Abstract
Introduction to the Special Collection on Research Integrity and Research Misconduct
As our journal description states: Research Ethics provides a platform for sharing experiences and analysis of ethical issues that are related to the design, conduct, impact and oversight of research. Through open and transparent narrative and analysis of ethical issues in research, it serves to raise awareness, challenge assumptions and help find solutions for complex ethical issues (Research Ethics, 2024).
The conduct of research – how it is carried out by researchers (and administered by administrators and institutions) across the lifecycle, from design to data collection or participant recruitment through to publication of research findings – is vital to the success of the research enterprise. Judging by the voluminous news articles that seem to appear every day alerting us to misconduct of some form (e.g. plagiarism, fabrication, ghost authorship, AI-generated manuscripts or images, conflicts of interest), however, it seems incumbent on a journal of our scope and nature to think ever-more concretely and determinatively about how research can be conducted with integrity.
Research Ethics has long been interested in publishing articles that explore research integrity and research misconduct, precisely because the more that this topic is studied and written about, the more, one hopes, that through distillation of knowledge and best practice, research around the world will be carried out in a way that is trustworthy, ethical, and responsible. And indeed, quite often, these matters are of international interest and concern. When researchers conduct their research with integrity, this enables the global research community and society to have confidence and trust in the methods and the findings of the research, to say nothing of downstream innovations and outputs, be it new medicines, devices, policies, or practices. We know, though, that researchers can fall short, no matter the disciplinary background, from the humanities to the social sciences to the natural sciences. Fabrication of data, falsification of data, plagiarism, deceptive use of statistics, failure to disclose a significant conflict of interest, and other forms of misconduct raise significant questions about the role of policies, institutions, funders, journals and other actors. They also raise questions about the usefulness of the normative instruments that are used to promote virtuous conduct in researchers and hold researchers to account when they violate or otherwise deviate from the rules and principles of integrity and the norms of good scientific practice.
A variety of national and international statements and standards, as well as organisations, have been promulgated and launched to address research integrity, such as the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (World Conferences on Research Integrity (WCRIF), 2010), and in the UK where I am based, the UK Committee on Research Integrity (UKCRI, 2024), which is a free-standing committee formed in 2022, funded and hosted by UK Research and Innovation (a non-departmental public body of the UK Government that directs research and innovation funding), to promote and drive research integrity in the UK. Increasing focus from funders, governments, institutions, journals and publishers, as well as the media (traditional and social) suggest that research is not always carried out in ways that generate findings people can trust and have confidence in, that are conducted in an ethical manner, or that are carried out with care and respect for those involved in the process. Phrased another way, increasing attention and promulgation of instruments has helped shine a light on how researchers can and should act in ways that are seen as trustworthy, ethical and responsible. Yet research misconduct is not dissipating. If anything, instances of it are increasing (Golden et al., 2023; Houle et al., 2023; Xie et al., 2021).
What is going on, and more importantly, what, if anything, can we do about?
In this special collection, we are delighted to feature seven articles from contributors around the world that touch on different aspects of research integrity and research misconduct, from the theoretical to the empirical. In what follows, I briefly summarise them.
Mireku et al. (2024) provide a systematic review of the distribution of publications on plagiarism among higher educational institutions in sub-Saharan Africa. They looked at 171 plagiarism related publications within a decade (2012–2022). The findings make for interesting reading. They found that while many articles noted both students’ and academics’ awareness of plagiarism, and institutional prevention of plagiarism, they rarely discussed the challenges involved in preventing plagiarism in the first place, as well as the effects of plagiarism. Combatting plagiarism in sub-Saharan African higher educational institutions encounters several impediments, such as a lack of well-trained academic experts to detect and report plagiarism cases; reluctance on the part of technical administrative staff to investigate works for traces of plagiarism; and low plagiarism detection skills from project supervisors. Based on their findings, Mireku et al. provide a series of useful recommendations for future research, policy, and practice with the aim of reducing plagiarism in higher educational institutions in sub-Saharan Africa.
As readers of this journal well know, institutions such as universities are increasingly placing an emphasis on processes and structures that strengthen and evidence research integrity. This includes more training resources to ensure researchers practise research responsibly and with integrity. Many of the articles in this special collection discuss ways in which different kinds of training or educational approaches can support researchers in instilling and practising research integrity.
Evans et al. (2024) discuss their ‘train-the-trainer programme for research integrity’, entitled VIRT2UE, based on virtue ethics, the ethos of science, learning by doing, and learner-centred teaching. This programme involves e-learning modules with participatory group sessions, and aims to foster research integrity by providing trainers with exercises and tools which enable them to stimulate the development of virtuous researchers across Europe. As Evans et al. write, ‘Virtue development comes through practice [. . .]; we contend that a [research integrity] course based on a virtue ethics approach can educate and motivate participants to develop themselves, and provide them with the tools and skills to habitually cultivate their own moral learning in their professional practice’.
In their article, Pizzolato and Dierickx (2024) provide a set of recommendations on how universities and research institutions can promote and support responsible research practices. They source their recommendations from empirical articles, commentaries, and reviews published in recent years and developed within the framework of projects funded by both the European Commission and the authors’ research team. Pizzolato and Dierickx advocate for what they call a more comprehensive ‘multi-dimensional learning strategy’, which comprises continuous and tailored research integrity training at different institutional levels, the incorporation of training sessions focusing on the development of the moral character of researchers, and the use of different mentoring practices. Ultimately, they say, such a strategy ‘can help create a more inclusive and diverse learning environment by fostering empathy, respect and mutual understanding and encouraging constructive dialogue’.
As another approach, Haven et al. (2024) describe a pilot intervention study in the Netherlands that deployed ‘Moral Case Deliberation’, a method that originated in clinical ethics support, to discuss research integrity dilemmas with researchers. They found research integrity dilemmas pertained to authorship disputes, supervision of junior co-workers and questionable handling of data. They also found the study participants felt most comfortable discussing dilemmas among peers with whom they were not closely affiliated. Haven et al. conclude from their study that Moral Case Deliberation sessions could be a helpful tool for developing moral competencies to navigate research integrity dilemmas, but that revisions to ensure commitment and psychological safety are required (e.g. discussing dilemmas with peers rather than direct colleagues or supervisors).
Finally, another approach is offered by Chatfield and Law (2024), who propose two hypotheses to help explain why research misconduct is not declining despite decades of increased awareness-raising, ethics education, and sustained governance efforts. Namely, they speculate that current practices create (i) normative confusion and (ii) values misalignment. Regarding the former, their hypothesis is that normative confusion stems from multivarious messages about what it takes to be an ethical researcher and that this normative confusion might contribute to research misconduct. Regarding the latter, their hypothesis is that misalignment between individual and organisational values acts as a barrier to the development of an ethical research culture and by implication might contribute to research misconduct. Chatfield and Law argue that a coherent ‘values system’ should underpin research ethics, research integrity, and institutional management. One possible moral framework they advocate for is based upon the values of fairness, respect, care, and honesty, which are foundational for the TRUST (2018) Code, which seeks to guide equitable research partnerships.
Two other articles in this special collection touch on matters of importance in research integrity. First, Mollaki (2024) writes about a particularly challenging area in research integrity: the growing role of artificial intelligence (AI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) by peer reviewers to produce a peer review report without disclosing their reliance on these artificial aids. Writing from her own experience as an editor and peer reviewing manuscripts, Mollaki laments the lack of specific policies on the use of AI-based tools in the peer review process and queries if this will lead to the ‘death of a reviewer or death of peer review integrity’. Mollaki proposes practical ways to mitigate the risks and safeguard the integrity of peer review. Specifically, she recommends journal publishers devise appropriate policies to enable them to investigate allegations of non-compliance and take decisions that will protect the integrity of the peer review system, addressing situations in which an editor reasonably suspects a peer reviewer’s report content is generated or altered by AI. These policies and procedures have to be transparent, detailed, and solid, facilitating decision-making when a reviewer is found to have used AI-tools without acknowledging it, including potentially excluding the reviewer from the journal if they are found to have violated the policies. Such an approach will help safeguard the integrity of the peer review system.
Rounding out the special collection is a theory-driven article from Tang (2024), who critiques the framing of research misconduct and questionable research practices in terms of moral transgressions by individuals (‘bad apples’), whose aberrant acts could be made conducive by shortcomings in regulatory measures of organisations or institutions (‘bad barrels’). As Tang argues, this framing presupposes, to an extent, that the erring parties know exactly what they are doing is wrong and morally culpable, but had nonetheless proceeded to commit wrongful acts. Yet, he says, a confession of intent to deceive is often not readily admitted by perpetrators of research misconduct. Tang argues that shifting away from this framing and towards what he calls ‘deficits in epistemic virtues’ and/or the ‘prevalence of epistemic vices’; these have important roles to play in initiating and driving research misconduct and questionable research practices. In unpacking this alternative framing, Tang suggests that epistemic failings, rather than widespread moral deficiencies of individuals within the research ecosystem, may underlie the prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices. He recommends that more effort should be made by institutions and individual actors to promote epistemic virtues and to mitigate epistemic vices, and suggests concrete ways in which this can be done.
Saying farewell to our co-Editor in Chief
This April 2024 issue is special in another way: it is, sadly, the last issue I co-edit with Dr Kate Chatfield. Dr Chatfield joined Research Ethics as Editor-in-Chief in January 2020 and over the past 4.5 years, has helped steward the journal to great success—judged by our rising impact factor and submission rates (with 2023 being the highest year yet), as well fostering warm, close collaboration among the editors and International Advisory Board. Dr Chatfield is, of course, globally recognising for her expertise in research ethics and has contributed to a number of internationally recognised instruments, including the TRUST (2018) Code, otherwise known as the Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings, the project of which was led by our Research Ethics International Advisory Board member, Prof. Doris Schroeder.
I have gotten to know Dr Chatfield well both from collaborating on reviewing the ethics of various European Commission-funded projects and as her fellow co-Editor in Chief since January 2023. She will be dearly missed as a fellow co-editor of this open access journal, and I can only hope to lead the journal with the professionalism, dedication, and collegiality that she has demonstrated since taking the helm in 2020. I speak on behalf of all of Sage’s in-house team of editors, the Research Ethics journal editors, and our journal’s contributors in saying: thank you, Kate, for everything you done to make this journal shine and to make research – of all kinds – more ethical. We wish you the best of success in your future endeavours, and we thank you for continuing to lend your wisdom as a new member of our International Advisory Board.
As the sole Editor-in-Chief of the journal following this issue, I commit myself to carry on the sterling legacy Dr Chatfield has left, although these are big shoes to fill! To support me, I am pleased that while we bid adieu to Dr Chatfield, our journal is welcoming many new Associate Editors who bring a wealth of experience and expertise in a variety of fields within research ethics. In addition to our existing Associate Editor, Owen Schaefer (National University of Singapore), I am pleased to welcome to the team: Julie Cook (University of Central Lancashire, UK), Melissa McCradden (University of Adelaide, Australia), Stuart Rennie (University of North Carolina, USA), Rebecca Tapscott (University of York, UK) and Emma Tumilty (University of Texas Medical Branch, USA).
Dear readers, may you join me in warmly welcoming these editors to the journal and in working together through our intellectual outputs, continue to make research more trustworthy, ethical, and responsible.