Codes of Conduct as Basic Infrastructure for Research Integrity

The highest standards of ethics and the culture of integrity should prevail in the scientific community and research. However, there are factors that may counteract this aim. Factors that can make research cultures vulnerable to misconduct include, for instance:

• group-think
• a lack of documentation of agreements
• a lack of transparency
• heavy reliance on external indicators (grants, publications) as criteria for evaluation of research environments
• a lack of moral leadership
• deficient knowledge and respect for rules
• a highlycompetitive research environment
• lack of whistleblower protection, and
• the separation of research and teaching

To combat some of these factors, there is need for integrity standards and guiding principles for the scientific community. The aim of codes of conduct or other guidelines for research integrity is to guide research institutions and organizations and outline expected and proper behaviors from researchers. Guidelines/codes of conducts proactively support academic integrity and high ethical standards, prevent misconduct and questionable practices, and identify responsibilities of individuals as well as institutions.  While there might be an over-reliance that the codes of conduct will prevent misconduct, this is nevertheless a basis of an infrastructure (Kezar & Sam, 2011).

The ALLEA Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017) provides a common European framework facilitating good conduct across countries and in cross-national collaboration.  It defines responsible practices in the following areas:

• research environment
• training
• supervision and mentoring
• research procedures
• safeguards
• data practices and management
• collaborative working
• publication and dissemination
• reviewing, evaluating and editing

In addition to the ALLEA Code of Conduct, there are national and/or institutional guidelines. They should align with the ALLEA code. As national/institutional guidelines are more related to their specific contexts and thus vary in lesser or greater extend, they are not dealt in detail with in this material. Please visit ENRIO webpage to find links to European guidelines. The research should always comply with ethical principles and relevant national, EU and international legislations.

Research Integrity Offices promote high standards of research integrity in the scientific community,  investigate or oversee investigation processes in alleged cases of  misconduct.  Tasks and responsibilities vary to some extent across Europe. This depends on, for instance, definitions of misconduct, which limits the scope of some tasks, and the relationship between integrity/ethics and legislation in the country. The responsibility of research integrity offices and boards can be local or national. The levels of governance in different countries are quite different. There are countries for example with a) no (formal) structures, b) responsibility at individual institutions, c) thematic divisions of responsibility, d) responsibility at regional or national level (i.e. funding agencies, professional bodies), e) local responsibility with national oversight, f) national office or national standing committee with responsibility for investigating serious allegations .

References:

ALLEA (2017). European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Revised edition. http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf.

European Commission. Horizon 2020 Online Manual.

European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. Other ethics issues, page 40. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.

Kezar, A. J., & Sam, C. (2011). Enacting Transcendental Leadership. Creating and supporting a more ethical campus. In T. Bertram Gallant (Ed.). Creating the Ethical Academy. A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in higher education (pp. 153-167). New York. Routledge.