Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Research institutions are responsible for promoting research integrity and handling allegations of research misconduct. Due to various cultural and social contexts, institutional policies from different cultural backgrounds exhibit many differences, such as their primary concern and mechanisms for dealing with allegations of research misconduct. This comparative study analyses research misconduct policies from 21 Chinese and 22 European universities. The results show that definitions of research misconduct from all retrieved policies go beyond fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism but include different types of questionable research practices. Their procedures for handling research misconduct differ in, for example, confidentiality and disclosure of conflict of interest. Differences can also be found in their governance approaches (“bottom-up” versus “top-down”).

Keywords

research misconduct research integrity university policies comparative study FFP

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

All European Academies. (2017). The European code of conduct for research integrity. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf

Anderson

M. S.

(2014). Global research integrity in relation to the United States’ research-integrity infrastructure. Accountability in Research, 21(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822262

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(9), 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c

Arnold

Schwaag-Serger

Brown

Bussillet

(2008). Evaluation of Chinese participation in the EU Framework Programme. http://www.eurosfaire.prd.fr/7pc/doc/1246969355_china_fps_final_07_03_2009.pdf

The Association of Universities in the Netherlands. (2018). Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://www.vsnu.nl/files/documents/Netherlands%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20for%20Research%20Integrity%202018.pdf

Aubert Bonn

Godecharle

Dierickx

(2017). European universities’ guidance on research integrity and misconduct: Accessibility, approaches, and content. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616688980

Barbash

(2015, March 27). Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/

Bohannon

(2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342, 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60

Bosch

(2010). Safeguarding good scientific practice in Europe. EMBO Reports, 11(4), 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2010.32

10.

Bosch

Titus

S. L.

(2009). Cultural challenges and international research integrity. The Lancet, 373(9664), 610–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60379-2

11.

Bouter

L. M.

Hendrix

(2017). Both whistle-blowers and the scientists they accuse are vulnerable and deserve protection. Accountability in Research, 24(6), 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2017.1327814

12.

Brainard

You

(2018). What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s “death penalty.” Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav8384

13.

Chen

Assimakopoulos

Xie

Chi

(2013). Evolution of regional scientific collaboration networks: China-Europe emerging collaborations on nano-science. International Journal of Technology Management, 63(3–4), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2013.056898

14.

Chen

Fang

Y. D.

(2011). We should objectively evaluate the current situation of research integrity in China. Bulletin of National Natural Science Foundation of China, 4, 200–202.

15.

Chinese Academy of Sciences. (2007). Recommendations on strengthening the construction of research norms. (In Chinese). http://www.jianshen.cas.cn/kyddwyh/zdgf/201812/t20181219_4674319.html

16.

Coimbra Group Universities. (n.d.). https://www.coimbra-group.eu

17.

Cyranoski

(2017). China cracks down on fake peer reviews. Nature, 546(7659), 464.

18.

“Double First-Class” University Project. (n.d). http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/moe_843/201808/t20180823_345987.html

19.

Elo

Kyngas

(2007). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

20.

Fanelli

(2011). The black, the white and the grey areas: Towards an international and interdisciplinary definition of scientific misconduct. In Mayer

Steneck

(Eds.), Promoting research integrity in a global environment (pp. 79–90). World Scientific Publishing.

21.

Fanelli

(2013). Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature, 494(7436), 149. https://doi.org/10.1038/494149a

22.

Fanelli

Larivière

(2016). Researchers’ individual publication rate has not increased in a century. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0149504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149504

23.

Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. (2012). Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ohje_2012.pdf

24.

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(3), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.955607

25.

Godecharle

Nemery

Dierickx

(2013). Guidance on research integrity: No union in Europe. The Lancet, 381(9872), 1097–1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60759-X

26.

Godecharle

Nemery

Dierickx

(2014). Heterogeneity in European research integrity guidance: Relying on values or norms? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(3), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614540594

27.

Goodstein

(1996). Conduct and misconduct in science. In Gross

P. R.

Levitt

Lewis

M. W.

(Eds.), The flight from science and reason (pp. 31–38). The New York Academy of Sciences

28.

Heidelberg University. (1998). Safeguarding good academic practice. https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/md/zentral/universitaet/safeguarding_good_academic_practice.pdf

29.

Huang

X. R.

(2010). Attempting discussion on misconduct of scientific research. Science and Culture Review, 7(6), 23–32.

30.

Ioannidis

J. P. A.

(2014). How to make more published research true. PLoS Medicine, 11(10), Article e1001747. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747

31.

John

L. K.

Loewenstein

Prelec

(2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol Sci, 23(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953

32.

Kaiser

(2014).). The integrity of science—Lost in translation. Best practice & research. Clinical Gastroenterology, 28, 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2014.03.003

33.

Leydesdorff

Wagner

C. S.

(2008). International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.07.003

34.

Cornelis

(2018). How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A transcultural case study of Chinese and Flemish researchers. Accountability in Research, 25(6), 350–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1507824

35.

Z. Z.

Huang

X. R.

(2017). Outstanding problems and solutions of scientific research integrity in China. Science and Society, 7(3), 107–120.

36.

Liu

X. Z.

Fang

(2014). Scientific group leaders’ authorship preferences: An empirical investigation. Scientometrics, 98(2), 909–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1083-8

37.

Marusic

Wager

Utrobicic

Rothstein

H. R.

Sambunjak

(2016). Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4(4), MR000038. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2

38.

Ministry of Education of China. (2012). Measures to deal with dissertation fraud. (In Chinese). http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A02/s5911/moe_621/201211/t20121113_170437.html

39.

Ministry of Education of China. (2016). Measures for preventing and dealing with research misconduct in higher education institutions. (In Chinese). http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A02/s5911/moe_621/201607/t20160718_272156.html

40.

Ministry of Higher Education and Science of Denmark. (2014). The Danish code of conduct for research integrity. https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2014/the-danish-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity

41.

Molas-Gallart

(2012). Research governance and the role of evaluation: A comparative Study. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(4), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214012450938

42.

Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2000). Federal research misconduct policy. https://ori.hhs.gov/federal-research-misconduct-policy

43.

Paradeise

Reale

Bleiklie

Ferlie

(2009). University governance: Western European comparative perspectives. Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-4020-9515-3.

44.

Plemmons

D. K.

Brody

S. A.

Kalichman

M. W.

(2006). Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(3), 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0055-2

45.

Qing

Z. X.

(2013). Study on Chinese learners’ cognition of “copying and plagiarism.” Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 2(269), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.003879

46.

Resnik

D. B.

Master

(2013). Policies and initiatives aimed at addressing research misconduct in high-income countries. PLoS Medicine, 10(3), Article e1001406. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001406

47.

Resnik

D. B.

Neal

Raymond

Kissling

G. E.

(2015). Research misconduct definitions adopted by US research institutions. Accountability in Research, 22(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.891943

48.

Resnik

D. B.

Patrone

Peddada

(2010). Research misconduct policies of social science journals and impact factor. Accountability in Research, 17(2), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621003641181

49.

Resnik

D. B.

Peddada

Brunson

Jr . (2009). Research misconduct policies of scientific journals. Accountability in Research, 16(5), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620903190299

50.

Resnik

D. B.

Rasmussen

L. M.

Kissling

G. E.

(2015). An international study of research misconduct policies. Accountability in Research, 22(5), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.958218

51.

Rivera

(2019). Fake peer review and inappropriate authorship are real evils. Journal Korean Medical Science, 34(2), Article e6. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e6

52.

Sacco

D. F.

Bruton

S. V.

Brown

(2018). In defense of the questionable: Defining the basis of research scientists’ engagement in questionable research practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(1), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264617743834

53.

Seife

(2014, December 17). For Sale: Your Name Here in a Prestigious Science Journal. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-sale-your-name-here-in-a-prestigious-science-journal/

54.

L. B.

(2013). Comparative analysis on the academic ethics text in Chinese universities—Based on the survey of nine “985 project” universities in China. Journal of Sichuan University of Science & Engineering (Social Sciences Edition), 28(6), 42–48.

55.

Steneck

N. H.

(2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022268

56.

Stigbrand

(2017). Tumor biology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-017-5487-6

57.

Stroebe

Postmes

Spears

(2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460687

58.

Sun

(2017). The global trends in promoting research integrity and their enlightenment for China. National Defense Science and Technology, 38(6), 28–35. (In Chinese)

59.

Tavare

(2011). Managing research misconduct: Is anyone getting it right? British Medical Journal, 343, d8212. https://doi.org/org/10.1136/bmj.d8212

60.

Universities UK. (2012). The concordat to support research integrity. https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Pages/research-concordat.aspx

61.

University of Cologne. (2015). Guidelines for Safeguarding good academic practice and dealing with academic misconduct. https://www.portal.uni-koeln.de/sites/uni/PDF/Ordnung_gute_wiss_Praxis_en.pdf

62.

Standaert

Nemery

Dierickx

(2017). Research integrity in China: Precautions when searching the Chinese literature. Scientometrics, 110(2), 1011–1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2191-z

63.

Yuan

W. Q.

(2011). Research on legislation of research misconduct in 985 universities. Journal of Shandong University of Science and Technology: Social Science Edition, 13(2), 81–90.

64.

Zhang

Y. H.

(2010). Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized. Nature, 467(7312), Article 153. https://doi.org/10.1038/467153d

65.

Zhao

Yan

(2016). Conceptual characteristics, theoretical motivation and influencing factors of scientific misconduct. China Science Foundation, 30(3), 243–249.

Defining and Handling Research Misconduct: A Comparison Between Chinese and European Institutional Policies

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References