The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity European Science Foundation The European Science Foundation (ESF) was established in 1974 to provide a common platform for its Member Organisations to advance European research collaboration and explore new directions for research. It is an independent organisation, owned by 78 Member Organisations, which are research funding organisations and research performing organisations, academies and learned societies from 30 countries. ESF promotes collaboration in research itself, in funding of research and in science policy activities at the European level. www.esf.org

ALLEA (All European Academies) ALLEA (All European Academies) is the European Federation of National Academies of Sciences and Humanities whose 53 Member Academies in 40 countries are self-governing communities of scientists and scholars. It was founded in 1994 to promote the exchange of information and experience between Academies; to offer European science and society advice from its Member Academies; and to promote excellence and high ethical standards in science and scholarship. www.allea.org

March 2011 ISBN: 978-2-918428-37-4 Cover picture: © iStock Printing: Ireg – Strasbourg Contents

Foreword 3

1. Executive Summary 5 1.1 The Code 5 1.2 The Principles of Research Integrity 5 1.3 Misconduct 6 1.4 Good Research Practices 6

2. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 8 2.1 The Code of Conduct 8 2.2 Background and Elucidation 9 2.3 Guidelines for Good Practice Rules 13 2.4 International Collaborative Research 15 2.5 Annexes 15 Annex I: Recommended Principles for Investigating Research Misconduct Annex II: Boilerplate text for International Agreements, as suggested by the OECD Global Science Forum Coordinating Committee for facilitating international misconduct investigations

3. ESF Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity and list of members 17

4. ALLEA Standing Committee on Science and Ethics and list of members 19

‘Memorandum on ScientificIntegrity’ (2003), which Worldtogether Integrity, Conference Research on l l l European Federationof Academies 53ofEuropean National with the Office for Research Integrity of the US the of Integrity Research for Office the with activi compromised fraudulent science is bywhen Integrity – Institutional Approaches to Promote to Approaches Institutional – Integrity Public Health Service, which brought togetherwhich the Service, Health Public the of OneScholarship’. and Research in Practice Science is expected to enlarge mankind’s knowl mankind’s enlarge to expected is Science Sciences and Humanities) adapted a Dutch docu Dutch a adapted Humanities) and Sciences for the National Academies, the formulation of formulation the Academies, National the for is trustworthy to our best knowledge. This can be can This knowledge. best our to is trustworthy ment from the Royal Netherlands Academy into the published a landmark science policy briefing on rec out on research integrity structures, ‘Stewards of ‘Stewards structures, integrity research on out Scientific ‘Good practices, best on ommendations Foreword ties, not only the research enterprise stumbles, but researchenterprise stumbles, the notonly ties, tion and consensus. In 2008, a survey was carried carried was survey 2008,a In consensus. and tion use in many countries today. in use joint rules and norms. and joint rules but in a more explicit manner since 2000 when it when 2000 since manner moreexplicit a in but recommendations envisages, as an important task task important an as recommendations envisages, with compliance developmentand by of and rity, and guide decisions that shape our societies. Yet societies. our shape that decisions guide and also society’s trust in it. Thus, it. Thus, researchersandin leadsociety’s trust also around this topic by organising in 2007 the First First the 2007 in organising topicby this around achieved by education, promoting a ofculture integ has has been translated into several and is languages in inception, its since integrity fosteredresearch has highlighted the need for international collabora international for need the highlighted edge base, provide answers to global challenges, challenges, global to answers provide base, edge ers throughout the world should ensure that science leading international stakeholders in the field and field the stakeholdersin international leading level codes of good scientific practice. At the European European the At practice. scientific good of codes ESF In this remit, In this the European Science Foundation ALLEA continued to promotecontinuedto debate international ( ALL European Academies – the the – Academies European ------The Code is provided in this booklet in two forms, two forms, in booklet this providedin is Code The ALLEA A dedicated debate platform was then set up, an World Conference on Research Integrity held in in held Integrity Research on WorldConference Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity, July 2010. The Code addresses the the proper conduct 2010. addresses Code July The without a common understanding of the rules of rules the of understanding common a without with with clear recommendations, and is now on the way Global research collaboration is unthinkable unthinkable is collaboration research Global for Research Integrity’, launched at the Second Second the at launched Integrity’, Research for ing organisations from 22 countries, together with togetherwith fromcountries, 22 organisations ing international Code of Conduct for scientists and and scientists for Conduct of Code international the stepwhy is is develop to an next integrity. This principles and priorities for the research community. mentation throughout Europe. It is not intended to that assembled 31 research funding and perform and funding research 31 assembled that the Executive Summary and the full Code. full the and Executivethe Summary of set a on agreement Europe-wide represent a to imple for template reference a as taken being to the medical, natural and social sciences and the the and sciences social and natural medical, the replace nationalexisting or academic butguidelines, and so must be the policies that surround them. them. surround that policies the be must so and and Safeguard Good Research Practice in Europe’. in Practice Research Good Safeguard and and principled practice of systematic research in in research systematic of practice principled and humanities. Itas a canon stands humanities. for self-regulation sensus document ‘The European Code Code Conductof European ‘The document sensus stakeholders worldwide. President, President, Chief Executive, Executive, Chief Human curiosity and science are borderless, borderless, are science and curiosity Human Professor Jüri Engelbrecht Jüri Professor Makarow Marja Professor . The work of this group produced the con the group produced this work of The . ALLEA ESF

ESF - - -

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 3

1. • • • • • • • • 1.1 The Code These principlesinclude: l l l Universities, institutes and all others who employwho others all and institutes Universities, Researchers, public and private research organisa privateresearch and public Researchers, wrongdoing are also guilty. Credible allegations allegations Credible guilty. also are wrongdoing well. Institutions that tofail deal properly with such transgres any of prevention possible, wherever methods that ensure awareness and application ofapplication awarenessand ensure that methods mentoring of researchers, robustand management observe and promote the principles of integrity in in promoteintegrity principlesof and the observe ours shouldours always be reprimanded corrected. and other vis-à-vis responsibleconductof rules the of tions, universities and funding organisations must organisations funding universities and tions, of the ethos of research. Plagiarism is a violation violation a is Plagiarism research. of ethos the of funding their scientifictheir work, havefunding a duty to ensure researchers, as well as agencies and organisations organisations and agencies as well as researchers, researchers and, indirectly, harmful for science as scienceas for harmful indirectly, researchersand, high standards as well as early identification and, and, identification early as well as standards high involves clear policies and procedures,and training a prevailing culture of research integrity. This This integrity. research of culture prevailing a should always be investigated. Minor misdemean Minor investigated. be always should violations serious all are data unwelcome of sion sion. andscholarly scientific research. Executive Summary

fairness in providing references in fairness giving and of care;duty openness accessibility; and independence; and impartiality objectivity; research; performing in reliability communication;honesty in responsibility forresponsibility scientists the researchers and of future. the credit; and Fabrication, falsificationand the deliberate omis - - - - 1.2 The Principles of Research These require Global Science Forum on can can Misconduct Preventing and Integrity Scientific with national law and natural justice. It should be should It justice. natural and law national with world of increasing transnational, cross-sectional cross-sectional transnational, increasing worldof essary. Investigations should tobe carried through possible, and proportionate action taken where nec provide useful guidance in this respect. this in guidance provide useful pendent other researchers and with the public should be tions, in reportingmethodsprocedurestions, andin in and their supervision of young scientists and scholars. that they study. They must show the humans, animals, the environment or the objects be should Researchers data. of handling the fair, and speedy, and lead to properspeedy,tolead outcomesand and and fair, from research integrity, while respecting the laws the respecting while integrity, research from referencescredit giving forworkand the ofothers requires facts capable of proof, and transparency in conveying interpretations. Research must be hand to cooperate to investigate suspected deviation international collaborations should agree before agree should collaborations international a conclusion, even when the alleged defaulter has has defaulter alleged the when evenconclusion, a and must show researchers have ahonest. All and full. and fair communication its and workof the science, interdisciplinary and a In participants. of states the of sovereignty and left the institution. theleft sanctions. Confidentiality should be observed where Integrity Partners (both individual and institutional) in in institutional) and individual (both Partners Investigation of allegations should be consistent and and impartial honesty responsibility for future generations in presenting in andintengoals and communication with with communication and Best Best Practices for Ensuring fairness duty of care of duty in providing Objectivity OECD reliable inde open for in ’s - - - -

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 5 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 6 • • • • • 1.3 Misconduct The response must be proportionate to the seri the to proportionate be must response The Research misconduct should not include honest honest include not should misconduct Research Research Research misconduct can appear in many guises: appear many Research guises: misconduct can in errors or differences of opinion.Misbehaviour such demonstrated that the misconduct was commit was misconduct the that demonstrated must be based on the preponderance of evidence. evidence. ofpreponderance the on based be must ted intentionally, knowingly or recklessly. Proof Proof recklessly. or knowingly intentionally, ted be must it rule a as misconduct: the of ousness other behaviour that is subjectalready to universal to a disregard for or undesirable restrictions being being restrictionsundesirable foror disregard a to – legislation unwise or drugs unsafe for basis the the integrity of research the integrity the record itself. could mislead other researchers, it may threaten threaten may it researchers, other mislead could is is not ‘research sincemisconduct’ it does not affect imposed on research. becomesit if instance for – society or individuals as intimidation of students, misuse of funds and and funds of misuse students, of intimidation as public’s the subverting by and, legal legal and social penalties is unacceptable as well, but

Minor misdemeanours misdemeanours Minor Fabrication Falsification Falsification is the appropriation people’sthe other is of Plagiarism Other Other forms of misconduct include whistleblowers; clear ethical and legal requirements probable frequency, and should be corrected by corrected be should probablefrequency,and esses or changing or omitting data; or omitting esses or changing material without giving proper withoutmaterial giving credit; teachers mentors. and resentationofbreachinterests, ofconfidentiality, investigations, but are just as givendamaging their were they if them as real; ing attempts to cover up misconduct and reprisals on improper dealing improper research of abuse and consent informed of lack subjects or materials. Misconduct also includes includes also Misconduct materials. or subjects is harmful for knowledge. It knowledge. for harmful is misconduct involves up making results and record involves research manipulating proc with infringements, such as as such infringements, with may not lead to formal formal to lead not may , it could lead could it , trust such as misrep failure to meet - - - - - – that may affect the public’s trust in science in These the public’s trust may affect that – – incorrect procedures, faulty data management, etc. 1.4 Practices Research Good Thereare otherto failures adhere to good practices 1. It is unacceptable to claim or grant undeserved undeserved grant or claim to unacceptable is It ence, declare any conflicts of interest, and be wary wary andinterest, be of conflicts any declare ence, Reviewers sponsors. orcontributors of edgement publication, salami-slicing or insufficient acknowl insufficient or salami-slicing publication, preserve data and make it original accessible to col munity as well. Accordingly, well. as munity publication-related of authorship and ghost authorship are forms of forms are authorship ghost and authorship of claims Unjustified rivalry. and bias personal of tural tural objects; violation of protocols; failure to obtain the following: the for rules somecharacter, thereof,haveuniversal a falsification. An editor or reviewer who purloins purloins who reviewer or editor An falsification. ideas commits plagiarism. It is ethically unaccept ethically is It plagiarism. commits ideas confidentiality, etc. of breach consent; informed insufficientcare forcul human oranimals subjects, informed consent. without hazards to them expose to or research, in able to cause pain or stress to those who take part part take who those to stress or pain cause ableto independ their maintain should too editors and a universal code of conduct. National for guidelines and should be part of a set of national or institutional authorship or deny deserved authorship. Other Other authorship. deserved deny or authorship 2. leagues. Deviations from should be taken seriously by the research com research the by seriously taken be should good research practice should, however, consider should, practice research good Theseguidelines. cannot easily beincorporated into good practice may be subject to differences, cultural All research should be designed and conducted and designed be research should All and primary secondary All data should be stored While principles of integrity, and the violation the and integrity, principlesof While Clients or sponsors should be made aware of the Data: Data: Procedures: Procedures: placed at the disposal of colleagues. Thefreedom of researchers to work with and talk to others others to talk and workwith to researchers of the environment and use resources efficiently. resources use and environment the applied they when made promises the fulfil to for funding. They should minimise impact on impact minimise should They funding. for and of the importance of publication. Where Where publication. of importance the of and in ways that avoid negligence, haste, careless haste, negligence, avoid that ways in accessible and secure in form, documented and archived for a substantial period. It should be be should It period. substantial a for archived legitimately required, researchers should should researchers required, legitimately researcher, the of obligations ethical and legal ness and inattention. Researchers should try try should Researchers inattention. and ness should be guaranteed. lapses could include repeated include could lapses research procedures data practices data include should should ------4. 3. 5. An editorAn or reviewer with a potential conflict of inter of conflict any declare should authors All non- or animal human, – subjects research All The health, safety or welfare of a community community a of welfare or safety health, The Contributions by collaborators and assistants assistants and collaborators by Contributions Financial Financial and other support for research should Publication: Publication: Results Results should be published in an open, transpar Researchers should be sensitive to their research Editorial responsibility Editorial Responsibility: Responsibility: fied, should be fully responsible the content for fully be should fied, who consider applications for funding, or or funding, for applications consider who est. Intellectual contributions of others should should others contributionsof Intellectual est. be sequenceshould authorsof the establishing ent and accurate manner, at the earliest possible expected benefits of such research must outweigh promotion or other recognition, should observe material in submitted manuscripts. Reviewers Reviewers manuscripts. submitted in material ments, confidentiality.Reviewers and maintain or collaborators should not be compromised. compromised. be not should collaborators or objective, substantiated and justifiable assess justifiable and substantiated objective, ghost and authorship Guest publication. of the same guidelines. the time, propertyunless intellectual considerations animal. an on inflicted or harm the distress tive approaches have proved inadequate. The The inadequate. provedhave approaches tive be acknowledged. Honesty cited. correctly and acknowledged be readership. Reviewers should provide accurate, should readership. Reviewers received. Researchers data. of confidentiality respect the human subjects must not be violated. Animals Animals violated. benot must subjects human interest should withdraw from involvement with applications by individuals for appointmentfor or individuals applicationsby a given publication or disclose the conflict tothe commu in maintained be should accuracy and project. the of start the at ideally all, by agreed for criteria The acceptable. not are authorship living –living should be handled with respect and care. nication the with public and the media. popular justify delay. justify authors, speciotherwise All unless should be used in research only after alterna after only research in used be should into research govern that Protocols subjects. funding or grants for properly account should should not, without permission, make use of use make permission, without not, should should be acknowledged, their with permission. : ------expect members to abide by it. Researchers involved document and, whereappropriate, and, formal adopt a document misconduct is in the hands of those who employ the one drafted by the one by drafted other and Sciences of Academies misconduct. of rules for handling alleged cases alleged forrules of handling misconduct, and havestand should a institutions researchers.Such collaboration protocol either collaboration in international collaboration should agree to to agree should collaboration international in or ing standards ofstandards research as integrity developed in this with conduct, of code a adopt should bodies such The primary responsibility for research handling ad hoc ad committee(s) allegations with to deal OECD Global Science Forum. ab initio ab or by using using by or -

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 7 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 8 The European Code of Conduct Code of Conduct European The They bear responsibility forthe choice of subjects to This Code of Conduct is not a body of law, but rather l l l Code, however, we confine ourselves to standards standards however, to ourselves Code, confine we for Integrity Research well as humanities, is the systematised knowledge knowledge systematised the is humanities, as well Science, including natural and social sciences as as sciences social and natural including Science, 2.1 of The Code Conduct 2. ples and virtues plesof and andscientificvirtues scholarly research, obtained through observation and experimentation, while integrity of of the scientific to community formulatethe princi themselves to observe and to promote the the promote to and observe to themselves teristic: they depend on arguments and evidence, evidence, and arguments on depend they teristic: is what of principles and nature the determine to context, socio-ethical wider a in embedded is tion criteria properfor behaviour,its research define to being studied. In spite of their differencesin content be investigated and its consequences, for proper care consider this wider socio-ethical responsibility. socio-ethical considerwider this 2.1.2 Conduct of Code 2.1.1 Preamble academies and funding organisations commit commit organisations funding and academies integrity is threatened. integrity actions and actionsproducts. and charac common a have sciences all methods and applications and use of their research results. In this and attention and concern with respect to practical research, of objects the concerning treatment and and scientists must be aware of their specific respon scientific case orderin in house own its set to and a canon for self regulation. It is a basic responsibility observations of nature or of humans and their their and humans of or nature of observations i.e. study and thinking. study Scientificand thinking. research is carried out sibility towards society and the welfare of mankind. Researchers, research institutes, universities, universities, institutes, research Researchers, Science as the process of knowledge augmenta knowledge processof the as Science research, and do not do and research, conducting princi - - - - - tions tions properly with such wrongdoing are also guilty of guilty also are wrongdoing such properlywith erations. Research organisations, institutes, funding erly assessed, and credible allegations should be be should allegations credible and assessed, erly early stage. performing research, objectivity, impartiality and and objectivity,impartiality research, performing performance by researchers as opposedserious researcherstoby as performance mentoringresearchersof and procedures,training dereliction of duty. All allegations should be propbe should allegations duty.All of dereliction with dealing in standards ethical high to and data preservationmanagement and data ofrecords and ples ples misconduct – some adjustment or ofselecting data mentare procedures standards to high ensurethat or ‘adaptation’ of a figure – may not give cause giveto may cause not – ‘adaptation’figure or a of an at identified is transgression any and observed other research performing organisations) havealso unacceptable form of misbehaviour, and a violation facts or data, are among the most serious serious most the among are data, or facts research participants. resentation and deliberately omitting unwelcome omitting deliberately resentationand research have to adhere to appropriate standards for credits, and responsibility for future science gen science future for responsibility and credits, giving and references providing in fairness care, independence, openness and accessibility, duty of duty accessibility, and openness independence, in reliability communicating, and reporting in investigated fully, with corrective actions taken if if taken correctiveactions with fully, investigated allegations are confirmed. allegations other researchers.against manage robust and careers, their of stages all at a that ensure to responsibility a academies and other actors the in field ofscientific integrity Minor Fabrication and falsification, including misrep including Fabricationfalsification, and Research Research employers (universities, institutes and Institutes or organisations that fail fail that organisations or Institutes of scientific integrity. These include: honesty honesty include: These integrity. scientific of of the ethos of science. Also plagiarism is an an is plagiarism Also science. of ethos the of prevails. This includes clear policies and policies clear includes This prevails. misdemeanours, reflecting only poor poor only reflecting misdemeanours, culture

of research research of deal to viola - - - - - What is required is a due and fair process, that is is that process, fair and due a is required is What Practice Rules Practice Confidentiality should be observedConfidentiality as muchas pos ence research deserve attention. Theseinclude poor domain of jurisdiction, and fairness to all parties. parties. all to fairness and jurisdiction, of domain sys institutional or national between differences discreditable, management, data inadequate and practices data researchers junior ordentshowever should always tal principles of responsible science many other other many science responsible of principles tal other participants in the research. However, unlike of trust in relation to the public, research subjects or edito and reviewing and practices, publishing or outcomes and sanctions. Theinvestigations must be the defaulter has left the institution. the defaulter the lefthas committed have to found persons against taken andsufficiently to rapid, and leads properuniform tions should be consistent nationalwith laws of the tems. The enclosedlist of recommendations should tional provisions. A required system of regulations of integrity scientific of principles fundamental the tionable procedures for informedobtaining consent, be should repeated if and seriously, more treated morebyexperienced misdemeanours Minor tors. be reprimanded and corrected reprimandedand teachersbybe men or be avoided, and a proportionate action should be be should action proportionate a avoided,and be such of formulation the for guideline a as used be forprinciples gross violations ofor law) the ethical forms of poor and inappropriate and poor of forms rial rial derelictions. Some of these are very serious and research, improper research design and carelessness researchersmisrepresentationtoleads that maybe research misconduct. Wherever possible precaution cease, leaving questions unresolved, merely because not should They conclusion. a to through carried stand highest the with accordance in out carried investigations the conducted.are which in country character, such practices may be subject to different considered misconduct.as in observation and analysis, unsuitable authorship unsuitable observation analysis, and in insufficient respect careand in the forparticipants inappropriateques researchprocedures,including and the violation thereof, which have a which thereof, violation the and a formal charge. Minor misdemeanours by stu by misdemeanours Minor charge. formal a ards of process integrity, uniformity within one within uniformity integrity, process of ards national Good Practice Rules. universal a of part be not national traditions, legislative regulations or institu sible, unnecessary detriment to reputationssible, unnecessary should should be taken to ensure that investigations are are investigations that ensure to taken be should national ofform the developedin be should good practice in research therefore,should, (except Investigations In addition to the violation of the fundamen the of violation the to addition In , that would recognise the legitimate legitimate the recognise would that , e.g. abuse of requirementsethical and of research misconduct allega misconduct research of Code of Conduct of Code practices practices universal universal in sci in Good Good , but but , ------The boiler plate text, recommended bythis commit Die drei Kulturen; Sociologie zwischen zwischen Sociologie Kulturen; (1985), drei W. Die Leppenies values to be fostered in scientific and scholarly scholarly and scientific in fostered be to values Cambridge: Cambridge: lecture. C.P. Snow (1959),1. Rede The München: Hanser. München: Wissenschaft. und Literatur wish to understand the physical, biological and and biological physical, the understand to wish good for rules and misconduct of allegations with In this section a more extensive elucidation of the the moreofelucidationextensive a section this In In a broadsense a In Background and Elucidation and 2.2 Background Cambridge University Press. University Cambridge emphasis will be laid on the communalities rather communalities the on laid be emphasiswill ‘cultural’ as evenindicated sometimes disciplines, various the between ences obtained knowledge systematised the is edge) particular alleged research misconduct, to the the to misconduct, research alleged particular products. Science aims at deepening our under our deepening at aims Science products. duct will be discussed, and procedures for dealing procedures dealing forand discussed, be will duct through observation and experimentation, study study experimentation, and observation through or institute (employer), in order for it to be inves be (employer),to it for order institute or in university the in officer responsible senior the of that establish the collaborative the establish that project. documents formal the in embodied be should tee, the responsibility,while primary the with partner the tigated according to policiesthe proceduresand of than the disparities between the disciplines. between the disparities the than broaderaapplied be in sense, itdocument will this respecting respecting the laws and sovereignty of the States of research practice will be recommended.research practice will research, the various discreditable forms of miscon condensed Code of Conduct, presented in chapter 1, Nature of science and scholarship and 2.2.1 science of Nature is already known. The term ‘science’ is normally normally is ‘science’ term The known. already is is given. The nature ofscience andthescholarship, immediate attention of the project leader(s)project the of (and attention immediate as as recommended by the coordinating committee of misconduct, of cases possibleof handling the and participating In parties. large all scale, funded inter in standards, these from deviation suspected any the to according research their conduct to agree also to the humanities. Of course, there are differ are there course, Of humanities. the to also in sciences; social and natural the to only applied the curiosity, human rootedin is It thinking. and like like the German word ‘Wissenschaft’, which applies national projects the promotion of good practice practice good of promotion the projects national same standards of research integrity, and to bring bring to and integrity,research of standards same standing standing and extending our knowledge beyond what social worlds as well as the human mind and its its and mind human the as well as worlds social In In OECD international collaboration international Global Science Forum, should be followed. science (in Latin (inLatin 1 , but in this discussion discussion this butin , partners should should partners scientia is knowl is ------

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 9 10 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity The ethical/social values and conditions referred conditions and values ethical/social The The sociology of science: theoretical and and theoretical science: of (1973), Merton sociology The R.K. 2. The other three Mertonian norms of science are universalism, universalism, are science of norms Mertonian three other The (Merton’s scepticism). organised (cf.Merton’s world. Not only do social and forcespolitical affect Chicago: Cambridge University Press. Press. University Cambridge Chicago: investigations. empirical It is also the scientific community that determines thatdetermines scientific community the Italso is desinterestedness and organised scepticism. organised and desinterestedness ety, even though its results can be and have been and be can results its though even ety, validity their judge can they way that a such in ers proceeds. paradigmatic presumptions, their choice of subjects differ in differ methodsand traditions, sciencesall have a misused misused at times. It is the responsibility of scientists may they However, description. although mative being is what of principles and nature the mine or of humans and their actions and products. on argument and evidence, only take place if its results are presented to oth to presented are results its if place take only contributionThe scientific research of findings. of to the ethical and social context in which science which in context social and ethical the to the data, their collect they way the studied, be to crite and laws own its to adhere to freedom the the directions of research, science itself affects also to the extension of human knowledge can, therefore, character.internationalever more an assumes tion upon the work of other scientists and scholars; and therefore, be as ‘disinterested’ and independent independent and ‘disinterested’ as be therefore, to in the previous section accentuate again the the again accentuate section previous the in to fundamental characteristic in common: they depend ria. At the same time wehave time same the toacknowledge At that ria. religious or political pressure, economic or finan or economic pressure, political or religious research is for ofbeing well the mankind universal cial interests can corrupt science. Science should, should, Science science. corrupt can interests cial Science and ethics and Science 2.2.2 impact of their discoveries on the society all refer all society the on discoveries their of impact its applications, has contributed to sociimmensely others with collaborating requiresit cases most in as possible and always impartial, and should have should and impartial, always possibleand as good the and of society. that ensureto researchers can and whatthey doto appropriate methods of research and the validation norand factual cannotcapturedbeandsingle a in lation. Research cannot be done without drawing drawing without done be cannot Research lation. now toextending nearlyfields all ofknowledge and studied. Suchresearch diversestudied. is multifaceted and scientists operate in a value-bound context. Their Their context. value-bound a operatein scientists greatly societal developments. Theimpact of science, There is another connection with the outside outside the with connection another is There Coercion of powerful persons or institutions, institutions, or persons powerful of Coercion Science is not an enterprise carried out in iso in out carried enterprise an not is Science Scientific research 2 communalism). And this collabora this And communalism). is carried out in order to deter i.e. observations of nature, ------• • • These principlesincludethe following: Member Member ESF the of establishment the at requested was As 3. Both Both the definition of scientific misconduct and the Organisation Forum on Research Integrity (Madrid, 2008), and 2008), and (Madrid, Integrity Research on Forum Organisation emphasising the socio-ethical socio-ethical the emphasising A scientist. the of responsibility social and ethical ers and practitioners should observe individually, individually, observe should practitioners and ers ethical principles that all scientific and scholarly scholarly research and scientific all principles that discussion on a Code of Conduct the distinction distinction the Conduct of Code a on discussion should distinction be made between two categories misinterpretation of or their against objecfindings, may be clarifying. of issues: problems related to science and society, society, and science to related problems issues: of upon principles of scientific integrity. These are These integrity. scientific of principles upon the broader sense of the word, but in the light of a of light the word,butin broader the of sense the tionable applications discoveries? of their regarded in a wider ethical/social context. Is the the Is context. ethical/social wider a in regarded result in harm for people, nature or society, or be be or society, or nature people, for harm in result citizens, and can, therefore, and can, citizens, in be seen unethical as categories. Some forms of misconduct may have may misconduct of forms Some categories. category, responsible the Integrity in science and scholarship: scholarship: and science in 2.2.3 Integrity groups (Amsterdam, 2009). (Amsterdam, groups in within conflict basic human values?Is the research is, of course, no perfect watershed between the two among each other and toward the outside world. world. outside the toward and other each among a university or laboratory become too dependent on problems and relatedintegrity, toscientific empha reiterated at the first meeting of the Chairs of the four working working four the of Chairs the of meeting first the at reiterated sponsoredresearchercontractresearch? the Could sufficiently independent of interestedparties? Could research the Could research? such of sequences con the are investigation? of What worthy subject serious consequences for the health or of wellbeing when standards sising specification for proper scientific practice arebased principles guard against the improper or selective use and and use selective or improper the against guard

Reliability Reliability Honesty Objectivity: methods and procedures,methodsand conveying in and valid tions, in precise and nuanced reporting on research to possible applications of research results. be founded on facts and data capable of proof and reporting). careful and attentive to detail), and in commu in and detail), to attentive and careful interpretations and justifiablewith claims respect nicationunbiasedand ofresults the (fair full and secondary review; there should be transparency in Any ethical questions arise when science is is science when arise questions ethical Any This document will not deal with this wider wider this with deal not will document This context in presenting research goals and inten and goals research presenting in in performing research (meticulous, (meticulous, research performing in interpretationsconclusionsand must of science, but focus on the second the on focus butscience,of conducting conduct context of research research. There research. of research, research, of 3 . ------• • • • • Violating these basic norms leads to research research to leads norms basic these Violating (environment, health, security, energy), would be be would energy), security, (environment,health, Furthermore, if policy or legislation is based on on based is legislation or policy if Furthermore, Pressure to publish, commercialisation, greater com petition morefor funds, foropportunities instance science misconduct, which is the crux of inappropriate inappropriate of crux the is which misconduct, damage the pursuit of pursuit the knowledge. damage done the through subversion of the public’s products, deficient of production the in drugs, other scientists or the results may not be replicable, quences are not inconceivable. But damage is also also is inconceivable.notdamage quences are But through the internet, the evaluation practices, the and through further could research,which permissibleon tions tion and advice in respect of numerous decisions, so informa dependableofsource a science as in trust conse harmful research, fraudulent of results the behaviour in science. Research misconduct is dam is misconductscience. Research behaviour in research may result in the release and use of unsafe resulting in a continuation of the deception. It is is It deception. the of continuation a in resulting Integrity in science and scholarship: scholarship: and science in 2.2.4 Integrity important for the welfare of mankind and society society and mankind of welfare the for important procedures. erroneous or instruments inadequate an increasing incidence of research misconduct. misconduct. research of incidence increasing an to harmful also toaging subverted. This could lead to undesirable restric undesirable to lead could This subverted. misconduct

Responsibility for future science generations. generations. science future for Responsibility Fairness, Impartiality Open Open communication Duty Duty of care edge through publication of the findings,in honest education of young scientists and scholars requires principles of respect and duty of care. pressuregroups, fromand economic orfinancial due credits to the work of others, in treating colwork treating creditsdue the to ofothers,in other scientists, in contributingpublicknowlto in scientists,other orinterested from parties, ideological orpolitical of data, and accessibility for interested colleagues. the collection,the analysisandinterpretation of data, binding standards for mentorship and supervi and mentorship for standards binding ronmentobjects. Research onhuman orcultural communication to the general public. This communicationopengeneraltothe This public. research, be they human beings, the animals, envi and verifiability theof scientific reasoning. interests. leagues with integrity and honesty. ness presupposes a proper storage and availability sion. the on rest always should animals and subjects There is some empirical evidence empirical some is There . The credibility of science wouldand decline , becausescience it may create false leads for in providing proper references and giving and for participants in and the subjects of individuals independence , in discussing the work with and and from commissioning society 4 that there is is there that : fraudulent: trust in trust The ------4. Reported by N. Steneck at the ESF the at Steneck N. by Reported 4. A third category of misdemeanour is plagiarism in in plagiarism is ofmisdemeanour category third A Frequently concerns or this institute the university 16-19 Sept., 2007. The same increase of misconduct was generally generally was misconduct of increase 2007.same The 16-19 Sept., current policies and practices and policies current where the accused researcher works. These institu researcherThese works. accused where the with misconduct, with or establish an However, onethe of is havewe openness that seen Research Integrity, Integrity, Research ertheless ertheless can be subject to Plagiarism plagiarism. is Fabrication data. omitting or changing or esses ence depends on communication and discussion discussion and communication on depends ence priation of another person’s another priation ofresearch results ideas, proposing, orperforming, reviewing research, or in principles(attempts of integrity tocover up, repris hesi would scientists if And system. peer-review observed by European Academy Presidents in a survey conducted conducted asurvey in Presidents Academy European by observed devisor or author the quality of science would suf sciencewould of quality the author or devisor material are protected by copyright laws, but nevbut laws, copyright protectedby are material and photographs, figures (such material original as mote good research management so that research that so management research good mote of a different order since it is supposed to be supposedmore be is to order it since different a of or words without giving appropriate credit. The pre of science. publicthe opinion dissemination in and other researcher’s results, in the reporting of expert tate or even refuse to practice this openness and and openness this practice to refuse even or tate them. them. development. unfortunate ute to this tions should have a standing committee that deals deals that committee haveshould tions standing a basic integrity principles, and that progress in sci in progress that and principles, integrity basic be underlined that research institutes, funders, funders, institutes, research that underlined be fer well. as reporting research results. researchresults. reporting cise wording of an idea or explanation or illustrative contri all may scientists, for system career current can can be classifiedas misconduct. In general it should communication for fear of not recognised being as hands hands of the employers of scientists doing research. injurious to fellow scientists tothan science as such. reporting or recording and results up making is integrity is instilled into culture. the is instilled integrity as well as lengthy tables) in textbooks or popular popular or textbooks tables) in lengthy as well as of the reporting in arise also can falsification and and administering research have the duty to pro to duty havethe research administering and academies, universities and other actors conducting toals whistle-blowers and violations of due process) functioning well a on and scientists fellow among in case a serious allegation is brought a case serious forward. in allegation science are fabrication and falsification. sibility for handling cases of misconduct is in the the in is misconduct of cases handling for sibility in 2007, and reported by P.J.D. Drenth ( Drenth P.J.D. by reported 2007, and in Also Also The two most serious violations of the ethos of ethos the violations of serious two most The It accepted responis generally that the primary Falsification improper improper dealing . Lisbon, Portugal, Portugal, . Lisbon, Research Responsible Fostering is manipulating research proc research manipulating is ) at the same Lisbon conference. Lisbon same the ) at with such infringement of - Plagiarism first World Conference on Conference World first ORI Strengths and weaknesses of of weaknesses and Strengths ad ad hoc is the appro the is committee Fabrication ------11 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 12 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity ‘scientific misconduct’, since it does not affect the affect not does it misconduct’, since ‘scientific QRP verification on a too small sample and the illus the and sample small too a on verification ( knowingly, or recklessly.knowingly, proof standard As for the discussion or intended to present a full review of review full a present to intended or discussion between line the draw one does Where debate. misconduct. Bad practices are not acceptable and acceptableand not are practices Bad misconduct. tices, such as bad data management, incorrect incorrect management, data bad as such tices, of intent of the misconduct, the consequences of consequences the misconduct, the of intent of of the the of often harmful to the public’s trust in science. in They the public’s to trust harmful often undesirable with deal we Although funds, etc. of stipu be should It applied. be should evidence’ of tion will deal with this category. this with deal tion will to social or normscultural in doing research, misuse evidence? the a Was deliberately? chosen truly technique tical intentionally, committed was misconduct the that mitigat and aggravating other behaviour,and the level the respect this In misconduct. research the tration of an argument with ‘case’ data? Where Where data? ‘case’ with argument an of tration behaviour is subject to generally applicable legal and scientific a start to meant data of selection biased is not beyondbehaviour and clear academic always research procedures, or some publication related publication some or procedures, research recommended principles that follow the lines main citation? Was an incorrect, but ‘favourable’ statis ‘favourable’ but incorrect, an Was citation? culpability of a suspected researcher ‘preponderance honest errorsin oropinion. differences is discussed, the ‘questionable research practices’ practices’ research ‘questionable the discussed, is infringements of scientific integrity. The next sec next The integrity. scientific of infringements - mis this ofrecord. Muchresearch the of integrity careless and plagiarism between boundary the is ing factors should be considered. It has to be shown be can collaborative projects,that international in ing principles for investigating research misconduct investigations misconduct research international and, at times, unacceptable conduct here it is not is hereit conduct unacceptable times, at and, contains I Annex application.adoptedgeneral for line between unacceptable and still acceptable acceptable still and unacceptable between line include not does misconduct research that lated need for a due and process,fair that is and uniform need correction indeed, but are not necessarily basic sanctions. A coordinating committee for facilitating sufficiently rapid, and leads to proper outcomes and social penalties that apply that penalties social to everyone. insensitivity students, harassment, discrimination, QRP Furthermore, there is a general consensus on the Responses will depend on the seriousness of of seriousness the on depend will Responses It should be recognised that the demarcation demarcation the that recognised be should It In the literature another class of misconduct misconduct of class another literature the In Secondly: a varied group of bad research prac research bad of group varied a Secondly: : Firstly: personal misconduct: intimidation of intimidation misconduct:personal Firstly: : ). Three groups of misbehaviour fall within within fall misbehaviour of groups Three ). OECD OECD recommendations. has formulated a number of overarchofnumber formulateda has ------Thereis no need for orcultural regional adaptations 3. 2. 5. The treatment of human subjects in research is in many countries countries many in is in research subjects of human treatment The 5. 1. In addition to fabrication, falsification and and plagia falsification fabrication, to addition In passes these principles passes these infringements. and universal may not lead to formal allegations and investiga and allegations formal to lead not may defined in this section refer to to refer section this in defined may be distinguished: more experienced researchers, especially if seen to seen if moreexperiencedresearchers,especially may create nuisance, discontent or procedural dis procedural ordiscontent createmaynuisance, or compromises in a Code of Conduct that encomConductof that Code compromisesora in tions, tions, but are justgiven as damaging their probable the the scientific community. Thecategories following through proper mentorship. supervisionand through With be repeated, it should be treated more seriously. vio unacceptable with deal we here that clear be frequency: some ‘adjustment’ a corof cutting data, rism many other forms of objectionable practices in cussed in the previous section and the infringements Good practices 2.2.5 Good have serious moral or legal consequences, others others consequences, legal or moral serious have integrity, and should therefore be taken seriously by science of scientific in basic as same infringements is falsification falsification is lations of the principles of scientific integrity: it integrity: scientific of principles the of lations regulated by law. by regulated ner, omitting an unwelcome observation… It should scientific researchdeserve attention.Some ofthem it scientists, orbe correctedshould students junior sension. Many of them may undermine public trust

Data practices Research procedures Research Publication-related Publication-related who want to replicate the findings, adequate adequate findings, the replicate to want who In the third place minor misdemeanours that that misdemeanours minor place third the In It should be emphasised that the principlesdis the emphasisedthat be should It practices include insufficient care for research research care for insufficient include practices preservation data. of original dishonesty may be rather thin here. may bedishonesty rather thin tion; improper use of laboratory animals; or or animals; laboratory of use improper tion; undeserved authorship and to deny deserved deserved deny to and authorship undeserved and incompetence between partition-wall the breach of trust ( trust of breach research design, carelessness in experimentation heritage; violation of protocols; failure to obtain informed consent; insufficient privacy protec privacy insufficient consent; informed also be classified under this heading, although although heading, this under classified be also may errors, gross to lead that calculations and jects, animals, the environment, or cultural cultural or environment, the animals, jects, ship practices. It is unacceptable to claim or grant subjects storage, placing data at the disposal of colleagues norms for responsible conduct in research. 5 , insufficient respect to human sub human to respect insufficient , in statu nascendi statu in , including ,data managementincluding and e.g. confidentiality). Improper confidentiality). conduct, including author including conduct, . Deviations from desired desired from Deviations . fundamental . If it occurs with with occurs it If . and and ------4. Again, the line betweenAgain, dividing acceptable and not 6. A number of suggestions with respect to headings 3 and 4 in the the 4in 3and headings to respect with suggestions of 6. Anumber vary over nations, regions or disciplines. But thereBut overdisciplines. regions ornations, vary Conduct. It should rather be developed in the form which have a universal character, good practices practices good character, universal a have which publication practice publication of publication excellent the from extracted are Procedure of Rules ences: traditions,definitions, legislative regulations participants or to expose them to hazards without without hazards to them expose toor participants disciplinary or institutional systems. Nevertheless systems. institutional or disciplinary mendations on how to deal with them. In general In them. with deal howto on mendations comments on an earlier version of this proposal. this of version earlier an on comments ognising ognising the legitimate differences between national, of national or institutional through fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, plagiarism, or falsification fabrication, through these principles of violating the and integrity tific conducting, in arrangements and rules practical to these practices and the serious of types misconduct, but, as said, rules of procedure must allow for for allow must procedure of rules said, as but, behaviour. But in general these ‘good practices’ refer regions, sometimes also over disciplines. A required is plagiarism, causing pain or stress to research research to stress or pain causing plagiarism, is is borderlinea also thin between some violations of informed consent is unacceptableethically certainly as outlined above may be subject to cultural differ abovecultural subjectto maybe outlined as research. reporting and administering fal of forms are authorship ghost and authorship in discussed as may and vague, somewhat is practices acceptable a list of issues to be addressed in such Rules (see Rules such in addressed be to issues of list a and institutional provisions may vary over nations or the Committee on Publication Ethics ( Ethics Publication on Committee the national differences and cannot claim catholicity.andclaim nationalcannot differences such recommendations are based on general assent, sub 2.3 below) should be provided, recomincluding should, therefore, not be part of a universal Code of of ofgoodsystem researchpractices regulations in anassification,ideas editor purloining or reviewer

Unlike the fundamental principles of scien of principles fundamental the Unlike Reviewing Breaching of publishing rules, such as repeated as such rules, ofpublishing Breaching publication, salami-slicing of publication, nopublication, or salami-slicing pendence and conflict ofinterests, personal bias fall within this categorywell. as this within fall and rivalry, appropriation rivalry, and of ideas. sponsors, contributorsor of acknowledgement insufficient or publication, in delay long too a credit. allocate inadequately to or authorship, and and . We are also grateful for the Committee’s Committee’s the for grateful . We also are section 2.2.4 section editorial Good Practice Rules issues, including inde including issues, COPE . Unjustified claimed claimed Unjustified . Guidelines on good good on ) Guidelines 6 , rec ------1. In In these the guidelines following categories of good 2.3 Practice for Good Guidelines practices in scientificand scholarly researchare dis ment these recommendations in accordance with its to these Rules, and will also ask its institutes and and institutes its ask also will and Rules, these to adhere members to its all require will society tific propertinguished: data practices, proper (technical bers to comply. reviewing and editorial procedures. editorial and reviewing Rules an own set of Good Practice Rules. Then thescien Then PracticeRules. of setGood own an as as well as responsible) research procedures, well-con 2. legislative requirements or traditions and compose scientific organisations to require their own mem own their require to organisations scientific sidered publication-related conduct and responsible – – – – – – – – – Proper research procedures research Proper Good data practices: availability and access and availability practices: data Good Each country should adopt, amend or supple or amend adopt, should country Each



 10 years). ethical and legal obligations of the researcher, the of obligations legal and ethical elaborate on its findings. promised in the application for support or fund other with associate voluntarily peaceably and errors. minimisation of waste. minimisation ment of the (financialand other) resources,and out in a careful and well considered manner; manner; considered well and careful a in out of the vital importance of publication of the the of publication of importance vital the of deploy efficient an implies this resources; of of colleagues who want to replicate the study or tion should be avoided, so as to prevent human ful impact on the environment, and should be should environment,and the on impact ful research findings. communication should be guaranteed. ing. and toand possible the may imply.restrictions this awareneedmanagement ofthe for sustainable - inatten and carelessness, haste, negligence, stantial period (at least 5 years, and preferably and (at years, period 5 least stantial sub a forarchived and documented be should stored a accessiblesecure and in form. scientists, and the freedom of expression and and expression of freedom the and scientists, Researchers should totry deliver what has been Original scientific or scholarly research data data research scholarly or scientific Original be should data secondary and primary All Researchers must seek to minify any harm any minify to seek must Researchers carried and designed be should research All Clients and/or sponsors should be alerted to the Clients Clients and/or sponsors should be made aware Research data should be placed at the disposal beshould placed data Research disposal at the Freedom of movement of scientists, the right to ------13 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 14 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 4. 3. – – – – – – – – – – Publication-related conduct Publication-related procedures research Responsible

vision of a research group or editing of text). text). of editing or group research a of vision Guest authorship ( authorship Guest est possible publication of the results of their their of results the of publication possible est as minimised be must and benefits expected on inflicted be to distress or equate;harm any property property considerations ( much possible.as mately required by client the or employer. of the investigation. connectedwith others collaborators ofand or the obtained information only for the purpose purpose for informationthe obtained only the adequate of basis the on consent informed of requirement the with complying implies this the research, should not be compromised. been investigated and have been found inad found been have and investigated been ble for the content of the publication, unless unless publication, the of content the for ble research. research, unless commercial or intellectual intellectual or commercial unless research, legiti is it when researcher the by respected case a grant or co-funding was received case a grant or co-funding for the cultural, biological, environmentalbiological,physical,or cultural, contribution to data data the collection, design, honest, transparent and accurate manner. accurate and transparent honest, interpretations of their research in an open, open, an in research their of interpretations it is specified they are responsible only for a for only responsible are they specified is it are criteria) authorship meet who individuals have results the achieve to ways alternative if analysis, or reporting, not for general super general for not reporting, or analysis, thecontribution to ( research significant and realistic the byoutweighedbe must animal an ality, avoiding unnecessary deception, and using confidenti possible highest with information personal treating participate, to agreement appropriateand voluntary toinformation,and nic origin and social class of researchsubjects of class social and origin nic not acceptable. All authors are fully responsi fully are authors All acceptable. not ( authorship ghost or qualify) not justify delay. justify should respect be with handled and care. should be evinced. All research subjects, be they human, animal, animal, human, they be subjects, research All Researchers should strive to ensure the earli the ensure to strive should Researchers and results the publish should Researchers Human subject protocols should not be violated: The health, safety or welfare ofthe community, Confidentiality of data or findings should be should findings or data of Confidentiality Sensitivity to age, gender, religion, eth culture, Authorship should only be based on be a based creative only should Authorship Prope Theuse ofin animals research is acceptable only r account will be given to the sponsor in in sponsor the givento be will account r i.e. listing authors who do do who authors listing e.g. patent application) i.e. omitting omitting i.e. ------5. – – – – – – – – – – – – Reviewing and editorial issues editorial and Reviewing



References should be restricted to (paper or or (paper to restricted be should References esty and accuracy should be maintained; any any maintained; be should accuracy and esty publi and publications printed electronically) cited. correctly be work should Related edged. personal, academic, or personal, academic, political. permission. practical applicability of the findings should should findings the of applicability practical disclosed to readership. the disclosed mentioned acknowledged. and must be maintained. manner. of others that have influenced the reported reported the influenced have that others of of of the data or interpretations presented in in presented interpretations or data the of objective, and justifiableassessments in atimely tial conflicttial ofinterest – which may be personal, author’s the In publication. first the accept is journals different same) work in the be agreed at the start ofbe agreed project the at start the or writing. be resisted. follow national and/or disciplinary codes. The codes. and/ornational follow disciplinary eerh hud e prpitl acknowl appropriately be should research research and its publication should be properly related must be mentioned articles one as item. cations ‘in print’.cations ‘in criteria for deciding the order of authors should considered minor or unavoidable it should be be should unavoidableitor consideredminor in popular media the same standards of hon of standards same the media popular in may and article/monograph, the of initiation in any publication decision. If the conflict is conflict the If decision. publication any in attempt to exaggerate the importance and and importance the exaggerate to attempt permission. their ate, with appropri if acknowledged be should assistants authors, at ideally the ofstart the project or the academic, political, commercial or financial – financial or commercial political, academic, consent the ableofeditors with the ofonly the journals and wherejournals proper reference is made to submitted manuscripts without the author’s author’s the without manuscripts submitted specific part of the study and publication. and study the of part specific should, ideally, withdraw from involvement involvement from withdraw ideally, should, In the review of a manuscript, confidentiality confidentiality manuscript, a of review the In Sequence of authors should be agreed by all all by agreed be should authors of Sequence The same standards and rules apply in the the in apply rules and standards same The the for support of types other or Financial The workand contribution of collaboratorsand In communicationIn the with general public and Important Important workcontributions and intellectual Reviewers should provide thorough, accurate, accurate, providethorough, should Reviewers All authors All should declare any relevant conflict Publication of the same (or ofparts substantial An editorAn or reviewer who has a relevant poten Reviewers and editors shall not make any use use any make not shall editors and Reviewers interest, which may be commercial,financial, CV such such ------This is the main argument for an internationally internationally an for argument main the is This International scientific collaboration is increasing increasing is collaboration scientific International 2.4 Collaborative International ence itself has developed into a truly collaborative truly developeda has into enceitself embodied in the formal documents that establish establish that documents formal the in embodied project. The Committee has produced a boilerplate of is misconduct, of cases with deal proceduresto of allegations of research misconduct within the the within misconduct research of allegations of the of odds with each other. The Coordinating Committee conductthe should country which to as questions the collaborative project. This boilerplate text is text boilerplate This project. collaborative the text for International Agreements, which should be research in promotionresponsibleconductof the the university or research institute (employer). Such the project leader(s) and senior responsible officer in alleged particular in standards, these from tion devia suspected any bring to and document, this funded funded international research projects there may be responsibility for the project, while respecting the the respecting project,while the for responsibility research misconduct, to the immediate attention of communication technology, but also because sci because also but technology, communication cies and procedures of the partner with the primary crucial importance in international research as well. Research happen when the relevant national policies are at are policies national relevant the when happen included under Annex II. included Annex under investigation if allegations of misconduct are raised, parties. ing agree to conduct their research according to the the to according research their conduct to agree accepted Code of Conduct. international activity. and Common agreement on and describes the procedures for the investigation procedures the for the describes and agreement for collaborative research that addresses to is what importantly, moreeven and, how; and poli investigatedthe tobe should according case a laws and sovereignty of the States of all participat all ofStates the sovereigntyof and laws national funding and the stimulation of modern modern of stimulation the and funding national standards of scientific integrity, and on rules and rules on and integrity, scientific of standards inter of growth the of because only not sharply, standards of research integrity as developed in in developed as integrity research of standards sub 2.2.5, recommends the establishment of an an of establishment the recommends sub 2.2.5, – In formal, large scale, and often externally externally often and scale, large formal, In should partners collaboration international In

review process of individuals or institutions institutions or individuals of process review forms of recognition. appointments,promotion,forother orawards reconnaissance purposes. pro or projects to regard with process review grammes submitted for funding, rewards or or rewards funding, for submitted grammes The same standards and rules apply in the the in apply rules and standards same The OECD Global Science Forum, referred to to referred Forum, Science Global ------• • • • • • • • • • • Annex I: Annex 2.5 Annexes Confidentiality Uniformity Integrity of the process the of Integrity Fairness Research Misconduct Research Investigating for Principles Recommended Investigation of research misconduct allegations allegations researchofmisconduct Investigation The procedure should be conducted as confiden as conducted be should procedure The Detailed and confidential records will be main be will records confidential and Detailed must procedure the in involved parties Those allega misconduct research into Investigations Where possible any disclosure to third parties parties third to disclosure any possible Where against taken be should action Proportionate seek or by accompanied be to witnesses Allow must misconduct research of accused Persons Procedures for dealing with misconduct should should misconduct with dealing for Procedures Any action(s) taken should be subject to appeal. appeal. to subject be action(s) should Any taken Of course, there should be an authority issuing issuing authority an be should there course, Of persons found to have committed research mis research havecommitted to found persons ensure that any interests they have which might might have which they interests any that ensure compromisingbutaccuracy,without expediently parency of the process one within and uniformity parties and in accordance relevant in and with parties laws. managed. domain of jurisdiction from one case to another another to case onefrom jurisdiction of domain objectivity, thoroughness. and tained on all aspects of aspects procedure. the on all tained tions must be fair, comprehensive and conducted the investigation of the allegation, health and and health allegation, the of investigation the as tially possible, in order to protect those involved decision. final the be given full details of the allegation(s) in writ in allegation(s) the of details full given be be spelled out in sufficient so that detail the trans be maintained provided this does not compromise constitute a conflict of interest are disclosed and disclosed interestare of conflict a constitute conduct. to responses providing and witnesses, calling is is ensured. in the investigation. Such confidentiality should should confidentiality Such investigation. the in information presented. to responding processfor fair a allowed and ing ing. advice and assistance from anyone of choostheir allegations, questions,asking presenting evidence, should be made on basis. a confidential research.safety, ofin participants or safety the should be conducted in a manner that is tofair all ------15 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 16 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity • • • • • • • • • We, agree: parties, the Annex II: Annex as suggested by the OECD Global Science Science Global OECD bythe suggested as No detriment No international misconduct investigations misconduct international facilitating for Committee Coordinating Forum Agreements, International for text Boilerplate to conduct our research according to the standards No person penalty anyshould unnecessary suffer to cooperate in and support any such investiga such any support and in cooperate to Anyone accused of research misconduct is pre is misconduct research of accused Anyone legal have staff its and/or organisation the If that any suspected deviation from these standards, to accept (subject to any appeal process)accept(subject appeal conto any the to No person should suffer any penalty for making making for penalty any suffer should personNo ( Collaborative Research Project’ ( Research Misconduct Allegations in International Notes for Developing Procedures to Investigate Investigate to Procedures Developing forNotes when accused of research misconduct before researchmisconduct the of accused when gsf with the body with primary responsibility primary with body the with misconduct allegations, those obligations must must obligations those allegations, misconduct obligations to inform third parties of research research of parties third inform to obligations of all participating parties; participating of all the ‘Guidance in ofresearch defined integrity, as to have bad faith. in made allegations tions; and ( of procedures and policies the to brought to the immediate attention of ( of attention immediate the to brought but action should be personstaken against found the through appropriatethe time at fulfilled be respecting the laws and sovereignty of the Statessovereignty the of and laws the respecting clusions of any such investigation and to take take to and investigation such any of clusions correct mechanisms. nary or national ethical guidelines that apply ethical guidelines or national nary nated contact point(s) in particular alleged researchalleged be in misconduct, particular will appropriate actions. an ofallegation research misconduct is proven.allegation sumed innocent. specify the national codes of conduct and discipli and conduct of codes national the specify ) and other appropriate including: documents, ) and investigated according www.oecd.org/sti/ to be filled in filled be to in good faith all desig all ), while while ), ); - - - - - , ALLEA The World Conference on Research Integrity in Singapore Working Group 2 (Code of Conduct). in held Integrity Research on WorldConference l l l Forum on Research Integrity and of the work of the were channelled as the European input to the second Integrity. It was clear that there had to be substantial Integrity was established in 2008 following the First Lisbon in SeptemberLisbon in 2007 for thewhich Drenth represented Forum Integrity Research on Organisation Member ESF munities. The members of the Forum are are formed the Forum members of The munities. others and initiate debates in their respective debatestheir initiateothers and in com notyet havedid organisationswhich appropri the encourage those support practice,toand goodon tionsfrom countries.22 Honorary President Pieter by 31 research funding and performing organisa performing and funding research 31 by follow-up at the European level to the whole issue of research integrity. in July 2010. as co-organiser with the the with co-organiser as ate support to develop such structures, to learn from 3. serve as a platform for the exchange of information This Forum was set up with the objectives to objectives the with up set was Forum This The outcomes thisof ESF Standing CommitteeStanding on Science andEthics Member Organisation Forum on Research ALLEA ESF in the US Member Organisation Office of Research Research of Office MO Forum and led ESF acted - - - www.esf.org/activities/mo-fora/research-integrity. promoting and safeguarding integrity in scientific in integrity promoting safeguarding and officers. report ‘Fostering Research Integrity in Europe’ and researchand practice at the national and European html. its Executive Report that can be found at http://at found be can that Report Executive its comprehensivea conclusionsinto itsfor proposal ing ing organisations, Academies, and research integrity agreement in principle was reached on a division of levels. These conclusions are published in a full full a in published are conclusions These levels. labour between research councils, research perform For the implementation of this proposal, an an proposal, this of implementation the For It was envisaged that the Forum would integrate - 17 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 18 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity WG Groups: Working Forum : check list for setting up national structures • structures up national for setting WG 3:list check ESF MO Forum on Research Integrity – List of members of –List Integrity Research on Forum MO ESF Eero Vuorio Eero Varantola Krista Ulrike Varga Ulrike Evie VereeckeEvie Gro Elisabeth Maehle Helgesen Maehle Gro Elisabeth Torkild Vinther Laura Marin Laura Klein Rüdiger Donnelly Alan Michèle Salathé Michèle Aki Salo Aki Jan Stålhammar Jan Claire Ribrault Claire Markus Roethlisberger Markus Frank Bingen Frank Rouby Asael Tomas Kopriva Pavel Kratochvil Milda Naujokaite Milda Livia Puljak (Chair WG 4) Puljak Livia Kirsten Hüttemann Kirsten Cihan Kiziltan Cihan Elisabeth Kokkelkoren Elisabeth Saulius Grybkauskas Saulius Michelle Hadchouel Michelle Maura Hiney (Chair WG Hiney Maura Wim de Haas de Wim Dirk de Hen de Dirk Umberto Dosselli Umberto Frej Dichmann Sorento Elverdam Charlotte (Chair WG 2) Drenth Pieter Sonia Ftacnikova (Chair WG 1) Ftacnikova Sonia Pere Puigdomènech Goya Pilar Emilio Bossi Emilio Cinzia Caporale Cinzia Tommy Dahlén Thomas Dantes Thomas Glyn Davies Glyn Jean-Pierre Alix Jean-Pierre Member 1: raising awareness and sharing information • information sharing and awareness raising 3) Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters and of Science Academies Finnish of the Delegation Austrian Science Fund ( Fund Science Austrian Research Foundation Flanders ( Flanders Foundation Research Research Council of Norway Council Research European Science Foundation ( Foundation Science European ( Academies European All ( Association University European Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences and of Arts Academies Swiss Academy of Finland Academy Swedish Research Council ( Council Research Swedish École Normale Supérieure Normale École Swiss National Science Foundation ( Foundation Science National Swiss National Research Fund ( Fund Research National Czech Science Foundation ( Foundation Science Czech Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic ( Republic Czech of the of Sciences Academy Lithuanian State Science and Studies Foundation Studies and Science State Lithuanian Technological Development of the Republic of Croatia Republic of the Development Technological and Education Higher Science, for Foundation National Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ( Forschungsgemeinschaft Deutsche ( of Turkey Council Research andTechnological Scientific The Fund for Scientific Research ( Research Scientific for Fund Research Council of Lithuania ( of Lithuania Council Research Health Research Board ( Board Research Health (Inserm) Research Medical and of Health Institute French National Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences ( Sciences and of Arts Academy Netherlands Royal Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences ( Sciences and of Arts Academy Netherlands Royal Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare ( Nucleare Fisica di Nazionale Istituto Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation ( Innovation and Technology Science, for Agency Danish ( Academies European All Slovak Research and Development Agency ( Agency Development and Research Slovak Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas ( Científicas Investigaciones de Superior Consejo Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences and of Arts Academies Swiss National Research Council ( Council Research National Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research ( Research Social and Life Working for Council Swedish Max Planck Society ( Society Planck Max Economic and Social Research Council ( Council Research Social and Economic National Centre for Scientific Research ( Research Scientific for Centre National Organisation TÜBITAK ) WG 2: WG 4 : research on research integrity on research : research code of conduct • of conduct code MPG FWF HrB ) FNR ALLEA ALLEA VR GAČR ) CNR ) FRS-FNRS ) ) ESF LMT FWO ) ) ) ) EUA ) DFG SNF ) ) INFN ) ) ) ) ESRC)/RCUK CNRS ) APVV ASCR ) CSIC ) ) KNAW KNAW ) fas ) )/ FIST ENRIO ) ) Sweden Finland Austria Belgium Norway Luxembourg Switzerland Finland Croatia France Switzerland Belgium Czech Republic Czech Czech Republic Czech Lithuania Ireland Germany Turkey Spain Lithuania France United Kingdom United The Netherlands The The Netherlands The Italy Denmark Slovakia France Switzerland Italy Sweden Germany Country ‘Good Scientific Practice’ (2000) which allotted a allotted Practice’ (2000) which Scientific ‘Good has been working on the issue of scientific scientific of issue the on working been has ALLEA published the ‘Memorandum on Scientific Scientific on ‘Memorandum the published ALLEA l l l ALLEA Standing Committee Committee ALLEA Standing Committee on Science and Ethics has been devot been has Ethics and Science on Committee Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Sciences, and Arts ofAcademy Netherlands Royal Pieter Drenth presented the Memorandum on on Memorandum the presented Drenth Pieter Integrity’, which was an adaptation for a European 4. participated in in participated dations contained in the on Science and Ethics and Science on of good scientific practices, the practices, scientific good of today. the the between between Freedom in 1996.and Responsibility’ Ever for facilitating international research misconduct misconduct research international facilitating for in international organisations ( organisations international in investigations (2007-2009). ing attention to the topic of trust in science. In 2003, issue was first broached by Pieter Drenth during during Drenth Pieter by broached first was issue The mid-1990’s. the since integrity research and and and which subsequently was translated into several the by issued document Dutch a from audience languages. languages. It has been in use in many countries until numerous occasions also outside of Europe and and Europe of outside also occasions numerous specific role tothe Academiesin formulating codes recommen responsethe to in especially and since, ALLEA ALLEA President (and later Honorary President) Conference on ‘European Scientists Scientists ‘European on Conference OECD ’s co-ordinating Committee Committee ’sco-ordinating ESF Science Policy Briefing UNESCO ALLEA Standing Standing ), and he and ), - - Conduct. was convenedwas 30Member ca. Academies that with Integrity and, in JuneIntegrity and, 2009, a consultative meeting Singapore in 2010 on ‘Strengthening research research ‘Strengthening on 2010 in Singapore earlier drafts and ultimatelyagreedand the onearlier drafts Code of debated in detail and improved in many ways the waysthe improved many and in detail debatedin dations ( the the raising raising activities among the scientificand scholarly convened a workshop with Asian Academies in in Academies Asian with workshop a convened community acrosscommunity Europe. Beyond Europe, hosted chairs’ and cross-working group meetings of integrity’ in global research collaboration, and is is and collaboration, research global in integrity’ network, in the developmentrecommen the global ofin network, inter-academy European an as nowparticipating, As a follow-up,a As Morerelated the closely to ESF Member Organisation Forum on Research IAP ). is engaged in awareness in engaged is ALLEA activity, ESF ALLEA ALLEA - 19 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 20 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity Academy representatives at and contributors to ALLEA Consultative meeting on Research Integrity, Berne 2009 Berne Integrity, Research on meeting Consultative ALLEA to contributors and at representatives Academy Core members of the Committee in 2009 in Committee the of members Core Perko Vukotic Wim de Haas de Wim Drenth Pieter Andrzej Gorski Andrzej Canelas Pais Canelas Ionel Haiduc Ionel Ion Otiman Paun Michael Ugrumov Michael Momcilo Spremic Momcilo Ján Bakoš Ján Bengt Gustafsson Bengt Markus Zürcher Markus Suter Peter Sitter-Liver Beat Salathé Michèle Bossi Emilio Ismail Hakki Ulus Hakki Ismail Rüdiger Klein Rüdiger Pieter Drenth Pieter (Chair) Honnefelder Ludger Beqiraj Gudar Member Rüdiger Klein Rüdiger Vesentini Edoardo TronteljJože Toulouse Gérard Sitter-Liver Beat Nicolaisen Ida Pavel Kratochvíl Galjaard Hans Føllesdal Dagfinn Ayse Erzan Ergma Ene Missa Jean-Noël Paul van Houtte van Paul Zvonko Kusic Pavel Kratochvil Ain-Elmar Kaasik Ain-Elmar Katri Mäkinen Katri Jean-François Bach Jean-François Tamaz Gamkrelidze Ludger Honnefelder Ludger László Fésüs László Sinead Riordan Sinead Nathan Sharon Nathan Carlo Di Castro Di Carlo Eqrem Basha Eqrem Ismajli Rexhep Vija Klusa Vija Montenegrin Academy Montenegrin Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and of Arts Academy Netherlands Royal Polish Academy of Sciences Academy Polish Academy of Sciences of Lisbon of Sciences Academy Romanian Academy Romanian Russian Academy of Sciences Academy Russian Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and of Sciences Academy Serbian Slovak Academy of Sciences Academy Slovak Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Academy Swedish Royal Swiss Academies Swiss Turkish Academy of Sciences Turkish Academy All European Academies ( Academies European All Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (Hon. President allea President (Hon. Sciences and of Arts Academy Netherlands Royal Humanities and of Sciences Academies German of the Union of Albania of Sciences Academy ex officio ex Academies, European All Italy Lincei, dei Nazionale Accademia of Sciences Academy Slovenian France Sciences, des Académie Sciences Social and of Humanities Academy Swiss Letters and of Sciences Academy Danish Royal Republic Czech of the of Sciences Academy Sciences and of Arts Academy Netherlands Royal Letters and of Science Academy Norwegian of Sciences Turkish Academy of Sciences Academy Estonian Belgique de Beaux-Arts des et Lettres des Sciences, des royale Académie Royal Flemisch Academie of Sciences and Arts of Belgium Arts and of Sciences Academie Flemisch Royal Croatian Academy Croatian Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Czech of the of Sciences Academy Estonian Academy of Sciences (ap.) of Sciences Academy Estonian Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters and of Science Academies Finnish of the Delegation Académie des Sciences des Académie Georgian National Academy of Sciences Academy National Georgian Union of the German Academies German of the Union Hungarian Academy of Sciences Academy Hungarian Royal Irish Academy Irish Royal Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and of Sciences Academy Israel Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (ap.) Lincei dei Nazionale Accademia Kosova Academy of Sciences and Arts and of Sciences Kosova Academy Latvian Academy of Sciences ( of Sciences Academy Latvian Organisation ALLEA LAS ) ) (ap.) Latvia Montenegro The Netherlands The Poland Portugal Romania Russia Serbia Slovakia Sweden Switzerland The Netherlands The Turkey Country Albania Belgium Belgium Croatia Czech Republic Czech Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Kosova )

European Science Foundation 1 quai Lezay-Marnésia • BP 90015 67080 Strasbourg cedex • France Tel: +33 (0)3 88 76 71 00 Fax: +33 (0)3 88 37 05 32 www.esf.org

ALLEA PO Box 19121 • 1000 GC Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel: +31 20 5510754 Fax: +31 20 6204941 www.allea.org

ISBN: 978-2-918428-37-4 March 2011 – Print run: 2 000