Keywords

What This Chapter Is About

This book is about good and responsible research but you have to be also aware of research misconduct and other unacceptable research practices that may occur during the research process. This chapter offers a guide on what is considered research misconduct, and what other behaviours are considered unacceptable research practices. Moreover, the chapter provides guidance on what to do if you have witnessed research misconduct or if you have been accused of a breach of research integrity. Besides the procedures, the chapter outlines the responsibilities and rights of those involved in the investigation process.

What Is Research Misconduct?

There is no uniform definition of research misconduct. Different European countries have different definitions of research misconduct, as well as different procedures for dealing with allegations of wrongdoing.

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity thus does not provide a definition, but indicates that there are three traditional and most serious forms of research misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, often called FFP (Box 9.1).

Box 9.1 Definitions of Serious Forms of Research Misconduct from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

  • “Fabrication is making up results and recording them as if they were real.”

  • “Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing, omitting or suppressing data or results without justification.”

  • “Plagiarism is using other people’s work and ideas without giving proper credit to the original source, thus violating the rights of the original author(s) to their intellectual outputs.”

These serious forms of misconduct are rare. A metaanalysis of a survey where scientists were asked about their practices reported that 1–4% of researchers admit to falsifying and/or fabricating results. However, they report that 10–20% of their colleagues cheated in research.

Whereas research fraud is rare, just like criminal acts in other parts of life, there are many research practices that are rather common but are unacceptable (Table 9.1). Such practices are often called “questionable research practices” or “detrimental research practices” – they are small deviations from good research practice, but they are so common that they adversely impact the research process much more than serious research misconduct. Meta-analyses on the prevalence of self-reported detrimental research practices show that it is admitted by up to 34% of researchers.

Table 9.1 Violations of good research practice – unacceptable research practices according to the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
Full size table

It is important to keep in mind that these practices are considered to be research misconduct in some countries, at the same level as the FFP. Some countries and research organizations may have even more extensive lists of unacceptable research practices. Therefore, you have to be well informed about the policies about research integrity and research misconduct at yout organization and the country where you do research.

What If You Think You Have Witnessed Research Misconduct?

If you think that you have witnessed or had been affected by a breach of research integrity, you have to proceed carefully. Any formal allegation would need to be supported by evidence, and the process will be long and often complicated. As a whistleblower, as well as an early career researcher, you may be in a perilous position, at the crossroads of power pressures at a research organization.

It is very important that you know well the policies and procedures at your organization. Some organizations have a research integrity advisor, who can help you with information and advice. If you decide to make a formal allegation, it will probably be taken up by a formal body with legal power to complete the investigation and make a conclusion or ruling.

What Happens If You Are Accused of Breaches of Research Integrity?

European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity defines two main principles of any formal investigation: integrity and fairness.

Integrity

Good research practice from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity:

  • Investigations are fair, comprehensive and conducted expediently, without compromising.

All investigations concerning research misconduct and other poor research behavior must be conducted in a fair, objective, and comprehensive manner concerning the rights of all parties involved. This can be assured by conducting investigations that follow relevant codes of conduct, guidelines, and specific procedures for investigations.

Good research practice from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity:

  • The parties involved in the procedure declare any conflict of interest that may arise during the investigation.

To preserve the integrity, fairness, accuracy, and objectivity of the investigation process, it is crucial that all parties involved in the investigation process, such as appointed members of committees or experts involved in conducting investigations, disclose any potential conflict of interest. The existence of a conflict of interest should be managed before the beginning of the investigation process. It can also emerge during the investigations and should be also adequately managed. Regardless of when the conflict of interest appears, it must be disclosed properly and transparently, so that potential risks could be mitigated and avoided.

Good research practice from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity:

  • Measures are taken to ensure that investigations are carried through to a conclusion.

The process of investigating research misconduct and other poor research practices should be concluded with a written report on the investigation’s findings and the conclusion on what was discovered, i.e., whether allegations were founded and whether research misconduct and other malpractices were committed. Another important aspect is to take care of the timing. It is in accordance with the principle of fairness that all investigation procedures are conducted promptly, as well as that conclusions are brought forward in a timely manner, as no one should be exposed to the investigation process longer than necessary. This is extremely important if we take into account that investigations can have an impact on a person’s everyday work life and activities. The final conclusion should also include the statement on whether there is the possibility for appeal, possible sanctions if research misconduct was confirmed, and who should be notified about the investigation’s outcomes.

Good research practice from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity:

  • Procedures are conducted confidentially in order to protect those involved in the investigation.

All investigations of research misconduct should be conducted following the principle of confidentiality as much as possible, in order to protect all parties involved in the process. Sometimes those included in conducting investigations will have to balance the principle of confidentiality and other principles (e.g., fairness) and safeguards. These are the situations when the confidentiality of investigations could be breached to protect some higher interests, for example, the health and safety of research participants. However, if it is necessary to make any such disclosure to the third parties, it should also be made as confidential as possible and appropriate procedures should be followed to ensure that only those who need to be protected by the disclosure are informed and no one else.

Good research practice from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity:

  • Institutions protect the rights of ‘whistleblowers’ during investigations and ensure that their career prospects are not endangered.

A person who witnessed research misconduct and reported it to the bodies that handle research misconduct cases should be assured that their rights and career prospects will be protected, as well as that measures and procedures will be put in place to ensure the fairness of the investigation. This is especially important for early-career researchers who may be exposed to power pressures and retaliation from those suspected and reported of misconduct. Moreover, by ensuring that those who decide to report the suspected misconduct will not be exposed to unfair procedures and treatment during and after investigations, research organizations encourage researchers, especially early career researchers, to be brave, to do the right thing, and to report the suspected misconduct. If the organization fails to ensure the protection of whistleblowers, a complaint can be raised with a higher authority, such as a national research integrity body. Such higher authorities can impose sanctions on the organizations, and ensure that whistleblowers’ rights are protected.

There are also situations when research misconduct or other unacceptable behaviour did not happen but the allegations were made in bad faith. That is why it is very important that responsible authority takes seriously every allegation and conducts a proper investigation. “Whistlebolwers” who made allegations in bad faith, i.e. intentionally and consciously made false allegations, should be sanctioned.

Good research practice from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity:

  • General procedures for dealing with violations of good research practice are publicly available and accessible to ensure their transparency and uniformity.

Information and documents, such as standard operating procedures, that describe how the investigations are conducted and what bodies are involved in this process, are usually publicly available, so that everyone can get familiar with the process of investigating research integrity allegations. Moreover, this ensures that in all cases, investigations are conducted in the same manner, following the same steps – this ensures the uniformity of the process and contributes to the principle of fairness. Of course, to ensure fairness and uniformity, research organizations must have procedures that are comprehensive and detailed. If you witnessed research misconduct and you want to report it, you should be able to find guidance about investigation procedures in official documents, on organizations’ websites or websites and documents of specialized bodies that handle research misconduct allegations. This can help you to familiarize yourself with the process, learn about your rights and responsibilities of involved parties, and find out how to report research misconduct and what it involves. Moreover, it is often possible to have an informative consultation, a non-obligatory talk with the ombudsman, a trusted advisor, or another person in charge of research integrity issues in the organization, who can help you answer the questions you may have about the allegation and investigation processes, help you clear any doubts and concerns, and provide you with advice concerning investigations. Although general procedures for dealing with violations are publicly available, whether the actual cases and decisions, anonymized or not, are made publicly available differs between countries, legislative systems, and institutions. Most often, institutions follow one of the two approaches. The first approach is that investigations are confidential and decisions are not made publicly available, and the second approach is that investigations are confidential but decisions are made publicly available. This is something that is already defined in the institutional and other documents dealing with research misconduct investigations, that are publicly available.

Fairness

Good research practice from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity:

  • Investigations are carried out with due process and in fairness to all parties.

Investigations of research misconduct and other unacceptable practices should be conducted following the principle of fairness, as well as organizational and national policies and laws.

Bodies in charge of handling investigations should ensure that in their work they adhere to the applicable laws and policies, as well as standard operating procedures and guidelines related to the administrative tasks. Organizations should ensure that these policies and legal documents are publicly available, and that all researchers and staff are familiar with every aspect of the investigation process. Moreover, bodies in charge of investigations should ensure that all parties involved in the investigations are informed about their rights and obligations, as well as with all facts and evidence concerning the specific case that is being investigated. The example of how investigation process may look like is provided in the Box 9.2.

Box 9.2 Procedure for Investigating Allegations of Research Misconduct and Other Poor Research Practices

A flowchart depicts 4 steps for investigating allegations of research misconduct and poor research practices as follows, conducting an initial evaluation of allegations, conducting investigation and inquiry, hearings of involved parties and witnesses, and writing the report and conclusion.

Good research practice from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity:

  • Persons accused of research misconduct are given full details of the allegation(s) and allowed a fair process for responding to allegations and presenting evidence.

Organizations and bodies in charge of handling investigations should ensure that the rights of those accused of misconduct are protected and that the principles of fairness and integrity are followed in relation to all involved in the investigation. As in other areas of law, the presumption of innocence should be adhered to. This means that person accused of research misconduct or other unacceptable behaviour should not be considered guilty until proven by the investigation and defined in the final decision of the body that handles the case. Institutions and bodies in charge of handling investigations and research integrity issues should ensure that researchers accused of misconduct are not penalized or exposed to any unfair treatment in the organization until their guilt in conducting research misconduct is proven. Moreover, researchers accused of misconduct or other poor research behaviour, as parties in investigations, have rights that should be respected. This includes the right to be notified on time about all details of allegations in writing and about the right to respond to accusations. Moreover, those accused of misconduct should be given enough time to consider the allegations, seek advice, ask questions, and recommended evidence and witnesses in their defence. Researchers accused of misconduct can also, before providing their response to allegations, consult with the institutional ombudsman or other bodies dealing with research integrity issues to discuss their options regarding the investigations and learn more about the process.

Good research practice from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity:

  • Action is taken against persons for whom an allegation of misconduct is upheld, which is proportionate to the severity of the violation.

As we mentioned previously, not all forms of research malpractice are equally serious. Although both research misconduct and other unacceptable practices may have detrimental consequences for research, there is a difference between serious and less serious forms of poor research behaviour. Similarly, the consequences for proven poor research behaviour can also be more or less serious, but in each case, consequences and sanctions must be proportionate to the severity of the violation. Although some forms of poor research behaviour and following sanctions can be defined in advance in institutional policies and laws, those in charge of conducting investigations must make decisions about sanctions on a case-by-case basis. This ensures that investigations are conducted thoroughly, as well as that the principle of fairness is respected. Besides the sanctions imposed by research organizations, funders and scientific journals and publishers may also impose sanctions from their sides. Funders and publishers/journals are important stakeholders in the research process, and play an important role not only in promoting good research practices but also in discovering and sanctioning poor research behaviour. Research funders may impose sanctions such as the withdrawal of funding or obligation to pay back project funds, while publishers and journals may retract research articles in which misconduct was proven or correcting research articles in which honest errors were detected. However, to be a functional system in which misconduct will be discovered and properly sanctioned, all stakeholders (research organizations, funding agencies, and journals/publishers) must communicate and work together on research misconduct investigations.

Good research practice from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity:

  • Appropriate restorative action is taken when researchers are exonerated of an allegation of misconduct.

It is important to exonerate researchers who are proven not to commit research misconduct or other poor research behavior. If the researcher is exonerated of an allegation of misconduct, appropriate restorative actions must be taken by research institutions, but also other stakeholders such as funding agencies and journals/publishers. In these cases, they must ensure that researcher is cleared of blame and restorative actions that they may implement could include re-employment, public apology, republishing a retracted article, providing funds for continuing research projects, etc.

Good research practice from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity:

  • Anyone accused of research misconduct is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

As mentioned previously, the allegations of research misconduct can be made in bad faith and they can be untrue. They can also be made in good faith but also be proven to be untrue due to an honest error or another mistake. That is why the presumption of innocence is so important. No one should suffer any consequences for any allegation until it is proven upon investigating that the allegations were true. While the investigation is ongoing, researchers working in the institutions where allegations were made can also contribute to upholding the presumption of innocence and fostering the principles of fairness and no detriment. For example, researchers should refrain from excommunicating those against who allegations were made from the community, and should refrain from any types of retaliation.