Advertisement

The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A Conceptual Schema

  • David Shaw
Original Paper

Abstract

Researchers often refer to “research integrity”, “scientific integrity”, “research misconduct”, “scientific misconduct” and “research ethics”. However, they may use some of these terms interchangeably despite conceptual distinctions. The aim of this paper is to clarify what is signified by several key terms related to research integrity, and to suggest clearer conceptual delineation between them. To accomplish this task, it provides a conceptual analysis based upon definitions and general usage of these phrases and categorization of integrity-breaching behaviours in literature and guidelines, including clarification of the different domains and agents involved. In the first part of the analysis, following some initial clarifications, I explore the distinction between internal and external rules of integrity. In the second part, I explore the distinction between integrity and lack of misconduct, before suggesting a recategorisation of different types of integrity breach. I conclude that greater clarity is needed in the debate on research integrity. Distinguishing between scientific and research integrity, reassessing the relative gravity of different misbehaviours in light of this distinction, and recognising all intentional breaches of integrity as misconduct may help to improve guidelines and education.

Keywords

Research integrity Scientific integrity Ethics Clinical research Research misconduct Scientific misconduct 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper arose from the Perspectives on Research Integrity in Science and Medicine (PRISM) study, funded by the Käthe Zingg Schwichtenberg Fund of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences. Thanks to Dr. Priya Satalkar for helpful feedback and discussion.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. ALLEA—All European Academies. (2017). The European code of conduct for research integrity. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf. Accessed November 15, 2017.
  2. Cicero, M. T. (2008). On obligations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Horbach, S., & Halffman, W. (2016). Promoting virtue or punishing fraud: mapping contrasting discourses on ‘scientific integrity’. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23, 1461–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Komić, D., Marušić, S. L., & Marušić, A. (2015). Research integrity and research ethics in professional codes of ethics: Survey of terminology used by professional organizations across research disciplines. PLOS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133662.Google Scholar
  5. McCook, A. (2017). U.S. panel sounds alarm on “detrimental” research practices, calls for new body to help tackle misconduct. Retraction Watch, 11th April 2017. http://retractionwatch.com/2017/04/11/u-s-panel-sounds-alarm-detrimental-research-practices-calls-new-body-help-tackle-misconduct/. Accessed November 15, 2017.
  6. Meriste, H., Parder, M.L., Lõuk, K., Simm, K., Lilles-Heinsar, L., Veski, L., Soone, M., Juurik, M., & Sutrop, M. (2016). Promoting integrity as an integral dimension of excellence in research. Printeger.Google Scholar
  7. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). (1992). Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. https://www.nap.edu/read/1864/chapter/1. Accessed November 15, 2017.
  8. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). (2017). Fostering integrity in research. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/21896/fostering-integrity-in-research (US). Accessed November 15, 2017.
  9. National Institutes of Health (US). (2010). Grants and Funding. Research integrity. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/research_integrity/research_misconduct.htm.
  10. Pimple, K. D. (2002). Six domains of research ethics: A heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shaw, D., & Erren, T. (2015). 10 Simple rules for protecting research integrity. PLOS Computational Biology, 11(10), e1004388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shaw, D., & Satalkar, P. (2018). Researchers’ interpretations of research integrity: A qualitative study. Accountability In Research.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2017.1413940.Google Scholar
  13. Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A., & Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453, 980–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Biomedical EthicsUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Health, Ethics & Society, CAPHRI Research InstituteMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations