Educating PhD Students in Research Integrity in Europe

Abstract

No university or research institution is immune to research misconduct or the more widespread problem of questionable research practices. To strengthen integrity in research, universities worldwide have developed education in research integrity. However, little is known about education in research integrity for PhD students in European research-intensive universities. We conducted a content analysis of didactic materials of 11 of the 23 members of the League of European Research Universities (LERU) to map out the content, format, frequency, duration, timing, and compulsory status of their training programmes and the characteristics of instructors of the onsite courses. Quantitative results revealed substantial variation in educational materials among the studied institutions. This variation might be because European research universities are free to design curricula without any requirements from the European, national, or institutional public funding channels. Given the challenges inherent to modern science and preventing misconduct, research institutions should empower future generations of researchers to engage in responsible research practices. To promote integrity in research among PhD students, we provide a set of recommendations for university-wide education in research integrity for doctoral trainees based on our investigation of educational resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. ALLEA (All European Academies). (2017). The European code of conduct for research integrity. Retrieved April 7, 2019 from https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf.

  2. Aubert Bonn, N., Godecharle, S., & Dierickx, K. (2017). European universities’ guidance on research integrity and misconduct: accessibility, approaches, and content. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616688980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boesz, C., & Lloyd, N. (2008). Investigating international misconduct. Nature, 452(7188), 686–687. https://doi.org/10.1038/452686a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bogle, D., Dron, M., Eggermont, J., & van Henten, J. W. (2011). Doctoral degrees beyond 2010: Training talented researchers for society. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 13, 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bouter, L. (2020). What research institutions can do to foster research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00178-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Danish Committee on Research Misconduct. (2017). Regulation for the DCRM. Retrieved March 9, 2020 from https://ufm.dk/en/legislation/prevailing-laws-and-regulations/research-and-innovation/Videnskabeliguredelighedeng.pdf

  7. Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1), 215824401452263. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Epigeum. Retrieved April 2, 2019 from https://epigeum.com/.

  10. Forsberg, E.-M., Anthun, F. O., Bailey, S., Birchley, G., Bout, H., Casonato, C., et al. (2018). Working with research integrity—Guidance for research performing organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(4), 1023–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013). Guidance on research integrity: No union in Europe. The Lancet, 381(9872), 1097–1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60759-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2014). Heterogeneity in European Research Integrity Guidance. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(3), 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Heitman, E., & Ellen Bulger, R. (2005). Assessing the educational literature in the responsible conduct of research for core content. Accountability in Research, 12(3), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620500217420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kon, A. A., Schilling, D. A., Heitman, E., Steneck, N. H., & DuBois, J. M. (2011). Content analysis of major textbooks and online resources used in responsible conduct of research instruction. AJOB Primary Research, 2(1), 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2011.564263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Krstić, S. B. (2015). Research integrity practices from the perspective of early-career researchers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1181–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9607-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lerouge, I., & Hol, A. (2020). Towards a research integrity culture at universities: From recommendations to implementation. Retrieved March 6, 2020 from https://www.leru.org/files/Towards-a-Research-Integrity-Culture-at-Universities-full-paper.pdf.

  17. Mayernik, M. S. (2017). Open data: Accountability and transparency. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 205395171771885. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717718853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mejlgaard, N., Bouter, L. M., Gaskell, G., Kavouras, P., Allum, N., Bendtsen, A.-K., et al. (2020). Research integrity: Nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature, 586(7829), 358–360. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02847-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Merton, R. K. (1973). The normative structure of science. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 265–278). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., et al. (2020). The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLOS Biology, 18(7), e3000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Moher, D., Naudet, F., Cristea, I. A., Miedema, F., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Goodman, S. N. (2018). Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLOS Biology, 16(3), e2004089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Fostering integrity in research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2009). NIH update on the requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research. NOT-OD-10-019. Retrieved November 18, 2020, from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html.

  24. Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. (2018). Retrieved April 7, 2019 from https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-2cj-nvwu.

  25. Phillips, T., Nestor, F., Beach, G., & Heitman, E. (2018). America COMPETES at 5 years: An analysis of research-intensive universities’ RCR training plans. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(1), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9883-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Resnik, D. B., & Dinse, G. E. (2012). Do U.S. research institutions meet or exceed federal requirements for instruction in responsible conduct of research? A national survey. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 87(9), 1237–1242. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318260fe5c.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Resnik, D. B., Rasmussen, L. M., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). An International study of research misconduct policies. Accountability in Research, 22(5), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.958218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Resnik, D. B., & Shamoo, A. E. (2011). The Singapore Statement on research integrity. Accountability in Research, 18(2), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2011.557296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. The Guardian. (2013). German education minister quits over PhD plagiarism. Retrieved May 10, 2019 from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/09/german-education-minister-quits-phd-plagiarism.

  31. The Guardian. (2002). Big trouble in the world of 'Big Physics'. Retrieved May 10, 2019 from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/sep/18/science.highereducation.

  32. Todd, E. M., Watts, L. L., Mulhearn, T. J., Torrence, B. S., Turner, M. R., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2017). A meta-analytic comparison of face-to-face and online delivery in ethics instruction: The case for a hybrid approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(6), 1719–1754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9869-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Watts, L. L., Medeiros, K. E., Mulhearn, T. J., Steele, L. M., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2017). Are ethics training programs improving? A meta-analytic review of past and present ethics instruction in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 27(5), 351–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1182025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members of the LERU for their contribution to the collection of educational resources, Nicholas Steneck for discussions of the scientific work, and the anonymous reviewers for their contributions to the present effort.

Funding

This research was funded by the KU Leuven Internal Funds C24/15/032.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

BN and KD designed and supervised the study. SA collected and analysed the research data, and wrote the first successive draft of the manuscript. DP and KD conducted an independent analysis of two educational materials based on the initial analysis of SA. DP, BN and KD revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shila Abdi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

BN and KD are involved in teaching research integrity at the KU Leuven. This research project was funded by the KU Leuven but the institution had no role in designing, performing, nor the findings of the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file 1 (DOCX 49 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdi, S., Pizzolato, D., Nemery, B. et al. Educating PhD Students in Research Integrity in Europe. Sci Eng Ethics 27, 5 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00290-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Research integrity education
  • RCR
  • PhD students
  • European universities
  • Research integrity
  • Research misconduct