The continuum from good to bad

Research integrity is about quality: how can I make my research better, more nuanced, robust or reliable? Good research practices contribute to this.

If a research action compromises the quality of the work, we refer to this as bad research practices.

 

Three types of behaviour are considered fraud (the traditional FFP model):

• fabrication
• falsification
• plagiarism.

However, many other behaviours undermine good research practices and thus constitute a violation of the principles of research integrity. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, also known as the ALLEA Code, describes a number of these as “unacceptable practices”.

It is impossible to draw up a complete list of what is and is not acceptable for all researchers in all research circumstances. The values and norms within the ALLEA code must be translated to each specific research situation. This requires researchers to critically reflect on their own research conduct and that of others, and to make choices within the framework of ALLEA.

 

If you take a critical look at research behaviour, questions or doubts often arise. You may even experience a violation of research integrity at first hand.

 

An alleged violation: now what?

Questioning your own work and that of others is part of the critical attitude expected of a researcher. Critical questions are even necessary in order to build on (each other's) work. This does not mean that you always agree with each other, quite the contrary. Knowledge accumulation comes just as much from a “difference in scientific opinion”. Such differences of opinion are addressed through “the usual channels”; researchers engage in debate, respond to publications (whether or not with new publications), give each other feedback at symposia, etc.

But sometimes there are indications that there is more going on than just a difference of opinion. The fact that “something seems wrong” does not always mean that a deliberate violation has occurred. Science is done by people, and with that comes the possibility of human error. Because a violation of research integrity is a serious allegation, it should not be taken lightly. Before making allegations, it is best to ask a few questions.

 

1. Is it really fraud or a violation of research integrity?

• Consult the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA Code).
• Talk to colleagues or supervisors (immediate supervisor, PI, head of the research group, dean, etc. or the faculty contact person for research integrity) to find out what research behaviour is most appropriate/common within your discipline. Always do this in an open, non-threatening manner. Please note: always remain critical. Habitual behaviour is not necessarily the same as good scientific practice.
• Benchmark: how are (certain aspects of) integrity issues dealt with in other universities or research groups? Do not hesitate to consult your (inter)national network.
• A clear position offers support to researchers who are in doubt: as a research group or faculty, make “good research practices” clear.
• Never sit on a suspicion or a question. Contact the secretary of the Committee for Research Integrity.

 

2. Can I discuss the issue?

It may be wise to first confidentially discuss your suspicions with a trusted third party. Choose carefully (head of department, faculty contact points research integrity, dean, etc.).

In some cases, it may be desirable or possible to raise the issue with the person directly involved (the person who is conducting the research). It is important to proceed with caution, paying sufficient attention to the sensitivity of the subject. Describe the situation as clearly as possible and prepare well for the conversation. You can also ask the trusted third party or a person of your choice to assist you in this conversation.

For some people, this approach may seem accusatory. Therefore, seek advice in advance from the secretary of the Committee for Research Integrity: based on relevant expertise, they can give you useful tips and support further action.

 

3. Need extra support?

Sometimes a conversation is not (or no longer) an option. In that case, it is better to file a complaint with the Committee for Research Integrity. All Ghent University researchers are encouraged to report any (alleged) violation of research integrity to the Committee. This can be done easily by email (CWI@UGent.be). The committee has a procedure that regulates the handling of allegations. 

 

4. Is your allegation sufficiently well-founded?

You cannot simply voice allegations. There is always a chance that you will wrongfully damage someone's career. This applies in both directions: an unjustified allegation could also damage yourself and your career. Therefore, make sure that:

• the allegation is accompanied by the necessary evidence. A well-founded allegation consists of a thorough explanation of the facts, preferably structured chronologically and supported by evidence.
• this evidence can take many forms, from original data sets to email correspondence, notes and memoranda, images, statements from colleagues involved, etc. It is important to indicate as precisely as possible what you are accusing the person of and how this is evident from the evidence.

If you have any questions about this, please do not hesitate to contact the secretary of the Committee for Research Integrity.