• Workshop report: Advancing Research Integrity Practices and Policies: From Recommendation to Implementation (2017)12 Pages

    This report maps existing policies, procedures and practices for promoting research integrity and makes a number of key recommendations for improving it. The report encompasses a set of 18 recommendations which fall into four groups: Policies and Procedures; Raising Awareness; Training; and Collaboration and Mobility.

  • 5th World Conference on Research Integrity (2017)http://www.wcri2017.org/

    5th World Conference on Research Integrity, Amsterdam, May 28-31, 2015

  • European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (revised edition) by ALLEA (2017)11 Pages

    Table of Contents: Preamble, Principles, Good Research Practices, Violated of Research Integrity, Annex I: Key Resources, Annex II: Revision Process and List of Stakeholders, Annex III: ALLEA Permanent Working Group on Science and Ethics

    pdf
  • Diederik Stapel (Netherlands)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel

    Field: Psychology. Diederik Alexander Stapel is a Dutch former professor of social psychology at Tilburg University and before that at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. In 2011 Tilburg University suspended Stapel for fabricating and manipulating data for his research publications. This scientific misconduct took place over a number of years and affected at least 55 publications.

  • Report: Flawed science. The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel (2012)https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/over/profiel/kwaliteit-voorop/commissie-levelt/

    Information about the Diederik Stapel case: Report: Flawed science. The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. English Version: Speech Rector Philip Eijlander. Rejoinder to commentary on the Stapel fraud report.

  • Case Study: Dr Jones and Dr Smith4 Pages

    With kind permission of UKRIO. Topic: Authorship in academic research.

    pdf
  • A Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors by COPE (2016)7 Pages

    Table of contents: Background/structure, Initial assessment of journal when you take over, Relations with the outgoing editor, Relations with the other editors/editorial board, Relations with authors, Transparency, The submission system, Relationship with reviewers, The peer-review process, Can editors publish in their own journal?, Editorial independence/relation with publisher/journal owner, Commercial issues, Responding to possible misconduct/inappropriate behaviour and dealing with complaints, Closing remarks

  • Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area by ESG (2015)32 Pages

    Table of contents: Foreword, Context, scope, purposes and principles, European standards and guidelines for quality assurance in higher education, Annex: Summary list of standards

  • Research Integrity in the Nordic countries – national systems and procedures by Nordforsk (2014)29 Pages

    Table of contents: What does the global scene look like, Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland, The situation in Norway, Research integrity: Guidelines and procedures in Iceland, Building a framework for research integrity in Denmark at the national, institutional and individual levels, Research misconduct in Sweden: The system and the problem, Science communication and research integrity. . Concluding remarks and reflections emerging from the Nordic seminar on research integrity organised by NordForsk in Oslo, April 2014

  • Movie: How to become an ethical scientist by University of Leidenhttps://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2016/03/film-how-to-be-an-honest-scientist

    Scientists are regularly confronted with questions of integrity. A new film teaches students how to handle this issue.

  • Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010)http://www.singaporestatement.org/

    The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity was developed as part of the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, 21-24 July 2010, in Singapore, as a global guide to responsible conduct of research.

  • Authorship in scientific publications by Scientific Integrity Committee of the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (2013)30 Pages

    Table of contents: Background, Analysis of existing authorship guidelines, Recommendations on authorship and Appendix.

  • Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology by etikkom (2016)29 Pages

    Table of contents: Foreword, Summary, Guidelines (Research ethics, The overriding obligations of research, Good research practice, Uncertainty, risk and the Precautionary Principle, Protection of research subjects, Protection of animals in research, Relationship with traditional and alternative sources of knowledge, Openness, contract research and conflicts of interest, Whistle-blowing and ethical responsibility, Research and popularization, Proposal for a scientific oath) References

  • Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology by etikkom (2016)44 Pages

    Table of contents: Preface, Introduction, Research, society and ethics, Respect for individuals, Respect for groups and institutions, The research community, Commissioned research, Dissemination of research.

  • Draft Council conclusions on research integrity by European Commission (2015)6 Pages

    The Luxembourg Presidency (2015) considers research integrity as one of its top priorities in the R&I domain. In this context, the Presidency has proposed draft Council conclusions on the issue.

  • European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity (ENERI)http://eneri.eu/

    The “European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity” (ENERI) establishes an operable platform of actors in the fields of research ethics and research integrity.

  • The Reward Alliance | Research Wastehttp://researchwaste.net/

    researchwaste.net is a place to share and exchange documentation, information, and resources on how to increase the value of both basic and applied research and reduce or avoid wasting research.

  • International standards for editors and authors, documents by COPEhttp://publicationethics.org/node/11184

    Position statements setting out international standards for responsible research publication for editors and authors.

  • Statement of Principles for Research Integrity by Global Research Council1 Pages

    Table of contents: Preamble, Principles (Leadership, Promotion, Education, Transparent Processes, Response to Allegations of Misconduct, Conditions for Research Support, International Cooperation)

  • Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals by ICMJE (2016)17 Pages

    These recommendations are intended primarily for use by authors who might submit their work for publication to ICMJE member journals.

  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)http://www.icmje.org/

    The ICMJE is a small group of general medical journal editors and representatives of selected related organizations working together to improve the quality of medical science and its reporting.

  • Blog: Retraction watchhttp://retractionwatch.com/

    Retraction Watch is a blog that monitors and reports on retractions from scientific journals. Managed by scientist writers, the blog holds researchers and journals accountable by keeping track of their activities.

  • Case Study: Diane Archer1 Pages

    With kind permission by Kenneth Pimple. Topic: Plagiarism.

    pdf
  • The European Charter for Researchers: The Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers by the European Commission (2005)36 Pages

    The European Charter for Researchers is a set of general principles and requirements which specifies the roles, responsibilities and entitlements of researchers as well as of employers and/or funders of researchers.

  • Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice by Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft (1998, Update 2013)112 Pages

    Table of contents: Proposals for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice, Forewords, Overview of the Additions and Updates, Recommendations, Problems in the Scientific Systems, Experiences outside Germany, Other National and International Standards, Notes.

  • Flemish Commission for Research Integrity, Belgiumhttp://www.kvab.be/vcwi/

    The five Flemish universities, the Academies for Sciences and for Medecine and the two main funding agencies took the joint initiative in 2013 to establish a national commission for research integrity. This Flemish Commission on Research Integrity can give a second advice about complaint files on research integrity, already handled by the research institution.

  • Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI)http://www.oeawi.at/en/index.asp

    The agency is responsible for investigating alleged cases of research misconduct in Austria. Furthermore, the agency is aiming to prevent research misconduct and to raise awareness offering lectures and workshops on the "good scientific practice" to its member institutions.

  • Agency for Science and Higher Education (AZVO), Croatiahttps://www.azvo.hr/en/

    The Croatian Agency for Science and Higher Education (ASHE) was modelled after the best European practices in quality assurance in science and higher education.

  • The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD)http://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/councils-and-commissions/the-danish-committees-on-scientific-dishonesty?set_language=en&cl=en

    The Danish Committees for Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) handles cases on scientific dishonesty (research misconduct) in research.

  • Team Scientific Integrity (SciInt), Germanyhttp://www.scientificintegrity.de/en-index.html

    The members of Team SciInt conduct workshops and trainings and give presentations on good scientific practice/research integrity. They give advice to research institutions that intend to implement or revise regulations or procedures concerning GSP/RI and counsel individuals on protecting their scientific integrity. They develop curricula and teaching materials for courses, workshops, presentations and trainings.

  • Geschäftsstelle für Ombudsangelegenheiten der Universität Hamburg, Germanyhttps://www.uni-hamburg.de/en/forschung/service/gute-wissenschaftliche-praxis.html

    Beside the administrative support of the five-member ombuds’ committee, the tasks of the Ombudsstelle are to offer presentations and workshops about GWP, to counsel those who are seeking advice or need information and support in a conflict situation.

  • German Research Ombudsmanhttp://www.ombudsman-fuer-die-wissenschaft.de/

    The main task of the German Research Ombudsman is to arbitrate between researchers in cases of conflict and to investigate cases of scientific misconduct.

  • Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK)http://www.tenk.fi/en

    Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK) founded in 1991 to address ethical questions relating to research and to the advancement of research ethics in Finland (Decree 1347 of 15 November 1991).

  • French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm)http://www.inserm.fr/qu-est-ce-que-l-inserm/organigramme/comites/dis

    As a research public organisation, the main missions of Inserm to understand improve human health.

  • French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD)http://www.cirad.fr/en/home-page

    The office for ethics and research integrity has 3 main objectives : 1) implementation of the national charter for research ethics 2) raising awareness, training on RI, and management of alerts and misconduct. 3) support for ethic appraisal of research activities.

  • Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR), Greecehttp://www.rcr.gr/index.php/en/

    The aim of "RCR-Greece" is to foster "Research Integrity" and generally "Responsible Conduct of Research" in Greece.

  • National Technical University of Athens (NTUA)http://earthnet.ntua.gr/?lang=en

    The Ethical Aspects in Research and Technology for Human network (EARTHnet) is active through NTUA (earthnet.ntua.gr).

  • Royal Irish Academy (RIA), Irelandhttps://www.ria.ie/

    The Royal Irish Academy is a member of the National Research Integrity Forum. The Forum was established in late 2015 on foot of the publication of a National Policy for Ensuring Integrity in Irish Research. The National Research Integrity Forum does not have a statutory function, but is rather an advisory and harmonising body.

  • Health Research Board (HRB), Irelandhttp://www.hrb.ie/home/

    The Health Research Board (HRB) was founded in 1986 as a statutory body of the Irish Department of Health. In addition to supporting research across the broad spectrum of health research, from applied biomedical research through to applied health services research, the HRB supports five National Information Systems.

  • National Research Council (CNR), Italyhttps://www.cnr.it/it/ethics

    The National Research Council (CNR) is the largest public research institution in Italy, the only one under the Research Ministry performing multidisciplinary activities

  • Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR)https://www.fnr.lu/

    The Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR) is the main funder of research activities in Luxembourg. The FNR invests public funds and private donations into research projects in various branches of science and the humanities, with an emphasis on selected core strategic areas. Furthermore, the FNR supports and coordinates activities to strengthen the link between science and society and to raise awareness for research. The FNR also advises the Luxembourg government on research policy and strategy.

  • Netherlands Research Integrity Network (NRIN)https://www.nrin.nl/

    The Netherlands Research Integrity Network (NRIN) aims to facilitate collaboration, exchange and mutual learning among all actors in the field of Research Integrity (RI) and everybody who is interested in the topic.

  • Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI)http://www.lowi.nl/en/netherlands-board-on-research-integrity-lowi?set_language=en

    The Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI) is an independent advisory body, established in 2003 by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), and the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU).

  • National Research Ethics Committees (Etikkom), Norwayhttps://www.etikkom.no/en/

    The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees are independent agencies for questions regarding research ethics, and investigation of misconduct, within all subject areas.

  • Foundation for National Scientific Computation (FCT), Portugalhttp://www.fct.pt/index.phtml.en

    Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) is the national funding agency that supports science, technology and innovation, in all scientific domains, under responsibility of the Ministry for Science, Technology and Higher Education.

  • Central Ethical Review Board (CEPN), Swedenhttp://www.epn.se/en/start/

    The Expert Group on Research Misconduct shall, at the request of a university or other Higher Education Institute issue a statement on cases concerning investigations of suspected misconduct in research, artistic research and development work.

  • Slovak Research and Development Agency (SRDA)http://www.apvv.sk/agentura.html?lang=en

    Slovak Research and Development Agency (SRDA) is the most important organization in Slovakia which supports R&D in all sectors – university, state (SAS), private and non-profit, in all scientific areas.

  • Ethics Committee of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)http://www.csic.es/etica-en-la-investigacion

    The Ethics Committee of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) was created by Royal Decree 1730/2007 as a permanent and advisory collegiate body tasked with reflecting, issuing reports and making recommendations on ethical principles concerning research.

  • Commission for the Scientific Integrity of the Czech Academy of Sciences (CAS)http://www.avcr.cz/en/about-us/cas-structure/academy-council/advisory-committees/

    The Commission discusses: a) general and specific question from the area of the ethics of scientific work, b) submissions, initiatives and complaints of employees or scientific workplaces of the CAS, which are related to the observance of the ethics of scientific work, c) exceptionally also submissions of other parties, if they concern the ethics of the scientific work at the Czech Academy of Sciences.

  • Commission for Ethics in Science (Poland)https://institution.pan.pl/index.php/institution/science-ethics-committee

    The major tasks of the Commission for Research Integrity is promotion of good manners in science and expressing opinions on submitted cases concerning a breach of ethics in science by members of staff of higher education institutes , scientific units of the Academy and research institutes.

  • Estonian Research Council (ETAg)http://www.etag.ee/en/

    The Estonian Research Council is the main funding organisation of R&D in Estonia. ETAg has taken the lead in introducing and implementing the Research integrity, Open science/open access/open data, and Gender mainstreaming in Estonia.

  • Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (SAMW)http://www.akademien-schweiz.ch/en/index/Portrait/Kommissionen-AG/Wissenschaftliche-Integritaet.html

    In 2006, the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences established the commission «Scientific Integrity», which follows national and international developments and takes position on general questions related to scientific integrity.

  • UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO)http://ukrio.org/

    The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) is an independent charity, offering support to the public, researchers and organisations to further good practice in academic, scientific and medical research.

  • RCR Data acquisition and managementhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_data/winResources.html

    Table of Contents: Annotated References on Data Management, Web Resources on Data Management, References on Data Management, Video Materials

  • League of European Research Universities (LERU)http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/home/

    The League of European Research Universities (LERU) has emerged as a prominent advocate for the promotion of basic research at European universities.

  • Global Ethics Observatory (GEObs)http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/global-ethics-observatory/

    The observatory is a system of databases with worldwide coverage in bioethics and other areas of applied ethics in science and technology such as environmental ethics, science ethics, and technology ethics.

  • RRI-Toolshttps://www.rri-tools.eu/

    The outcome of RRI Tools is to develop a set of digital resources to advocate, train, disseminate and implement RRI under Horizon 2020.

  • NordForskhttps://www.nordforsk.org/en?set_language=en

    NordForsk is an organisation under the Nordic Council of Ministers that provides funding for and facilitates Nordic cooperation on research and research infrastructure.

  • EthicsCOREhttps://nationalethicscenter.org/

    EthicsCORE is a website designed to help a scientific community share resources and work together with one another.

  • Higher Educations Institutions & Responsible Research and Innovation (HEIRRI)http://heirri.eu/

    HEIRRI mainly works around the six RRI «key aspects» identified by EC (societal/public engagement, gender equality, open access, science education, ethics and governance in R&I), but above all those six “keys”, HEIRRI wants to stress the potential of RRI as a transformative, critical and radical concept.

  • Pan-European Platform on Ethics, Transparency and Integrity in Education (ETINED)http://www.coe.int/en/web/ethics-transparency-integrity-in-education

    The Pan-European Platform on Ethics, Transparency and Integrity in Education (ETINED) will try to address this challenge through a genuinely European dialogue and by drawing upon the materials and norms developed by the Council of Europe over the years.

  • Stakeholders ­Acting Together On the ­ethical impact assessment of ­Research and Innovation (SATORI)http://satoriproject.eu/

    SATORI is a platform for the consolidation and advancement of ethical assessment in research and innovation.

  • Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research (PRINTEGER)http://printeger.eu/

    PRINTEGER is a project funded by the European Union in the framework of Horizon 2020. Its mission is to enhance research integrity by promoting a research culture in which integrity is part and parcel of what it means to do excellent research, and not just an external and restrictive control system.

  • European Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC)http://www.eurecnet.org/index.html

    EUREC is a network that brings together already existing national Research Ethics Committees (RECs) associations, networks or comparable initiatives on the European level.

  • European Network of Ombudsmen in Higher Education (ENOHE)http://www.enohe.net/

    ENOHE is the European network of ombudsmen in higher education (with several associates from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Australia).

  • ALL European Academies (ALLEA)http://www.allea.org/

    ALLEA was founded in 1994 and is the Federation of 59 Academies of Sciences and Humanities in more than 40 European countries.

  • Case Summary: Jon Sudbo by ORIhttps://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-sudbo-jon

    Information about the Jon Sudbo Case.

  • Case Summary: Eric Poehlman by ORIhttps://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-poehlman-eric-t

    Detailed information about the Poehlman Case by ORI. Press Release, Case Summary, List of Retracted / Corrected Publications (Updated - March 23, 2005) (PDF), Voluntary Exclusion Agreement (PDF, 1.6MB), University of Vermont Report (PDF, 19MB), Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Notice, Civil Complaint and Settlement (PDF).

  • Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (Germany)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg

    Field: Political sience. In February 2011 it was discovered that Guttenberg's thesis contained texts of other authors without citation. This led to plagiarism accusations against Guttenberg. Guttenberg denied any plagiarism, but asked the University of Bayreuth to revoke his title, admitting "severe errors in workmanship".

  • Marc Straus (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Straus

    Field: Oncology. Marc Straus has admitted that as lead researcher he took responsibility for fabricated data in oncology studies at the Boston University School of Medicine in the late 1970s.

  • Dipak Das (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipak_K._Das

    Field: Cardiovasculary research. Dipak Das was found guilty of 145 counts of fabrication or falsification of data at the University of Connecticut Health Center.

  • John Darsee (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Darsee

    Field: Cardiology. Data fabrication as well as errors/discrepancies on 16 of 18 full-length research articles, and an unknown number of over 100 additional abstracts and book chapters.

  • Yoshitaka Fujii (Japan)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshitaka_Fujii

    Field: Anesthesiology. Fujii was found to have fabricated data in at least 172 scientific papers, setting what is believed to be a record for the number of papers by a single author requiring retractions.

  • Jan Hendrik Schön (Germany)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal

    Field: Semiconductors. Schön forged results, using the same graph image in different contexts.

  • Silvia Bulfone-Paus (Germany)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvia_Bulfone-Paus

    Field: Immunology, 13 peer-reviewed journal articles retracted following investigations of alleged misconduct

  • Joachim Boldt (Germany)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Boldt

    Field: Anesthesiology, Drug research. Joachim Boldt stripped of his professorship, under criminal investigation for possible forgery of up to 90 research studies.

  • Milena Penkowa (Denmark)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milena_Penkowa

    Field: Neuroscience. Milena Penkowa (neuroscience), resigned her professorship after accusations of scientific misconduct, fraud, and embezzlement of research funds.

  • Bruno Frey (Switzerland)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Frey

    Field: Economics. In 2011, Frey was criticised for and admitted to self-plagiarism.

  • Danut Marcu (Romania)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%83nu%C8%9B_Marcu

    Field: Mathematics Dănuț Marcu, a Romanian mathematician and computer scientist, who was banned from several journals due to plagiarism. He had submitted a manuscript which was more-or-less word for word the same as a paper written by another author.

  • Mart Bax (Netherlands)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart_Bax

    Field: Antropology. Various kinds of serious scientific misconduct. For example, in two cases Bax stated to have relied on one single local informant who told him improbable stories about public events that were not confirmed by anyone else. Bax did not check the stories and wrote them down in detail as if these they were historical facts. The commission that investigated Bax' research was unable to interview these two informants, so data fabrication by Bax could not be proven.

  • Jon Sudbo (Norway)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Sudb%C3%B8

    Field: Medicine. Jon Sudbø is a Norwegian dentist, physician, and former medical researcher, who was exposed as a scientific fraudster in 2006. Over a period of several years, he fabricated results in the field of oncology which he published in leading medical journals. The article that led to his downfall, which was published in The Lancet, was based on 900 patients Sudbø had fabricated entirely. The editor of The Lancet described this as the biggest scientific fraud conducted by a single researcher ever.

  • Hwang Woo-Suk (Korea)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk

    Hwang Woo-suk is a South Korean veterinarian and researcher. He was a professor of theriogenology and biotechnology at Seoul National University (dismissed on March 20, 2006) who became infamous for fabricating a series of experiments, which appeared in high-profile journals, in the field of stem cell research. Until November 2005, he was considered one of the pioneering experts in the field, best known for two articles published in the journal Science in 2004 and 2005 where he reported he had succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning.

  • Raj Persaud (United Kingdom)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_Persaud

    Field: Psychiatry. Rajendra Persaud, also known as Raj Persaud (born 13 May 1963) is an English consultant psychiatrist, broadcaster and author of popular books about psychiatry. In October 2008, Persaud resigned from his position as consultant psychiatrist at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, following a 3-month suspension by the General Medical Council for dishonesty.

  • Andrew Wakefield (United Kingdom)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

    Field: Medicine. Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 3 September 1956) is a British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease

  • Eric Poehlman (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Poehlman

    Eric T. Poehlman (born c. 1956), a scientist in the field of human obesity and aging, was the first academic in the United States to be jailed for falsifying data in a grant application. He had published fraudulent research alleging hormone replacement injections as a therapy for menopause, when in fact they had no proven medical benefits at all.

  • Dick van Velzen (United Kingdom)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alder_Hey_organs_scandal

    The Alder Hey organs scandal involved the unauthorised removal, retention, and disposal of human tissue, including children’s organs, during the period 1988 to 1995. During this period organs were retained in more than 2,000 pots containing body parts from around 850 infants.

  • William Summerlin (USA)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Summerlin

    Field: Medicine. William T. Summerlin (born 1938) is a dermatologist who, as a medical researcher, perpetrated a notorious scientific fraud.

  • Piltdown Man (1912)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

    The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human.

  • A Guidebook for Teaching Selected Responsible Conduct of Research Topics to a Culturally Diverse Trainee Group by M. Alexander and W. R. Williams73 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction and Background, Summary of Results from RCR Focus Groups, Small Culturally Diverse Groups for Case-based RCR Instruction: Format and Script, Teaching Materials for Data Management, Sharing, and Ownership, Teaching Materials for Intellectual Property, Teaching Materials for Research Misconduct, Appendix Sources and Resources

  • ORI Casebook, Stories about Researcher worth discussing, Instructor’s Manual54 Pages

    Tables of contents: Foundational issues, Strategies for teaching using cases and reflection questions, Strategies for teaching using role plays, Index

  • Good Research Practice – What Is It? by The Swedish Research Council (2006)90 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction, Good research practice – some basic requirements, Planning research, Conducting research, Publishing research results, Research collaboration, Other roles of the researcher, Research misconduct, key documents researchers should be familiar with.

  • Co-ordinating Committee for Facilitating International Research Misconduct Investigations by OECD and GSF16 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction and Background, Objectives of the Committee, General principles for conducting investigations in international settings and practical guidelines, Sharing information and establishing networks, Annex

  • Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity and Preventing Misconduct by OECD and GSF13 Pages

    Table of Contents: Rationale, Background, The Varieties of Misconduct, and its Consequences, Options for Dealing with Misconduct Allegations, Responding to Misconduct Allegations, Investigating Misconduct, International Considerations, Causes, Contributing Factors, and Prevention

  • RCR Casebook: Stories about Researchers Worth Discussing by ORIhttps://ori.hhs.gov/rcr-casebook-stories-about-researchers-worth-discussing

    Case study packs with the following topics: Authorship and Publication, Research Misconduct, Collaboration, Data Acquisition and Management, Conflict of Interest, Peer Review, Mentor and Trainee Relationships, Social Responsibilities

  • The Research Clinic – Interactive Training Video by ORI and OHRPhttps://ori.hhs.gov/the-research-clinic

    The interactive training video educates clinical and social researchers on the importance of appropriately protecting research participants and avoiding research misconduct.

  • The Lab – Interactive Movie on Research Misconduct by ORIhttps://ori.hhs.gov/thelab

    In "The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct," you become the lead characters in an interactive movie and make decisions about integrity in research that can have long-term consequences. The simulation addresses Responsible Conduct of Research topics such as avoiding research misconduct, mentorship responsibilities, handling of data, responsible authorship, and questionable research practices

  • ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research by Nicholas H. Steneck (2007)184 Pages

    Table of contents: Part I: Shared Values (Rules of the Road, Research Misconduct), Part II: Planning Research (The Protection of Human Subjects, The Welfare of Laboratory Animals, Conflicts of Interest), Part III: Conducting Research (Data Management Practices, Mentor and Trainee Responsibilities, Collaborative Research), Part IV: Reporting and Reviewing Research (Authorship and Publication, Peer review), Part V: Safe Driving and Responsible Research

  • Policy for Dealing with Alleged Research Misconduct in Applications Made to the HRB3 Pages

    Table of contents: Background, Scope, Policy, Initial Action, Contact with the Complainant, Contact with the Institution, HRB Action

  • HRB Guidelines for Host Institutions on the Handling of Allegations of Research Misconduct5 Pages

    Table of contents: Background, Definitions of Research Misconduct, Host institution policy and procedures, Essential content of the host institution policy and procedure, Stages of the investigation process, Right of appeal, Final decision, Possible sanctions

  • Fostering Research Integrity in Europe, Executive Report by ESF (2010)20 Pages

    Table of contents: Preface, Background and Rationale, European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, Defining and Implementing Awareness and Structures for Research Integrity, Need for Further Evidence on Research Integrity, Next Steps: Recommendations for the Future, Annexes

  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (2013)5 Pages

    Table of contents: Expectations during the peer-review process, Expectations post review

  • Guidance for Editors: Research, Audit and Service Evaluations by COPE (2014)1 Pages

    Table of contents: Guidance for Editors: Research, Audit and Service Evaluations

  • Text recycling guidelines for editors by BioMed Central (2016)5 Pages

    Table of contents: How can editors deal with text recycling?, When should action be considered?, What action should be taken if text recycling is discovered?

  • Sharing of Information Among Editors-in-Chief Regarding Possible Misconduct by COPE (2015)3 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction, Background, Guidance, References

  • Journals’ Best Practices for Ensuring Consent for Publishing Medical Case Reports: guidance from COPE (2016)5 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction, General principles, Information to be collected in publication consent forms, Examples of forms for consent to publication of cases and relevant guidance,

  • Responsible research publication: international standards for authors by L. Wager, S. Kleinert (2010)6 Pages

    A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)http://publicationethics.org/

    COPE is a forum for editors and publishers of peer reviewed journals to discuss all aspects of publication ethics.

  • How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers by COPE (2003)3 Pages

    Content: How to reduce the incidence of authorship problems, How to handle authorship disputes when they occur, What you can do if authorship issues are not resolved, Key concepts in authorship

  • Guidelines for retracting articles by COPE (2009)6 Pages

  • Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases by COPE (2012)9 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction, Scope, Background principles, Defining misconduct, Recommendations for cooperation between research institutions and journals, References

  • Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing by COPE (2015)3 Pages

    16 Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

  • Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers by COPE1 Pages

  • Stanford’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavorial Scienceshttp://bps.stanford.edu/?page_id=25

    A website where you find information about best practices in Science.

  • The culture of scientific research 2014, Analysis of responses to an online survey by Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2014)84 Pages

    Table of contents: Executive summary, Introduction, Demographics, Research findings, Appendix

  • The concordat to support research integrity by Universities UK (2012)26 Pages

    Table of contents: Summary of commitments, Foreword by the Minister for Universities and Science, Foreword by the signatories to the concordat, Introduction, Maintaining the highest standards of research integrity, Embedding a culture of research integrity, Dealing with allegations of research misconduct, A commitment to strengthening research integrity, Annexe I-III

  • Reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research: improving research practice. Symposium report (2015)80 Pages

    Table of contents: Summary, Introduction, What is the scale of the problem?, What can we learn from disciplines within biomedical sciences and beyond?, Strategies to address the irreproducibility of biomedical research, Public trust – how do we talk about reproducibility?, Conclusions and next steps, Annex 1-3

  • Responsibilty Navigatorhttp://responsibility-navigator.eu/

    Res-AgorA is a three-year, EU FP7 project (2013-2016) which has co-constructed a good-practice framework, the “Responsibility Navigator”.The Res-AgorA´s “Co-construction Method” for RRI is a methodology designed to support and facilitate the practical use of the Responsibility Navigator with stakeholders.

  • National systems for handling cases of research misconduct by The Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation (2013)24 Pages

    Table of contents: Background, Definition of research misconduct, National legal instruments regarding research misconduct, Institutions involved in handling cases on research misconduct, Procedure for handling cases on research misconduct, Transparency and confidentiality in cases on research misconduct, Positive elements and challenges in systems for handling cases on research misconduct, Annex A-B

    pdf
  • General guidelines for research ethics by etikkom1 Pages

  • Responsible Research Data Management and the Prevention of Scientific Misconduct by Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science (2013)84 Pages

    Table of Contents: Foreword, Introduction, Responsible Research Data Management, Integrity in Scientific Research, Preparation for Scientific Research in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and during researcher training, Summary

  • RCUK Policy and Guidelines on Governance of Good Research Conduct (2013)10 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction, Section 1: Good Research Conduct: Scope and Expectations, Section 2: Guidelines on the Promotion of Good Research Conduct, Section 3: Unacceptable Research Conduct, Section 4: Guidelines on the Reporting and Investigation of Unacceptable Research Conduct

  • Final report to ESF and ORI, First World Conference on Research Integrity: Fostering Responsible Research (2007)50 Pages

    Table of Contents: Summary, Planning, Organization, and Outcomes, Conference Evaluation, Conclusions and Recommendations, Appendix 1. Planning Committee Members, Appendix 2. Final Programme, Appendix 3. Participants List, Appendix 4. Tindemans Report, Appendix 5. Analysis of Feedback Forms, Appendix 6. Articles and Press Coverage

  • Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise. A Policy Report by InterAcademy Council (2012)62 Pages

    Table of contents: Foreword, IAP-IAC Committee on Research Integrity, Preface, Report review, Introduction, An Overview of Research Values, Responsible Conduct in the Process of Research, Recommendations for Researchers and Institutions Involved in Research, References, Biographical Sketches of Committee Members

  • Briefing Paper: Text and Data Mining and the Need for a Science-friendly EU Copyright Reform by Science Europe (2015)10 Pages

    Table of Contents: ‘Text and Data Mining’or ‘Content Mining’?, Benefits of TDM Techniques, Uses of TDM Techniques: Indirect or Autonomous, Pre-conditions for TDM, Legal Claims of Rights Holders, Difficulty of Assessing the Legality of Content Mining, Necessary Advocacy for a Science-friendly Copyright Law, Suggested Way Forward for Research Organisations, Sources.

  • Science Europe: Working group on Research Integrityhttp://www.scienceeurope.org/policy/working-groups/research-integrity/

    The Working Group has three main focuses: Promoting research integrity, Preventing misconduct and Increasing transparency when investigating cases of misconduct. In their work, the group’s experts liaise with other relevant stakeholders in this field in Europe and globally.

  • 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity (2013)http://wcri2013.org/

    3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, Montreal, May 5-8, 2013

  • 4th World Conference on Research Integrity (2015)http://www.wcri2015.org/

    4th World Conference on Research Integrity, Research Rewards and Integrity: Improving Systems to Promote Responsible Research, May 31 - June 3, 2015

  • Case Study: Review process4 Pages

    With kind permission of UKRIO and Elizabeth Wagner. Topic: Using information gathering by reviewing a paper

    pdf
  • Case Study: Data Management3 Pages

    With kind permission of UKRIO. Topic: Data Management (Collecting of data by someone else)

    pdf
  • Case Study: Authorship3 Pages

    With kind permission of UKRIO. Topic: Authorship

    pdf
  • Case Study: Informed consent4 Pages

    With kind permission of UKRIO. Topic: Informed consent.

    pdf
  • Case Study: Charlie West2 Pages

    With kind permission of Kenneth Pimple. Topic: Plagiarism.

    pdf
  • Case Study: Jenny Ito2 Pages

    With kind permission of Kenneth Pimple. Topic: Changing of agreements retropectively in studies with animals.

    pdf
  • Developing a Well-Reasoned Response to a Moral Problem in Scientific Research by Muriel J. Bebeau (1995)7 Pages

    With kind permission of Kenneth Pimple. A guideline how to find out and formulate a response to the training cases.

    pdf
  • Case Study: Marty Brown1 Pages

    With kind permission of Kenneth Pimple. Topic: Omitting of data.

    pdf
  • Case Study: Jessica Banks1 Pages

    With kind permission of Kenneth Pimple. Topic: Ownership of data.

    pdf
  • Case Study: Bob Bailey2 Pages

    With kind permission of Kenneth Pimple. Topic: Relationship among professor and graduate student (impact on the lab team, favouritism of the graduate student).

    pdf
  • Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research. Cases for Teaching and Assessment by Bebeau, et al. (1995)

    With kind permission of Kenneth Pimple. Content: Developing a Well-Reasoned Response to a Moral Problem in Scientific Research, The cases, The response sheets for each case.

    pdf
  • Website of Researcher Daniele Fanellihttp://danielefanelli.com/index.html

    Webpage of Danielle Fanelli who is of the first natural scientists who specialized in the study of scientific misconduct, bias and related issues, and has produced some of the largest studies assessing the prevalence of bias across disciplines and countries.

  • The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty – Decisionshttp://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/councils-and-commissions/the-danish-committees-on-scientific-dishonesty/decisions

    Here you can find decisions from the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in anonymised form.

  • The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) – Case Summarieshttps://ori.hhs.gov/case_summary

    This page contains cases in which administrative actions were imposed due to findings of research misconduct.

  • Online Ethics Center (OEC) – Caseshttp://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/profpractice/ppcases.aspx

    List and description of cases that are at least loosely based on real incidents, in order to give a realistic impression of the moral problems that face engineers.

  • Biometrics: Use and Abuse in the Review of Research Performance, Wenner-Gren International Series, volume 87http://www.portlandpress.com/pp/books/online/wg87/default.htm

    Table of contents: Part 1: Basic Considerations, Part II: Instruments of Measurement, Part III: Indicators for Rankings, Part IV: Journals, Editors and Publishers, Part V: Bibliometrics in the Humanities and Social Sciences and Part VI: Conclusions.

  • Good Research Practice by The Swedish Research Council’s expert group on ethics (2011)131 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction, About his book, What ethics dictate and the law demands, About research - What, why, how and for whom?, Ethics and other approval review, Handling of research material, Research collaboration, Publishing research results, Other roles of the researcher, Research misconduct and Key documents researchers should be familiar with.

  • Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Editors by S. Kleinert, L. Wager (2010)10 Pages

    A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. This article gives information about editorial principles (Accountability and responsibility for journal content, Editorial independence and integrity, Editorial confidentiality, General editorial policies, Editorial policies relevant only to journals that publish research in humans or animals and Editorial Processes).

    pdf
  • Research Integrity Practices in Science Europe Member Organisations by Science Europe (2016)50 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction, The Survey: Rationale and Methodology, Summary of the Survey Results, Raising Awareness of Research Integrity, Research Integrity Training, Strengthening Collaboration and Monitoring Mobility, Sanctions.

  • Curriculum “Good Scientific Practice” by Gerlinde Sponholz, Josef Leidenfrost (2013)37 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction (Background and Development of the Curriculum for “Good Scientific Practice”, Experiences in the USA), Explanations and Recommendations (Target Groups, Objectives, Didactic Principles, Composition and Structure of the Curriculum, Teachers’ Qualifications, Literature and Sources) Specific Suggestions for Implementation (Structure of the First Part of the Training Programme, Structure and Modules of the Second Part of the Training Programme) Evaluation (Feedback and the Further Development of the Curriculum)

  • Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors by COPE (2011)12 Pages

    Table of contents: General duties and responsibilities of editors, Relations with readers, authors, editors, editorial board members, journal owners and publishers, Editorial and peer review processes, Protecting individual data, Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals), Dealing with possible misconduct, Ensuring the integrity of the academic record, Intellectual property, Encouraging debate, Complaints, Commercial considerations, Conflicts of interest. ,

  • Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research by NHMRC41 Pages

    Table of contents: About the Code, Principles and Practices to encourage Responsible Research Conduct, Breaches of the Code, Research Misconduct, and the framework for resolving allegations, Appendices

  • A Code of Conduct for Biosecurity. Report by the Biosecurity Working Group (2008)44 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction and background, Biosecurity Code of Conduct, Explanatory notes to the text of the code of conduct, Background to a Biosecurity Code of Conduct, Appendices .

  • Office of Research Integrity (ORI)https://ori.hhs.gov/

    The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) facilitates the responsible conduct of research through educational, preventive, and service activities. On the ORI website (RCR Resources) you will information on Collaborative Science, Data Management, Ethics, Mentorship, Plagiarism, Publication/Authorship and Research Misconduct)

  • Integrity needs common values more than common procedures by Nicole Föger (2013)1 Pages

    Paper published on Research Europe, 2013.

    pdf
  • Guidance for researchers on retractions in academic journals by UKRIO, COPE (2010)6 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction, Contents and suggested distrubution, Standards for retractions, corrections and expressions of concern, The responsibilities of researchers, organisations and authors, Further information.

  • Stewards of Integrity. Institutional Approaches to Promote and Safeguard Good Research Practice in Europe by ESF (2008)56 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction, Data Basis, Approaches in individual countries, Summary and Outlook, References, Responsible officials and contact details.

    pdf
  • A Guide to ethical writing by Michael Roig54 Pages

    The primary purpose of this instructional resource is to identify the various types of unethical writing practices and to derive a set of guidelines to prevent individuals from committing them.

    pdf
  • Code of Practice for Research. Promoting Good Practice and Preventing Misconduct by UKRIO (2009)27 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction, Principles, Standards for organisations and researchers, Appendix: Acknowledgements and bibiography.

  • Integrity in scientific research. Principles and procedures by Swiss Academies of Arts and Science (2008)29 Pages

    Table of contents: Preface, Memorandum on scientific integrity and the handling of misconduct in the scientific context, Principles and procedures concerning integrity. IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH A. Introduction 13 B. Principles of scientific integrity 14

    pdf
  • Regulations/guidelines concerning scientific integrity issued by Swiss higher education institutions (2013)2 Pages

    List of links

    pdf
  • National Statement of Scientific Integrity by CSIC (2015)8 Pages

    In English and Spanish. The  present National Statement establishes  ethical  principles  and  professional responsibilities relating to research activity, and at the same time calls for joint efforts  and commitment by all actors involved. 

    pdf
  • Manual of Conflicts of Interest by CSIC (2015)50 Pages

    Table of contents: Prologue, Aims and scope of the institutional policy on conflicts of interest, Conflicts of interest. Actual, apparent and potential conflicts, Activities, scenarios and situations that may involve conflicts of interest within CSIC, Implementation of the institutional conflicts of interest policy. Procedures and actions. Body responsible for implementation and oversight, Regulatory framework, Annex

  • The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice by VSNU (2012)15 Pages

    This Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice was drawn up at the request of the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (Vereniging van Universiteiten, VSNU). The Code consists of this preamble, the principles and the best practices. The Code is divided into five parts: I. Scrupulousness, II. Reliability, III. Verifiability, IV. Impartiality, V. Independence.

  • National policy statement on Ensuring Research Integrity in Ireland (2014)24 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction, Commitments to foster and ensure research integrity, Commitment 1: Standards, Commitment 2: Education, Commitment 3: Collaboration for continuous improvement, Commitment 4: Action to address misconduct. confidence in the Irish research system.

  • HRB Guidelines for Host Institutions on Good Research Practice5 Pages

    Table of contents: Background, General principles on which these guidelines are based, Host institution policies and procedures, Integrity, Openness, Guidance from professional bodies and legislation, Supervision, Training, Ethical practice, Conducting the research, Primary data/samples, Publication of research results, Applying and exploiting results, Other relevant information sources.

  • Recommendations on Academic Integrity: Position Paper by German Council of Science and Humanities (2015)53 Pages

    Table of contents: Preliminary remarks, Preamble: The term Academic Integrity, Taking stock (Recommendations and guidelines on good scientific practice, Implementation in Germany) Areas of action and recommendations (Enabling academic integrity, Research process and publication practice, Dealing with disputes, Influential factors and evaluation criteria, Areas of responsibility of stakeholders), Annexes

  • Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland by Finnish Advisory Board on RI (2012)44 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction, The responsible conduct of research, Violations of the responsible conduct of research, Guidelines for handling alleged violations of the responsible conduct of research.

  • The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity by Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2014)27 Pages

    Table of contents: Foreword, Principles of Research Integrity, Responsible Conduct of Research, Research integrity teaching, training, and supervision, Research misconduct and breaches of responsible conduct of research, Appendix 1-3

  • Code of Ethics for Scientific Research in Belgium11 Pages

    This “Code of Ethics for Scientific Research in Belgium” establishes the major principles of ethically justified scientific practice.

  • Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice by Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (2015)20 Pages

    In line with international declarations on integrity in research, this document lays down fundamental principles of scientific and scholarly integrity and the resulting fundamental obligations for researchers. On the basis of those principles and fundamental obligations, it then proceeds to define requirements for the behaviour of scientists and researchers (Standards of Good Scientific Practice) as well as key forms of research misconduct.

  • Best Practices for Ensuring Research Integrity and Preventing Research Misconduct by OECD13 Pages

    Table of contents: Rationale, Background, The Varieties of Misconduct, and its Consequences, Options for Dealing with Misconduct Allegations, Responding to Misconduct Allegations, Investigating Misconduct, International Considerations, Causes, Contributing Factors, and Prevention

  • Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Research Projects by OECD (2009)14 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction, Boilerplate Text for International Collaborative Research Projects, Requirements for misconduct investigation agreements in international research collaborations, Overarching Principles for Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Projects, Procedures for Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Research Projects, Communication Strategy.

  • Fostering Research Integrity in Europe by European Science Foundation, Final report (2010)44 Pages

    Table of contents: Introductory Note, Executive Summary, The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, Implementing Research Integrity: Elements of a framework for research integrity governance, Conclusions and Recommendations.

  • Briefing Paper: Research Integrity: What it Means, Why it Is Important and How we Might Protect it by Science Europe Working Group on RI (2015)32 Pages

    Table of contents: Introduction, What Are Research Integrity and Research Misconduct?, Efforts to Ensure Research Integrity, Conclusions, Bibliography and Notes

  • Seven Reasons to Care about Integrity in Research by Science Europe Working Group on RI (2015)12 Pages

    This paper sets out seven key reasons why Science Europe Member Organisations, and research organisations in general, should be concerned about promoting research integrity amongst their research community.

  • European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity by ESF and ALLEA (2011)24 Pages

    Table of contents: Foreword, Executive Summary (The Code, The Principles of Research Integrity, Misconduct, Good Research Practices), The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (The Code of Conduct, Background and Elucidation, Guidelines for Good Practice Rules, International Collaborative Research), Annexes, ESF Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity and list of members, ALLEA Standing Committee on Science and Ethics and list of members

  • Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations (2013)

    The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations was developed as part of the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, 5-8 May 2013, in Montreal, as a global guide to responsible conduct of research.

    pdf
    175 documents or links were found