This article presents results from the national survey conducted in 2018 for the project Research Integrity in Norway (RINO). A total of 31,206 questionnaires were sent out to Norwegian researchers by e-mail, and 7291 responses were obtained. In this paper, we analyse the survey data to determine attitudes towards and the prevalence of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) and contrast this with attitudes towards and the prevalence of the more questionable research practices (QRPs) surveyed. Our results show a relatively low percentage of self-reported FFPs (0.2–0.3%), while the number of researchers who report having committed one of the QRPs during the last three years reached a troublesome 40%. The article also presents a ranking of the perceived severity of FFP and QRPs among Norwegian researchers. Overall, there is a widespread normative consensus, where FFP is considered more troublesome than QRPs.

No abstract

This article furnishes a philosophical background for the current debate about responsibility and culpability for war crimes by referring to ideas from three important just war thinkers: Augustine, Francisco de Vitoria, and Michael Walzer. It combines lessons from these three thinkers with perspectives on current problems in the ethics of war, distinguishes between legal culpability, moral culpability, and moral responsibility, and stresses that even lower-ranking soldiers must in many cases assume moral responsibility for their acts, even though they are part of a military hierarchy and act under orders. The questions addressed in this article are arguably among the hardest and most muddled in military ethics and deserve close philosophical analysis and scrutiny.

. The World Conferences were established as global forums for discussion of ideas, policies and empirical findings related to the responsible conduct of research. The Conferences aim to galvanise the global effort to strengthen the trustworthiness and reliability of research and encourage researchers worldwide to be accountable for their findings. Earlier conferences were held in Lisbon (2007), Singapore (2010) and Montréal (2010). The Rio conference attracted over 470 delegates from 42 countries, including leaders of research institutions and funding agencies, policy makers, editors and publishers, legal experts, researchers and graduate students. The theme of the conference was Research Rewards and Integrity: Improving Systems to Promote Responsible Research. These Proceedings contain the abstracts of the presentations given at the 4th World Conference in concurrent sessions, partner symposia, and poster sessions. Also included are summaries of the discussions in three focus tracks, which allowed delegates to consider and work on questions about the roles of funders, institutions, and countries in improving research systems and strengthening research integrity. Videos of the plenary presentations are available at the conference website (www.wcri2015.org). The 5 th World Conference will be held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, May 28-31, 2017 (www.wcri2017.org). The University of Queensland (UQ) is one of the leading research-intensive universities in Australia. UQ first developed formal policy and procedure relating to responsible conduct of research in 2011. The ongoing practical application of the first iteration of these policies identified lack of clarity in procedure with challenges arising from unintended consequences. A significant case of research misconduct in 2013 was a catalyst to commission a comprehensive external review of policy, procedure and practice relevant to research integrity, ethics and compliance in line with the Australian Code for Responsible Conduct of Research (2007). This presentation will describe the comprehensive strategy arising from this review to improve our policies, our resources, our systems and to ensure the practice of responsible conduct of research sits at the heart of UQ. Additional funds have enabled us to increase the number and seniority of staff in the Research Integrity Office, to purchase a purpose built complaints management system and the Epigeum online Research Integrity training tool. With a team of experienced research leaders and other key staff we are revising our responsible research policies and developing an education and communication plan to ensure senior staff such as Executive Deans and Heads of Schools are confident in working collaboratively with the Research Integrity Office and that all staff understand their responsibilities under the Australian Code and university policy. We have appointed a team of 16 senior researchers to the roles of Research Integrity Advisors embedded within each Faculty and Institute as a first triage point for people wi...

No abstract