The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.The European Code of Conductfor Research Integrityl l l8 2.1 The Code of ConductThe European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity2.1.1 PreambleThis Code of Conduct is not a body of law, but rathera canon for self regulation. It is a basic responsibilityof the scientific community to formulate the principlesand virtues of scientific and scholarly research,to define its criteria for proper research behaviour,and to set its own house in order in case scientificintegrity is threatened.Science as the process of knowledge augmentationis embedded in a wider socio-ethical context,and scientists must be aware of their specific responsibilitytowards society and the welfare of mankind.They bear responsibility for the choice of subjects tobe investigated and its consequences, for proper careand treatment concerning the objects of research,and attention and concern with respect to practicalapplications and use of their research results. In thisCode, however, we confine ourselves to standardsof integrity while conducting research, and do notconsider this wider socio-ethical responsibility.2.1.2 Code of ConductScience, including natural and social sciences aswell as humanities, is the systematised knowledgeobtained through observation and experimentation,study and thinking. Scientific research is carried outto determine the nature and principles of what isbeing studied. In spite of their differences in contentand methods all sciences have a common characteristic:they depend on arguments and evidence,i.e. observations of nature or of humans and theiractions and products.Researchers, research institutes, universities,academies and funding organisations committhemselves to observe and to promote the principlesof scientific integrity. These include: honestyin reporting and communicating, reliability inperforming research, objectivity, impartiality andindependence, openness and accessibility, duty ofcare, fairness in providing references and givingcredits, and responsibility for future science generations.Research institutes, funding organisations,academies and other actors in the field of scientificresearch have to adhere to appropriate standards fordata management and preservation of records anddata and to high ethical standards in dealing withresearch participants.Research employers (universities, institutes andother research performing organisations) also havea responsibility to ensure that a culture of researchintegrity prevails. This includes clear policies andprocedures, training and mentoring of researchersat all stages of their careers, and robust managementprocedures to ensure that high standards areobserved and any transgression is identified at anearly stage.Fabrication and falsification, including misrepresentationand deliberately omitting unwelcomefacts or data, are among the most serious violationsof the ethos of science. Also plagiarism is anunacceptable form of misbehaviour, and a violationagainst other researchers.Institutes or organisations that fail to dealproperly with such wrongdoing are also guilty ofdereliction of duty. All allegations should be properlyassessed, and credible allegations should beinvestigated fully, with corrective actions taken ifallegations are confirmed.Minor misdemeanours, reflecting only poorperformance by researchers as opposed to seriousmisconduct – some adjustment or selecting of dataor ‘adaptation’ of a figure – may not give cause to
a formal charge. Minor misdemeanours by studentsor junior researchers should however alwaysbe reprimanded and corrected by teachers or mentors.Minor misdemeanours by more experiencedresearchers that leads to misrepresentation may betreated more seriously, and if repeated should beconsidered as misconduct.In addition to the violation of the fundamentalprinciples of responsible science many otherforms of poor and inappropriate practices in scienceresearch deserve attention. These include poordata practices and inadequate data management,inappropriate research procedures, including questionableprocedures for obtaining informed consent,insufficient respect and care for participants in theresearch, improper research design and carelessnessin observation and analysis, unsuitable authorshipor publishing practices, and reviewing and editorialderelictions. Some of these are very serious anddiscreditable, e.g. abuse of ethical requirements andof trust in relation to the public, research subjects orother participants in the research. However, unlikethe fundamental principles of scientific integrityand the violation thereof, which have a universalcharacter, such practices may be subject to differentnational traditions, legislative regulations or institutionalprovisions. A required system of regulations ofgood practice in research should, therefore, (exceptfor gross violations of ethical principles or the law)not be part of a universal Code of Conduct, butshould be developed in the form of national GoodPractice Rules, that would recognise the legitimatedifferences between national or institutional systems.The enclosed list of recommendations shouldbe used as a guideline for the formulation of suchnational Good Practice Rules.Investigations of research misconduct allegationsshould be consistent with national laws of thecountry in which the investigations are conducted.What is required is a due and fair process, that isuniform and sufficiently rapid, and leads to properoutcomes and sanctions. The investigations must becarried out in accordance with the highest standardsof process integrity, uniformity within onedomain of jurisdiction, and fairness to all parties.Confidentiality should be observed as much as possible,unnecessary detriment to reputations shouldbe avoided, and a proportionate action should betaken against persons found to have committedresearch misconduct. Wherever possible precautionshould be taken to ensure that investigations arecarried through to a conclusion. They should notcease, leaving questions unresolved, merely becausethe defaulter has left the institution.In international collaboration partners shouldagree to conduct their research according to thesame standards of research integrity, and to bringany suspected deviation from these standards, inparticular alleged research misconduct, to theimmediate attention of the project leader(s) (andof the senior responsible officer in the universityor institute (employer), in order for it to be investigatedaccording to the policies and procedures ofthe partner with the primary responsibility, whilerespecting the laws and sovereignty of the States ofall participating parties. In large scale, funded internationalprojects the promotion of good practiceand the handling of possible cases of misconduct,as recommended by the coordinating committee ofthe OECD Global Science Forum, should be followed.The boiler plate text, recommended by this committee,should be embodied in the formal documentsthat establish the collaborative project.2.2 Background and ElucidationIn this section a more extensive elucidation of thecondensed Code of Conduct, presented in chapter 1,is given. The nature of science and scholarship, thevalues to be fostered in scientific and scholarlyresearch, the various discreditable forms of misconductwill be discussed, and procedures for dealingwith allegations of misconduct and rules for goodresearch practice will be recommended.2.2.1 Nature of science and scholarshipIn a broad sense science (in Latin scientia is knowledge)is the systematised knowledge obtainedthrough observation and experimentation, studyand thinking. It is rooted in human curiosity, thewish to understand the physical, biological andsocial worlds as well as the human mind and itsproducts. Science aims at deepening our understandingand extending our knowledge beyond whatis already known. The term ‘science’ is normallyapplied only to the natural and social sciences; inthis document it will be applied in a broader sense,like the German word ‘Wissenschaft’, which appliesalso to the humanities. Of course, there are differencesbetween the various disciplines, sometimeseven indicated as ‘cultural’1, but in this discussionemphasis will be laid on the communalities ratherthan the disparities between the disciplines.1. C.P. Snow (1959), The Rede lecture. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.W. Leppenies (1985), Die drei Kulturen; Sociologie zwischenLiteratur und Wissenschaft. München: Hanser.9The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
Page 2 and 3: European Science FoundationThe Euro
Page 5: Forewordl l lScience is expected to
Page 8 and 9: 1.3 Misconduct1.4 Good Research Pra
Page 12 and 13: 10The European Code of Conduct for
Page 18 and 19: • If the organisation and/or its
Page 20 and 21: ESF MO Forum on Research Integrity
Page 22: Academy representatives at and cont

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?