No abstract

Similar forms of misconduct are perceived differently throughout Europe. There are no extensive surveys on the guidance on research integrity in the different countries of Europe. Therefore, we performed a systematic content analysis of (biomedical) research integrity guidance documents from all the countries of the European Economic Area. We show that there is strong heterogeneity concerning research integrity guidance on crucial aspects, for example, the defining of research misconduct, at both an international and a national level. We also sought to explain why the guidance documents differ by distinguishing the approaches that underlie them. We distinguished a value-based and a norm-based approach, as well as different perspectives on trust. The current confusing situation concerning research integrity guidance hampers international research and possibly wastes research funds. We risk talking past each other, if we do not take the distinction between these underlying approaches into account.

Research integrity is imperative to good science. Nonetheless, many countries and institutions develop their own integrity guidance, thereby risking incompatibilities with guidance of collaborating institutions. We retrieved guidance for academic integrity and misconduct of 18 universities from 10 European countries and investigated accessibility, general content, principles endorsed, and definitions of misconduct. Accessibility and content differ substantially between institutions. There are general trends of common principles of integrity and definitions of misconduct, yet differences remain. Parallel with previous research, we distinguish different approaches in integrity guidance; one emphasizes broad values of integrity, and the other details negative behaviors of misconduct. We propose that a balance between both approaches is necessary to preserve trust, meaning, and realism of guidance on research integrity.

Little is known about research misconduct within industry and how it compares to universities, even though a lot of biomedical research is performed by-or in collaboration with-commercial entities. Therefore, we sent an e-mail invitation to participate in an anonymous computer-based survey to all university researchers having received a biomedical research grant or scholarship from one of the two national academic research funders of Belgium between 2010 and 2014, and to researchers working in large biomedical companies or spin-offs in Belgium. The validated survey included questions about various types of research misconduct committed by respondents themselves and observed among their colleagues in the last three years. Prevalences of misconduct were compared between university and industry respondents using binary logistic regression models, with adjustments for relevant personal characteristics, and with significance being accepted for p < 0.01. The survey was sent to 1766 people within universities and an estimated 255 people from industry. Response rates were 43 (767/1766) and 48% (123/255), and usable information was available for 617 and 100 respondents, respectively. In general, research misconduct was less likely to be reported by industry respondents compared to university respondents. Significant differences were apparent for one admitted action (gift authorship) and three observed actions (plagiarism, gift authorship, and circumventing animal-subjects research requirements), always with lower prevalences for industry compared to universities, except for plagiarism. This survey, based on anonymous self-report, shows that research misconduct occurs to a substantial degree among biomedical researchers from both industry and universities.

No abstract