific-practice

19.

Danish Law. (2009). Consolidated Act No. 306. Retrieved from http://fivu.dk/en/legislation/prevailing-laws-and-regulations

20.

Danish 787 Law. (2010). Consolidated Act No. 1064. Retrieved from http://fivu.dk/en/legislation/prevailing-laws-and-regulations

21.

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, 1, 43-50.

22.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107-115.

23.

Estonian Academy of Sciences. (2002). Code of ethics for Estonian scientists. Retrieved from http://www.akadeemia.ee/en/documents/

24.

European Science Foundation. (2010). Fostering research integrity in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.esf.org/publications/corporate-publications.html

25.

European Science Foundation & All European Academies. (2011). European code of conduct for research integrity. Retrieved from http://www.esf.org/publications/corporate-publications.html

26.

Fanelli

(2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

27.

Fanelli

(2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS ONE, 5(4), e10271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271

28.

Fang

F. C.

Steen

R. G.

Casadevall

(2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 17028-17033.

29.

Firebaugh

(2007). Replication data sets and favored-hypothesis bias. Sociological Methods Research, 36, 200-209.

30.

Freese

(2007). Replication standards for quantitative social science: Why not sociology. Sociological Methods Research, 36, 153-172.

31.

German Research Foundation. (1998). Recommendations of the commission on professional self regulation in science: Proposals for safeguarding good scientific practice. Retrieved from http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/reden_stellungnahmen/download/self_regulation_98.pdf

32.

Godecharle

Nemery

Dierickx

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

33.

Godecharle

Nemery

Dierickx

(2013b). Integrity training: Conflicting practices. Science, 340, 1403.

34.

Health Research Board. (2008a). HRB guidelines for host institutions on good research practice. Retrieved from http://www.hrb.ie/research-strategy-funding/policies-and-guidelines/guidelines/guidelines-on-good-research-practice/

35.

Health Research Board. (2008b). HRB guidelines for host institutions on the handling of allegations of research misconduct. Retrieved from http://www.hrb.ie/research-strategy-funding/policies-and-guidelines/guidelines/guidelines-for-handling-allegations-of-misconduct/

36.

Health Research Board. (2008c). Policy for dealing with alleged research misconduct in applications made to the HRB. Retrieved from http://www.oeawi.at/downloads/Policy%20for%20Dealing%20with%20Plagiarism_FINAL241007.pdf

37.

Health Research Board. (2010). Health research board position statement on authorship. Retrieved from http://www.hrb.ie/uploads/media/HRB_Position_Statement_on_Authorship__May2010.pdf

38.

Hellenic National Bioethics Commission. (2008). Report on research ethics in the biological sciences. Retrieved from http://www.bioethics.gr/index.php/en/gnomes/86-research-ethics-in-biological-sciences

39.

Hellenic National Bioethics Commission. (2011). National commission of bioethics: Opinion on research ethics in the biological sciences. Retrieved from http://www.bioethics.gr/index.php/en/gnomes/86-research-ethics-in-biological-sciences

40.

Hungarian Academy of Sciences. (2010). Science ethics code of the Hungarian academy of sciences. Retrieved from http://www.allea.org/Content/ALLEA/Scientific%20Integrity/ScienceEthicsCode-HAS.pdf

41.

InterAcademy Council. (2012). Responsible conduct in the global research enterprise: A policy report. Alkmaar, The Netherlands: Bejo druk & print.

42.

Irish Council for Bioethics. (2010). Recommendations for promoting research integrity. Retrieved from http://www.spd.dcu.ie/site/research/documents/Recommendations_for_Promoting.pdf

43.

Kennedy

(2002). More questions about research misconduct. Science, 297, 13.

44.

Kornfeld

(2012). Perspective: Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87, 877-882.

45.

Kupferschmidt

Vogel

(2013). Plagiarism hunters take down research minister. Science, 339, 747.

46.

Kyzas

P. A.

Loizou

K. T.

Ioannidis

J. P. A.

(2005). Selective reporting biases in cancer prognostic factor studies. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 97, 1043-1055.

47.

Latvian Academy of Sciences. (1997). Scientist’s code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.lzp.gov.lv/index.php?mylang=english

48.

Luhmann

(2000). Vertrauen. Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität [Trust. A mechanism of the reduction of social complexity].Stuttgart, Germany: UTB. (Original work published 1968)

49.

Martinson

B. C.

Anderson

M. S.

Crain

A. L.

De Vries

(2006). Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 51-66.

50.

Martinson

B. C.

Anderson

M. S.

De Vries

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

51.

Medical Research Council. (2009). Scientific Misconduct Policy and Procedure. Retrieved from http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC005820

52.

Michalek

A. M.

Hutson

A. D.

Wicher

C. P.

Trump

D. L.

(2010). The costs and underappreciated consequences of research misconduct: A case study. PLoS Medicine, 7(8). e1000318. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000318

53.

Ministry of Science and Information Technology. (2004). Good scientific research practice. Retrieved from http://www.lms.lt/files/active/0/polish_reserach_practice.pdf

54.

National Academy of Finland. (2003). Guidelines on research ethics. Retrieved from http://www.aka.fi/Tiedostot/Tiedostot/Julkaisut/Suomen%20Akatemian%20eettiset%20ohjeet%202003.pdf

55.

National Advisory Board on Research Ethics. (2002). Good scientific practice and procedures for handling misconduct and fraud in science. Retrieved from http://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/Hyva_Tieteellinen_ENG.pdf

56.

National Institute for Health and Medical Research. (2000). Responding to allegation of scientific misconduct: The procedure at the French National Medical and Health Research Institute. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11273435

57.

National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators: A broad base of quantitative information on the U.S. and international science and engineering enterprise. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c4/c4h.htm

58.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2007). Best practices for ensuring scientific integrity and preventing misconduct. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/science/scienceandtechnologypolicy/40188303.pdf

59.

Polish Academy of Sciences. (2001). Good manners in science: A set of principles and guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.ken.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/goodmanners.pdf

60.

Reidpath

D. D.

Allotey

P. A.

(2001). Data sharing in medical research: An empirical investigation. Bioethics, 15, 125-134.

61.

Royal Irish Academy. (2010). Ensuring integrity in Irish research: A discussion. Retrieved from http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=14686

62.

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2001). Note on scientific integrity. Retrieved from https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/notitie-wetenschappelijke-integriteit

63.

Savage

C. J.

Vickers

A. J.

(2009). Empirical study of data sharing by authors publishing in PLoS journals. PLoS ONE, 4(9), e7078. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007078

64.

Schiermeier

(2012). Romanian prime minister accused of plagiarism: Allegations prompt questions about government’s ability to tackle misconduct in academia. Nature, 486, Article 305. doi:10.1038/486305a

65.

SCImago Lab. (2012). SCImago journal and country rank. Retrieved from http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=2700&category=0&region=all&yer=all&order=it&min=0&min_type=it

66.

Shamoo

A. E.

Resnik

D. B.

(2009). Responsible conduct of research (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

67.

Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html

68.

Smith

(2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178-182.

69.

Spanish Bioethics Committee. (2010). Recommendations of the Spanish Bioethics Committee in Relation to the Drive and Implementation of Good Scientific Practice in Spain. Retrieved from http://www.comitedebioetica.es/documentacion/index.php

70.

Spanish National Research Council. (2011). Code of good scientific practices of the Spanish National Research Council. Retrieved from http://www.csic.es/web/guest/etica-en-la-investigacion

71.

Steen

R. G.

(2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 249-253. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040923

72.

Steneck

N. H.

(2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 53-74.

73.

Swedish Research Council. (2011). Good research practice. Retrieved from http://www.vr.se/inenglish/ethics/publi-cations.4.325716ea11d7602a6d180008726.htm

74.

Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. (2008). Integrity in scientific research: Principles and procedures. Retrieved from http://www.akademien-schweiz.ch/en/index/Portrait/Kommissionen-AG/Wissenschaftliche-Integritaet.html

75.

ten Have

Ter Meulen

van Leeuwen

(2008). Medische ethiek [Medical ethics] (2nd ed.). Houten, The Netherlands: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

76.

Titus

S. L.

James

A. W.

Rhoades

L. J.

(2008). Repairing research misconduct. Nature, 453, 980-982.

77.

Torres

(2010, February 23). The Daily Dose—Wellcome to the future. Nature Medicine. Retrieved from http://blogs.nature.com/spoonful/2010/02/the_daily_dose_wellcome_to_the_1.html

78.

U.K. Research Integrity Office. (2008). Procedure for the investigation of misconduct in research. Retrieved from http://www.ukrio.org/publications/

79.

U.K. Research Integrity Office. (2009). Code of practice for research: Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct. Retrieved from http://www.ukrio.org/publications/

80.

Universities UK. (2012). The Concordat to Support Research Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2012/TheConcordatToSupportResearchIntegrity.pdf

81.

Van Noorden

(2013, January 28). Dutch psychology fraudster avoids trial. Nature News Blog. Retrieved from http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/06/dutch-psychology-fraudster-avoi-ds-trial.html

82.

Wellcome Trust. (2005). Statement on the handling of allegations of research misconduct. Retrieved from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Policy-and-position-statements/WTD002756.htm

83.

Wicherts

J. M.

Bakker

Molenaar

(2011). Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS ONE, 6, e26828. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026828

84.

Wicherts

J. M.

Kievit

R. A.

Bakker

Borsboom

(2012). Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, Article 20. doi:10.3389/fn-com.2012.00020