Good Scientific Practice
(and its Pitsfalls in Research)
Nicole Föger, Vienna
Helga Nolte, Hamburg
Gerlinde Sponholz, Berlin
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Rules of Good Scientific Practice : Why?
Occurence of Scientific misbehaviour since the beginning of
Science and Research Some (out of very many) examples:
Ptolemäus, ca. 100-160 n.Chr.
James Rennell, 1742-1830
Galileo Galilei, 1564-1642
Quellen: Wikipedia
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Rules of Good Scientific Practice : Why?
Occurence of Scientific misbehaviour since the beginning of
Science and Research and: Haeckel, Herrmann and Brach, Schön, Woo-Suk Hwang, zu
Guttenberg, Stapel ...
• Increasing numbers of known/publicised cases
• More public interest and discussions about scientific integrity
and scientific misconduct
• More regulations for handling cases with suspicious scientific
misconduct
• Sanctions of scientific misconduct
• Gap between knowledge/rules and reality
• Obligation of Teaching GSP in some countries (e.g. USA)
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Science - a Complex World
Permanently rising demands:
Number of scientists!
Number of publications!
Pressure of competition!
Pressure to publish!
Funding issues!
Which matters in academic
life do we reduce?
Which issues do we neglect?
HB 2001
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Conflicts (danger zones) in:
•
•
•
•
Planning
Conducting
Publishing and
Reviewing
of Research
Data Management
Publication and Authorship
Peer Review
Mentor, Advisor and Trainee
Responsibilities
Conflicts of Interest
Collaborative Research
Safeguarding Issues
Human Subject Research
Animals and Research
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
What is
Good Scientific Practice
?
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
What is
Good Scientific Practice
What are the “No-gos”
In Research?
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Good Scientific Practice
• Honesty in performing research
• Observance and adherence of professional
standards (“lege artis”)
• Responsibility for performing the own tasks
• Responsibility for the team, society, future
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Principles of Integrity
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Honesty
Reliability
Objectivity
Impartiality
Openess
Fairness
Duty of care for participants (human
beings, animals) and the environment)
• Responsibility for future
science generations
(ESF, 2010, p. 8)
http://www.singaporestatement.org/
Research Integrity
International
Development
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Research integrity - a global issue
International cooperation
Researcher moving to other countries
International doctoral/PhD program
 cultural, linguistic, political barriers
 RI: Same understanding of definitions, standards and procedures?
 RI: Law? No law? „Soft law“?
…
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
International Development (1)
USA 1989:
Office of Inspector General (NSF) and Office of Research Integrity (NIH,..)
Europe
Scandinavia: Pioneer in Europe: Early 1990s
Germany 1999 (DFG and MPG)
England 2006 (UKRIO)
Austria 2008 (OeAWI)
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
International Development (2)
European Code of Conduct (2010; ESF/ALLEA)
www.esf.org
World Conferences on Research Integrity:
 Lissabon (2007)
 Singapur (2010): Singapore Statement
 Montreal (2013): Montreal Statement
 Rio de Janeiro ( May/June 2015)
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
„We do not want to have a Court,
we want scientists to behave“
P. Drenth (All European Academies; ALLEA)
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
www.enrio.eu
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
ENRIO: Members
Founded in 2007/2008
Representatives from 23 European countries:
Members belong to:
 national organisations responsible for investigation and/or oversight of
allegations of research misconduct
 organisations providing funding for research
 national organisations with a special interest in promoting RI
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
ENRIO: Members 2015
05/2015 by OeAWI


TENK
ETIKKOM
CEPN
ETAg
DCSD
HRB
RIA
UKRIO
SciInt
PAN
LOWI
VCWI
OMBUDSMAN
AV CR
FNR
SRDA
CNRS
INSERM
OeAWI
SA
CWS
CESHE
CNR
FCT
CSIC
EARTHnet
RCRGreece
Member
Member
Observer
Observer
ABBREVIATIONS
Austria
Belgium
Croatia
OeAWI Austrian Agency for Research Integrity
VCWI Flemish Commission for Research Integrity
CESHE Croatian Committee on Ethics in Science and
Higher Education
Czech Republic Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Denmark
DCSD Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
Estonia
ETAg Estonian Research Council
Finland
TENK Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity
France
CNRS Centre national de la recherche scientifique
INSERM Institut national de la santé et de la recherche
médicale
Germany
OMBUDSMAN Ombudsman für die Wissenschaft
SciInt Scientificintegrity.de
Greece
EARTHnet
RCR-Greece
Ireland
HRB Health Research Board
RIA Royal Irish Academy
Italy
CNR Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
Luxembourg
FNR Fonds National de la Recherche
Netherlands
LOWI National Board for Research Integrity
Norway
ETIKKOM The National Committees for Research Ethics
Poland
PAN Polska Akademia Nauk
Portugal
FCT Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology
Slovak Republic SRDA Slovak Research and Development Agency
Slovenia
CWS Committee for women in science
Spain
CSIC Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas
Sweden
CEPN Expert Group for misconduct in research at the
Central Ethical Review Board
Switzerland
SA Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences
United Kingdom UKRIO UK Research Integrity Office
© digitale-europakarte.de
Investigation of Research Misconduct – Level of regulation
05/2015 by OeAWI
 local commission(s)
 national advisory commission
 national commission with legal
mandate
ABBREVIATIONS
TENK
ETIKKOM
Austria
OeAWI Austrian Agency for Research Integrity
Belgium
VCWI Flemish Commission for Research Integrity
Croatia
CESHE Croatian Committee on Ethics in Science and
Higher Education
Denmark
DCSD Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
Finland
TENK Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity
Germany
OMBUDSMAN Ombudsman für die Wissenschaft
Netherlands
LOWI National Board for Research Integrity
Norway
ETIKKOM The National Committees for Research Ethics
Poland
PAN Polska Akademia Nauk
Sweden
CEPN Central Ethical Review Board
Switzerland
SA Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences
CEPN
DCSD
UKRIO
PAN
LOWI
VCWI
OMBUDSMAN
OeAWI
SA
CESHE
United Kingdom UKRIO UK Research Integrity Office
© digitale-europakarte.de
DFG = German Research Foundation
„fundamentals of scientific work, such
as
 observing professional standards,
 documenting results,
 consistently questioning one‘s
own findings,
 practising strict honesty with
regard to the contributions of
partners, competitors, and
predecessors,
 cooperation and leadership
responsibility in working
groups[…]“
(DFG, 1998, p. 51)
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Good Scientific Practice
• Honesty in performing research
• Observance and adherence of professional
standards (“lege artis”)
• Responsibility for performing the own tasks
• Responsibility for the team, society, future
Mistakes / Misconduct
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
True errors/mistakes
Non-compliance/disregarding of rules/regulations
Questionable, unethical practice, obliqueness
Illegal behaviour
Intentional fraud, misconduct
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Which behaviour is in your
opinion scientific
misconduct?
?
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
The Core of scientific misconduct
“Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or
plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in
reporting research results. (…)
Research misconduct does not include honest error or honest
differences of opinion.”
OECD Global Science Forum/US Government
Research Misconduct:
Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism
Data-related misconduct
Research practice misconduct
Publication-related misconduct
Financial misconduct
Personal misconduct
OECD, 2007
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Correctible
vs
non-correctible
misconduct
!
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Grey zones of scientific misconduct
Sloppy
work
Questionable
practice
Severe
misconduct
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
A Case – Part 1
Tom, a postdoc, gets a letter from his former university
he has left two years ago. In this time he wrote together
with other colleagues a publication based on his
dissertation. The dean tells him that one co-author of the
paper is under suspicion of severe scientific misconduct
(fabrication of data). To clear the accusation and the
involvement of the other authors, Tom has to submit all
original data from his dissertation, the documentation of
the research project and all letters from the journal to
which the paper was submitted and printed. If the
original data and letters were not submitted within four
weeks all authors will be accused for scientific
misconduct.
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
A Case – Part 2
Tom has no idea how to get the original documents.
When he left the university he didn’t took original data or
lab book with him. He never thought about this. Tom
calls to the other authors. They also got this letter. They
have the idea that this action is an unfair reputational
damage of a rival.
Tom gets the information that the former chief is retired
and the department does not exist any more. No one of
the other authors have an idea about the location of the
original data, the lab books, copied letters and the
computers with the emails. All authors of the papers had
left the University in which the research was done.
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
A Case – The end of the story
Because no one of the former colleagues made grade
efforts to look for her lab books, Tom talks with his chief
about the problem.
He argues: if he can’t submit the original data it could be
that he will be accused of scientific misconduct.
Consequences could be, retraction of the article,
checking of his theses ….
After a severe discussion with his former colleagues all
of them travel to their former university and at the end of
one week they find the lab books and all other papers.
They send all data and papers to the dean.
At the end no scientific misconduct was found.
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
What are primary
or original data
?
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Some recommendations:
Make sure to know what are the original or primary
data in your specific scientific/research discipline!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Written data, lab books
Computer files, programmes
Questionnaires
Observation remarks
Photos, films, audio data
Books, articles etc.
…
Sometimes it could be important to store materials,
software, hardware and other instruments.
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Some recommendations:
Before any data collection please discuss in your
research team:
• What are original (primary) data, ideas, sources in
your field that have to be stored?
• What do you have to store?
• How long do you have to store the original data?
• Which type of recording is appropriate?
• How can you ensure a safe data storage?
• Who is responsible for a good data management?
• Who owns the data you are collecting?
• What rights do you have to publish the data?
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Data Ownership
Ownership of data is the result of a negotiation process.
Data and ideas are the cash for your career in science.
Please handle them carefully.
Revised version of the Memorandum, July 2013, p. 74:
Recommendation 7: Safeguarding and Storing of Primary Data
Primary data as the basis for publications shall be securely
stored for ten years in a durable form
in the institution of their origin.
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Data Ownership
Ownership of data is the result of a negotiation process.
Data and ideas are the cash for your career in science.
Please handle them carefully.
Revised version of the Memorandum, July 2013, p. 74:
Recommendation 7: Safeguarding and Storing of Primary Data
Commentary
„A distinction must be observed between the use and the
retention of primary data. Researcher(s) who collect the data are
entitled to use it. During a research project, those entitled to use
the data (possibly subject to data protection regulations) decide
whether third parties should have access to it. If more than one
institution is involved in collecting the data, an agreement must
be drawn up to regulate the matter.“
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Keywords and questions about authorship
 Responsibility of an author
 Authorship criteria – and exclusion
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Publication process and authorship
Publications are the currency of science
Revised version of the Memorandum, July 2013, p. 82:
Recommendation 11: Authorship
„Authors of scientific publications are always jointly responsible
for their content.
Only someone who has made a significant contribution to a
scientific publication is deemed to be its author.
A so-called “honorary authorship” is inadmissible.“
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Generally accepted rules/standards in
publication
Revised version of the Memorandum, July 2013, p. 62:
Commentary to recommendation 12: Authorship
“Publications intended to report new scientific findings shall
 describe the findings completely and understandably,
 give correct and complete references to previous work by
the authors and by others (citations),
 repeat previously published findings only in as much as it
is necessary for understanding the context and in a clearly
identified form.”

Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Keywords and questions about authorship
 Responsibility of an author
 Authorship criteria – and exclusion
 Decision about authorship and position
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Quelle:: phdcomics.com
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Keywords and questions about authorship
 Responsibility of an author
 Authorship criteria – and exclusion
 Decision about authorship and position
 Role of journals/editors
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
http://www.publicationethics.org
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was established in
1997 by a small group of medical journal editors in the UK but now has
over 9000 members worldwide from all academic fields. Membership is
open to editors of academic journals and others interested in publication
ethics.
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
What is a conflict of interest?
• Financial matters
• Intellectual matters
• Personal matters
Advice:
Report possible CoI and funding agencies, journal
editors,… should make final decision
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Peer review
Problems
Bias
Misuse of peer review function
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Keywords and questions about authorship
 Responsibility of an author
 Authorship criteria – and exclusion
 Decision about authorship and position
 Role of journals/editors
 Role of senior scientists
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Questionable publication practice
•
•
•
•
•
Salami publication
Duplicate and multiple publication
Speed publishing
Honorary authorship
…
These practices can increase the number of
publications, can manipulate the importance of
results but also waste time and resources of readers,
reviewers, journals.
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Research Integrity in the Framework of FNR
Funding Luxembourg
„Publication-related misconduct
• Claiming undeserved authorship
• Denying authorship to contributors
• Artificially proliferating publications (“salami-slicing”)
• Failure to correct the publication record“
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Some recommendations:
Before writing a paper and submitting it, make sure you
(and all other authors) have cleared up the following
• What are the special contents of a journal?
• What are the general and special rules for
contributors?
• What are the rules for presentation of scientific
findings?
• What are the rules for sharing data / material, access
to original data?
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
National Academy of Sciences (USA)
On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and
Engineering
What is a Mentor?
In the realm of science and engineering, we might say that a good
mentor seeks to help a student optimize an educational experience,
to assist the student’s socialization into a disciplinary culture, and
to help the student find suitable employment. These obligations can
extend well beyond formal schooling and continue into or through
the student’s career.
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/mentor/
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Dealing with conflicts
If you have conflicts or you observe a
questionable research practice, please
first ask yourself:
• Do you have a clear understanding
of the situation?
• Can you separate the facts from
suspicions?
• Do you know the interests, rights
and the obligations of the involved
persons and the background?
• Did you critically reflect your own
behaviour?
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Dealing with conflicts
Please avoid:
• to make judgements in a hurry
• to start rumours (or fuel them) or to
get involved in them
But
• speak with involved persons
• confide in the Ombudsperson
Please play fair!
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Whistleblowing
Revised version of the Memorandum, July 2013, p. 88:
Additional recommendation 17: Whistleblower
“Researchers who suspect scientific misconduct and can
provide specific information (whistleblowers) must not suffer
disadvantage in their own scientific and career progress as
result. The independent mediator (ombudsman) and the
institutions who verify a suspicion must protect them in an
appropriate manner. The information must be provided “in
good faith”.
„It is not the whistleblower who expresses a justified suspicion
who damages research and the institution, but the researcher
who is guilty of misconduct ... „
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
ETAg
Student
Editor
Lab
chief
You
Supervisor
Dean
Postdoc
Organizational values and goals
Values and norms of science
Aims of the society
The complexity
of science
Personal values and interests
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Selection of possible reasons for scientific
misconduct (quite often a netting of several)
Pressure, pressure, pressure --- Rewarding system --- Lack of
„mistake culture“--- Lack of knowledge --- Personal vanity --Inadequate research structures --- Bad role models --- Insider
deals (rope teams) --- Insufficient knowledge of GSP-rules (or
even no knowledge at all) --- Missing self-critisism --- Inadequate
quidance / supervision --- Excessive demand --- Deficient
appreciation --- Injustice --- Information overload --Specializing --- Envy/Jealousy --- Low risk of detection --Speed of/in science („Acceleration instead of deceleration“) --- …
Lack of communication
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Proceedings and consequences of misconduct
•
•
•
•
Allegation of misconduct, institutional procedures
Inquiry
Investigation
Results
• Consequences of scientific misconduct
- retraction of scientific publications
- academic consequences
- employment law
- civil / criminal law
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Consequences of misconduct
For individuals – animals – environment – society –
science…
Waste of resources, such as material, money,
Lifetime…!
Damaging of career, reputation…
Overflow of control mechanisms („we need a new law…“)
Damage / Loss / Withdrawal of Confidence in Science
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Hwang Woo-suk
Quelle: Wikipedia
Prevention of scientific misconduct
Individual level
• Professional documentation
• Good mentoring
• Team meetings, professional communication, agreements
and contracts
• Possibilities of counselling
• Responsibility of guidance
• Preoccupation with failure
Institional/structural and/or systemic level
•
•
•
•
•
Fair reward system
Support and adequate supervision
Appropriate infrastructures, variation and improvement
Good working atmosphere
Speed - down
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn
Thank you
for your attention
Estonian Research Council – September 17th/18th, 2015 – Tartu and Tallinn