The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1.3 Misconduct1.4 Good Research Practices6The European Code of Conduct for Research IntegrityResearch misconduct is harmful for knowledge. Itcould mislead other researchers, it may threatenindividuals or society – for instance if it becomesthe basis for unsafe drugs or unwise legislation –and, by subverting the public’s trust, it could leadto a disregard for or undesirable restrictions beingimposed on research.Research misconduct can appear in many guises:• Fabrication involves making up results and recordingthem as if they were real;• Falsification involves manipulating research processesor changing or omitting data;• Plagiarism is the appropriation of other people’smaterial without giving proper credit;• Other forms of misconduct include failure to meetclear ethical and legal requirements such as misrepresentationof interests, breach of confidentiality,lack of informed consent and abuse of researchsubjects or materials. Misconduct also includesimproper dealing with infringements, such asattempts to cover up misconduct and reprisals onwhistleblowers;• Minor misdemeanours may not lead to formalinvestigations, but are just as damaging given theirprobable frequency, and should be corrected byteachers and mentors.The response must be proportionate to the seriousnessof the misconduct: as a rule it must bedemonstrated that the misconduct was committedintentionally, knowingly or recklessly. Proofmust be based on the preponderance of evidence.Research misconduct should not include honesterrors or differences of opinion. Misbehaviour suchas intimidation of students, misuse of funds andother behaviour that is already subject to universallegal and social penalties is unacceptable as well, butis not ‘research misconduct’ since it does not affectthe integrity of the research record itself.There are other failures to adhere to good practices– incorrect procedures, faulty data management, etc.– that may affect the public’s trust in science Theseshould be taken seriously by the research communityas well. Accordingly, data practices shouldpreserve original data and make it accessible to colleagues.Deviations from research procedures includeinsufficient care for human subjects, animals or culturalobjects; violation of protocols; failure to obtaininformed consent; breach of confidentiality, etc.It is unacceptable to claim or grant undeservedauthorship or deny deserved authorship. Otherpublication-related lapses could include repeatedpublication, salami-slicing or insufficient acknowledgementof contributors or sponsors. Reviewersand editors too should maintain their independence,declare any conflicts of interest, and be waryof personal bias and rivalry. Unjustified claimsof authorship and ghost authorship are forms offalsification. An editor or reviewer who purloinsideas commits plagiarism. It is ethically unacceptableto cause pain or stress to those who take partin research, or to expose them to hazards withoutinformed consent.While principles of integrity, and the violationthereof, have a universal character, some rules forgood practice may be subject to cultural differences,and should be part of a set of national or institutionalguidelines. These cannot easily be incorporated intoa universal code of conduct. National guidelines forgood research practice should, however, considerthe following:1. Data:All primary and secondary data should be storedin secure and accessible form, documented andarchived for a substantial period. It should beplaced at the disposal of colleagues. The freedomof researchers to work with and talk to othersshould be guaranteed.2. Procedures:All research should be designed and conductedin ways that avoid negligence, haste, carelessnessand inattention. Researchers should tryto fulfil the promises made when they appliedfor funding. They should minimise impact onthe environment and use resources efficiently.Clients or sponsors should be made aware of thelegal and ethical obligations of the researcher,and of the importance of publication. Wherelegitimately required, researchers should
espect the confidentiality of data. Researchersshould properly account for grants or fundingreceived.3. Responsibility:All research subjects – human, animal or nonliving– should be handled with respect and care.The health, safety or welfare of a communityor collaborators should not be compromised.Researchers should be sensitive to their researchsubjects. Protocols that govern research intohuman subjects must not be violated. Animalsshould be used in research only after alternativeapproaches have proved inadequate. Theexpected benefits of such research must outweighthe harm or distress inflicted on an animal.The primary responsibility for handling researchmisconduct is in the hands of those who employ theresearchers. Such institutions should have a standingor ad hoc committee(s) to deal with allegationsof misconduct. Academies of Sciences and othersuch bodies should adopt a code of conduct, withrules for handling alleged cases of misconduct, andexpect members to abide by it. Researchers involvedin international collaboration should agree tostandards of research integrity as developed in thisdocument and, where appropriate, adopt a formalcollaboration protocol either ab initio or by usingone drafted by the OECD Global Science Forum.4. Publication:Results should be published in an open, transparentand accurate manner, at the earliest possibletime, unless intellectual property considerationsjustify delay. All authors, unless otherwise specified,should be fully responsible for the contentof publication. Guest authorship and ghostauthorship are not acceptable. The criteria forestablishing the sequence of authors should beagreed by all, ideally at the start of the project.Contributions by collaborators and assistantsshould be acknowledged, with their permission.All authors should declare any conflict of interest.Intellectual contributions of others shouldbe acknowledged and correctly cited. Honestyand accuracy should be maintained in communicationwith the public and the popular media.Financial and other support for research shouldbe acknowledged.7The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity5. Editorial responsibility:An editor or reviewer with a potential conflict ofinterest should withdraw from involvement witha given publication or disclose the conflict to thereadership. Reviewers should provide accurate,objective, substantiated and justifiable assessments,and maintain confidentiality. Reviewersshould not, without permission, make use ofmaterial in submitted manuscripts. Reviewerswho consider applications for funding, orapplications by individuals for appointment orpromotion or other recognition, should observethe same guidelines.
Page 2 and 3: European Science FoundationThe Euro
Page 5: Forewordl l lScience is expected to
Page 10 and 11: 2.The European Code of Conductfor R
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?