Heterogeneity in European Research Integrity Guidance

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.

Open science and codes of conduct on research integrity

“…One researcher interviewed by Schuurbiers et al even referred to a "diarrhoea of codes". More recent studies on content and definitions, especially on research misconduct, raise the lack of harmony among codes as a concern (Godecharle et al, 2014;Räsänen & Moore, 2016;Resnik et al, 2015). Whether the perception of shift of focus from one decade to another is accurate requires a more systematic analysis of the literature than I have been able to do in this article.…”

“…The three codes of conduct were analysed using deductive content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Content analysis is a method that has been used successfully to analyse and compare CoCs on RI in previous studies (Godecharle et al, 2014). The analysis begins with making sense of the data (Table 1-2).…”

“…Based on my search results on empirical research on CoCs I recognised two main trends. The first is mapping the landscape, with categorisations and groupings of CoCs (Godecharle, Nemery, & Dierickx, 2014;Kaiser, 1999;Resnik, Rasmussen, & Kissling, 2015;Vasconcelos et al, 2015). Research questions of this type tend to be variations of 'how many is' , 'what is' and 'why is' .…”

“…Putting an exact number on the amount of CoCs on RI in the world is near impossible, and I have found no record of anyone trying to do that. Godecharle et al found fortynine CoCs in nineteen European countries alone (Godecharle, Nemery, & Dierickx, 2013;Godecharle et al, 2014). In their 2003 study, Bullock and Panicker evaluated 46 scientific societies from North America for ethical codes (Bullock & Panicker, 2003).…”

Plagiarism, Replication of Published Material without Citation and the Policy of the European Management Review

“…Hitherto, the evidence is inconsistent, possibly because of variations in definitions and the use of different methods of evidence collection. These inconsistencies add to the need for this journal to respond to the calls to provide guidelines on how instances that have been defined as plagiarism may be dealt with (Gotterbarn et al ., ; Poon and Ainuddin, ; Godercharle et al ., , p. 79; Lenz, ). While journals in some disciplines have not found a need for policies (Enders and Hoover, ), others have responded to such calls (Pupovac and Fanelli, ; Smart and Gaston, ).…”