The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Report:A46cd7d4-4270-4d14-8501-26f9acbb39a8

2022-01-21T18:42:24Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Report
|Report Type=Country Report Cards
|Title=Luxembourg
|Has Location=Luxembourg
|Research Infrastructure=In 2019 there were 3,158 full-time researchers in Luxembourg <ref>Statistics portal of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg. R%D staff in full-time equivalent (FTE) 2005-2019. Updated 2020 Nov 23. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from: https://statistiques.public.lu/stat/TableViewer/tableViewHTML.aspx?ReportId=13555&IF_Language=eng&MainTheme=4&FldrName=9&RFPath=2222</ref>. The Luxembourg research ecosystem comprises the University of Luxembourg, including 3 faculties and 3 interdisciplinary research centres, 4 public research institutes <ref>Luxembourg National Research Fund. Research in Luxembourg. [cited 2021 May 24].
Available from:

https://www.fnr.lu/research-in-luxembourg/#1461325518535-9b38d7d2-f67e</ref> and other public and private research organisations <ref>Innovation public.lu. Other public research organisations. Updated 2016 Sep 16. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from:

http://www.innovation.public.lu/en/decouvrir/acteurs/recherche-publique/autres-acteurs/index.html</ref>.
{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="604"
{{!}} width="283" valign="top"{{!}}'''Organisation'''
{{!}} width="321" valign="top"{{!}}'''City'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="283" valign="top"{{!}}'''University'''
{{!}} width="321" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="283" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wwwen.uni.lu/ University of Luxembourg]
{{!}} width="321" valign="top"{{!}}Esch-sur-Alzette
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="283" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.list.lu/fr/ LIST][:File:///C:/Users/Elsa Amin/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1 Country report cards for The Embassy.zip/Report page draft Luxembourg.docx#%20msocom%201 <nowiki>[AP1]</nowiki>]
{{!}} width="321" valign="top"{{!}}Esch-sur-Alzette
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="283" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.liser.lu/ LISER]
{{!}} width="321" valign="top"{{!}}Esch-sur-Alzette
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="283" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.lih.lu/ LIH]
{{!}} width="321" valign="top"{{!}}Luxembourg, Strassen, Esch-sur-Alzette, Dudelange
{{!}}}
<references />
|Research Funding=In 2018, the gross expenditures on research and development were €704.5 million <ref name=":0">Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD.Stat). Gross domestic expenditure on R&D by sector of performance and type of R&D. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from:

https://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?datasetcode=GERD_TORD&lang=en</ref> which comprises 1.2% of the country’s GDP <ref>FocusEconomics. GDP in Luxembourg. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from: https://www.focus-economics.com/country-indicator/luxembourg/gdp-eur-bn</ref>. Most funding was spent in the business sector (53.24%), government (26.04%) and higher education sector (20.7%) <ref name=":0" />.

In 2020, Luxembourg had 509 signed grants in H2020 projects, receiving €189,1 million funding from H2020 <ref name=":1">H2020 Country Profile. Key Figures – Luxembourg. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/dashboard/sense/app/a976d168-2023-41d8-acec-e77640154726/sheet/0c8af38b-b73c-4da2-ba41-73ea34ab7ac4/luxembourg</ref>. It also had 16 signed grants receiving €24,05 million from H2020 <ref name=":1" />.
<references />
|Research Strategy=The Luxembourg Government has launched the “National Research and Innovation Strategy”. The Strategy aims to provide the general framework that will allow for a targeted development of Luxembourg’s research ecosystem in the future. In addition, the government intends to maximise the impact of research on the country’s progress, and to position Luxembourg as a major international player visible through its research activities <ref>National Research and Innovation Strategy for Luxembourg. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from:

http://www.mesr.public.lu/presse/communiques/2020/FEVRIER-2020/Presentation-de-la-strategie-nationale-de-la-recherche-et-de-l_innovation1/09711_MESR_SnRI_Broch_en_WEB-_002_.pdf</ref>.
<references />
|Research Governance=Luxembourg has four national bodies for research ethics and research integrity: The National Research Ethics Committee (CNER) <ref>National Research Ethics Committee (CNER). [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from: http://www.cner.lu/</ref>, National Data Protection Commission (CNPD) <ref>National Commission for Data Protection Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (CNPD). Duties. Updated 2019 June 17. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from: https://cnpd.public.lu/en/commission-nationale/missions.html</ref>, National Consultative Ethics Committee for Life Sciences and Health (CNE) <ref>National Ethics Commission Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg. The Commission. Updated 2017 June 26. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from: https://cne.public.lu/fr/commission.html</ref> and National Commission for Research Integrity - The Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI) <ref>The Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI). LARI FAQ. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from: https://lari.lu/about/about-lari/</ref>.

Luxembourg does not have a national code of research conduct, but all research institutions have developed guidelines and policies for good research practice, research integrity, and ethics in research. In most cases, Luxembourg follows the guidelines of the [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] and of the League of European Research Universities “Towards a Research Integrity Culture at Universities: from recommendation to implementation” <ref name=":0">Lerouge I, Hol T. Towards a Research Integrity Culture at Universities: From Recommendations to Implementation. LERU. 2020 Jan. [cited 2021 Aug 18]. Available from:

https://www.leru.org/publications/towards-a-research-integrity-culture-at-universities-from-recommendations-to-implementation</ref>.

The University of Luxembourg has established several committees for handling questions in the field of research ethics.

- The Ethics Advisory Committee provides advice on ethical issues involved in the activities of the university’ community, addresses complaints, and conducts investigations regarding alleged discrimination at the university. The investigation and advice are provided upon request of the University Council or the Rectorate <ref name=":0" />.

- The ombudsman's office offers conflict management coaching, shuttle diplomacy, mediation, restorative circles and conferences to mitigate workplace conflicts <ref>Ombudsman. University of Luxembourg. [cited 2021 Aug 18]. Available from: https://wwwen.uni.lu/universite/presentation/organigrammes/organigramme_rectorat_administration_centrale/ombudsman</ref>.

- The Ethics Review Panel is responsible for providing ethics reviews of research proposals and publications regarding human participants, human biological material, animals, or potentially harmful changes to the environment <ref name=":1">University of Luxembourg. Ethics Policies and Committees. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from: https://wwwen.uni.lu/research/researchers_research/ethics_policies_and_committees</ref>.

- The Animal Experimentation Ethics Committee (AEEC) is responsible for ensuring, on behalf of the University of Luxembourg, that care and use of animals for research and teaching are conducted in compliance with the law regulating the protection of animals used for scientific purposes <ref name=":1" />.

- The Biosafety Committee is responsible for ensuring compliance with the biosafety policies and measures at the University of Luxembourg <ref>Naegelen I, ed. Research Ethics Guidelines University of Luxembourg. 2018 Sep 5. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from:

https://laridotlu.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/univofluxresearch-guidelineserp2018.pdf</ref>.

- The doctoral education agreement (DEA) defines the role and duties of the supervisee and the supervisor and describes the tasks foreseen in the doctoral thesis work plan. It also provides information and contacts related to data protection, intellectual property, ethics and research integrity. Should a conflict persist, an escalation path is proposed <ref>Doctoral Education Agreement. University of Luxembourg. [cited 2021 Aug 18]. Available from: https://wwwen.uni.lu/studies/doctoral_education/doctoral_education_agreement</ref>.

- The University hosts a Dispute Committee is an independent administrative body, yet internal to the institution, whose mission is to decide, in law, according to an adversarial (quasi-judicial) procedure, certain categories of disputes between, on the one hand, the “users” of the University (ie current students, former students and / or potential students of the University of Luxembourg) and, on the other hand, the decision-making bodies of the University of Luxembourg <ref>Governance. University of Luxembourg. [cited 2021 Aug 18]. Available from: https://wwwen.uni.lu/university/about_the_university/governance</ref>.

The Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI) is responsible for handling alleged cases of research misconduct. The cases are investigated by the Commission for the Research Integrity (CRI) which is a part of LARI <ref name=":2">The Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI). Investigations. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from: https://lari.lu/lari-services/investigations-cri-rules-of-procedure/</ref>. The Commission may be called upon by any person or organisation with a legal capacity which has knowledge of suspected scientific misconduct occurring in LARI member organisations. Moreover, the Commission may also investigate cases of suspected scientific misconduct on their own initiative. If the case of alleged misconduct has happened more than 10 years ago, the Commission can refuse to handle the cases. After reviewing the case, the commission will take the decision to conduct an investigation, not to initiate an investigation, or suspend the case <ref name=":2" />.

If the Commission decides to initiate the investigation, its decision will be sent to the person or organisation that has reported the case, the person(s) to whom the allegations refer to, the head of the affected research institution, and the National Research Fund (FNR) if the case occurs in relation with the FNR funded project or researcher. In exceptional cases, the Commission can decide not to communicate the decision to abovementioned parties due to the higher priority of protecting the accused person. Upon completion of the investigation, the Commission member leading the investigation shall compose a summary opinion which contains an assessment of the results of the investigation. This will be presented to other members for approval. The opinion is further sent to the person or institution which called upon Commission if it is directly affected by allegations, and to the person to whom the allegation referred. The opinion is also sent to the LARI Board for information purposes <ref name=":2" />.

Luxembourg law does not have a formal definition of the term “whistleblowing”. There are specific provisions in the Labour Code designed to protect public and private sector employees who report alleged corruption or abuse of influence in their workplace. The employees are protected if the reports are made in good faith. These provisions protect employees from employment agreement reprisals and terminations due to whistleblowing <ref>Luxembourg: Legal developments for 2021 in Luxembourg. 2021 Jan 28. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from:

https://www.taylorvinters.com/article/luxembourg-legal-developments-for-2021-in-luxembourg</ref>.
{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left"
{{!}} width="297" valign="top"{{!}}'''Bodies for RE+RI'''
{{!}} width="455" valign="top"{{!}}'''Scope'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="297" valign="top"{{!}}[https://lari.lu/about/about-lari/ The Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI)]
 
{{!}} width="455" valign="top"{{!}}Provides free research ethics consultations for researchers. It is also responsible for addressing cases of alleged research misconduct.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="297" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.cner.lu/en-gb/About-us National Research Ethics Committee (CNER)]
{{!}} width="455" valign="top"{{!}}It is responsible for the protection of participants in clinical trials involving experimental drugs, therapies and medical devices. Besides clinical trials, CNER protects people included in different research studies, e.g. academic research.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="297" valign="top"{{!}}[https://cne.public.lu/fr/commission.html The National Consultative Commission of Ethics for Life Sciences and Health (CNE)]
{{!}} width="455" valign="top"{{!}}It is responsible for addressing ethical concerns in the fields of biology, medicine, and health. The Committee can address concerns on its own initiative or at the request of Government and respective European Directives.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="297" valign="top"{{!}}[https://cnpd.public.lu/en/commission-nationale/missions.html National Data Protection Commission (CNPD)]
{{!}} width="455" valign="top"{{!}}CNPD verifies the legality of the processing of personal data and ensures that the personal freedom and rights regarding data protection are respected. Research projects involving humans also have to be notified to or authorized by the CNPD.
{{!}}}
<references />
|Law And Regulation=A number of laws address RE and RI in Luxembourg are transposing EU Law.
{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="608"
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}'''Law'''
{{!}} width="372" valign="top"{{!}}'''Scope'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}[http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/rgd/2002/10/17/n1/jo Grand-Ducal Regulation:]

[http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/rgd/2002/10/17/n1/jo Contained use of genetically modified organisms (transposing EU Directive 1998/81)]
{{!}} width="372" valign="top"{{!}}It sets the criteria for classifying genetically modified organisms and their uses. It also defines the security measures and the containment procedures relating to these uses.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}[http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/rgd/2005/05/30/n5/jo Clinical trials in human medicines (transposing EU Directive 2001/20/CE)]
 
{{!}} width="372" valign="top"{{!}}Lays down specific provisions concerning the conduct of clinical trials, including multicentre trials, carried out on human being and relating to medicinal products as defined by the law of 1993 regulating the placing on the market and advertising of medicinal products.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}[http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/rgd/2013/01/11/n2/jo Protection of animals used in scientific research (transposing EU Directive 2010/63/UE)]
 
{{!}} width="372" valign="top"{{!}}Establishes measures for the protection of animals used for scientific or educational purposes.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}[https://deiereschutzgesetz.lu/la-loi/chapitre-8-protection-des-animaux-utilises-a-des-fins-scientifiques/ Law on the protection of animal life, security and welfare (Chapter 8, Article 13)]
 
{{!}} width="372" valign="top"{{!}}Limits animal experiments and experiences which can cause pain, aliments or damage to animals to what is strictly necessary.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}[http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2001/04/18/n2/jo Law of 18 April 2001 on copyright, neighboring rights and databases (transposing EU Directive 2001/84)]
 
{{!}} width="372" valign="top"{{!}}Establishes rules on copyright, neighbouring rights and databases.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}[http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2002/08/02/n2/jo Law of 2 August 2002 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data (transposing EU Directive 1995/46/CE)]
 
{{!}} width="372" valign="top"{{!}}Establishes rules for protection of personal data.
{{!}}}
|Measure=RI training 

LARI provides research ethics and integrity training via the CAPRI (Creative Approaches Promoting Research Integrity) program. It also has a program of Peer Coaching which guides researchers in designing, conducting, recording, monitoring, auditing, analysis, and reporting of research <ref name=":0">The Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI). LARI Peer Coaching. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from: https://lari.lu/lari-services/lari-peer-coaching/</ref>.

Within its doctoral education framework, the University of Luxembourg organizes training courses aiming at acquiring Transferable Skills <ref>University of Luxembourg. Doctoral training. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from:

https://wwwen.uni.lu/studies/doctoral_education/doctoral_applicant/doctoral_training</ref>. The offer in Transferable Skills training includes courses in research ethics in science and principles of good research practice as well as training activities aiming at increasing employability.

Luxembourg Institute of Health has doctoral training and among others, it covers an area of good research practice. Moreover, the Institute of Health provides training and workshops for early staged researchers to help them develop skills for their future career <ref>Luxemburg Institute of Health. Training & Workshops. [cited 2021 July 7]. Available from: https://www.lih.lu/page/training</ref>.

LIST is committed to developing and implementing responsible, inclusive and sustainable research and innovation practices. LIST also promotes and applies fair and ethical business and administration practices. Formalised in the LIST Code of Ethics, these principles are the basis of assessing projects, plans, and practices in the organisation. LIST has set up an internal Ethics Committee to deal with ethical questions related to research, innovation and business activities. LIST supports its employees (researchers, engineers, PhD candidates, administrative and support staff) to consider ethics in their work and attitude, whatever their position in the organisation.

Several research institutions have developed their guidelines for RE+RI training:

[https://storage.fnr.lu/index.php/s/O4DDe2SgEL0N9J5#pdfviewer National Policy on Open Access]

[https://laridotlu.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/univofluxresearch-guidelineserp2018.pdf The University of Luxembourg – Research Ethics Guidelines]

[https://wwwen.uni.lu/media/files/university_of_luxembourg_policy_on_ethics_in_research_1020123 The University of Luxembourg – Policy on Ethics in Research]

[https://wwwen.uni.lu/university/official_documents/code_of_conduct The University of Luxembourg – Code of Conduct]

[https://wwwfr.uni.lu/formations/doctoral_education/doctoral_education_agreement The University of Luxembourg – Doctoral Education Agreement (DEA)]

[https://www.powtoon.com/online-presentation/efqEXYBPR48/?utm_medium=SocialShare&utm_campaign=copy%2Bshare%2Bby%2Bowner&utm_source=player-page-social-share&utm_content=efqEXYBPR48&utm_po=21868619&mode=movie LARI - 10 Tips for Robust and Ethical Research]

[https://lari.lu/best-practice-useful-links/research-ethics-faq/ LARI Research Ethics FAQ]

[https://laridotlu.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/coachhandbookoct2018.pdf LARI Coach Handbook]

[https://storage.fnr.lu/index.php/s/bfSqYc8bLBAJrjz#pdfviewer FNR Policy on Open Access]

[https://storage.fnr.lu/index.php/s/E5PEHgLc0hcOnXE#pdfviewer FNR Research Integrity Guidelines]

[https://storage.fnr.lu/index.php/s/iFJGbUlpQEtvWRg#pdfviewer FNR Ethics Charter and Code of Conduct for Research Assessment]

[https://www.fnr.lu/nqfdt-assessment-report/ FNR National Quality Framework for Doctoral Training]

[https://www.list.lu/en/institute/who-we-are/our-commitments/ LIST Code of Ethics]

RI dialogue and communication

There is a cooperation between various institutions for RE+RI in Luxembourg. The National Ethics Committee (CNER) cooperates with the National Data Protection Commission (CNPD) which has one member attending the national ethics committee meeting as an observer. Also, members of CNER cooperate with LARI in the cases of research misconduct. LARI organises training courses for coaches at different research institutions <ref>European Network of Research Ethics Committees. Eurec. [cited 2021 Aug 18]. Available from: http://www.eurecnet.org/information/luxembourg.html</ref><ref>Who is LARI? [cited 2021 Aug 18]. Available from: https://lari.lu/about/who-is-lari/</ref>.

Through the Secretary of State for Higher Education and Research, there has been strong support for research integrity, including “fostering a culture of the integrity of research.” Public trust in science in Luxembourg is high. Moreover, according to a 2011 EU competitiveness report, “the highest trust in science and technology can be found in Malta, Iceland, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and Norway” <ref name=":0" />.
{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
{{!}} width="342" valign="top"{{!}}'''Initiatives'''
{{!}} width="409" valign="top"{{!}}'''Scope'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="342" valign="top"{{!}}[https://lari.lu/lari-services/researcher-training/ CAPRI program]
{{!}} width="409" valign="top"{{!}}Training
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="342" valign="top"{{!}}[https://lari.lu/lari-services/lari-peer-coaching/ LARI Peer Coaching]
{{!}} width="409" valign="top"{{!}}Training
{{!}}}
<references />
}}

Report:Cb4d3d2c-7969-412e-87cd-aeae0c9c62cd

2021-11-05T10:13:07Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Report
|Report Type=Country Report Cards
|Title=The Netherlands
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Research Infrastructure=In 2019, The Netherlands had 97,713 full-time researchers.<ref>Eurostat. R&D personnel by sector performance, professional position and sex. Last update 2021 Oct 21. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do. </ref> There are 84 higher education institutions in the Netherlands: 18 research universities, 40 universities of applied sciences, 4 institutes for international education, 10 university Colleges and 12 other institutions.<ref>Study in Holland. Research universities. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.studyinholland.nl/dutch-education/research-universities.</ref> A total of 23 research institutes are present in the Netherlands.<ref>Research Institutes in the Netherlands. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.netherlandsandyou.nl/binaries/netherlandsandyou/documents/publications/2016/06/13/research-institutes-in-the-netherlands/research-institutes-in-the-netherlands.pdf.</ref> From these 23 institutions, 8 are part of NWO (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), 10 are part of KNAW (Koninklijke Nederlandse Academie van Wetenschappen) and 5 are part of GTI (institutes with the focus on applying fundamental research). There are 29 public knowledge organisations and 21,000 companies with investments in R&D. 
{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="434"
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}'''Research Organisations'''
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}'''City'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tudelft.nl/ Delft University of Technology]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Delft
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tue.nl/en/ Eindhoven University of Technology]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Eindhoven
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.eur.nl/ Erasmus University Rotterdam]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Rotterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/ Leiden University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Leiden
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/nl Maastricht University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Maastricht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.nyenrode.nl/ Nyenrode Business Universiteit]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam/Breukelen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ou.nl/ Open University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Heerlen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ru.nl/ Radboud University Nijmegen]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Nijmegen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.pthu.nl/ The Protestant Theological University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Groningen/Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tias.edu/ TIAS School for Business and Society]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Tilburg/Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl Tilburg University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Tilburg
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.uva.nl/ University of Amsterdam]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.rug.nl/ University of Groningen]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Groningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.uvh.nl/university-of-humanistic-studies/home University of Humanistic Studies]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.utwente.nl/ University of Twente]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Twente
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.uu.nl/ Utrecht University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.vu.nl/nl/index.aspx VU Amsterdam]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.wur.nl/ Wageningen University and Research Centre]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Wageningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.astron.nl/ Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Dwingeloo
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.cwi.nl/ National Research Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://amolf.nl/ Laboratory for molecular and materials research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.differ.nl/ Dutch Institute for Fundamental Energy Research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Eindhoven
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.nikhef.nl/ National Institute for Subatomic Physics]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.nioz.nl/en Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Texel
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://nscr.nl/en/ Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.sron.nl/ Netherlands Institute for Space Research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht/Groningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://iisg.amsterdam/nl International Institute of Social History]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.kitlv.nl/nl/ The Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Leiden
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.niod.nl/en NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://nidi.nl/en/ The Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Den Haag
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://nias.knaw.nl/ The Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.knaw.nl/en/institutes/westerdijkinstitute Fungal Biodiversity Centre]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.hubrecht.eu/nl/ Hubrecht Institute for Developmental Biology and Stem Cell Research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.knaw.nl/en/institutes/nederlands-herseninstituut The Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.knaw.nl/en/institutes/nioo The Netherlands Institute for Ecology]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Wageningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.spinozacentre.nl/ Spinoza Centre for Neuroimaging]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.nlr.nl/ The Netherlands Aerospace Centre]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ecn.nl/energy-research/index.html Energy Research Centre]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam/Eindhoven
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.marin.nl/ Maritime Research Institute Netherlands]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Wageningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.deltares.nl/nl/ Deltares]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Delft
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tno.nl/nl/ TNO]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}}
<references />
|Research Funding=In 2018, the gross expenditures on research and development was €16.554 million, which comprises 2.1% of the country’s GDP.<ref name=":0">Eurostat. GERD by sector performance. Last update 2021 Oct 21. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=rd_e_gerdtot&lang=en. </ref><ref>FocusEconomics. GDP in Netherlands. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.focus-economics.com/country-indicator/netherlands/gdp-eur-bn. </ref> Most funding was spent in the business sector (66.4%), followed by higher education (27.7%) and government sector (5.9%).<ref name=":0" />
<references />
|Research Strategy=What distinguishes Dutch science today can be explained by several factors: its external orientation, its non-hierarchical, open culture, the long track of record of successful research evaluations, and the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by institutes and individual researchers. To promote innovation and the development of new knowledge, there is active and close cooperation between government, the private sector, universities and the research institutions. The Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science has come up with a Science Strategy called: 2025 – Vision for Science choices for the future.<ref>Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. 2025 Vision for Science choices for the future. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.government.nl/binaries/government/documents/reports/2014/12/08/2025-vision-for-science-choices-for-the-future/visie-wetenschap-eng-web.pdf. </ref> The government formulated a broad-based National Science Agenda where scientific strengths are directly linked to the social challenges. This strategic action aims to create or improve large-scale infrastructure and the development of a more responsive and dynamic system of institutions. Measures to promote scientific excellence, diversity and equality are part of talks with VSNU (The Association of Universities in the Netherlands). The agreement on a new framework also include other aspects, such as an updating of the current career paths structure, opportunities for young talent, more attention for teaching and the preparation of PhD students to pursue career opportunities in other sectors.

Women in science

Women in science are still underrepresented in the Netherlands. In 2010, the female-to-male ratio was 20%. The intent in the Dutch strategy is to rebalance this ratio to at least that of the European average by 2025. It also intends to promote the appointment of more women professors. Initiatives include for example the University of Groningen’s Rosalind Franklin Fellowship, which seeks to increase the number of women in senior tenured positions and which resulted in 65% of the Fellows in previous rounds to now hold an associate or full professorship.

Funding

The acquisition of indirect funding involves a high workload in preparing detailed research proposals while the percentage of proposals which are actually approved is relatively low. The government wishes to see less pressure to publish and acquire funding and keep the science of high quality. <references />
|Research Governance=The Netherlands Research Integrity Network (NRIN) is responsible for promoting research integrity. It is intended for raising awareness, providing relevant information and discussing issues related to research integrity and responsible conduct of research.<ref>Netherlands Research Integrity Network (NRIN). [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.nrin.nl/about/mission.</ref> It also aims to facilitate collaboration, exchange and mutual learning by offering training and education for different audiences, developing and exchanging teaching materials and best practices, enabling of consultation and intervision, and providing advice to decision makers.<ref>Enrio. Netherlands. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://www.enrio.eu/news-activities/members/netherlands/?highlight=netherlands.</ref>

As for allegations of research misconduct, research institutions have Boards responsible for investigations. Institutions are affiliated with the Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI), an independent body, established 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). The LOWI advises the Boards of its affiliated institutions, such as universities and research institutes, regarding possible violations of principles of research integrity. The LOWI’s task is to advise the Board on complaints concerning a (provisional) decision regarding the alleged violation of the principles of research integrity by one or more Defendants. The LOWI meetings are not open to the public but their opinions/conclusions are published on the LOWI website, in anonymised form.<ref>Landelijk Orgaan Wetenschappelijke Integriteit (LOWI). [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://lowi.nl/en/about-lowi/. </ref>

The Netherlands has Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO) and 18 accredited Medical Research Committees (MRECs) that are responsible for reviewing medical scientific research with human subjects.<ref name=":0">Jansen P, Reijers W. Ethics Assessment in Different Countries. The Netherlands. SATORI. 2015 June. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://satoriproject.eu/media/4.f-Country-report-the-Netherlands.pdf. </ref>

Whistleblowers are legally protected in The Netherlands. General protection of whistle-blowers is defined in the Dutch House for whistleblowers Act. Also, scientific integrity counsellors have been appointed at universities and KNAW and NWO institutes to provide assistance to whistleblowers and those accused of scientific misconduct.<ref name=":0" /><ref>Overheild.nl. House for Whistleblowers Act. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0037852/2016-07-01.</ref>
{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left"
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}'''National bodies for RE+RI'''
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}'''Scope'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://lowi.nl/ Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI)]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The LOWI advises the Boards of its affiliated institutions regarding alleged violations of principles of research integrity.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ceg.nl/about-ceg The Netherlands Centre for Ethics and Health]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The CEG identifies and informs about developments in the field of health which deserve a place on the government’s ethical policy agenda.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://english.ccmo.nl/ The Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The CCMO protects subjects taking part in medical research by reviewing the research on the basis of the statutory provisions laid down for them and taking into account the interests of medical progress.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://english.ncadierproevenbeleid.nl/ The Central Committee on Animal Experimentation]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The CCD is the only institution which can grant permits for animal experiments.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.loketgentherapie.nl/en/gene-therapy-office/overview-of-assessment-bodies/cogem The Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The task of the Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification ) is to advise the Minister of Infrastructure and Water either at the minister’s request or on its own initiative, with regard to the risks of GMOs for people and the environment.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://english.ncadierproevenbeleid.nl/ The Netherlands Advice Committee on Animal Experimentation]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The NCad achieves visible improvements that are specifically related to the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (3Rs) of animal procedures and to the associated ethical review in scientific research (including applied scientific research) and teaching. Its goal, in doing so, is to minimize laboratory animal use at both national and international level.
{{!}}}
 
<references />
|Law And Regulation=Research infrastructure

In 1992 laws concerning higher education and research (WHW: Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek) were made to enhance quality, to innovate the capacity and targeting society.<ref>Overheild.nl. Higher Education and Scientific Research Act. [2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005682/2018-02-01.</ref>

Governance

In the Netherlands, there is a law which determines that the government has to act open. In other words, there are particular tasks which must be done in public.<ref>WOB. Wat is de Wob. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wob.nl/alles-over-de-wob/.</ref> This is describes in detail in the ‘Wet openbaarheid van bestuur’.<ref>Overheid.nl. Government Information Act. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005252/2018-07-28.</ref>

Research with hazardous materials

It is important that research institutes/universities act transparent. In this way, the government can verify easily whether the research institute/university obey the law concerning hazardous materials. The goal of this law, The Nuclear Energy Act, is to protect employees, patients and other citizens against ionizing radiation.<ref>Autoriteit Nucleaire Veiligheid en Stralingbescherming. Wet- en regelgeving. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.autoriteitnvs.nl/onderwerpen/wet--en-regelgeving. </ref><ref>Overheid.nl. Nuclear Energy Act. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002402/2018-10-16. </ref>

Privacy

The ‘Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming’ contains the most important rules for handling personal data in the Netherlands. It is important that it is clear and transparent how and why personal data are processed. The goal of processing the personal data must be clarified before using the data.<ref>Overheid.nl. Nuclear Energy Act. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002402/2018-10-16. </ref><ref>Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/nl/over-privacy/wetten/algemene-verordening-gegevensbescherming-avg.</ref>
 
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="767"
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}'''Law'''
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}'''Scope'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005682/2021-10-01 Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}This law describes the following aspects of higher education and scientific research: planning and funding; consultation; personnel; supervision; accreditation in higher education; educational offer; education; collaboration of funded higher education institutions; management and organization of the universities, open university, academic hospitals and institutions for scientific research; appeal to the administrative judge; withholding of funding; compensation and penalties; transitional provisions, including in connection with the introduction of the law and regulations in connection with mergers, conversion, demergers, relocations and transfers of management; transitional and implementation provisions amending laws until 2002; transitional and implementation provisions amending laws from 2002.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.rug.nl/about-ug/organization/rules-and-regulations/general/gedragscodes-nederlandse-universiteiten/ Code goed bestuur universiteiten]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The goal of this code is to create transparency of universities. In the code, the universities clarify how they implement the assignment and the scope that the law gives in the field of governance of universities. The code is based on 9 principles on the basis of which the directors and regulators of the universities affiliated with the VSNU give substance to good board.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/gedragscode-voor-gebruik-van-persoonsgegevens-in-wetenschappelijk-onderzoek Code voor het gebruik van persoonsgegevens in wetenschappelijk onderzoek]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The code of conduct is an elaboration for researchers of the 2001 Personal Data Protection Act, which protects the privacy of Dutch citizens. This code offers researchers who work with privacy-sensitive data practical instructions on how to handle it responsibly. According to the code, no more data may be collected than is necessary for the investigation, and the data must be anonymised as much as possible. The code of conduct provides important guidelines that researchers use personal data only for research, that is, for a scientific publication, and that individuals should never be recognizable in that publication.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/nl/over-privacy/wetten/algemene-verordening-gegevensbescherming-avg Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}This law describes the most important rules for handling personal data in the Netherlands.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Nederlandse%20gedragscode%20wetenschappelijke%20integriteit%202018.pdf De Nederlandse Gedragscode wetenschappelijke Integriteit]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The code of conduct defines five principles of academic integrity, 61 standards for good research practices and the institutions' duties of care. The five principles are: honesty; accuracy; transparency; independency; accountability.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0009408/2020-01-01#Paragraaf6 Wet medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}This law described the following aspects of medical scientific research with humans: rules for scientific research with participants; liability and insurance; obligations of those who conduct or conduct scientific research; additional rules for scientific research with medicines; the committees.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0013797/2020-10-01#Paragraaf6 Embryowet]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The embyo law descibes the following aspects: rules on the control of germ cells and embryos; rules concerning scientific research with embryos outside the human body that do not induce pregnancy; rules regarding scientific research with embryos outside the human body with the aim of inducing pregnancy; rules regarding scientific research with fetuses; prohibited actions with germ cells and embryos.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0021505/2020-04-01#Hoofdstuk11 Geneesmiddelenwet]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The Medicines Act describes the following aspects: the board for the evaluation of medicines; the manufacturer's license and the wholesale license; manufacturers and wholesalers of active substances; the marketing authorization for medicines; classification of drugs; handing over and prescribing medicines; labeling and package insert; pharmacovigilance; pharmaceutical advertising; enforcement: supervision and investigation.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.knmp.nl/praktijkvoering/regelgeving/regelgeving-geneesmiddelen-en-grondstoffen/opiumwet Opiumwet]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The Opium Act prohibits the possession of certain substances listed on Lists l and ll of the Opium Act. Their manufacture, preparation, processing, processing, sale, delivery, provision and transportation are also prohibited.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0008974/2019-04-02 Wet op bijzondere medische verrichtingen]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}Some medical procedures are so special that only licensed licensed hospitals are allowed to perform them. This applies, for example, to open heart operations and certain organ transplants. This is stated in the Special Medical Procedures Act.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005699/2019-04-02 Wet op het bevolkingsonderzoek]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}In certain cases, a permit is required to carry out population screening. This law describes in which cases the permit is needed.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005252/2018-07-28 Wet openbaarheid van bestuur]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The government fulfills public disclosure in the performance of its task. This is determined in Article 110 of the Constitution. In other words, the government observes transparency in the performance of its duties. Article 110 also determines that a law must describe how the government must do this. For example, the Wet openbaarheid bestuur (Wob) determines which information is public and when it must be provided to an applicant for information. The core objective of the Wob is to regulate the public nature of the administration and the provision of information. This is for the benefit of good and democratic governance.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002402/2018-10-16 De Kernenergiewet]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The Nuclear Energy Act lays the foundation for protection against the harmful effects of ionizing radiation. The rules of the Nuclear Energy Act protect employees, patients and other citizens against this radiation as much as possible. The Nuclear Energy Act does this by, among other things, requiring a permit for most activities involving sources of ionizing radiation.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0007850/2015-01-01 Kwaliteitswet zorginstellingen]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}All healthcare institutions must provide care that meets certain quality requirements. This law describes these requirements, ho wit is enforced and what the sanctions are if the requirements are not met.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0040509/2019-02-15 Regeling basisveiligheidsnormen stralingsbescherming]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The Basic Safety Standards for Radiation Protection Regulation is a General Administrative Order (AMvB). It elaborates on the Nuclear Energy Act and aims to protect the population, employees and patients against the adverse effects of ionizing radiation.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0003081/2019-01-01 Wet op de dierproeven]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The goals of this law are: strengthen the protection of animals used for scientific purposes; restore a level playing field for industry and scientific research in the EU; the treatment and use of animals for scientific purposes should be subject to the Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement).
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/compliance/good-clinical-practice Good clinical practice]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}Good clinical practice (GCP) is an international ethical and scientific quality standard for designing, recording and reporting trials that involve the participation of human subjects. Compliance with this standard provides public assurance that the rights, safety and wellbeing of trial subjects are protected and that clinical-trial data are credible. In addition, this standard ensures that the data obtained from clinical research is reliable.
{{!}}}
<references />
|Measure=RI training

Some elements of RI are a part of university educational programmes. There are some mandatory training courses for PhD students evaluated and monitored by universities.<ref>Amsterdam University Medical Centers (UMC). [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.amsterdamumc.org/en/research.htm.</ref>

Materials used for these trainings are:

[http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/DU_ALLEA_Europese_gedragscode_voor_wetenschappelijke_integriteit.pdf European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] translated into Dutch

[https://www.knaw.nl/en/news/publications/responsible-research-data-management-and-the-prevention-of-scientific-misconduct Responsible research data management and the prevention of scientific misconduct] by Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (2013)

[https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/wetenschappelijke-integriteit/@@download/pdf_file/20101046.pdf Van Der Heijden, P. F. (2010). Wetenschappelijke integriteit en de universiteit. In P. J. D. Drenth (Ed.), Wetenschappelijke integriteit (pp. 39–44). Amsterdam: KNAW.]

[https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-981-287-079-7_64-1 Israel M., Drenth P. (2015) Research Integrity: Perspectives from Australia and Netherlands. In: Bretag T. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore].

RI dialogue and communication

The Netherlands Research Integrity Network (NRIN) enables sharing of experiences, exchange of knowledge and materials, mutual learning and intervision for several audiences via closed and open meetings. Closed meetings are intended for confidential counsellors and ombudsmen, or for chairs of research integrity investigation committees, whereas open meetings include research conferences and education seminar.<ref>Enrio. Netherlands. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://www.enrio.eu/news-activities/members/netherlands/?highlight=netherlands.</ref>

In the Netherlands, different forms of communication take place concerning science knowledge. People can visit scientific museums like [https://www.nemosciencemuseum.nl/en/ NEMO] science museum in Amsterdam. There are scientific festivals to visit like the [https://opensciencefestival.nl/ Open science festival] in Amsterdam and also [https://mytuner-radio.com/podcast/country/top-netherlands/genre/best-science-medicine podcasts] about science are available.

According to the results of 2012, 2015, 2018, and 2021 surveys on Dutch institutions, the public has the most trust in the scientific community. For example, the survey from 2021 showed that on a scale from 1 (absolutely no trust) to 10 (complete trust) the public trust in science was 7.4.<ref>Rathenau Instituut. 2021 July 15. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.rathenau.nl/en/science-figures/impact/trust-science/public-trust-science.</ref>

Research integrity is occasionally discussed in the lay press. This is usually related to cases of research fraud and academic corruption.

RI incentives

There are rewards for collaborative science and incentives for networks. Ethics assessment is regulated by statutory organisations which are authorised to formulate policies for all public research institutes. An overarching body of legislation consists of the four codes that have been established by the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU), which are the codes on personal data, scientific integrity, animal experiments, and good governance.<ref>Jansen P, Reijers W. Ethics Assessment in Different Countries. The Netherlands. SATORI. 2015 June. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://satoriproject.eu/media/4.f-Country-report-the-Netherlands.pdf. </ref>
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
{{!}} width="376" valign="top"{{!}}'''Initiatives'''
{{!}} width="376" valign="top"{{!}}'''Scope'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="376" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.amsterdamumc.org/en/research.htm Training courses for PhD students]
{{!}} width="376" valign="top"{{!}}Training
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="376" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/standard-evaluation-protocol-2015-2021/@@download/pdf_file/SEP%202015-2021%20amended%20version%20sept%202016.pdf Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP)]
{{!}} width="376" valign="top"{{!}}Accreditation
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="376" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.nwo.nl/en/spinoza-prize NWO Spinoza Prize]
{{!}} width="376" valign="top"{{!}}Support
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="376" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.nwo.nl/en/nwo-stevin-prize NWO Stevin Prize]
{{!}} width="376" valign="top"{{!}}Support
{{!}}}
<references />
}}

Report:Cb4d3d2c-7969-412e-87cd-aeae0c9c62cd

2021-11-04T09:27:56Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Report
|Report Type=Country Report Cards
|Title=The Netherlands
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Research Infrastructure=In 2019, The Netherlands had 97,713 full-time researchers.<ref>Eurostat. R&D personnel by sector performance, professional position and sex. Last update 2021 Oct 21. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do. </ref> There are 84 higher education institutions in the Netherlands: 18 research universities, 40 universities of applied sciences, 4 institutes for international education, 10 university Colleges and 12 other institutions.<ref>Study in Holland. Research universities. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.studyinholland.nl/dutch-education/research-universities.</ref> A total of 23 research institutes are present in the Netherlands.<ref>Research Institutes in the Netherlands. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.netherlandsandyou.nl/binaries/netherlandsandyou/documents/publications/2016/06/13/research-institutes-in-the-netherlands/research-institutes-in-the-netherlands.pdf.</ref> From these 23 institutions, 8 are part of NWO (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), 10 are part of KNAW (Koninklijke Nederlandse Academie van Wetenschappen) and 5 are part of GTI (institutes with the focus on applying fundamental research). There are 29 public knowledge organisations and 21,000 companies with investments in R&D. 
{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="434"
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}'''Research Organisations'''
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}'''City'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tudelft.nl/ Delft University of Technology]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Delft
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tue.nl/en/ Eindhoven University of Technology]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Eindhoven
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.eur.nl/ Erasmus University Rotterdam]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Rotterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/ Leiden University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Leiden
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/nl Maastricht University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Maastricht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.nyenrode.nl/ Nyenrode Business Universiteit]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam/Breukelen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ou.nl/ Open University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Heerlen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ru.nl/ Radboud University Nijmegen]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Nijmegen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.pthu.nl/ The Protestant Theological University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Groningen/Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tias.edu/ TIAS School for Business and Society]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Tilburg/Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl Tilburg University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Tilburg
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.uva.nl/ University of Amsterdam]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.rug.nl/ University of Groningen]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Groningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.uvh.nl/university-of-humanistic-studies/home University of Humanistic Studies]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.utwente.nl/ University of Twente]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Twente
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.uu.nl/ Utrecht University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.vu.nl/nl/index.aspx VU Amsterdam]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.wur.nl/ Wageningen University and Research Centre]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Wageningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.astron.nl/ Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Dwingeloo
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.cwi.nl/ National Research Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://amolf.nl/ Laboratory for molecular and materials research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.differ.nl/ Dutch Institute for Fundamental Energy Research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Eindhoven
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.nikhef.nl/ National Institute for Subatomic Physics]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.nioz.nl/en Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Texel
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://nscr.nl/en/ Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.sron.nl/ Netherlands Institute for Space Research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht/Groningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://iisg.amsterdam/nl International Institute of Social History]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.kitlv.nl/nl/ The Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Leiden
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.niod.nl/en NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://nidi.nl/en/ The Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Den Haag
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://nias.knaw.nl/ The Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.knaw.nl/en/institutes/westerdijkinstitute Fungal Biodiversity Centre]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.hubrecht.eu/nl/ Hubrecht Institute for Developmental Biology and Stem Cell Research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.knaw.nl/en/institutes/nederlands-herseninstituut The Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.knaw.nl/en/institutes/nioo The Netherlands Institute for Ecology]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Wageningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.spinozacentre.nl/ Spinoza Centre for Neuroimaging]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.nlr.nl/ The Netherlands Aerospace Centre]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ecn.nl/energy-research/index.html Energy Research Centre]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam/Eindhoven
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.marin.nl/ Maritime Research Institute Netherlands]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Wageningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.deltares.nl/nl/ Deltares]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Delft
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tno.nl/nl/ TNO]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}}
<references />
|Research Funding=In 2018, the gross expenditures on research and development was €16.554 million, which comprises 2.1% of the country’s GDP.<ref name=":0">Eurostat. GERD by sector performance. Last update 2021 Oct 21. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=rd_e_gerdtot&lang=en. </ref><ref>FocusEconomics. GDP in Netherlands. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.focus-economics.com/country-indicator/netherlands/gdp-eur-bn. </ref> Most funding was spent in the business sector (66.4%), followed by higher education (27.7%) and government sector (5.9%).<ref name=":0" />
<references />
|Research Strategy=What distinguishes Dutch science today can be explained by several factors: its external orientation, its non-hierarchical, open culture, the long track of record of successful research evaluations, and the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by institutes and individual researchers. To promote innovation and the development of new knowledge, there is active and close cooperation between government, the private sector, universities and the research institutions. The Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science has come up with a Science Strategy called: 2025 – Vision for Science choices for the future.<ref>Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. 2025 Vision for Science choices for the future. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.government.nl/binaries/government/documents/reports/2014/12/08/2025-vision-for-science-choices-for-the-future/visie-wetenschap-eng-web.pdf. </ref> The government formulated a broad-based National Science Agenda where scientific strengths are directly linked to the social challenges. This strategic action aims to create or improve large-scale infrastructure and the development of a more responsive and dynamic system of institutions. Measures to promote scientific excellence, diversity and equality are part of talks with VSNU (The Association of Universities in the Netherlands). The agreement on a new framework also include other aspects, such as an updating of the current career paths structure, opportunities for young talent, more attention for teaching and the preparation of PhD students to pursue career opportunities in other sectors.

Women in science

Women in science are still underrepresented in the Netherlands. In 2010, the female-to-male ratio was 20%. The intent in the Dutch strategy is to rebalance this ratio to at least that of the European average by 2025. It also intends to promote the appointment of more women professors. Initiatives include for example the University of Groningen’s Rosalind Franklin Fellowship, which seeks to increase the number of women in senior tenured positions and which resulted in 65% of the Fellows in previous rounds to now hold an associate or full professorship.

Funding

The acquisition of indirect funding involves a high workload in preparing detailed research proposals while the percentage of proposals which are actually approved is relatively low. The government wishes to see less pressure to publish and acquire funding and keep the science of high quality. <references />
|Research Governance=The Netherlands Research Integrity Network (NRIN) is responsible for promoting research integrity. It is intended for raising awareness, providing relevant information and discussing issues related to research integrity and responsible conduct of research.<ref>Netherlands Research Integrity Network (NRIN). [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.nrin.nl/about/mission.</ref> It also aims to facilitate collaboration, exchange and mutual learning by offering training and education for different audiences, developing and exchanging teaching materials and best practices, enabling of consultation and intervision, and providing advice to decision makers.<ref>Enrio. Netherlands. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://www.enrio.eu/news-activities/members/netherlands/?highlight=netherlands.</ref>

As for allegations of research misconduct, research institutions have Boards that responsible for investigations. Institutions are affiliated with the Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI), an independent body, established 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). The LOWI advises the Boards of its affiliated institutions, such as universities and research institutes, regarding possible violations of principles of research integrity. The LOWI’s task is to advise the Board on complaints concerning a (provisional) decision regarding the alleged violation of the principles of research integrity by one or more Defendants. The LOWI meetings are not open to the public but their opinions/conclusions are published on the LOWI website, in anonymised form.<ref>Landelijk Orgaan Wetenschappelijke Integriteit (LOWI). [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://lowi.nl/en/about-lowi/. </ref>

The Netherlands has Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO) and 18 accredited Medical Research Committees (MRECs) that are responsible for reviewing medical scientific research with human subjects.<ref name=":0">Jansen P, Reijers W. Ethics Assessment in Different Countries. The Netherlands. SATORI. 2015 June. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://satoriproject.eu/media/4.f-Country-report-the-Netherlands.pdf. </ref>

Whistleblowers are legally protected in The Netherlands. General protection of whistle-blowers is defined in the Dutch House for whistleblowers Act. Also, scientific integrity counsellors have been appointed at universities and KNAW and NWO institutes to provide assistance to whistleblowers and those accused of scientific misconduct.<ref name=":0" /><ref>Overheild.nl. House for Whistleblowers Act. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0037852/2016-07-01.</ref>
{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left"
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}'''National bodies for RE+RI'''
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}'''Scope'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://lowi.nl/ Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI)]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The LOWI advises the Boards of its affiliated institutions regarding alleged violations of principles of research integrity.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ceg.nl/about-ceg The Netherlands Centre for Ethics and Health]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The CEG identifies and informs about developments in the field of health which deserve a place on the government’s ethical policy agenda.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://english.ccmo.nl/ The Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The CCMO protects subjects taking part in medical research by reviewing the research on the basis of the statutory provisions laid down for them and taking into account the interests of medical progress.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://english.ncadierproevenbeleid.nl/ The Central Committee on Animal Experimentation]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The CCD is the only institution which can grant permits for animal experiments.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.loketgentherapie.nl/en/gene-therapy-office/overview-of-assessment-bodies/cogem The Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The task of the Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification ) is to advise the Minister of Infrastructure and Water either at the minister’s request or on its own initiative, with regard to the risks of GMOs for people and the environment.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://english.ncadierproevenbeleid.nl/ The Netherlands Advice Committee on Animal Experimentation]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The NCad achieves visible improvements that are specifically related to the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (3Rs) of animal procedures and to the associated ethical review in scientific research (including applied scientific research) and teaching. Its goal, in doing so, is to minimize laboratory animal use at both national and international level.
{{!}}}
 
<references />
|Law And Regulation=Research infrastructure

In 1992 laws concerning higher education and research (WHW: Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek) were made to enhance quality, to innovate the capacity and targeting society.<ref>Overheild.nl. Higher Education and Scientific Research Act. [2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005682/2018-02-01.</ref>

Governance

In the Netherlands, there is a law which determines that the government has to act open. In other words, there are particular tasks which must be done in public.<ref>WOB. Wat is de Wob. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wob.nl/alles-over-de-wob/.</ref> This is describes in detail in the ‘Wet openbaarheid van bestuur’.<ref>Overheid.nl. Government Information Act. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005252/2018-07-28.</ref>

Research with hazardous materials

It is important that research institutes/universities act transparent. In this way, the government can verify easily whether the research institute/university obey the law concerning hazardous materials. The goal of this law, The Nuclear Energy Act, is to protect employees, patients and other citizens against ionizing radiation.<ref>Autoriteit Nucleaire Veiligheid en Stralingbescherming. Wet- en regelgeving. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.autoriteitnvs.nl/onderwerpen/wet--en-regelgeving. </ref><ref>Overheid.nl. Nuclear Energy Act. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002402/2018-10-16. </ref>

Privacy

The ‘Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming’ contains the most important rules for handling personal data in the Netherlands. It is important that it is clear and transparent how and why personal data are processed. The goal of processing the personal data must be clarified before using the data.<ref>Overheid.nl. Nuclear Energy Act. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002402/2018-10-16. </ref><ref>Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/nl/over-privacy/wetten/algemene-verordening-gegevensbescherming-avg.</ref>
 
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="767"
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}'''Law'''
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}'''Scope'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005682/2021-10-01 Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}This law describes the following aspects of higher education and scientific research: planning and funding; consultation; personnel; supervision; accreditation in higher education; educational offer; education; collaboration of funded higher education institutions; management and organization of the universities, open university, academic hospitals and institutions for scientific research; appeal to the administrative judge; withholding of funding; compensation and penalties; transitional provisions, including in connection with the introduction of the law and regulations in connection with mergers, conversion, demergers, relocations and transfers of management; transitional and implementation provisions amending laws until 2002; transitional and implementation provisions amending laws from 2002.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.rug.nl/about-ug/organization/rules-and-regulations/general/gedragscodes-nederlandse-universiteiten/ Code goed bestuur universiteiten]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The goal of this code is to create transparency of universities. In the code, the universities clarify how they implement the assignment and the scope that the law gives in the field of governance of universities. The code is based on 9 principles on the basis of which the directors and regulators of the universities affiliated with the VSNU give substance to good board.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/gedragscode-voor-gebruik-van-persoonsgegevens-in-wetenschappelijk-onderzoek Code voor het gebruik van persoonsgegevens in wetenschappelijk onderzoek]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The code of conduct is an elaboration for researchers of the 2001 Personal Data Protection Act, which protects the privacy of Dutch citizens. This code offers researchers who work with privacy-sensitive data practical instructions on how to handle it responsibly. According to the code, no more data may be collected than is necessary for the investigation, and the data must be anonymised as much as possible. The code of conduct provides important guidelines that researchers use personal data only for research, that is, for a scientific publication, and that individuals should never be recognizable in that publication.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/nl/over-privacy/wetten/algemene-verordening-gegevensbescherming-avg Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}This law describes the most important rules for handling personal data in the Netherlands.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Nederlandse%20gedragscode%20wetenschappelijke%20integriteit%202018.pdf De Nederlandse Gedragscode wetenschappelijke Integriteit]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The code of conduct defines five principles of academic integrity, 61 standards for good research practices and the institutions' duties of care. The five principles are: honesty; accuracy; transparency; independency; accountability.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0009408/2020-01-01#Paragraaf6 Wet medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}This law described the following aspects of medical scientific research with humans: rules for scientific research with participants; liability and insurance; obligations of those who conduct or conduct scientific research; additional rules for scientific research with medicines; the committees.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0013797/2020-10-01#Paragraaf6 Embryowet]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The embyo law descibes the following aspects: rules on the control of germ cells and embryos; rules concerning scientific research with embryos outside the human body that do not induce pregnancy; rules regarding scientific research with embryos outside the human body with the aim of inducing pregnancy; rules regarding scientific research with fetuses; prohibited actions with germ cells and embryos.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0021505/2020-04-01#Hoofdstuk11 Geneesmiddelenwet]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The Medicines Act describes the following aspects: the board for the evaluation of medicines; the manufacturer's license and the wholesale license; manufacturers and wholesalers of active substances; the marketing authorization for medicines; classification of drugs; handing over and prescribing medicines; labeling and package insert; pharmacovigilance; pharmaceutical advertising; enforcement: supervision and investigation.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.knmp.nl/praktijkvoering/regelgeving/regelgeving-geneesmiddelen-en-grondstoffen/opiumwet Opiumwet]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The Opium Act prohibits the possession of certain substances listed on Lists l and ll of the Opium Act. Their manufacture, preparation, processing, processing, sale, delivery, provision and transportation are also prohibited.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0008974/2019-04-02 Wet op bijzondere medische verrichtingen]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}Some medical procedures are so special that only licensed licensed hospitals are allowed to perform them. This applies, for example, to open heart operations and certain organ transplants. This is stated in the Special Medical Procedures Act.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005699/2019-04-02 Wet op het bevolkingsonderzoek]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}In certain cases, a permit is required to carry out population screening. This law describes in which cases the permit is needed.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005252/2018-07-28 Wet openbaarheid van bestuur]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The government fulfills public disclosure in the performance of its task. This is determined in Article 110 of the Constitution. In other words, the government observes transparency in the performance of its duties. Article 110 also determines that a law must describe how the government must do this. For example, the Wet openbaarheid bestuur (Wob) determines which information is public and when it must be provided to an applicant for information. The core objective of the Wob is to regulate the public nature of the administration and the provision of information. This is for the benefit of good and democratic governance.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002402/2018-10-16 De Kernenergiewet]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The Nuclear Energy Act lays the foundation for protection against the harmful effects of ionizing radiation. The rules of the Nuclear Energy Act protect employees, patients and other citizens against this radiation as much as possible. The Nuclear Energy Act does this by, among other things, requiring a permit for most activities involving sources of ionizing radiation.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0007850/2015-01-01 Kwaliteitswet zorginstellingen]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}All healthcare institutions must provide care that meets certain quality requirements. This law describes these requirements, ho wit is enforced and what the sanctions are if the requirements are not met.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0040509/2019-02-15 Regeling basisveiligheidsnormen stralingsbescherming]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The Basic Safety Standards for Radiation Protection Regulation is a General Administrative Order (AMvB). It elaborates on the Nuclear Energy Act and aims to protect the population, employees and patients against the adverse effects of ionizing radiation.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0003081/2019-01-01 Wet op de dierproeven]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}The goals of this law are: strengthen the protection of animals used for scientific purposes; restore a level playing field for industry and scientific research in the EU; the treatment and use of animals for scientific purposes should be subject to the Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement).
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/compliance/good-clinical-practice Good clinical practice]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top"{{!}}Good clinical practice (GCP) is an international ethical and scientific quality standard for designing, recording and reporting trials that involve the participation of human subjects. Compliance with this standard provides public assurance that the rights, safety and wellbeing of trial subjects are protected and that clinical-trial data are credible. In addition, this standard ensures that the data obtained from clinical research is reliable.
{{!}}}
<references />
|Measure=RI training

Some elements of RI are a part of university educational programmes. There are some mandatory training courses for PhD students evaluated and monitored by universities.<ref>Amsterdam University Medical Centers (UMC). [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.amsterdamumc.org/en/research.htm.</ref>

Materials used for these trainings are:

[http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/DU_ALLEA_Europese_gedragscode_voor_wetenschappelijke_integriteit.pdf European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] translated into Dutch

[https://www.knaw.nl/en/news/publications/responsible-research-data-management-and-the-prevention-of-scientific-misconduct Responsible research data management and the prevention of scientific misconduct] by Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (2013)

[https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/wetenschappelijke-integriteit/@@download/pdf_file/20101046.pdf Van Der Heijden, P. F. (2010). Wetenschappelijke integriteit en de universiteit. In P. J. D. Drenth (Ed.), Wetenschappelijke integriteit (pp. 39–44). Amsterdam: KNAW.]

[https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-981-287-079-7_64-1 Israel M., Drenth P. (2015) Research Integrity: Perspectives from Australia and Netherlands. In: Bretag T. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore].

RI dialogue and communication

The Netherlands Research Integrity Network (NRIN) enables sharing of experiences, exchange of knowledge and materials, mutual learning and intervision for several audiences via closed and open meetings. Closed meetings are intended for confidential counsellors and ombudsmen, or for chairs of research integrity investigation committees, whereas open meetings include research conferences and education seminar.<ref>Enrio. Netherlands. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://www.enrio.eu/news-activities/members/netherlands/?highlight=netherlands.</ref>

In the Netherlands, different forms of communication take place concerning science knowledge. People can visit scientific museums like [https://www.nemosciencemuseum.nl/en/ NEMO] science museum in Amsterdam. There are scientific festivals to visit like the [https://opensciencefestival.nl/ Open science festival] in Amsterdam and also [https://mytuner-radio.com/podcast/country/top-netherlands/genre/best-science-medicine podcasts] about science are available.

According to the results of 2012, 2015, 2018, and 2021 surveys on Dutch institutions, the public has the most trust in the scientific community. For example, the survey from 2021 showed that on a scale from 1 (absolutely no trust) to 10 (complete trust) the public trust in science was 7.4.<ref>Rathenau Instituut. 2021 July 15. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.rathenau.nl/en/science-figures/impact/trust-science/public-trust-science.</ref>

Research integrity is occasionally discussed in the lay press. This is usually related to cases of research fraud and academic corruption.

RI incentives

There are rewards for collaborative science and incentives for networks. Ethics assessment is regulated by statutory organisations which are authorised to formulate policies for all public research institutes. An overarching body of legislation consists of the four codes that have been established by the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU), which are the codes on personal data, scientific integrity, animal experiments, and good governance.<ref>Jansen P, Reijers W. Ethics Assessment in Different Countries. The Netherlands. SATORI. 2015 June. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://satoriproject.eu/media/4.f-Country-report-the-Netherlands.pdf. </ref>
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
{{!}} width="376" valign="top" {{!}}'''Initiatives'''
{{!}} width="376" valign="top" {{!}}'''Scope'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="376" valign="top" {{!}}[https://www.amsterdamumc.org/en/research.htm Training courses for PhD students]
{{!}} width="376" valign="top" {{!}}Training
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="376" valign="top" {{!}}[https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/standard-evaluation-protocol-2015-2021/@@download/pdf_file/SEP%202015-2021%20amended%20version%20sept%202016.pdf Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP)]
{{!}} width="376" valign="top" {{!}}Accreditation
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="376" valign="top" {{!}}[https://www.nwo.nl/en/spinoza-prize NWO Spinoza Prize]
{{!}} width="376" valign="top" {{!}}Support
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="376" valign="top" {{!}}[https://www.nwo.nl/en/nwo-stevin-prize NWO Stevin Prize]
{{!}} width="376" valign="top" {{!}}Support
{{!}}}
<references />
}}

Report:Cb4d3d2c-7969-412e-87cd-aeae0c9c62cd

2021-11-04T09:26:15Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Report
|Report Type=Country Report Cards
|Title=The Netherlands
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Research Infrastructure=In 2019, The Netherlands had 97,713 full-time researchers.<ref>Eurostat. R&D personnel by sector performance, professional position and sex. Last update 2021 Oct 21. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do. </ref> There are 84 higher education institutions in the Netherlands: 18 research universities, 40 universities of applied sciences, 4 institutes for international education, 10 university Colleges and 12 other institutions.<ref>Study in Holland. Research universities. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.studyinholland.nl/dutch-education/research-universities.</ref> A total of 23 research institutes are present in the Netherlands.<ref>Research Institutes in the Netherlands. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.netherlandsandyou.nl/binaries/netherlandsandyou/documents/publications/2016/06/13/research-institutes-in-the-netherlands/research-institutes-in-the-netherlands.pdf.</ref> From these 23 institutions, 8 are part of NWO (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), 10 are part of KNAW (Koninklijke Nederlandse Academie van Wetenschappen) and 5 are part of GTI (institutes with the focus on applying fundamental research). There are 29 public knowledge organisations and 21,000 companies with investments in R&D. 
{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="434"
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}'''Research Organisations'''
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}'''City'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tudelft.nl/ Delft University of Technology]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Delft
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tue.nl/en/ Eindhoven University of Technology]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Eindhoven
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.eur.nl/ Erasmus University Rotterdam]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Rotterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/ Leiden University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Leiden
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/nl Maastricht University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Maastricht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.nyenrode.nl/ Nyenrode Business Universiteit]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam/Breukelen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ou.nl/ Open University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Heerlen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ru.nl/ Radboud University Nijmegen]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Nijmegen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.pthu.nl/ The Protestant Theological University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Groningen/Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tias.edu/ TIAS School for Business and Society]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Tilburg/Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl Tilburg University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Tilburg
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.uva.nl/ University of Amsterdam]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.rug.nl/ University of Groningen]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Groningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.uvh.nl/university-of-humanistic-studies/home University of Humanistic Studies]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.utwente.nl/ University of Twente]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Twente
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.uu.nl/ Utrecht University]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.vu.nl/nl/index.aspx VU Amsterdam]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.wur.nl/ Wageningen University and Research Centre]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Wageningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.astron.nl/ Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Dwingeloo
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.cwi.nl/ National Research Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://amolf.nl/ Laboratory for molecular and materials research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.differ.nl/ Dutch Institute for Fundamental Energy Research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Eindhoven
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.nikhef.nl/ National Institute for Subatomic Physics]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.nioz.nl/en Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Texel
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://nscr.nl/en/ Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.sron.nl/ Netherlands Institute for Space Research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht/Groningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://iisg.amsterdam/nl International Institute of Social History]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.kitlv.nl/nl/ The Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Leiden
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.niod.nl/en NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://nidi.nl/en/ The Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Den Haag
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://nias.knaw.nl/ The Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.knaw.nl/en/institutes/westerdijkinstitute Fungal Biodiversity Centre]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.hubrecht.eu/nl/ Hubrecht Institute for Developmental Biology and Stem Cell Research]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Utrecht
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.knaw.nl/en/institutes/nederlands-herseninstituut The Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.knaw.nl/en/institutes/nioo The Netherlands Institute for Ecology]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Wageningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.spinozacentre.nl/ Spinoza Centre for Neuroimaging]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.nlr.nl/ The Netherlands Aerospace Centre]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ecn.nl/energy-research/index.html Energy Research Centre]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam/Eindhoven
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.marin.nl/ Maritime Research Institute Netherlands]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Wageningen
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.deltares.nl/nl/ Deltares]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Delft
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="264" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.tno.nl/nl/ TNO]
{{!}} width="170" valign="top"{{!}}Amsterdam
{{!}}}
<references />
|Research Funding=In 2018, the gross expenditures on research and development was €16.554 million, which comprises 2.1% of the country’s GDP.<ref name=":0">Eurostat. GERD by sector performance. Last update 2021 Oct 21. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=rd_e_gerdtot&lang=en. </ref><ref>FocusEconomics. GDP in Netherlands. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.focus-economics.com/country-indicator/netherlands/gdp-eur-bn. </ref> Most funding was spent in the business sector (66.4%), followed by higher education (27.7%) and government sector (5.9%).<ref name=":0" />
<references />
|Research Strategy=What distinguishes Dutch science today can be explained by several factors: its external orientation, its non-hierarchical, open culture, the long track of record of successful research evaluations, and the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by institutes and individual researchers. To promote innovation and the development of new knowledge, there is active and close cooperation between government, the private sector, universities and the research institutions. The Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science has come up with a Science Strategy called: 2025 – Vision for Science choices for the future.<ref>Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. 2025 Vision for Science choices for the future. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.government.nl/binaries/government/documents/reports/2014/12/08/2025-vision-for-science-choices-for-the-future/visie-wetenschap-eng-web.pdf. </ref> The government formulated a broad-based National Science Agenda where scientific strengths are directly linked to the social challenges. This strategic action aims to create or improve large-scale infrastructure and the development of a more responsive and dynamic system of institutions. Measures to promote scientific excellence, diversity and equality are part of talks with VSNU (The Association of Universities in the Netherlands). The agreement on a new framework also include other aspects, such as an updating of the current career paths structure, opportunities for young talent, more attention for teaching and the preparation of PhD students to pursue career opportunities in other sectors.

Women in science

Women in science are still underrepresented in the Netherlands. In 2010, the female-to-male ratio was 20%. The intent in the Dutch strategy is to rebalance this ratio to at least that of the European average by 2025. It also intends to promote the appointment of more women professors. Initiatives include for example the University of Groningen’s Rosalind Franklin Fellowship, which seeks to increase the number of women in senior tenured positions and which resulted in 65% of the Fellows in previous rounds to now hold an associate or full professorship.

Funding

The acquisition of indirect funding involves a high workload in preparing detailed research proposals while the percentage of proposals which are actually approved is relatively low. The government wishes to see less pressure to publish and acquire funding and keep the science of high quality. <references />
|Research Governance=The Netherlands Research Integrity Network (NRIN) is responsible for promoting research integrity. It is intended for raising awareness, providing relevant information and discussing issues related to research integrity and responsible conduct of research.<ref>Netherlands Research Integrity Network (NRIN). [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.nrin.nl/about/mission.</ref> It also aims to facilitate collaboration, exchange and mutual learning by offering training and education for different audiences, developing and exchanging teaching materials and best practices, enabling of consultation and intervision, and providing advice to decision makers.<ref>Enrio. Netherlands. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://www.enrio.eu/news-activities/members/netherlands/?highlight=netherlands.</ref>

As for allegations of research misconduct, research institutions have Boards that responsible for investigations. Institutions are affiliated with the Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI), an independent body, established 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). The LOWI advises the Boards of its affiliated institutions, such as universities and research institutes, regarding possible violations of principles of research integrity. The LOWI’s task is to advise the Board on complaints concerning a (provisional) decision regarding the alleged violation of the principles of research integrity by one or more Defendants. The LOWI meetings are not open to the public but their opinions/conclusions are published on the LOWI website, in anonymised form.<ref>Landelijk Orgaan Wetenschappelijke Integriteit (LOWI). [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://lowi.nl/en/about-lowi/. </ref>

The Netherlands has Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO) and 18 accredited Medical Research Committees (MRECs) that are responsible for reviewing medical scientific research with human subjects.<ref name=":0">Jansen P, Reijers W. Ethics Assessment in Different Countries. The Netherlands. SATORI. 2015 June. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://satoriproject.eu/media/4.f-Country-report-the-Netherlands.pdf. </ref>

Whistleblowers are legally protected in The Netherlands. General protection of whistle-blowers is defined in the Dutch House for whistleblowers Act. Also, scientific integrity counsellors have been appointed at universities and KNAW and NWO institutes to provide assistance to whistleblowers and those accused of scientific misconduct.<ref name=":0" /><ref>Overheild.nl. House for Whistleblowers Act. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0037852/2016-07-01.</ref>
{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left"
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}'''National bodies for RE+RI'''
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}'''Scope'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://lowi.nl/ Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI)]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The LOWI advises the Boards of its affiliated institutions regarding alleged violations of principles of research integrity.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ceg.nl/about-ceg The Netherlands Centre for Ethics and Health]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The CEG identifies and informs about developments in the field of health which deserve a place on the government’s ethical policy agenda.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://english.ccmo.nl/ The Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The CCMO protects subjects taking part in medical research by reviewing the research on the basis of the statutory provisions laid down for them and taking into account the interests of medical progress.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://english.ncadierproevenbeleid.nl/ The Central Committee on Animal Experimentation]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The CCD is the only institution which can grant permits for animal experiments.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.loketgentherapie.nl/en/gene-therapy-office/overview-of-assessment-bodies/cogem The Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The task of the Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification ) is to advise the Minister of Infrastructure and Water either at the minister’s request or on its own initiative, with regard to the risks of GMOs for people and the environment.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="226" valign="top"{{!}}[https://english.ncadierproevenbeleid.nl/ The Netherlands Advice Committee on Animal Experimentation]
{{!}} width="236" valign="top"{{!}}The NCad achieves visible improvements that are specifically related to the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (3Rs) of animal procedures and to the associated ethical review in scientific research (including applied scientific research) and teaching. Its goal, in doing so, is to minimize laboratory animal use at both national and international level.
{{!}}}
 
|Law And Regulation=Research infrastructure

In 1992 laws concerning higher education and research (WHW: Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek) were made to enhance quality, to innovate the capacity and targeting society.<ref>Overheild.nl. Higher Education and Scientific Research Act. [2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005682/2018-02-01.</ref>

Governance

In the Netherlands, there is a law which determines that the government has to act open. In other words, there are particular tasks which must be done in public.<ref>WOB. Wat is de Wob. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wob.nl/alles-over-de-wob/.</ref> This is describes in detail in the ‘Wet openbaarheid van bestuur’.<ref>Overheid.nl. Government Information Act. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005252/2018-07-28.</ref>

Research with hazardous materials

It is important that research institutes/universities act transparent. In this way, the government can verify easily whether the research institute/university obey the law concerning hazardous materials. The goal of this law, The Nuclear Energy Act, is to protect employees, patients and other citizens against ionizing radiation.<ref>Autoriteit Nucleaire Veiligheid en Stralingbescherming. Wet- en regelgeving. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.autoriteitnvs.nl/onderwerpen/wet--en-regelgeving. </ref><ref>Overheid.nl. Nuclear Energy Act. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002402/2018-10-16. </ref>

Privacy

The ‘Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming’ contains the most important rules for handling personal data in the Netherlands. It is important that it is clear and transparent how and why personal data are processed. The goal of processing the personal data must be clarified before using the data.<ref>Overheid.nl. Nuclear Energy Act. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002402/2018-10-16. </ref><ref>Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/nl/over-privacy/wetten/algemene-verordening-gegevensbescherming-avg.</ref>
 
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="767"
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}'''Law'''
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}'''Scope'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005682/2021-10-01 Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}This law describes the following aspects of higher education and scientific research: planning and funding; consultation; personnel; supervision; accreditation in higher education; educational offer; education; collaboration of funded higher education institutions; management and organization of the universities, open university, academic hospitals and institutions for scientific research; appeal to the administrative judge; withholding of funding; compensation and penalties; transitional provisions, including in connection with the introduction of the law and regulations in connection with mergers, conversion, demergers, relocations and transfers of management; transitional and implementation provisions amending laws until 2002; transitional and implementation provisions amending laws from 2002.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://www.rug.nl/about-ug/organization/rules-and-regulations/general/gedragscodes-nederlandse-universiteiten/ Code goed bestuur universiteiten]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}The goal of this code is to create transparency of universities. In the code, the universities clarify how they implement the assignment and the scope that the law gives in the field of governance of universities. The code is based on 9 principles on the basis of which the directors and regulators of the universities affiliated with the VSNU give substance to good board.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/gedragscode-voor-gebruik-van-persoonsgegevens-in-wetenschappelijk-onderzoek Code voor het gebruik van persoonsgegevens in wetenschappelijk onderzoek]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}The code of conduct is an elaboration for researchers of the 2001 Personal Data Protection Act, which protects the privacy of Dutch citizens. This code offers researchers who work with privacy-sensitive data practical instructions on how to handle it responsibly. According to the code, no more data may be collected than is necessary for the investigation, and the data must be anonymised as much as possible. The code of conduct provides important guidelines that researchers use personal data only for research, that is, for a scientific publication, and that individuals should never be recognizable in that publication.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/nl/over-privacy/wetten/algemene-verordening-gegevensbescherming-avg Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}This law describes the most important rules for handling personal data in the Netherlands.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Nederlandse%20gedragscode%20wetenschappelijke%20integriteit%202018.pdf De Nederlandse Gedragscode wetenschappelijke Integriteit]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}The code of conduct defines five principles of academic integrity, 61 standards for good research practices and the institutions' duties of care. The five principles are: honesty; accuracy; transparency; independency; accountability.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0009408/2020-01-01#Paragraaf6 Wet medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}This law described the following aspects of medical scientific research with humans: rules for scientific research with participants; liability and insurance; obligations of those who conduct or conduct scientific research; additional rules for scientific research with medicines; the committees.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0013797/2020-10-01#Paragraaf6 Embryowet]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}The embyo law descibes the following aspects: rules on the control of germ cells and embryos; rules concerning scientific research with embryos outside the human body that do not induce pregnancy; rules regarding scientific research with embryos outside the human body with the aim of inducing pregnancy; rules regarding scientific research with fetuses; prohibited actions with germ cells and embryos.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0021505/2020-04-01#Hoofdstuk11 Geneesmiddelenwet]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}The Medicines Act describes the following aspects: the board for the evaluation of medicines; the manufacturer's license and the wholesale license; manufacturers and wholesalers of active substances; the marketing authorization for medicines; classification of drugs; handing over and prescribing medicines; labeling and package insert; pharmacovigilance; pharmaceutical advertising; enforcement: supervision and investigation.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://www.knmp.nl/praktijkvoering/regelgeving/regelgeving-geneesmiddelen-en-grondstoffen/opiumwet Opiumwet]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}The Opium Act prohibits the possession of certain substances listed on Lists l and ll of the Opium Act. Their manufacture, preparation, processing, processing, sale, delivery, provision and transportation are also prohibited.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0008974/2019-04-02 Wet op bijzondere medische verrichtingen]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}Some medical procedures are so special that only licensed licensed hospitals are allowed to perform them. This applies, for example, to open heart operations and certain organ transplants. This is stated in the Special Medical Procedures Act.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005699/2019-04-02 Wet op het bevolkingsonderzoek]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}In certain cases, a permit is required to carry out population screening. This law describes in which cases the permit is needed.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005252/2018-07-28 Wet openbaarheid van bestuur]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}The government fulfills public disclosure in the performance of its task. This is determined in Article 110 of the Constitution. In other words, the government observes transparency in the performance of its duties. Article 110 also determines that a law must describe how the government must do this. For example, the Wet openbaarheid bestuur (Wob) determines which information is public and when it must be provided to an applicant for information. The core objective of the Wob is to regulate the public nature of the administration and the provision of information. This is for the benefit of good and democratic governance.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002402/2018-10-16 De Kernenergiewet]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}The Nuclear Energy Act lays the foundation for protection against the harmful effects of ionizing radiation. The rules of the Nuclear Energy Act protect employees, patients and other citizens against this radiation as much as possible. The Nuclear Energy Act does this by, among other things, requiring a permit for most activities involving sources of ionizing radiation.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0007850/2015-01-01 Kwaliteitswet zorginstellingen]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}All healthcare institutions must provide care that meets certain quality requirements. This law describes these requirements, ho wit is enforced and what the sanctions are if the requirements are not met.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0040509/2019-02-15 Regeling basisveiligheidsnormen stralingsbescherming]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}The Basic Safety Standards for Radiation Protection Regulation is a General Administrative Order (AMvB). It elaborates on the Nuclear Energy Act and aims to protect the population, employees and patients against the adverse effects of ionizing radiation.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0003081/2019-01-01 Wet op de dierproeven]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}The goals of this law are: strengthen the protection of animals used for scientific purposes; restore a level playing field for industry and scientific research in the EU; the treatment and use of animals for scientific purposes should be subject to the Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement).
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top" {{!}}[https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/compliance/good-clinical-practice Good clinical practice]
{{!}} width="461" valign="top" {{!}}Good clinical practice (GCP) is an international ethical and scientific quality standard for designing, recording and reporting trials that involve the participation of human subjects. Compliance with this standard provides public assurance that the rights, safety and wellbeing of trial subjects are protected and that clinical-trial data are credible. In addition, this standard ensures that the data obtained from clinical research is reliable.
{{!}}}
<references />
|Measure=RI training

Some elements of RI are a part of university educational programmes. There are some mandatory training courses for PhD students evaluated and monitored by universities.<ref>Amsterdam University Medical Centers (UMC). [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.amsterdamumc.org/en/research.htm.</ref>

Materials used for these trainings are:

[http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/DU_ALLEA_Europese_gedragscode_voor_wetenschappelijke_integriteit.pdf European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] translated into Dutch

[https://www.knaw.nl/en/news/publications/responsible-research-data-management-and-the-prevention-of-scientific-misconduct Responsible research data management and the prevention of scientific misconduct] by Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (2013)

[https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/wetenschappelijke-integriteit/@@download/pdf_file/20101046.pdf Van Der Heijden, P. F. (2010). Wetenschappelijke integriteit en de universiteit. In P. J. D. Drenth (Ed.), Wetenschappelijke integriteit (pp. 39–44). Amsterdam: KNAW.]

[https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-981-287-079-7_64-1 Israel M., Drenth P. (2015) Research Integrity: Perspectives from Australia and Netherlands. In: Bretag T. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore].

RI dialogue and communication

The Netherlands Research Integrity Network (NRIN) enables sharing of experiences, exchange of knowledge and materials, mutual learning and intervision for several audiences via closed and open meetings. Closed meetings are intended for confidential counsellors and ombudsmen, or for chairs of research integrity investigation committees, whereas open meetings include research conferences and education seminar.<ref>Enrio. Netherlands. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://www.enrio.eu/news-activities/members/netherlands/?highlight=netherlands.</ref>

In the Netherlands, different forms of communication take place concerning science knowledge. People can visit scientific museums like [https://www.nemosciencemuseum.nl/en/ NEMO] science museum in Amsterdam. There are scientific festivals to visit like the [https://opensciencefestival.nl/ Open science festival] in Amsterdam and also [https://mytuner-radio.com/podcast/country/top-netherlands/genre/best-science-medicine podcasts] about science are available.

According to the results of 2012, 2015, 2018, and 2021 surveys on Dutch institutions, the public has the most trust in the scientific community. For example, the survey from 2021 showed that on a scale from 1 (absolutely no trust) to 10 (complete trust) the public trust in science was 7.4.<ref>Rathenau Instituut. 2021 July 15. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.rathenau.nl/en/science-figures/impact/trust-science/public-trust-science.</ref>

Research integrity is occasionally discussed in the lay press. This is usually related to cases of research fraud and academic corruption.

RI incentives

There are rewards for collaborative science and incentives for networks. Ethics assessment is regulated by statutory organisations which are authorised to formulate policies for all public research institutes. An overarching body of legislation consists of the four codes that have been established by the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU), which are the codes on personal data, scientific integrity, animal experiments, and good governance.<ref>Jansen P, Reijers W. Ethics Assessment in Different Countries. The Netherlands. SATORI. 2015 June. [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: http://satoriproject.eu/media/4.f-Country-report-the-Netherlands.pdf. </ref> <references />
}}

Resource:217a7944-a2de-4a03-8a2f-6cbb9c649452

2021-10-27T09:36:28Z

0000-0003-3048-2023: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Case Study: Beginning a Collaboration |Is About=This case study from The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) describes the beginning of a..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Case Study: Beginning a Collaboration
|Is About=This case study from The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) describes the beginning of a collaboration between three researchers with different research backgrounds. Sharon, Ben, and Terra start drafting a grant proposal, but they are not sure how to handle logistic issues. With regard to that, they need to answer these questions:

* Who should submit the proposal, through which university?
* Do all three need to get IRB approval to work on the project?
* What will happen if their work has practical applications?
* How should they go about answering these questions?
* Are there other important questions that should be asked as well?
|Important Because=This case study can help researchers identify practical issues and challenges they might come across in collaborations.
|Important For=PhD students; Early career researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ori.hhs.gov/content/Chapter-8-Collaborative-Research-case-study-beginning-collaboration
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:72c8ab8d-bbf8-4503-8b48-9de7eac37673
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Office of Research Integrity
|Has Virtue And Value=Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Collaborative research; Grant applications
}}

Theme:Cc742a7b-826d-4201-b33e-457f2ef79fb9

2021-10-25T08:57:20Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:48185295-9e1e-41fb-ab70-948596e588d5
|Title=Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)
|Is About=Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing) refers to the practice of presenting unexpected findings as a priori hypotheses or failing to report empirically unsupported hypotheses that were derived a priori and guided the research. In other words, research reports suffer from HARKing if they include one or more post hoc hypotheses (that is, hypotheses developed after the results of the data analysis are known) that are misrepresented as a priori (that is, as developed prior to the data analysis) or if they exclude one or more a priori hypotheses that were empirically disconfirmed. Consequently, HARKed reports misrepresent the ratio of empirically confirmed and disconfirmed a priori hypotheses by elevating exploratory findings to a priori expectations and suppressing a priori expectations unsupported by the data at hand. Thus, HARKing misportrays the research process by falsely describing hypothesis generating exploratory research as hypothesis testing confirmatory research or by failing to report hypotheses that could not be corroborated and therefore deceives readers.

This theme page describes the practice of HARKing and its detrimental consequences on research in some more depth, briefly explains how initiatives such as preregistration aim to reduce HARKing and differentiates pure HARKing from transparent forms of HARKing that are not necessarily detrimental to the research endeavor.
|Important Because=In recent years, several academic disciplines – perhaps most strongly psychology – have witnessed a replication crisis, casting doubt on the validity of seemingly well-established findings and theories. The prevalence of HARKing, evidenced by empirical studies of research misconduct and research misbehavior, is considered one of several driving factors behind the replication crisis. This is due to two reasons: Firstly, data that were used to generate a hypothesis cannot be used to test that same hypothesis in any meaningful way. Portraying an empirically inspired post hoc hypothesis as a priori violates the falsification principle crucial for hypothesis-driven (that is, confirmatory) empirical research. Secondly, suppressing unsupported a priori hypotheses and the attendant failure to report null effects throws away opportunities to cast doubt on the validity of hypotheses derived from extant knowledge. Consequently, multiple disconfirmations of a hypothesis may go unnoticed when researchers HARK because disconfirmations are not reported.

While pure HARKing is unquestionably a detrimental research practice, the same is not necessarily true for transparent forms of HARKing. Transparent HARKing (THARKing) occurs when researchers develop post hoc hypotheses (that is, hypothesize after the results are known), but do so transparently and based on theory. If done transparently and inspired not only by results but also by theory, post hoc hypothesizing does not misportray the research process because exploratory findings are clearly labeled as such.
|Important For=Researchers; Peer reviewers; Journal editors; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=On the systemic level, HARKing can be prevented by changing researcher assessment and promoting the preregistration of studies, ideally in a form involving reviewed preregistration with guaranteed publication if the accepted protocol is followed.

Individual researchers should make post hoc hypotheses transparent and thereby avoid deceiving readers to reap the benefits from exploratory studies without misrepresenting them as following a hypothetico-deductive model.
|Has Detail=The term HARKing was coined in a seminal article by Kerr[1] and is usually used synonymously with accommodational hypothesizing[2] and presenting post hoc hypothesis as a priori (PPHA).[3] Kerr identified twelve potential costs of HARKing:

1. Translating Type I errors into hard-to-eradicate theory.

2. Propounding theories that cannot (pending replication) pass Popper’s disconfirmability test.

3. Disguising post hoc explanations as a priori explanations (when the former ted also be more ad hoc, and consequently, less useful).

4. Not communicating valuable information about what did not work.

5. Taking unjustified statistical licence.

6. Presenting an inaccurate model of science to students.

7. Encouraging “fudging” in other grey areas.

8. Making us less receptive to serendipitous findings.

9. Encouraging adoption of narrow, context-bound new theory.

10. Encouraging retention of too-broad, disconfirmable old theory.

11. Inhibiting identification of plausible alternative hypotheses.

12. Implicitly violating basic ethical principles.

While Kerr’s article initially was not widely cited, this changed in the wake of the replication crisis and empirical studies into the prevalence and drivers of detrimental research practices and research misconduct. The surge of interest in HARKing worryingly showed that it indeed is a rather prevalent practice. Various studies on the prevalence of detrimental research practices found that a sizeable proportion of researchers (up to 58% in one study) from different disciplines (most notably psychology) did engage in HARKing in the past.[4]

To identify measures to reduce HARKing, it is necessary to understand its causes. A key driving factor of HARKing most likely is publication bias: it is much more difficult to publish negative findings than positive findings, and confirmatory research seemingly following a hypothetico-deductive model is generally higher valued than exploratory research, at least in most fields of research. The number of publications, however, still is one of the most important metrics commonly used in researcher evaluation. As a result, researchers have an incentive to publish as much as possible, while the publication system rewards analyses that (seemingly) yield positive findings derived from hypothesis testing research.

One pathway to reduce HARKing thus is changing the incentives for researchers by, for example, evaluating the quality rather than the quantity of publications and recognizing the value of replication studies. The latter also would be facilitated by a comprehensive move towards open science and a recognition of the value of open science practices. Another pathway to reduce HARKing is preregistration because it helps tying the hands of researchers before the data analysis. If researchers decide to preregister a study, they submit a time-stamped paper describing the rationale of their study, the experimental and analytical methods they will use, and their hypotheses. This document cannot be changed at a later stage so that HARKing would be easily detectable and lead to inconsistencies in the line of argument. If the pre-registered study is reviewed, publication is guaranteed if the registered protocol is followed, regardless of the results. Consequently, preregistration and changes in the incentive system are potentially mutually reinforcing.

However, it is worth noting that it is in principle possible to preregister studies after the results are known (PARKing) and thereby reap the reputational benefits coming with what seems to be a commitment to methodological rigor without actually following the practice.[5]

Although pure HARKing is unquestionably a detrimental research practice because it misportrays the research process, tends to bias results and ultimately deceives readers, the same cannot necessarily be said about other forms of post hoc hypothesizing. Using the fictional example of a group of epidemiologists conducting a drug trial to cure a new life-threatening disease, Hollenbeck and Wright argue that HARKing is not detrimental to science if it is done transparently and informed by theory, a practice they call THARKing (transparently hypothesizing after the results are known).[6] In their example, the epidemiologists initially find no effect of the tested drug, but know of cases where it apparently worked. Discussing about these cases, they recognize that all cured patients they know of are female, yet a reanalysis of the data turns out insignificant, even though the effect size for women is larger than for men. They continue discussing if gender could be an important factor and, drawing on their implicit theoretical knowledge, develop the hypothesis that estrogen levels (that peak at certain ages) might be a crucial moderating variable. A reanalysis of their data corroborates their hypothesis. They publish an article summarizing their study, noting in the discussion section that the age-by-gender interaction was the result of an exploratory analysis conducted after the main effects turned out to be insignificant. Other research teams replicate their study, and eventually a meta-analysis confirms their findings. Hollenbeck and Wright argue that THARKing, unlike secretly hypothesizing after the results are known, SHARKing or pure HARKing), is justifiable if readers are transparently informed that a hypothesis is post hoc rather than a priori in the discussion section of an article (in other words, the introduction in their view should only include a priori hypotheses).

In general, pure HARKing is a detrimental research practice and hampers scientific progress. It can be disincentivized by changes in the research system, such as changes in researcher assessment and increasing preregistration of studies. Transparent post hoc hypothesizing, by contrast, seems justifiable if the exploratory nature of results is clearly stated.

'''References'''

[1] Kerr, N. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. ''Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2''(3), 196-217. doi:[https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4 10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4]

[2] Hitchcock, C., & Sober, E. (2004). Prediction versus Accommodation and the Risk of Overfitting. ''The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science'', ''55''(1), 1–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3541832

[3] Leung, K. (2011). Presenting Post Hoc Hypotheses as A Priori: Ethical and Theoretical Issues. ''Management and Organization Review, 7''(3)'','' 471-479. doi: [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011]

[4] An overview of different studies on the prevalence of HARKing can be found in Table 1 in Rubin, M. (2017). When does HARKing hurt? Identifying when different types of undisclosed post hoc hypothesizing harm scientific progress. ''Review of General Psychology, 21,'' 308-320''.'' doi: [[10.1037/gpr0000128]]

[5] Yamada, Y. (2018). How to Crack Pre-registration: Toward Transparent and Open Science. ''Frontiers in Psychology, 9:1831.'' doi: [https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01831 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01831]

[6] Hollenbeck, J. R., & Wright, P. M. (2017). Harking, Sharking, and Tharking: Making the Case for Post Hoc Analysis of Scientific Data. ''International Journal of Qualitative Methods'', ''43''(1), 5-18. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920947600 10.1177/1609406920947600]
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reproducibility; Transparency; Honesty; Sincerity
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Engaging in methodologically questionable research practices; Bias; HARKing; Misrepresentation of results; Pre-registrations; Publication ethics; Questionable research practices; Reproducibility; Reporting; Open science
}}

Report:005904b0-5cb1-4bfa-865c-308af21258ad

2021-10-25T08:50:10Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Report
|Report Type=Country Report Cards
|Title=Greece
|Has Location=Greece
|Research Infrastructure=According to preliminary data, there were 40,084 full-time researchers in Greece in 2019 <ref>EKT National Documentation Centre.Research & Development Expenditures in 2019 in Greece rises to 1.27% of GDP. 2020 Dec 14. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from: https://www.ekt.gr/en/news/25197</ref>. There are 24 universities. All the Higher Tertiary state-accredited universities and technological educational institutes in Greece are public <ref>D.O.A.T.A.P. – Hellenic NARIC. Accredited Higher Education Institutes. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from:http://www.doatap.gr/en/rechei.php</ref>. There are also 40 public research centres including institutes and units that they are comprised of <ref>OpenAIRE. Greece. Last updated 2020 April 27. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from:https://www.openaire.eu/os-greece</ref>. 
{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
!'''Organisation'''
!'''City'''
{{!}}-
{{!}}[http://www.asfa.gr/ Athens School of Fine Arts]
{{!}}Athens
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.auth.gr/ Aristotle University of Thessaloniki]
{{!}}Thessaloniki
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.ihu.gr/en/enhome International Hellenic University]
{{!}}Thessaloniki
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.ntua.gr/ National Technical University of Athens]
{{!}}Athens
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.hmu.gr/en Hellenic Mediterranean University]
{{!}}Agios Nikolaos, Heraklion, Ierapetra, Rethymno, Sitia, Chania
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www2.aua.gr/en Agricultural University of Athens]
{{!}}Athens
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.uoa.gr/ National and Kapodistrian University of Athens]
{{!}}Athens
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.uniwa.gr/en/ University of West Attica]
{{!}}Athens
{{!}}-
{{!}}[http://www.upatras.gr/el University of Patras]
{{!}}Patras
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.uoc.gr/ University of Crete]
{{!}}Rethymnon
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.tuc.gr/index.php?id=5397 Technical University of Crete]
{{!}}Chania
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.uoi.gr/ University of Ioannina]
{{!}}Ioannina
{{!}}-
{{!}}[http://duth.gr/ Democritus University of Thrace]
{{!}}Komotini
{{!}}-
{{!}}[http://www.uth.gr/ University of Thessaly]
{{!}}Volos
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.aueb.gr/en Athens University of Economics and Business]
{{!}}Athens
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.panteion.gr/ Panteion University]
{{!}}Athens
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.unipi.gr/unipi/en/ University of Piraeus]
{{!}}Piraeus (Attica)
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.uom.gr/en University of Macedonia]
{{!}}Thessaloniki
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.uowm.gr/en/ University of Western Macedonia]
{{!}}Kozani
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.uop.gr/en/ University of the Peloponnese]
{{!}}Tripoli
{{!}}-
{{!}}[http://www.aegean.gr/ University of the Aegean]
{{!}}Mytilene
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://ionio.gr/en/ Ionian University]
{{!}}Corfu
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.hua.gr/ Harokopio University]
{{!}}Athens
{{!}}-
{{!}}[https://www.eap.gr/ The Greek Open University]
{{!}}Patras
{{!}}}
 
<references />
|Research Funding=According to preliminary data, the gross expenditures on research and development were €2,336.58 million in 2019 <ref>Eurostat. GERD by sector of performance. Last updated 2021 March 10. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from:

https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=rd_e_gerdtot&lang=en</ref><ref name=":0">H2020 Projects. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/dashboard/sense/app/93297a69-09fd-4ef5-889f-b83c4e21d33e/sheet/erUXRa/state/analysis</ref>, which comprises 1.27% of the country’s GDP <ref name=":1">EKT National Documentation Centre.Research & Development Expenditures in 2019 in Greece rises to 1.27% of GDP. 2020 Dec 14. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from: https://www.ekt.gr/en/news/25197</ref>. Most funding was spent in the business sector (45.9%), higher education (30.7%), public sector (22.56%) and private non-profit organisations (0.84%) <ref name=":1" />.

Greece had 2706 grants receiving €1.55 billion funding from H2020 <ref name=":0" />. It also had 40 ERC signed grants receiving €44.21 million from H2020 <ref name=":0" />.
<references />
|Research Strategy=In 2013, General Secretariat for Research and Technology launched [http://www.gsrt.gr/Financing/Files/ProPeFiles19/Executive%20Summary-2015-09-17-v04.pdf National Research and Innovation Strategy for Smart Specialization 2014-2020]. The Strategy presented a SWOT analysis of the Greek RD&I system. Based on main challenges identified in the analysis, the main objective of the National Research & Innovation Strategy for Smart Specialization (RIS3) was a transformation of the productive sector through research, technological development and innovation while mitigating regional disparities and creating sustainable employment. Specific priorities were identified within these eight fields: Agrofood, Life Sciences & Health – Pharma, Information and Communication Technologies, Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development, Transport and Logistics, Material – Construction, Culture – Tourism – Cultural & Creative Industries.
|Research Governance=There are two national bodies for research ethics and research integrity in Greece – the National Bioethics & Technoethics Committee (which replaced National Bioethics Commission), having consultative role, and the National Ethics Committee for Clinical Trials of the Ministry of Health at the National Organization for Medicines, the only relevant organisation with legal mandate in Greece <ref>Eurec European Network of Research Ethics Committees. National Information: Greece. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from: http://www.eurecnet.org/information/greece.html</ref>. Apart from those, the National Committee for the Protection of Animals used for Scientific Purposes (NCPASC) was established in 2013 as an entity of the Ministry of Rural Development and Food and advisory body regarding matters related to research with animals <ref>NCPASC National Committee for the Protection of Animals used for Scientific Purposes. [cited 2021 April 23]. Available from: http://anilab.decentral.minagric.gr/index.php/en/</ref>.

Besides the national organisations, there are local institutional research ethics committees in all Universities and Research Centres with the task of dealing with issues of research integrity as well <ref name=":0">Enrio. Country Report Greece. Last updated 2019 May. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from:http://www.enrio.eu/country-reports/greece/</ref>.

All Greek Universities must have a Deontology Committee (DC). DCs are manned by the Deans and the vice-Rector responsible for Academic Affairs, Student Care and Lifelong Education. Their responsibilities include drafting a Code of Conduct (CoC) for academic, administrative and research issues, safeguarding the application of the CoC and pinpoint research misconduct, preparing an annual report concerning the application of the CoC and suggest any needed additions and examining allegation of research misconduct coming from the institute's community. If such an allegation has a basis a report is sent to the Rector to proceed with a formal investigation <ref name=":0" />. From March 2018, a Research Ethics and Deontology Committee (REDC) is active in each RPO. Their main task is to apply ethical assessment in research proposals <ref name=":0" />. All Greek Research Performing Organisations must also have Research Ethics and Deontology Committee (REDC) <ref name=":0" />.

[http://139.91.151.169/index_main.php?c=46&l=e FORTH Ethics Committee (FEC)], created in 2005, is an advisory body for the research personnel of FORTH. FEC provides ethical review of research proposals submitted by the researchers.

There are also two networks regarding research integrity, which work on the promotion and training to help scientists comply with the highest standards of research ethics and research integrity <ref name=":0" />.

[http://earthnet.ntua.gr/description/?lang=en Ethical Aspects in Research and Technology for Human (EARTHnet)] is a leading network regarding RE+RI. The network works on raising awareness among Greek academic community on research ethics and research integrity issues, promotes the institutionalisation of a national code of conduct for research and the establishment of a national research ethics and research integrity committee.

[http://www.rcr.gr/index.php/en/ The Network of Responsible Conduct of Research in Greece (RCR-Greece)] was founded by researchers, professors, scientists and professionals to promote research integrity and for the purpose of education and training for scientists in the field of research integrity.

Greece does not have a national code of conduct for research integrity but most universities have developed their codes, together with the code of research ethics. One of the priorities of the EARTHnet is to promote the establishment of the national research ethics and research integrity committee and drafting the National Code of Conduct for Research <ref>Kavouras P, Koumoulos E, Foeger N, Lanzerath D, Kritikos M, Charitidis CA. EARTHnet: An initiative to promote a Research Integrity framework in Greece. 5th World Conference on Research Integrity. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from: https://wcrif.org/images/2017/documents/1.%20Monday%20May%2029,%202017/5.%205A-00/P.%20Kavouras%20-%20EARTHnet;%20an%20initiative%20to%20promote%20a%20Research%20Integrity%20Framework%20in%20Greece.pdf</ref>. Ad-hoc committees or Research Performing Organisations, for example universities and research institutions, cope with cases of research misconduct. The procedures are described by the internal Code of Conduct of each institution <ref name=":0" />. The publication of cases of misconduct depends on each institution. For example, the Technological Educational Institute of Crete in its Code of Ethics states that sharing information with the community will be discussed in each case and then decided whether to publish information or not <ref>Tei of Crete Technological Educational Institute of Crete. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from: https://www.teicrete.gr/el/tei/12624</ref>.

Greece does not have a law or a provision on whistleblower protection, so it is obliged to comply with the 2019 EU Directive to implement an ad-hoc legislation by the end of 2021 <ref>Ethicontrol. When does whistleblowing start in Greece? [cited 2021 April 14]. Available from: https://ethicontrol.com/en/blog/greece-whistleblower-law</ref>.
{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left"
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}'''Bodies for RE+RI'''
{{!}} width="445" valign="top"{{!}}'''Scope'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[http://www.bioethics.gr/index.php/en National Bioethics Commission]

[https://www.thenationalherald.com/greece_sciences/arthro/greece_establishes_a_national_bioethics_and_technoethics_committee-2214392/ (National Bioethics and Technoethics Committee)]
{{!}} width="445" valign="top"{{!}}Investigates the ethical, social and legal aspects arising from research advances in biology, biotechnology, medicine genetics as well as those related to the development and social integration of new and emerging technologies. It also provides recommendations to the Prime Minister and the Parliament, collaborates with international organizations and related bodies, represents Greece to international fora, and informs the public on issues regarding biotechnological advances and the impact of their applications. It publishes the e-journal “[http://www.bioethics.gr/index.php/journal-bio-ethica BIOETHICA]” and it organises educational activities for [http://www.bioethics.gr/index.php/enimerosi schools].
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.eof.gr/web/guest National Organization for Medicines]
{{!}} width="445" valign="top"{{!}}Aims to promote and regulate good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials. Moreover, it issues approval for clinical trials.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[http://anilab.decentral.minagric.gr/index.php/en/ National Committee for the Protection of Animals used for Scientific Purposes (NCPASC)]
{{!}} width="445" valign="top"{{!}}Provides advices to the competent authorities, to the animal welfare bodies as well as to the Protocol Evaluation Committees on matters relating to the acquisition, breeding, accommodation, care and use of animals in procedures, for issues of the continuing education and training of persons who are involved in the implementation of the P.D. 56/2013 and also ensures the exchange and communication of best practices. It exchanges information on the functioning of the animal welfare bodies and the evaluation of projects by the competent central authority, as well as on best practices within the European Union.
{{!}}}
<references />
|Law And Regulation=A number of laws regarding RE and RI are officially instated in Greece.
{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}'''Law'''
{{!}} width="445" valign="top"{{!}}'''Scope'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.mindbank.info/item/2070 Act on the establishment of National Council of Medical Ethics and Deontology]
{{!}} width="445" valign="top"{{!}}Addresses the rights of hospital patients and provides greater protection for people admitted compulsorily.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN Regulation (EU) 2016/679]
{{!}} width="445" valign="top"{{!}}Aims to protect natural persons with regard to processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ey.com/en_gr/tax/tax-alerts/ey-law-alert-law-4624-2019-protection-of-personal-data-and-measures-for-the-implementation-of-the-gdpr Law 4624/2019: Protection of Personal Data and Measures for the Implementation of the GDPR]
{{!}} width="445" valign="top"{{!}}Enacts supplemental measures for the application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and incorporates Directive (EU) 2016/680.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3295632 Act 2619/1998: ratification of the Oviedo Convention]
{{!}} width="445" valign="top"{{!}}This act implemented the Oviedo Convention in Greece.
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="307" valign="top"{{!}}[http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=&p_isn=89616&p_classification=09 Law No. 4009 of 2011 concerning the Structure, Function, and Quality of Studies, and the Internationalization of Higher Educational Institutions]
{{!}} width="445" valign="top"{{!}}Provides organizational structure for the universities.
{{!}}}
|Measure=RI training

RCR-Greece has started to educate the Master’s students of two Greek Universities in Research Integrity by offering relevant lectures <ref>RCR-Greece Responsible Conduct of Research. About RCR – Greece. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from:http://www.rcr.gr/index.php/en/</ref>. The Hellenic National Bioethics & Technoethics Commission and the Laboratory for the Research of Medical Law and Ethics organise seminars for postgraduate students of all the Schools of Positive and Theoretical Sciences, as well as professional lawyers, judges, doctors, educators and others. The seminars cover a wide range of critical issues including human reproduction, applications of genetics, clinical studies, euthanasia, cloning and nanotechnology. Moreover, the Commission is organising open, monthly seminars with various subjects including in vitro fertilization, gene therapy, medical errors, mental health etc. <ref>Hellenic Republic National Bioethics Commission. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from:http://www.bioethics.gr/index.php/el/seminaria/139-eleythera-seminaria</ref>.

EARTHnet/NTUA has prepared and is organizing training courses on Research Ethics and Research Integrity for Postgraduate students and PhD candidates <ref>ESA Earth Oline. LTC 2013 Web Streaming Programme. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from:https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/landtrainingcourse2013/webstreaming</ref>.

The courses have been customized for Engineers and graduates from Natural Sciences. The materials mainly used for RI trainings are:

[http://www.bioethics.gr/images/pdf/Booklet_for_schools_final.pdf What I Know about Bioethics -National Bioethics Committee] (T. Vidalis, V. Mollaki)

[http://earthnet.ntua.gr/research-ethicsresearch-integrity-committees-in-greece/?lang=en The University of the Aegean – Code of Conduct]

[http://rc.uowm.gr/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/AUTH_research_deontology_principles.pdf The Aristotle University of Thessaloniki – Code of Conduct in Research]

[https://www.ehde.uoc.gr/index.php/en/agglika-arthra/351-kwdikas-en The University of Crete - Code of Ethics]

[http://old.uth.gr/en/research/ethics-committee The University of Thessaly - Ethics Code]

[http://www.teiath.gr/userfiles/khitas/documents/2013/anakoinoseis/kvdikas_ithikis__deontologias_EEE.pdf The Athens University of Applied Sciences – Code of Ethics]

[https://www.teicrete.gr/el/tei/12624 The Technological Educational Institute of Crete – Code of Ethics]

RI dialogue and communication

The members of EARTHnet work on the promotion of research ethics and research integrity and on raising awareness on issues regarding RE and RI. The network has 15 members, from universities and research institutions <ref>Erhanet. Participants. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from:http://earthnet.ntua.gr/participants/?lang=en</ref>. The [https://www.athens-science-festival.gr/en/festival/ Athens Science Festival] is organised since 2014 to bring closer science to the society. [https://www.thessaly-science-festival.gr/en/festival-2018/ Thessaly Science Festival] aims to present high-quality research in Greece to the general public and explain complicated scientific subjects in fun and creative ways.

Public awareness of research integrity needs to be boosted. The EARTHnet initiative works on the dissemination of its activities and promotion of research integrity through various newspapers <ref>Kavouras P, Koumoulos E, Foeger N, Lanzerath D, Kritikos M, Charitidis CA. EARTHnet: An initiative to promote a Research Integrity framework in Greece. 5th World Conference on Research Integrity. [cited 2021 April 13]. Available from: https://wcrif.org/images/2017/documents/1.%20Monday%20May%2029,%202017/5.%205A-00/P.%20Kavouras%20-%20EARTHnet;%20an%20initiative%20to%20promote%20a%20Research%20Integrity%20Framework%20in%20Greece.pdf</ref>. Research integrity is occasionally discussed in press and is usually related to corruption or fraud.

RI incentives

There are several awards for outstanding and innovative researchers.

{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="604"
{{!}} width="293" valign="top"{{!}}'''Initiatives'''
{{!}} width="312" valign="top"{{!}}'''Scope'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="293" valign="top"{{!}}[http://www.rcr.gr/index.php/en/ RCR-Greece trainings]
{{!}} width="312" valign="top"{{!}}Training
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="293" valign="top"{{!}}[http://www.bioethics.gr/index.php/el/seminaria/139-eleythera-seminaria Hellenic Republic National Bioethics Commission seminars]
{{!}} width="312" valign="top"{{!}}Training
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="293" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.ethaae.gr/en/ Hellenic Authority for Higher Education]
{{!}} width="312" valign="top"{{!}}Accreditation
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="293" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.bodossaki.gr/en/the-foundation/vision-mission/ Bodossaki Foundation – Awards for Scientific Excellence]
{{!}} width="312" valign="top"{{!}}Support
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="293" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.galienfoundation.org/index.php/prix-galien/ Prix Galien Award]
{{!}} width="312" valign="top"{{!}}Support
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="293" valign="top"{{!}}[https://www.athens-science-festival.gr/en/vravia-epi-2/ Science Communication Awards –ΕΠΙ2]
{{!}} width="312" valign="top"{{!}}Support
{{!}}}
<references />
}}

Theme:721dc5c7-8e47-41ca-a7b8-73d6a225c3c3

2021-10-22T13:28:02Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:721dc5c7-8e47-41ca-a7b8-73d6a225c3c3
|Title=Networks and projects promoting research integrity
|Is About=Across the world networks and projects have been established to promote research integrity. These networks and projects aim to foster responsible research integrity practices.
|Important Because=Effective policymaking, built upon sound research, produces outcomes that benefit society, communities, groups and individuals. If research is flawed by lacking integrity and by being conducted unethically it should be of no use to policymakers. Fraud or corrupt practices by researchers can lead to serious damage to society and the physical environment. Reliable and transparent research, divorced from political ideology and undeclared vested interests, produces robust evidence that benefits social wellbeing and societal progress. Ethical values, principles and standards need to be embedded in the ‘culture’ of research and science policy must recognise that need and the most effective way to support it.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice='''Networks'''

*[https://allea.org/ ALLEA] (All European Academies)
*[https://amsterdamresearchclimate.nl/ ARCA] (Amsterdam Research Climate)
*[https://publicationethics.org/ COPE] (The Committee on Publication Ethics )
*[https://ease.org.uk/about-us/ EASE] (The European Association of Science Editors)
*[http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ ENAI] (European Network for Academic Integrity)
*[http://eneri.eu/ ENERI] (European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity)
*[http://www.enohe.net/ ENOHE] (European Network of Ombuds in Higher Education)
*[http://www.enrio.eu/ ENRIO] (European Network for Research Integrity Officers)
*[https://www.eosc-portal.eu/ EOSC] (European Open Science Cloud)
*[https://www.equator-network.org/ EQUATOR Network] (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research)
*[http://www.eurecnet.org/index.html EUREC] (European Network of Research Ethics Committees )
*[https://irafpa.org/en/ IRAFPA] (Institute of Research and Action on Fraud and Plagiarism in Academia)
*[https://lari.lu/ LARI] (the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity)
*[http://www.scienceeurope.org/policy/working-groups/research-integrity Science Europe]
*[https://www.wcrif.org/ WCRIF] (World Conference on Research Integrity Foundation)

'''Projects'''

*[http://entireconsortium.eu/ EnTIRE] (Mapping Normative Frameworks for EThics and Integrity of REsearch)
*[https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/ FOSTER] (Fostering the practical implementation of Open Science)
*[http://h2020integrity.eu/ INTEGRITY]
*[https://www.nrin.nl/about/inspire-project/ INSPIRE] (Inventory in the Netherlands of Stakeholders' Practices and Initiatives on Research Integrity to set an Example)
*[https://on-merrit.eu/ ON-MERRIT] (Observing and Negating Matthew Effects in Responsible Research & Innovation Transition)
*[https://www.openaire.eu/ OpenAIRE]
*[https://www.path2integrity.eu/ Path2Integrity]
*[https://printeger.eu/ Printeger] (Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research)
*[https://satoriproject.eu/ SATORI]
*[https://www.sops4ri.eu/ SOPs4RI] (Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity)
*[http://trust-project.eu/ TRUST]
*[http://virt2ueconsortium.eu/ VIRT2UE] (Virtue-based ethics and Integrity of Research: Train-the-Trainer program for Upholding the principles and practices of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity)
*The [https://prores-project.eu/ PRO-RES] Framework for Ethical Evidence
|Has Detail=The PRO-RES Framework is built upon a set of resources that both help to generate ethical research and assess its integrity. The resources are operationalised in a toolbox that includes several means for assessing ethical research. The final ‘pillar’ in the PRO-RES Framework is ‘The Accord’ – a statement of principles for ethical evidence-gathering that individuals, agencies and organisations can sign up to as an assurance of their best intentions when gathering and using evidence to inform policies.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:2cf6e05e-5a61-4896-bcb9-80de10ad21b8
|Related To Theme=Theme:3c6a13ad-6861-4a5f-bf5b-491693ee6b6d;Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:B4f3369c-e0ac-4cf5-acd9-cb2a6c11181d
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Respect; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research Integrity; Research ethics
}}

Theme:A612e3c5-4f31-470f-b5bf-3751923848e8

2021-10-22T13:26:59Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity
|Is About=The Hong Kong Principles (HKPs) are five principles which were developed during the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity and focus on fostering research integrity in the assessment, evaluation and reward system of researchers. The principles were developed by a group of research integrity experts and are meant to be used by research institutions and funding agencies. The five principles, their rationale and examples of implementation have been published as a [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737 journal article] in PLOS Biology.<ref>Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., ... & Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. ''PLoS biology'', ''18''(7), e3000737.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=The assessment of researchers is considered important for research integrity practices. However, the current research metrics, assessment and reward system includes perverse incentives .<ref>Edwards, Marc A., and Siddhartha Roy. "Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition." ''Environmental engineering science'' 34.1 (2017): 51-61.</ref> This incentivizes researchers to cut corners to receive positive assessments, for instance for grants and promotions. The HKPs address the issue by outlining concrete proposals to make the assessment more comprehensive and more balanced. The HKPs have the aim to acknowledge and reward responsible research practices that make research trustworthy. Implementation of the five principles will increase research integrity and remove perverse incentives.

'''<big>The five principles</big>'''

# Assess researchers on responsible practices from conception to delivery including the development of research ideas, research design, methodology, execution and effective dissemination.
# Value the accurate and transparent reporting of all research, regardless of the results.
# Value the practices of open science (open research) – such as open methods, materials and data.
# Value a broad range of research and scholarship, such as replication, innovation, translation, synthesis, and meta-research.
# Value a range of other contributions to responsible research and scholarly activity, such as peer review for grants and publications, mentoring, outreach, and knowledge exchange.

'''<big>Endorsement</big>'''

Research institutions, funders, journals, other research organizations and individual researchers can endorse the principles on the website of the WCRI foundation [https://wcrif.org/guidance/hong-kong-principles here.]
<references />
|Important For=Senior researchers; Funders; Research performing organisations; Reviewers; Research funding organisations; Professors; Junior researchers; PhD students
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:216fd809-8eca-4f5e-8cc7-c118b9bfb0cd;Resource:7782b6fb-6cb9-42b8-bc8b-406a63a51cb3;Resource:10e386f6-6881-4d88-bc72-e6391597029e;Resource:90c5a9cf-16c5-441c-b69e-4de6162ae0e2
|Related To Theme=Theme:0bd48e3b-3590-44ae-a21b-7cf2b425d6cb;Theme:1386bef0-81e2-4c3b-bb65-673d2baead1c
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=David Moher; Lex Bouter; Sabine Kleinert; Paul Glasziou; Mai Har Sham; Virginia Barbour; Anne-Marie Coriat; Nicole Foeger; Ulrich Dirnagl
|Has Timepoint=2020
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Reliability; Honesty; Transparency
}}

Theme:Ab776bfa-a5a2-46a6-9a07-40707dc54111

2021-10-22T13:26:32Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=Reward campaign
|Is About=REWARD stands for REduce research Waste And Reward Diligence, and it is a campaign initiated by The Lancet in 2014. The aim of the campaign is to reduce waste and maximize value of research.
|Important Because=Research is an expensive endeavor in terms of finances, time, human, and other resources. Therefore, if the results of research do not serve those who would use it, it becomes waste. Research can be wasted in several ways. First, if the potential results of research will not be of benefit to anybody. Second, if the research design is flawed. Third, if the management and execution of research is inadequate. Fourth, if research information is inaccessible. Finally, if the benefit of the research published is undermined by not publishing or partially publishing research reports.
|Important For=Researchers; Decision makers; Funding institutions; Publishers
|Has Best Practice=To address the issues stated above, the REWARD campaign offers five set of recommendations. First, research priorities need to be selected. This means that prior to engaging in any experimentation or observation, a systematic review of literature should be done, funders should make their criteria for funding transparent, and research funders should develop sources of information about ongoing research.

Second, the REWARD campaign supports rigor in research design, conduct and analysis. This includes improving protocols and making them public, engaging professional staff and non-conflicted stakeholders, as well as rewarding quality and reproducibility of the research, rather than novelty.

Third, research waste can be reduced through research regulation and management. It emphasizes the important role and influence of research regulators who, along with policy makers, should collaborate with researchers, patients and health professionals. Their cooperation should simplify and coordinate laws and regulations that control or guide research. Furthermore, researchers should be able to improve the efficiency of their research using high quality designs that reduce inefficiencies of recruitment, retention, data monitoring, and data sharing. Finally, the integration of research findings in daily clinical practice should be promoted.

Fourth, all information on research methods and findings should be accessible. Academic institutions and funders should reward research that is publicly available and disseminated. REWARD recommends the standardization of protocols and data sharing, as well as the release of complete study reports. Finally, journals, funders, sponsors, research ethics committees, regulators and legislators should support and enforce study registration and availability of complete information regarding research.

Fifth, research reports should be complete and usable. With that aim, the REWARD campaign suggests that the focus of research regulations and rewards should be to encourage complete research reporting. To facilitate this, there is a need for good reporting infrastructure. Authors, editors and reviewers should be trained about reporting guidelines, publication ethics, and research integrity. Funders should support and monitor training.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:19ce25f6-6951-4ee1-8e6e-4ff42636999e
|Related To Theme=Theme:E14104ce-3608-4069-b297-f93b2d77b095;Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=John Ioannidis; Richard Horton; Paul Glasziou; Ian Chalmers
|Has Location=Europe
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Transparency; Accountability; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Responsible research; Reproducibility; Open access
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.08 - Health services, health care research; LS - Life Sciences
}}

Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab

2021-10-22T13:25:58Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=Research integrity in practice: dealing with everyday dilemmas
|Is About=For some, an important aspect of research integrity (RI) training is to make clear links between educational material and the “real life” practices of researchers. Discussing dilemmas in practice can be a valuable method to reflect broadly on how to be ‘good’ researchers.
|Important Because=As researchers, we often face RI dilemmas. For example, a dilemma about the inclusion of an extra author in a publication. Most of the time, dilemmas are implicitly or explicitly related to relational aspects (e.g. collaboration with a supervisor or boss). Although guidelines and codes of conduct provide us with guidance on how to act, often we face difficult situations in which contrasting values are at stake. While developing RI training, it is important to reflect on researchers’ day-to-day dilemmas in addition to theoretical knowledge of RI issues (e.g. codes of conduct, best practices, and regulations). This, however, can be challenging. It entails building a bridge between theory and practice, and reflecting on how to act in situations of ethical uncertainty.
|Important For=phd students; Supervisors; Postdocs; Senior researchers; Junior researchers; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=The European Commission funded VIRT2UE project has designed a set of practical tools for recognizing and dealing with RI dilemmas in practice. One of these tools is the so called ‘Virtues, Values and Norms in Perspective’ exercise. In this exercise, inspired by a [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5236068/ virtue ethics approach to RI education], <ref>Pennock T. R., O'Rourke M. Developing a Scientific Virtue-Based Approach to Science Ethics Training. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017; 23(1): 243–262.</ref> participants are asked to reflect on a concrete dilemma experienced by one of the participants. By engaging in a dialogue, trainees are asked to put themselves in the shoes of the people involved in the case at stake and reflect on which values would be important for each of them. Then they are asked to reflect on which virtues are required to deal with the dilemma at stake: are they in conflict with each other? How are they related to salient norms? Which virtue is the most important in this situation? What is needed (concretely) to act in accordance with that virtue?

This exercise aims at fostering reflection in oneself by means of understanding the concepts of virtues/values and norms and their relationship with practice.

Another initiative is the [https://www.eur.nl/sites/corporate/files/24708_integriteitsspel_interactief_2016.pdf Rotterdam Dilemma Game], <ref>Dilemma game. Available at: [https://www.eur.nl/sites/corporate/files/24708_integriteitsspel_interactief_2016.pdf https://www.eur.nl/sites/corpo...]</ref> which focuses less on virtue ethics but nonetheless provides structure to discuss RI dilemmas.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:3344d7a4-7a86-4276-83a7-d5313971a8a9

2021-10-22T13:25:25Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=Research Integrity lunch meetings
|Is About=The Research Integrity lunch meeting is a monthly meeting taking place at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, connecting researchers interested in research integrity from different projects. The format is a 1-hour interactive get-together, where work in progress and new ideas are presented. Everyone involved in a research integrity related project can sign up as a speaker.

These meetings are organized with the aim of raising awareness of diverse projects and providing a space for networking and sharing expertise, and for the cross-fertilization of ideas. The lunches are not for the presentation of already finished papers. In order to utilize the meetings to the fullest, one person with a related background prepares a brief reflection on the work presented, after which the other participants are invited to ask questions, give feedback, or come up with suggestions. Lunch is provided
|Important Because=It connects people from within the field of research integrity, since the backgrounds of researchers in this field are diverse and they will not meet each other in discipline specific conferences. Additionally, the field of research integrity is still young, and it’s important to connect and share ideas. Moreover, it provides the possibility to learn from each other and help one another.
|Important For=research integrity researchers
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:3c6a13ad-6861-4a5f-bf5b-491693ee6b6d
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; INSPIRE
|Has Location=The Netherlands; Amsterdam
}}

Theme:5894afe3-923e-4eef-9ad2-12f9ae990a4a

2021-10-22T13:24:56Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=Research Integrity champions
|Is About=The role of the Research integrity champion is to offer an informal opportunity to discuss concerns staff and students have about research integrity, in order to reduce the barriers and doubts often associated with reporting and discussing integrity concerns. The champion is responsible for ''a diverse range of integrity related aspects, such as: the promotion of ''good research practice within the context of the relevant disciplines. But also the responsibility of ensuring that the principles and relevant standards are embedded in cross-University and local guidance, in training and procedures, and integrated into mentorship programmes. Moreover, the champions need to ensure that local advice is available to researchers (staff and students) who are unsure about a research conduct issue and may be considering whether to make an allegation of misconduct.
|Important Because=It is important that staff and students have the opportunity to discuss integrity related concerns in an accessible way. By making it easier to find and consult an advisor, institutions make an effort to decrease the barriers for people to discuss their worries or questions. This will benefit the research culture.
|Important For=Research performing organisations; Research institutions; Mentors
|Is Flagged=No
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
}}

Theme:D1477512-52a3-48a3-8ab6-72404cef4ab4

2021-10-22T13:24:21Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=Research Integrity and Research Ethics Scenarios for Teaching
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

Each scenario is targeted at three broad groups:

#Researchers;
#Research ethics committees ('RECs') and research integrity offices ('RIOs');
#Research administrators.

Each scenario takes the form of a hypothetical narrative interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide deliberations concerning the issues raised by the narrative.

The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with The [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf '''European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity'''] ('ECCRI') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice. They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

According to the ECCRI, there are eight categories of research ‘contexts’ that are covered by the standards of good research practice. In order to ensure that the set is comprehensive, members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed one scenario for each of the ECCRI's research contexts:

'''1) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead Research Environment]'''

'''2) [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6 Training, Supervision and Mentoring]'''

'''3) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a Research Procedures]'''

'''4) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4 Safeguards]'''

'''5) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674 Data Practices and Management]'''

'''6) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70 Collaborative Working]'''

'''7) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3 Publication and Dissemination]'''

'''8) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183 Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing]'''
|Important Because=The scenarios are ''educational'' in three ways:

#In terms of their content, the scenarios develop upon and extend educational resources in research ethics and research integrity in order to allow users to gain knowledge of, and reflectively apply, [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice;
#In terms of their structure, they take the form of a hypothetical narrative interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide user deliberations concerning the issues raised by the narrative;
#Users have the opportunity to employ the scenarios as learning instruments in a classroom setting.

The scenarios ''stimulate thinking'' by providing questions concerning the good and bad aspects of the research practices invoked by the hypothetical narratives. It is envisaged that the type of reflection employed will be ''strategic'' because, in order to answer the questions and thereby gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices, the user is required to understand and apply the content of the ECCRI to different research activities and contexts in combination with their local regulatory documents pertaining to research integrity and research ethics.
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Early career researchers; Editors; Ethics committee members; Industry; Journal editors; Journals; Junior researchers; Master students; Mentors; Peer reviewers; PhD Students; Postdocs; Principal investigators; Professors; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Research institutions; Research integrity trainers; Researchers; Senior researchers; Students; Supervisors; Universities
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Anonymization; Authorship; Bias; Beneficence; Citing; Collaborative research; Communication; Complaints procedure; Confidentiality; Conflict of Interest; Consent; Copyright; Data Management; Data Protection; Data sharing; Experimental design; Fabrication; Falsification; Good Practice; HARKing; Harm; Institutional Responsibilities; International collaboration; Journal Retractions; Mentoring; Methodology; Misconduct Investigations; Monitoring research; P-Hacking; P-value Hacking; Peer Review; Plagiarism; Pre-registrations; Privacy; Publication Ethics; Questionable research practice; REC approval; Research Environments; Research Integrity; Research Misconduct; Research culture; Research ethics; Respect; Responsibility; Retraction; Responsible research; Reusing Published Data; Reusing Published Material; Safeguards; Safety; Scientific Misdonduct; Scope of University's Complaints Procedure; Selection bias; Supervision; Training; Vulnerable and non-competent subjects; Vulnerable population; Whistleblowers; Whistleblowing
}}

Theme:63f356f9-aa1d-4405-9f1d-c27ec593df7b

2021-10-22T13:21:32Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=A National Survey on Research Integrity
|Is About=The online [https://www.nsri2020.nl/ National Survey on Research Integrity] (NSRI) is a project focusing on the variability in research integrity in practice of researchers in the Netherlands. News about researchers faking results, cutting corners and having to retract their works often reach the media. What motivates researchers? Are truth, ambition, fame or other ideals important drivers? Do such goals collide and result in questionable research questions? The NSRI will shed light on these questions. The questionnaire will target a large sample of over 30,000 researchers in the Netherlands from several universities and university medical centres. Completing the questionnaire takes 15 minutes and it aims to include a broad range of disciplines, from humanities to particle physics.
|Important Because=Many researchers work in environments that stimulate responsible behavior. However, scholarly environments are also complex and full of competition. Competition can stimulate people to work hard, but may also have downsides. What are optimal research environments? What working conditions are detrimental to good research practices? Fostering responsible research and preventing questionable practices is important. However, the causes behind the variability in engagement in responsible and questionable practices are largely unknown. Once known, strategies to enhance responsible research practices while reducing questionable practices can be developed and evaluated. The NSRI attempts to play an important role in solving this puzzle.

'''How will the privacy of participants joining the NSRI be guaranteed?'''

Given the sensitivity of the topic, NSRI pays very close attention to fully ensuring the protection of the identity of the participants and their research institutions. Our privacy protection measures include:

#No personal identifying data except disciplinary field and academic rank (PhD, A/Prof, Full Prof) is asked in the survey
#The use of the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvcaziHteAI&feature=emb_logo Randomized Response] (RR) technique for the two most sensitive questions. RR which has been proven in research on doping and social security fraud to reduce the effect of social desirability and thereby elicit a greater sense of trust with respondents. It does so by creating a probabilistic rather than direct association between the answers of respondents and the sensitive question (see also [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124104268664 Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research- Thirty-Five Years of Validation. Sociological Methods & Research 2005; 33 (3): 319-348)]
#All data will be collected by a trusted third party, [https://www.kantar.com/public/ Kantar Public] so the research team never directly receives any personal data.
#IP addresses are not collected. The research team only receives anonymized data by disciplinary field and academic rank.

Because of these measures, no data can be analysed or published that can be traced to individual participants or specific research institutions.

What makes the NSRI unique?

The National Survey of Research Integrity (NSRI) is unique in a number of ways:

#It aims to provide valid disciplinary field-specific estimates on the occurrence of Responsible Research Practices (RRPs) and Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) across the biomedical sciences, the humanities, natural science and engineering, and the social and behavioral sciences.
#It targets the entire population of academic researchers in The Netherlands, the largest sample ever studied in research integrity to date.
#The survey will employ a technique known as the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvcaziHteAI&feature=emb_logo Randomized Response] (RR) which has shown to elicit more honest answers around sensitive topics.
#It will examine a broad range of factors that may impact on scholars engagement in Responsible Research Practices (RRPs) and Questionable Research Practices (QRPs).
|Important For=PhD students; Postdocs; Senior researchers; Early career researchers; Universities
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=NSRI
|Has Timepoint=2020
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Transparency; Scrupulousness; Independence; Responsibility
}}

Theme:A12b4bab-b331-46d1-93e0-dc9e9c5453cd

2021-10-22T13:20:57Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title="Met de billen bloot" (airing your dirty laundry)
|Is About=“''Everybody makes mistakes, even senior researchers, even after twenty years of experience… that makes you realize that we all make mistakes. It’s about how you act when they happen that counts.''” [1]

This initiative concerns an activity that stimulates an open research culture in which research integrity issues can be discussed. The way in which this initiative tries to foster research integrity is through having face-to-face sessions about research integrity in which senior-researchers first share a personal case of ‘sloppy science’ or a research integrity dilemma. By starting with senior-researchers, the session stimulates junior- or other researchers to talk more openly about their obstacles during research projects. Whereas the session mainly aims to foster research integrity, it also stimulates trust in researchers and research so that an open environment and good communication among the researchers is fostered.

[1] ''This text is based on an interview with Mark Dubbelman, PhD student at the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam and current member of the quality committee.''
|Important For=Researchers; department leaders; Research performing organisations; Research institutions; PhD Students; Postdocs; Professors
|Has Best Practice='''How it works''' The session takes place annually in Alzheimer Center Amsterdam. All researchers are obliged to attend. Some preparation from the senior researchers in advance of the session is expected: they are asked to share an example of ‘sloppy science’ or a research integrity dilemma drawn from their personal experience. The session starts with a short introduction and is opened by the head of research. Senior researchers share their stories first, to show that issues happen to everybody, and it’s okay to talk about it. This is key to create an environment where it feels safe to speak about issues. Hearing about the issues and mistakes from the seniors stimulates junior researchers to talk more openly about the obstacles they have encountered in their research projects. The goal is not to discuss all issues during these particular sessions, but rather to keep researchers from feeling afraid or embarrassed to discuss issues during everyday research practice all year round. The session ends with educating the junior researchers about who they can talk to during the year if issues arise, as well as sharing the contact info of the hospital ombudsman.

'''Evaluation''' Whereas there has not yet been an empirical evaluation of the initiative, so far, the responses from researchers are very positive. The experience is that issues within the center are discussed timely. Researchers tend to speak first to people in their close working environment, whom they trust. Since the ‘Billen Bloot’ meetings are embedded in weekly scientific sessions, are costless, take place in the center itself and are mandatory to attend, the feasibility of the ‘Billen Bloot’ sessions is very high. This feasibility allows for a smooth implementation and therefore, it makes it a very attractive initiative.

The success of the formula in Alzheimer Center Amsterdam can partly be explained by the already open environment. It is possible that if this initiative is implemented in a less open work environment, it may be harder to make it a success.

'''What’s next?''' The ‘Billen Bloot’ sessions were initiated within the scope of the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam. However, in the last two years the initiative has been copied by other departments and institutions. Finally, researchers of Alzheimer Center Amsterdam have given presentations on the initiative to share the idea with others.
|Has Detail='''Juniors only''' In 2018, the session was extended with a second meeting where only junior researchers attend. In this session they have the opportunity to discuss issues that they did not feel comfortable to discuss with the seniors present and/or issues related to supervisors.

'''Organizing members''' The ‘Billen Bloot’ sessions are organized by and for researchers from Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, which is also where the initiative was conceived by prof. dr. Van der Flier (head of research), in 2015. The ‘Billen Bloot’ sessions are organized by the research quality committee of the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam and receives no support from external parties.
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Alzheimer Center Amsterdam; Astrid Hooghiemstra; Mark Dubbelman; INSPIRE
|Has Location=Amsterdam; The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Transparency
}}

Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b

2021-10-22T13:20:25Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=Initiatives promoting research integrity
|Is About=An increasing focus on Research integrity (RI) has provided the impetus for numerous initiatives aimed at fostering good research practice and building public trust in science. These initiatives take various forms, such as codes, guidelines, recommendations, training sessions and workshops. <ref>Marusic A, Wager E, Utrobicic A, Rothstein HR, Sambunjak D. Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016(4);MR000038.</ref> Developed by various institutions and groups, including research performing and research funding institutions, as well as journals and governmental bodies, initiatives to promote RI help researchers to become aware of, and to adhere to, good scientific practices.
<references />
|Important Because=Initiatives for the promotion of research integrity have a number of aims. First, to help train and educate young researchers and students in how to adhere to ethical research practices so that they can contribute to an honest and open research culture. But initiatives are not only focused on young researchers, they are also valuable for senior researchers when it comes to supervising or teaching research integrity. Initiatives help researchers recognize bad research practices, but they also help institutions in guidance when dealing with cases of misconduct. Their impact and development are not limited to research performing organizations only. Some journals and funders have recognized the importance of building a research integrity culture and starting initiatives for research integrity promotion. <ref>Steneck NH. Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Sci Eng Ethics. 2006;12(1):53-74.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=In the United States, the Office for Research Integrity (ORI) is developing policies, procedures, and regulations related to the responsible conduct of research and research misconduct. Moreover, ORI develops activities and programs aimed to promote research integrity and foster good research practices.

In Europe, the [https://lari.lu/ Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity] and [https://oeawi.at/en/ Austrian Agency for Research Integrity] are good examples of institutions providing all kind of resources for the promotion of research integrity. These organizations have developed guidelines and recommendations that are implemented by research institutions in their countries. Moreover, they offer training and workshops for researchers in different stages of their career and deal with cases of research misconduct.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:11ec8d68-7372-4dc9-936c-43f263aacdc2;Resource:91c45880-ddbe-4c96-a95d-6f140b463b96;Resource:60bf1373-f7e1-4831-b3e9-cf6e60cc290f
|Related To Theme=Theme:3c6a13ad-6861-4a5f-bf5b-491693ee6b6d;Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1;Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:721dc5c7-8e47-41ca-a7b8-73d6a225c3c3
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering; LS - Life Sciences
}}

Theme:61d9a3f5-8f8b-4f6f-8363-fa53f959f131

2021-10-22T13:16:18Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=The impact of the GDPR on scientific data
|Is About=On May 25th, 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) entered into force in Europe. The GDPR sets out the new rules researchers must adhere to when processing personal data.<ref>EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (2018). Available online at: https://gdpr-info.eu/</ref>Personal data is any data with which a person can be directly or indirectly identified. Researchers should conform to the GDPR principles of data protection to protect the privacy rights of their study participants and avoid legal issues.
<references />
|Important Because=Research data often contains personal characteristics, such as a name, location data, or physical, physiological, genetic or cultural features of a person. For these, the GDPR provides the following principles in [https://gdpr-info.eu/art-5-gdpr/ article 5]:

*"Data should be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner."
*"Data should be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and is not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes."
*"Data should be adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed."
*"Data should be kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed. For scientific data, it is often recommended to use pseudonymization as a technique to further protect subject privacy. Long-term archiving for scientific purposes is allowed when in accordance to Article 89 of the GDPR."
*"Data should be processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss."
|Important For=Students; Research subjects; Ethics committee members; Researchers; Research institutions; Policy makers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Journal publishers; Journal editors; industry stakeholders; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; General public; Research Integrity Officers; Funders; PhD Students
|Has Best Practice=Researchers that work with personal data can consult the GDPR online [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679 here]. In 2020 the European Data Protection Supervisor issued [https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/20-01-06_opinion_research_en.pdf A Preliminary Opinion on data protection and scientific research].

You should also be able to contact your local Data Protection Officer or study supervisor for more information on handling personal data.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F7ed25ad-cfab-4040-b52f-596accc3c317;Resource:9c917ab2-c01d-446b-89c1-a9cd415afb00;Resource:695b5c9b-f3ac-4fc8-8e20-1dfd5f7347ff;Resource:B47afc7d-44d6-4713-a209-953d58e81778;Resource:232ffbe0-b7fb-4d04-b605-493e10bc04c6
|Related To Theme=Theme:540c9ba0-bc9c-4311-b3e1-7a650d2b9f0f;Theme:0bd48e3b-3590-44ae-a21b-7cf2b425d6cb
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Reliability; Care; Respect; Trustworthiness; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data Management; Data Protection
}}

Theme:Fc328c98-9158-4a78-8ac5-2fd366b4896f

2021-10-22T13:15:46Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Responsible Research and Innovation - RRI
|Is About=Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) refers to engaging the public in the research process to better align the goals and outcomes of research with the needs of society and to address societal challenges.
|Important Because=Research and innovation are often funded by society and even if they are not, it is reasonable to expect that they have implications for society. This is why there is a movement aimed towards aligning research with societal needs and values and tackling societal challenges. There are several definitions of RRI. Von Schomberg defined it as “a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society)”<ref>Von Schomberg R. Prospects for Technology Assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In: Dusseldorp M, Beecroft R, ed. Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften; 2011. 50 p.</ref>. A broader definition is offered by Stilgoe et al., who refer to “taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present”<ref>Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy. 2013 Nov; 42(9):1570.</ref>. The UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council defined RRI as “a process that seeks to promote creativity and opportunities for science and innovation that are socially desirableand undertaken in the public interest”<ref>Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Framework for Responsible Innovation. Accessed June 3 2020. Available at: https://epsrc.ukri.org/research/framework/. </ref>. According to the European Commission, RRI “means that societal actors work together during the whole research and innovation process in order to better align both the process and its outcomes, with the values, needs and expectations of European society”<ref>European Commission. Responsible research & innovation. Accessed June 3 2020. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation</ref>.
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Research funding organisations; Policy makers; Civil society organisations; Industry
|Has Best Practice=The ‘Research; Increasing value, reducing waste’ project, led by The Lancet medical journal, provides an excellent example of an RRI approach. This project aims to address deficiencies in the medical research system that reduce the value of research and often result in significant financial loss caused by inadequate research agendas, flawed research designs, not publishing negative results, and poorly reporting findings.

In order to increase the value of research and reduce waste, the project adopted four RRI process requirements: diversity and inclusiveness, transparency and openness, anticipation and reflection, as well as responsiveness and adaptation to change. Inclusion of patients and medical caregivers in setting the right research agenda is recommended to increase diversity in the research process. The project proposes that research should be more transparent and open, and supports a full and public documentation of the research process. The project also highlights a need to discuss current practices that lead to wasted effort. Finally, a series of five papers published in The Lancet offers 17 recommendations that outline the changes that should be made to current structures and systems<ref>Kupper JFH, Klaassen P, Rijnen MCJA, Vermeulen S, Broerse JEW. A catalogue of good RRI practices, RRI Tools deliverable 1.4. Athena Institute VU; 2015. Accessed June 9 2020. Available at: https://www.rri-tools.eu/about-rri</ref>.

RRI is not just about better science from a scientist’s point of view; it is a continuous effort to talk to diverse societal actors and involve them in the research process, through meaningful conversations and contributions beyond “just” being a participant<ref>We Thinq. 41 Inspiring Examples of Social Innovation; 2017. Accessed June 9 2020. Available at: https://www.wethinq.com/en/blog/2014/02/18/32-Inspiring-Examples-of-Social-Innovation.html</ref>. Various activities for bringing more awareness to research processes, such as science cafés or open lab days, are just a part of the framework<ref>Artheau M, Catalão C, Famà P, Praça G, Khodzhaeva A, Laursen S, Martinelli L, Stijnen G, Troncoso A, Vaaher L, van der Meij M. Responsible Research and Innovation. A quick start guide for science engagement organisations. Accessed June 9 2020. Available at: https://www.ecsite.eu/sites/default/files/quick_start_guide_in_rri.pdf</ref>. Collaboration with small enterprises and social innovators, as well as citizen scientists, is also a crucial part of RRI. It involves the improvement of science and society through mutual sharing of expertise and experiences.
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Ec239bd6-d4db-48ab-bd6c-2f0d8cccf8ab;Resource:Afa63f10-4ff1-4bc6-98cf-95808f86376b
|Related To Theme=Theme:8f6d4690-d1b2-4b9a-ac68-84e41fdb6c74;Theme:34a864d0-43b3-48bc-aaa3-438dcc124c02;Theme:0bb5e4f7-9336-4ca8-92e3-c506413d1450
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=René Von Schomberg; Jack Stilgoe; Richard Owen; Phil Macnaghten; Frank Kupper; Ana Marušić
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Responsible research; Science Policy; Grant applications
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering
}}

Theme:95feed0e-497d-4718-9abf-c0a232dad33d

2021-10-22T13:15:04Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Plan S
|Is About=Plan S is an initiative for open-access publishing in science. It was set in motion by research organizations from 12 different European countries. The fundamental aim of Plan S is to mandate publicly funded research organizations and institutions to make their work freely available by publishing their manuscripts in open access journals and repositories.
|Important Because=Plan S is a major scientific publishing initiative. Given the speed of scientific advances and the demand for relevant and quality information, there is an increased demand for quick and universal access to the most up-to-date findings. However, public access to scientific publications is still extremely limited, and is usually reserved for those who subscribe to specific journals or repositories.<ref>Watson R, Hayter M. Time to plan for Plan S. Nurs Open. 2019;6(2):206-7.</ref> Many institutions, especially those in the developing world, cannot afford the subscription fees, which have been criticized for being disproportionately expensive.
<references />
|Important For=Everyone; Journal publishers; Funding institutions; Publishers
|Has Best Practice=The main principle of Plan S states that all research funded from public or private grants must be openly accessible when published. There are, in addition, ten sub-principals:

#Authors should have copyright of their publications, which should be made available under a Creative Commons Attribution license;
#Robust criteria for evaluation in high-quality open access journals, platforms and repositories should be developed;
#Funders should provide incentives to establish and support open access journals where there aren’t any;
#Funders should cover the cost of publication fees;
#Funders should support the diversity of business models for open access journals and platforms;
#Funders should ensure transparency by supporting alignment of strategies, policies and practices;
#Monographs and book chapters should have a longer process of achieving open access;
#Hybrid models of publishing should be only be a means of transforming to full open access;
#Funders should monitor compliance;
#Research outputs should be assessed on the basis of their internal value, and not their scientometric characteristics. <ref>Principles and Implementation | Plan S [Internet]. Coalition-s.org. 2019 [cited 27 November 2019]. Available from: https://www.coalition-s.org/addendum-to-the-coalition-s-guidance-on-the-implementation-of-plan-s/principles-and-implementation/</ref>

In September 2018, 11 national research funding organizations (from Austria, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom) signed a commitment to implement all that is necessary for the Plan S mission by 1st January 2020.
<references />
|Is Flagged=No
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:Bbf561cd-7369-4314-ac74-2c870373af9d

2021-10-22T13:14:32Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Open Science
|Is About=Open Science is the movement to make scientific research outputs accessible to all. Open science is sometimes described as a decentralised and collaborative process, <ref>Peters, M. A., & Roberts, P. (2015). ''Virtues of Openness: Education, Science, and Scholarship in the Digital Age''. Routledge, New York.</ref> and other times as a philosophical perspective that challenges secrecy and promotes the idea that sharing data and collaboration are inherently good, and in order to promote these, barriers to access research should be removed.<ref>Peters, M. A., & Roberts, P. (2015). ''Virtues of Openness: Education, Science, and Scholarship in the Digital Age''. Routledge, New York.</ref> The key pillars of Open Science include open access to publications, open and FAIR data, and open source code.<ref>Masuzzo, P., & Martens, L. (2017). ''Do you speak open science? Resources and tips to learn the language'' [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2689v1</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=The promise of openness brings to mind a commitment to transparency and opportunities for greater engagement. By removing barriers to access research, the identification of errors and malpractice is facilitated, and the democratisation of knowledge production fostered.<ref>Nerlich, B., Raman, S., Hartley, S., Smith, A. (2018) Introduction. In: B. Nerlich, S. Hartley, S. Raman, and A. Smith (eds), ''Introduction, in Science and the Politics of Openness: Here be monsters''. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 1-11.</ref> In the context of research integrity, open science is seen as an enabler of reproducibility because it allows wider evaluation and scrutiny of research results. Thus, also aligning itself closely with Mertonian ethos, especially, communism and organized skepticism.<ref>Bowman, N. D., & Keene, J. R. (2018). A Layered Framework for Considering Open Science Practices. ''Communication Research Reports'', ''35''(4), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273</ref>

Open access has also been subject to political review and discussion. For instance, beneficiaries of the European funding scheme called Horizon 2020, “must ensure open access (free of charge, online access for any user) to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to its results”. <ref name=":0">European Research Council (ERC). (2017). ''Guidelines on Implementation of Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data''. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/oa-pilot/h2020-hi-erc-oa-guide_en.pdf</ref>

It is clear that the first beneficiary of Open Science practices is, Science. If it’s true that the role of Science in society is to create knowledge, drive progress, and guarantee better human lives than it does not surprise that all of this can be achieved faster and more efficiently by following transparent, inclusive and participatory practices. Moreover, it has been shown that Open Science can help Early Career Researchers (ECRs) succeed,<ref name=":0" /> especially through the practice of preprints and open access publications (which promote visibility in the scientific community and therefore improve the chance to collect feedback and be cited<ref>McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., … Yarkoni, T. (2016). How open science helps researchers succeed. ''ELife'', ''5'', e16800. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800</ref>). Lastly, it has been shown that with access to scholarly articles, entrepreneurs and small businesses can accelerate innovation and discovery, which is advantageous for advancing the entrepreneurial state of society.<ref>Lonni Besançon. (2019). How can Open Science benefit your career? Retrieved October 20, 2019, from Open Science MOOC website: https://opensciencemooc.eu/community/2019/10/07/open-science-benefits/</ref>
<references />
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=When submitting the final, written output of their research, researchers can publish it in an Open Access Journal. The [https://doaj.org/ DOAJ] indexes more than 13k of open access, high quality and peer-reviewed journals. Given that only a small portion of these open access journals require payment of an Article Processing Charge (APC),<ref>Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, Chris. H. J. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review. ''F1000Research'', ''5'', 632. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3</ref> researchers can choose from a variety of journals. At the same time, researchers can post a preprint of their article to a preprint server (a list of preprint servers, organised by discipline is available [https://osf.io/preprints/ here]).

Research data can also be stored online in a research data repository. For an extensive list of repositories researchers can check [https://www.re3data.org/ Registry of Research Data Repositories] and [http://databib.org/ Databib]. [https://zenodo.org Zenodo] is among the well-known repositories that allows researchers to archive various digital artefacts such as data sets, research software, reports, posters.
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:06925397-5843-495d-a22d-3e983bdcb99e;Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c
}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:1664502b-b031-4218-9c3d-5e9fe273ff60

2021-10-22T13:13:48Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Governance of research integrity: Options for a coordinated approach in Europe
|Is About=Different options for a coordinated approach to research misconduct in Europe are outlined in a new report by the EMBO Science Policy Programme. The report, ‘Governance of research integrity: Options for a coordinated approach in Europe’ <ref>Bendiscioli & Garfinkel (2020) Governance of research integrity: Options for a coordinated approach in Europe. Accessed via: https://www.embo.org/documents/science_policy/governance_of_ri.pdf </ref>, includes an analysis of the current systems for the governance of research integrity in a number of countries, and identifies gaps that could be addressed with a more coordinated approach in Europe. It further explores the advantages and disadvantages of each role for such a body, as well as the pros and cons of different possible structures and funding sources. It also looks at the implementation of a possible European body by a number of European organizations already active in the area of research integrity. Other possible mechanisms to reach a more consistent approach to address misconduct are discussed in the report, including the coordination of procedures used by research performing organizations, funders and publishers. The policy project was supported by an international group of experts who provided input through interviews and in a workshop organised in partnership with the OECD Global Science Forum.
<references />
|Important Because=A number of national and institutional guidelines, frameworks and codes for research integrity have been developed in many European countries, and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity sets out common principles for those documents. But the handling of cases of research misconduct is mostly under the responsibility of research institutions, which vary in their capacity and willingness to do that. The main obstacles in the handling of research misconduct at the level of institutional committees are conflicts of interest, fear of reputational damage, lack of time due to the voluntary nature of the task, and lack of expertise. Investigation committees in national bodies have the advantage that they are more distant from local researchers, so the risk of conflicts of interest is lower. However, they exist only in a couple of countries. The effect is that not all misconduct is addressed, and the level of thoroughness and objectivity of investigations is inconsistent across Europe.
|Important For=Principal investigators; Researchers; Academic staff; Research institutions; Policy makers; Funders; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=The main options analysed are the establishment of permanent European bodies to support institutions in investigating, overviewing or advising on research misconduct investigations. A European body to carry out investigations on behalf of institutions would ensure that investigations are carried consistently, reduce the risk of conflicts of interest, allow expertise to develop, and professionalize the handling of cases. It would be particularly helpful for institutions that still do not have any structures or experience in handling research misconduct allegations. Some obstacles would have to be overcome for such a body to be effective. Institutions might be reluctant to expose internal problems for fear of damaging their reputation and losing their autonomy; national regulations might limit access to data; and some counties might not recognize its legitimacy.

A further option would be to set up an oversight body that would not conduct investigations but only review investigations carried out by institutions to make sure that they have followed appropriate procedures, previously agreed on internationally. This might motivate institutions to follow those procedures, and so it would bring more homogeneity in the handling of allegations across Europe. As well, an external check would help control and lower risks of conflict of interest. On the other hand, depending on its status, it might not be able to require an institution to redo a poorly conducted investigation, and if it did, this would require more resources for each investigation.

Another role that a European body could have is advisory. It could advise institutions on how to create structures and policies to prevent research misconduct and protect integrity, and it could even set up a database of experts to assist investigations committees. The main concern about such a body is that it might be appear redundant or in conflict with existing national advisory bodies.
|Is Flagged=No
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:6f515a18-ce5f-42b0-8741-27248f6435a0
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=EMBO
|Has Timepoint=2020
}}

Theme:6f515a18-ce5f-42b0-8741-27248f6435a0

2021-10-22T13:13:15Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Science policy
|Is About=Through the determination of funding and goals of the scientific community, science policy influences core aspects of all sciences. Science policy defines direction for research activities through investments both in people and equipment. Science policies are usually developed by governmental bodies and/or other stakeholders with any kind of interests in science (e.g., theoretical, practical, financial).<ref>Douglas HE. Science, policy and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburg Press, 2009. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wrc78.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Science policies address areas such as basic research, development of new technologies, and facilitation in bringing technologies to the market. They steer science into areas of importance and interest to society. Policies are determined by sets of values or priorities that policy makers have. In an ideal world policy makers should address the greatest needs of the community through the application of science policies, however the world of politics is far from an ideal one.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=Different types of scientific policy may be adopted. Sometimes investment in basic research is preferred. In these cases the expectation is that some kind of breakthrough will result in a vast array of new technologies which will then be commercialized and pay back the investments. Other times the focus may be on technology development, and more support for engineering than basic science. The most extreme examples of such science policies are the Manhattan project<ref>Goldwhite H. The Manhattan Project. J Fluorine Chem. 1986;33(1):139-132.</ref> and the Space projects pursued by the US and the Soviet Union in the second half of the 20th century.
<references />
|Has Reference=-
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:Fe62e07c-2e75-4a55-82e6-1908fa543b7a

2021-10-22T13:11:43Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Whistleblower protection/rights
|Is About=The strength of an institution’s whistleblower protection influences whether people actively report misconduct or decide to passively witness a potential integrity breach. Whistleblower protections also show a given institution’s commitment to scientific integrity
|Important Because=Whistleblower protection affects not only researchers (including undergraduate, postgraduate and PhD students), but regulatory bodies, university administrators, research technicians, resource suppliers, funding bodies, editors, research ethics committees, research integrity officers and any other individuals and groups that may be indirectly involved in conducting research.
|Important For=PhD Students; Scientists; Ethics committee members; Principal investigators; Researchers; Academic staff; Research institutions; Supervisors; Postdocs; Research performing organisations; Research funding organisations; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; General public; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=Whistleblower protections are an important element in an institution's ethics code, describing procedures to deal with allegations and violations of misconduct. There is general agreement within the scientific community that reporting misconduct is essential in the prevention and management of misconduct and that whistleblowers should be provided adequate safeguards. Whistleblower protections also support a culture of scientific integrity within an institution. However, policies on researchers’ duties to report and the consequent protections differ significantly by institution and country.

[https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] <ref>European Science Foundation, All European Academies. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. 2017.</ref>contains the following guidance in the section “Dealing with Violations and Allegations of Misconduct”:

"National or institutional guidelines differ as to how violations of good research practice or allegations of misconduct are handled in different countries. However, it always is in the interest of society and the research community that violations are handled in a consistent and transparent fashion. The following principles need to be incorporated into any investigation process.[…] Procedures are conducted confidentially in order to protect those involved in the investigation. Institutions protect the rights of ‘whistleblowers’ during investigations and ensure that their career prospects are not endangered."

In the UK it seems that universities develop a specific whistleblowing policy for different misbehaviours (grievance, bullying and harassment, discipline, research misconduct). As an example, we refer to the [https://le.ac.uk/~/media/uol/docs/about-us/policies/whistleblowing-policy-updated-may-2017.pdf document of the University of Leicester],<ref>University of Leicester, Whistleblowing Policy, June 2017. Please see [https://le.ac.uk/~/media/uol/docs/about-us/policies/whistleblowing-policy-updated-may-2017.pdf here]. Last accessed May 2019</ref> which guarantees confidentiality for whistleblowers:

"The University will treat disclosures of information made under this Policy in a confidential and sensitive manner. The identity of individuals making allegations may be kept confidential, if requested by the individual(s) concerned, so long as it does not hinder or frustrate any investigation. In this event, the University will consult the individual before it takes any further action which might break the initial confidentiality. It should be recognised, however, that the investigation process may, of necessity, reveal the source of the information and, as part of the investigation, an individual making a disclosure may need to provide a statement as part of the evidence required."

In the USA, whistleblowers have well established legal protection. The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 strengthened protection for federal employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse in government operations.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:9a3c7e5f-08d6-4de7-9acd-8304127300a3;Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research misconduct; Whistleblowers
}}

Theme:Cc85bbe7-b8ac-40ef-81a7-8e34b153233c

2021-10-22T13:11:10Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Research integrity officers in Europe
|Is About=A research integrity officer (RIO) serves a complex, exacting, and unique role within their institution. In one week, they may serve as judge, mediator, counselor, teacher, and regulations manager. They could have the Centers for Disease Control on the phone while a graduate student cries in their office. The RIO is one of the most intricate and unique positions in academia.
|Important Because=An institution’s RIO promotes responsible research, conducts research training, discourages research misconduct, and deals with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct.<ref>Geller, L.N. 2002. Exploring the Role of the Research Integrity Officer: Commentary on Seven Ways to Plagiarize: Handling Real Allegations of Research Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(4): 540-542</ref> Throughout a week, they may present training seminars about responsible research, update definitions of research standards, and investigate allegations of misconduct. Each particular task fulfils the RIOs mission to prevent and mitigate research misconduct. They work for the good of their institution and the whole scientific community.

The consequences of scientific misconduct are far-reaching. Perpetrators, whistle-blowers, other researchers in the field, the scientific community, and even the general public feel its effects. Perpetrators can have papers retracted, their faculty positions revoked, and their labs closed down. Whistle-blowers can end up with damaged careers. The general public can lose faith in the scientific community. Plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification are major threats to the practice of science. Without research integrity officers, this threat would loom much larger.

When a case of possible research misconduct appears, RIOs spring into action. They take an active role in the investigation by conducting interviews and inspecting data. They protect whistle-blowers from retaliation. They educate those involved about their rights. If needed, they link the institution to oversight agencies who continue to pursue investigations.
<references />
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Scientists; Principal investigators; Researchers; Supervisors; Postdocs; Universities; Research integrity trainers; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=The details of an RIO's job vary from country to country, but the position is mandatory in many.

In the United States, any institution that receives Public Health Service funding reports to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the Department of Health and Human Services. A RIO serves as the liaison between the ORI and their institution. By law, they ensure that the institution has policies and procedures for investigations and reports these to the ORI.<ref>Office of Research Integrity. Handbook for Institutional Research Integrity Officers. Office for Research Integrity Report. Accessed May 2019. Available at [https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/rio_handbook.pdf https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/defa…]</ref> They also contribute to investigations that lead to retractions, expulsions, and (sometimes) arrests.

In the European Union, each country has slightly different requirements and roles for their RIOs, but their task is essentially the same. The European Network of Research Integrity Officers serves as the expert agency in the EU, assisting RIOs with advice and guidance.

With the increasing pace of scientific publications, an RIO's job is more important than ever. They serve an essential role in the scientific community. They protect individual researchers from accidental missteps. They protect the public from poor, fraudulent, and fabricated science. They protect the whole scientific community by building public trust. An RIO serves on the front lines of scientific integrity. They're present to guide researchers and foster trust in institutions. RIOs exist to protect science and are a resource for researchers who need guidance or help with misconduct questions.
<references />
|Is Flagged=No
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:60bf1373-f7e1-4831-b3e9-cf6e60cc290f;Resource:F099b32a-f559-4988-b5c6-26275b35197a
|Related To Theme=Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:8f6d4690-d1b2-4b9a-ac68-84e41fdb6c74
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Funders’ responsibilities; Institutional responsibilities
}}

Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd

2021-10-22T13:10:32Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Research Integrity Committees
|Is About=Research integrity (RI) committees contribute to the responsible research conduct as the basis of research behavior, and play a role in dealing with cases of research misconduct and fostering research integrity among different research institutions.<ref>National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Research integrity committees usually serve as a base of knowledge for questions regarding research integrity and research misconduct. The importance of the RI committee lies in its responsibility in promoting research integrity, i.e. providing advice for researchers on how to adhere to the responsible conduct of research. This is usually done by guidelines, checklists and other documents in which good research practices are presented. Moreover, RI committees are responsible for dealing with cases of research misconduct and they should be notified if an alleged case of research misconduct has occurred. By performing these actions, RI committees contribute to better science and the prevention of research misconduct.
|Important For=phd students; Researchers; Research institutions; Supervisors; Postdocs; Universities; funders; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=The organizational structures of RI committees and their responsibilities regarding cases of research misconduct may vary. In some countries, RI committees (or commissions) are established at the national level, hence their responsibility is to handle cases of research misconduct, or serve as an advisory body, for all research institutions within state borders (e.g. National Commission for Research Integrity-Luxembourg, Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, Danish Committee on Research Misconduct (DCRM), Commission for Research Integrity-Austria, French Office for Scientific Integrity, Netherlands Board on Research Integrity). For example, the Danish law on research misconduct stipulates the responsibility of the DCRM to handle the cases of research misconduct, while each institution has a responsibility to process cases of questionable research practices.

Some RI committees are established as a part of research integrity organisations, providing training and other educational activities for researchers (e.g. the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity, the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity).

In some countries, dealing with cases of research misconduct is the responsibility of research institutions and institution-based committees as there is no national body to handle investigations and process cases of misconduct. An example of the latter is Sweden, where each research institution is responsible for conducting an investigation of research misconduct and to impose a sanction.

All these RI bodies, both at the national and institutional level, are doing important work in the field of research integrity promotion and guiding researchers with the principles of good scientific practices. There are numerous documents, issued by RI bodies and committees in the form of guidelines and checklist, as well as documents describing committees’ procedures when dealing with misconduct allegations. Some European examples are: Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity, FNR Research Integrity Guidelines, Guidelines for the Investigation of Misconduct (by the Irish National Forum), Roadmap for Scientific Integrity 2020 (OFIS), Integrity and responsibility in research practices (CNRS-CPU), Scientific integrity guideline(CNRS), TENK Guidelines.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:0bae8e4a-a4be-4f3f-89f2-65a3b8cc3395;Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434
|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Good stewardship
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research Integrity
}}

Theme:8f6d4690-d1b2-4b9a-ac68-84e41fdb6c74

2021-10-22T13:08:43Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Research Integrity Advisors
|Is About=Research integrity advisors have a significant role in promoting research integrity within their institutions. If you have any concerns regarding research integrity issues, or you simply need a piece of advice on research integrity, RI advisors will promptly answer all your question and clear up possible doubts.
|Important Because=Research integrity advisors (RIAs) are responsible for providing advice on matters related to research integrity. Whether you are in the early stage of your research career, or you are senior researcher, it is good to know there is someone who can answer you the questions related to research integrity and research misconduct. They usually do not have investigative roles, but they can definitely be a good stop for advice on how to proceed in a specific case.
|Important For=PhD students; Early career researchers; Junior researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Best Practice=Research integrity advisors are experienced researchers with in-depth knowledge of research integrity and research ethics. They are appointed by the university to serve the complex role of dealing with all sort of questions related to research integrity practices, procedures, and issues.

For example, in Australia, universities have established research integrity advisors’ teams to assist researchers and research students in conducting research with integrity and advise them on questions that may arise during the research process. If you are not sure who to talk with, the universities web pages contain lists of RIAs and guidance on when to approach to an advisor. <ref>Macquarie University. Research Integrity Advisors. Accessed May 24 2019. Available at: https://www.mq.edu.au/research/ethics-integrity-and-policies/research-integrity/research-integrity-advisors</ref> At Melbourne University, RIAs also have a responsibility to report alleged cases of research misconduct to authorized bodies. <ref>The University of Melbourne. Research Integrity Advisors (RIAs). Accessed May 24 2019. Available at: https://staff.unimelb.edu.au/research/ethics-integrity/research-integrity/contacts/research-integrity-advisors</ref>

In Europe, for example, in Denmark, some Danish research institutions (e.g., Aarhus University) have special advisors for supporting the good scientific practice. <ref>Melbourne University page on Advisers https://medarbejdere.au.dk/en/administration/researchandtalent/responsible-conduct-of-research/advisers/</ref> Moreover, LARI (Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity) provides research ethics consultations to researchers of all levels. While LARI advisors are not officially called RI advisors, they still have a similar role. <ref>LARi research ethics consultation. Accessed via https://lari.lu/lari-services/resethics-consultation/</ref>
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
|Related To Theme=Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab;Theme:Fe62e07c-2e75-4a55-82e6-1908fa543b7a;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Institutional responsibilities
}}

Theme:B3684f7e-d66f-4c61-ba16-799bc2192b15

2021-10-22T13:07:45Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Legal rights of accused scientists
|Is About=When scientists are accused of misconduct their legal rights may be encroached upon.
|Important Because=It is important that the principles of proportionality and due process are respected in investigations of misconduct. Otherwise this may lead to erroneous judgments of integrity commissions, or unfair punishments. Moreover, scientists, as citizens, have legal rights, and if these are not respected in self-regulatory investigations, then cases of alleged misconduct will increasingly be handled by the courts.
|Important For=Scientists; Principal investigators; Researchers; Supervisors; Universities; PhD students; Research funding organisations; Research performing organisations
|Has Best Practice=The [https://www.embassy.science/resources/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity European Code of Conduct] states that fairness and integrity are most important for procedures for investigating misconduct, principles to be followed are also stated.<ref>European Science Foundation, All European Academies. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. 2017.</ref>
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:E37e02ca-bbf3-4c6f-86a2-0cb939d3cc91;Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb
|Related To Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegations of misconduct; Research Misconduct Investigation
}}

Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267

2021-10-22T13:07:04Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Institutional policies and procedures for research misconduct
|Is About=When formal allegations of misconduct are made, institutions handling such allegations must follow certain procedures to ensure that legal and professional rights are not encroached upon.
|Important Because=The person who makes an allegation of misconduct may be penalized if he or she is not protected by the institutional investigation. Also, the accused has a right to due process, as false accusations can be made. That is why it is important that institutional procedures respect the rights both of the accuser and accused.
|Important For=Research Integrity Officers
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegations of misconduct; Fabrication; Falsification; Plagiarism
}}

Theme:9cc6d88e-a142-4741-834f-5d6aa7d06e3f

2021-10-22T13:05:51Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Research ethics committee members' skills
|Is About=In order to assess the ethical dimensions of research projects, members of research ethics committees (RECs) need expertise. But what skills constitute expertise? The European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity (ENERI) <ref>European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity. Available at: http://eneri.eu/. Accessed June 2019</ref> has identified crucial skills research ethics and research integrity experts should have. Four sets of skills can be distinguished: 1) hard skills, 2) soft skills, 3) process skills, and 4) emotional skills. While only some hard skills are necessary for conferring expert status to an individual, RECs benefit from memberships with diverse skill sets.
<references />
|Important Because=Nowadays, not only research projects on the biomedical sciences, but increasingly also research projects in various other disciplines, like psychology or education, require ethical review. For that reason, RECs will continue to play an important role in ethical research governance. Hence, an important question is which skills REC members should ideally have.

Conducting thorough ethical reviews of research projects not only presupposes sufficient disciplinary expertise to understand proposed research designs and methodologies, but also skills crucial for delivering practical recommendations that accord with prevalent social norms. Moreover, skills conducive to maintaining dialogical attitudes among all REC members certainly are beneficial as RECs modus operandi is deliberation. Consequently, systematizing these skills is helpful for setting up effective RECs and selecting members according to transparent criteria.
|Important For=Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees
|Has Best Practice=ENERI has recently published an insightful policy brief on what makes a research ethics and research integrity expert. Based on a participatory research design culminating in a series of consensus conferences with 50 stakeholders from various positions within or close to academia, ENERI has found the following skills to be particularly useful for REC members:

'''Hard skills'''

*comprehensive knowledge of relevant guidelines, regulations, and laws
*experience with ethical assessments or academic qualifications in relevant disciplines, like philosophy or law
*research experience
*legal expertise
*analytical skills
*the ability to think critically

'''Soft skills'''

*Communicative skills

*interpersonal skills
*attention to detail
*the ability to manage and resolve conflicts
*the ability to work collaboratively

'''Process skills'''

*administrative and management skills

*decision-making skills
*the ability to transform abstract theoretical ideas into practical recommendations

'''Emotional skills'''

*open mindedness

*independence
*awareness of social norms and the likely consequences of breaching them
*personal commitment

According to ENERI, RE experts individually inevitably need hard skills, but do not necessarily have to possess all soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills. However, all soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills should be present on the institutional level in RECs which, therefore, should have a diverse membership with complementary skills.

The role of the chair role is particularly crucial. The chair needs to have broad soft skills, process skills, and emotional skills to guarantee that all represented perspectives are included in assessment, review, and advice procedures. Hence, chairpersons need more skills than ordinary board members due to the pivotal position they occupy in organizing inclusive deliberations.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:B4f3369c-e0ac-4cf5-acd9-cb2a6c11181d
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethics
}}

Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108

2021-10-22T13:05:06Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Research ethics committees
|Is About=Research Ethics Committees (RECs) were developed after WW2, particularly in response to the Nazi doctors’ trials. An Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board is responsible for ensuring that medical experimentation and human research are carried out in an ethical manner. <ref>Yenikekaluva A. Research Ethics for Health Science Involving Human Experiments. Available at: http://itn-pace.eu/research-ethics-for-health-science-involving-human-experiments-by-abhijith-yenikekaluva/. Accessed 29 May, 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Research ethics committees have been created with two main goals. First is to protect the rights, safety, dignity and well-being of research participants; and second is to facilitate and promote ethical research that is of potential benefit to participants, science and society. <ref>Research Ethics Service (RES) - Health Research Authority. 2016. <nowiki>http://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-the-hra/our-committees/res/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.)</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Ethics committee members
|Has Best Practice=Several documents and declarations have been developed in relation to ethical research committees. The European Network of Research Ethics Committees - EUREC is a network that brings together existing national Research Ethics Committees, networks or comparable initiatives on the level of European Union. RECs can be established for each academic institution and/or universities. In the United States, Institutional Review boards (IRBs) exist in both academic and state institutions.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:9cc6d88e-a142-4741-834f-5d6aa7d06e3f
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Care; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethics
}}

Theme:21e71c8e-eddf-41f6-88fe-e2bb42823932

2021-10-22T12:58:31Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=ORI - The Office of Research Integrity
|Is About=ORI (The Office of Research Integrity) is an American based platform for all things related to research integrity. Located in the department of Health and Human Services, ORI directs the Public Health Service (PHS) activity on research integrity and affects research institutions both within and beyond federal government programs. The responsibilities of ORI play a critical role in developing and maintaining research integrity. In order to teach and promote research integrity and properly handle and reduce research misconduct, ORI develops policies for detecting and subsequently addressing research misconduct, as well as developing and implementing training programmes for good conduct of research.

Here you can check the latest news in research integrity, inform yourself and learn from cases of misconduct, explore training programs and conferences, and follow their latest grant allocations. ORI offers and annual report and a quarterly newsletter for those interested in how misconduct has been handled and research integrity has been promoted.
|Important For=General public; Media; Research performing organisations; researchers
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ORI; PHS
|Has Location=United States
}}

Theme:721dc5c7-8e47-41ca-a7b8-73d6a225c3c3

2021-10-22T12:54:57Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Networks and projects promoting research integrity
|Is About=Across the world networks and projects have been established to promote research integrity. These networks and projects aim to foster responsible research integrity practices.
|Important Because=Effective policymaking, built upon sound research, produces outcomes that benefit society, communities, groups and individuals. If research is flawed by lacking integrity and by being conducted unethically it should be of no use to policymakers. Fraud or corrupt practices by researchers can lead to serious damage to society and the physical environment. Reliable and transparent research, divorced from political ideology and undeclared vested interests, produces robust evidence that benefits social wellbeing and societal progress. Ethical values, principles and standards need to be embedded in the ‘culture’ of research and science policy must recognise that need and the most effective way to support it.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice='''Networks'''

*[https://allea.org/ ALLEA] (All European Academies)
*[https://amsterdamresearchclimate.nl/ ARCA] (Amsterdam Research Climate)
*[https://publicationethics.org/ COPE] (The Committee on Publication Ethics )
*[https://ease.org.uk/about-us/ EASE] (The European Association of Science Editors)
*[http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ ENAI] (European Network for Academic Integrity)
*[http://eneri.eu/ ENERI] (European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity)
*[http://www.enohe.net/ ENOHE] (European Network of Ombuds in Higher Education)
*[http://www.enrio.eu/ ENRIO] (European Network for Research Integrity Officers)
*[https://www.eosc-portal.eu/ EOSC] (European Open Science Cloud)
*[https://www.equator-network.org/ EQUATOR Network] (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research)
*[http://www.eurecnet.org/index.html EUREC] (European Network of Research Ethics Committees )
*[https://irafpa.org/en/ IRAFPA] (Institute of Research and Action on Fraud and Plagiarism in Academia)
*[https://lari.lu/ LARI] (the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity)
*[http://www.scienceeurope.org/policy/working-groups/research-integrity Science Europe]
*[https://www.wcrif.org/ WCRIF] (World Conference on Research Integrity Foundation)

'''Projects'''

*[http://entireconsortium.eu/ EnTIRE] (Mapping Normative Frameworks for EThics and Integrity of REsearch)
*[https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/ FOSTER] (Fostering the practical implementation of Open Science)
*[http://h2020integrity.eu/ INTEGRITY]
*[https://www.nrin.nl/about/inspire-project/ INSPIRE] (Inventory in the Netherlands of Stakeholders' Practices and Initiatives on Research Integrity to set an Example)
*[https://on-merrit.eu/ ON-MERRIT] (Observing and Negating Matthew Effects in Responsible Research & Innovation Transition)
*[https://www.openaire.eu/ OpenAIRE]
*[https://www.path2integrity.eu/ Path2Integrity]
*[https://printeger.eu/ Printeger] (Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research)
*[https://satoriproject.eu/ SATORI]
*[https://www.sops4ri.eu/ SOPs4RI] (Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity)
*[http://trust-project.eu/ TRUST]
*[http://virt2ueconsortium.eu/ VIRT2UE] (Virtue-based ethics and Integrity of Research: Train-the-Trainer program for Upholding the principles and practices of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity)
*The [https://prores-project.eu/ PRO-RES] Framework for Ethical Evidence
|Has Detail=The PRO-RES Framework is built upon a set of resources that both help to generate ethical research and assess its integrity. The resources are operationalised in a toolbox that includes several means for assessing ethical research. The final ‘pillar’ in the PRO-RES Framework is ‘The Accord’ – a statement of principles for ethical evidence-gathering that individuals, agencies and organisations can sign up to as an assurance of their best intentions when gathering and using evidence to inform policies.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:2cf6e05e-5a61-4896-bcb9-80de10ad21b8
|Related To Theme=Theme:3c6a13ad-6861-4a5f-bf5b-491693ee6b6d;Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:B4f3369c-e0ac-4cf5-acd9-cb2a6c11181d
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Respect; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research Integrity; Research ethics
}}

Theme:3b671eaf-b69d-40a7-825b-71babb4699fe

2021-10-22T12:54:08Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Teaching sensitive and controversial issues in divided societies
|Is About=Teaching sensitive and controversial issues in history education helps students to develop critical thinking, analytical skills and understand the world we live in better. Scholars agree that the question is not ''should'' we teach these issues but ''how'' should we teach them.<ref>Stradling R. Teaching 20th-century European History. Council of Europe; 2001.</ref> The Committee of Ministers<ref>Recommendation Rec(2001)15 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on history teaching in twenty-first-century Europe. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. 2001 Oct 31. [cited 2020 Nov 16]. Available from:

https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016805e2c31. </ref> and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe<ref>Recommendation 1880 (2009). History teaching in conflict and post-conflict areas. Parliamentary Assembly. 2006 June 26. [cited 2020 Nov 16]. Available from:

http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17765&lang=en</ref> also highlight the importance of teaching sensitive and controversial issues in history education.
<references />
|Important Because=The 20th century history contains a wide spectrum of controversial and sensitive issues such as treaty violations, military occupations, collaboration with occupying forces, civil wars, religious persecutions, colonialism, war crimes, deportations, ethnic cleansing and the Holocaust, among others.<ref name=":0">Stradling R. Teaching 20th-century European History. Council of Europe; 2001.</ref>

Sensitive topics are those that are connected to exceptionally painful and tragic historical times and events. Examples of sensitive issues are the Holocaust, racism, treatment of Roma/Gypsies and refugees. Teaching about these events can renew old wounds and bring back painful memories.<ref name=":0" />

Controversial issues regard disagreements about what happened, why it happened and how significant is the event. Sometimes these disagreements are present only at the academic level, when two or more historians interpret the same evidence in different ways. For example, some historians argue and debate over the war guilt of the outbreak of World War I.<ref>Boldt A. Study and Teaching of 20th century European history. A multidisciplinary approach and research methods. Saarbrücken: Scholar’s Press; 2015.</ref> Other times, however, these issues divide groups, societies, whole nations and neighboring countries with regard to what occurred, why it occurred, who started it, who was right, who provides the best argument and who has been most selective with the evidence.<ref name=":0" /> Teaching of such topics presents a great challenge particularly in societies that are divided ethnically, nationally or religiously,<ref>Kello K. Sensitive and controversial issues in the classroom: teaching history in a divided society. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice. 2016;22(1): 35-53.</ref> such as Northern Ireland and Cyprus or in some countries from former Yugoslavia. There is no European country without its controversial and sensitive issues.<ref name=":0" /> Controversial topics can be also sensitive because they are disturbing, they challenge peoples’ loyalties and provoke their prejudices.<ref name=":0" />
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Students; Research institutions; Educators; Policy makers
|Has Best Practice=In these situations, history teachers are mediators between different and sometimes conflicting collective memories.<ref name=":0">Kello K. Sensitive and controversial issues in the classroom: teaching history in a divided society. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice. 2016;22(1): 35-53.</ref> Teaching topics such as the civil war in Northern Ireland, where everyday life reminds its population about their divisions due to past and present conflicts is particularly difficult for history teachers who teach in that area.<ref name=":1">Barton KC, Mccully AW. History, identity, and the school curriculum in Northern Ireland: an empirical study of secondary students’ ideas and perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2005;37(1): 85-116.</ref> According to recent findings, many teachers feel uncertain and underprepared when teaching controversial and sensitive issues because of the fear of the emotional reaction in the classroom, perception of pressures from school, parents, local community or state or even because of their own beliefs and identities.<ref name=":2">Stradling R. Teaching 20th-century European History. Council of Europe; 2001.</ref><ref name=":0" /> <ref>Zembylas M, Kambani F. The Teaching of Controversial Issues During Elementary-Level History Instruction: Greek-Cypriot Teachers' Perceptions and Emotions. Theory and Research in Social Education. 2012;40(2):107-133.</ref>This is why some European universities offer courses on teaching controversial and sensitive issues in history education with aim of preparing future teachers for these challenges.<ref>Graduate study programme. History (double-major) Specialization: teacher education or research. University of Split Faculty of Humanities and Social science. December 2019. [cited 2020 Nov 16]. Available from:

http://inet1.ffst.hr/_download/repository/Graduate_programme_-_History.pdf.</ref>

Providing students with balanced academic approach of these issues<ref name=":1" /> is necessary to help them understand that almost every historical topic is open to different interpretations,<ref>Boldt A. Study and Teaching of 20th century European history. A multidisciplinary approach and research methods. Saarbrücken: Scholar’s Press; 2015.</ref> particularly when teaching these issues in societies with opposite narratives. That is an opportunity for a multi-perspective approach,<ref>Mccully A. History teaching, conflict and the legacy of the past. ECSJ. 2012; 7(2):145-159.</ref> but also for developing students’ ability to deal with controversial issues and debating with people who do not share their opinion.

Main strategies teachers can use when dealing with these issues in the classroom are:

-distancing strategy (when an issue is highly sensitive in the community where the teacher is teaching or when the class is polarized. This strategy proposes examining analogies and parallels or going back further in time to trail the history of the issue that is being discussed).

-compensatory strategy (when students are expressing attitudes based on ignorance, when the minority is being bullied or discriminated against by the majority or when there is consensus in the class in favor of one particular interpretation. In these cases, teachers can play the devil’s advocate, highlight contradictions in students’ responses or demythologize popular beliefs).

-empathetic strategy (when the issue involves a group or nation which is unpopular with the students, when the issue involves latent discrimination against some group or where the issue is distant from the students’ own lives. Teachers can use several methods, such as role reversals, for-and-against lists, role play and simulations and also vicarious experience through examining films, novels or documentaries).

-exploratory strategies (when the issue is not clearly defined or where the teacher’s aim is also to use the issue as a tool to develop analytical skills. In such conditions, students can explore people’s diaries and memoirs or conduct oral history).<ref name=":2" />
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:78ec9ad9-0db4-42a6-8fc3-6a336bc91980;Resource:6be36f1f-0070-486c-bce4-7bdfb2b9a1d4;Resource:9f9ff5c4-e65f-4a64-b5e2-d5ba0efca928;Resource:94e14f1c-bd41-469e-959a-8d1dfe101b7e;Resource:Cd117916-b86b-43cc-ab14-8616fe7f7a1b
|Related To Theme=Theme:F8127b19-a41a-4cfc-b829-7c72e91f578e
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Transparency; Accountability; Reliability; Fairness
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Vulnerable and non-competent subjects; Multi-perspectivity
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}

Theme:57e2312f-e267-4b93-b6aa-5ba654525ee9

2021-10-22T12:52:08Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Grading the quality of evidence in clinical practice guidelines
|Is About=Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to support the decision-making processes in patient care. A large number of guidelines are available both from medical associations and national health departments. The content of a CPG is based on a systematic review of clinical evidence - the main source for evidence-based care. Guidelines report the quality of the evidence used when they formulate the recommendations. For each recommendation in the guidelines, the level of evidence and strength of the recommendation are defined[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]. The quality of evidence has been defined as “reflecting the extent to which confidence in the estimate of an effect is adequate to support recommendations”[[#%20ftn2|[2]]]. The grading of the recommendations may vary across professional health agencies and scientific societies.

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group have developed the GRADE system, which is intended as a common, sensible and transparent approach to grading the quality of evidence for the use in clinical guidelines[[#%20ftn3|[3]]]. The GRADE approach has a wide dissemination, with endorsement from more than 50 organizations worldwide, including WHO and Cochrane.
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Cura Della Redazione A. La costruzione delle linee guida [Clinical practice guidelines: what they are and how are developed]. Assist Inferm Ric. 2014;33:214-8.

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck‐Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE: what is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336:995–8.

[[#%20ftnref3|[3]]] The GRADE working group [Internet]. GRADE [accessed 8 September, 2020]. Available online at: <nowiki>http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org</nowiki> 2013.
 
|Important Because=When clinicians apply or offer the treatment to their patients, they should be up to date with the most recent guidelines regarding the particular treatment. The recommendation in the guideline may arise from a well- conducted and large randomised controlled trial. In that case, clinician can provide the treatment while being aware of all the benefits and the risks. On the other hand, treatment recommendations may come from studies that are graded as evidence of lower quality. If so, the treatment should be applied bearing in mind possible undesirable effects or costs, so clinicians can help patients to decide according to their values and preferences. Since the recommendations in the guidelines affect patients' lives, guidelines and recommendations must therefore transparently indicate whether the evidence is one of high quality or there is an uncertain balance.
|Important For=Clinical researchers; Decision makers; research leaders
|Has Best Practice=Experts in their respective fields and organizations who are in charge of creating clinical practice guidelines should be aware of discrepancies that may arise if the grading system is not well defined. Ratings of quality of evidence should be transparent and based on detailed and clear criteria, so it can be used by clinicians and patients. However, it can't be expected of clinicians or patients to comprehend a variety of grading systems. A simple, transparent grading of the recommendation, such as the GRADE system, is an example of a good solution. It's the system that provides their users to assess the judgments behind recommendations regarding health care.
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:A612e3c5-4f31-470f-b5bf-3751923848e8

2021-10-22T12:50:23Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity
|Is About=The Hong Kong Principles (HKPs) are five principles which were developed during the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity and focus on fostering research integrity in the assessment, evaluation and reward system of researchers. The principles were developed by a group of research integrity experts and are meant to be used by research institutions and funding agencies. The five principles, their rationale and examples of implementation have been published as a [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737 journal article] in PLOS Biology.<ref>Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., ... & Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. ''PLoS biology'', ''18''(7), e3000737.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=The assessment of researchers is considered important for research integrity practices. However, the current research metrics, assessment and reward system includes perverse incentives .<ref>Edwards, Marc A., and Siddhartha Roy. "Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition." ''Environmental engineering science'' 34.1 (2017): 51-61.</ref> This incentivizes researchers to cut corners to receive positive assessments, for instance for grants and promotions. The HKPs address the issue by outlining concrete proposals to make the assessment more comprehensive and more balanced. The HKPs have the aim to acknowledge and reward responsible research practices that make research trustworthy. Implementation of the five principles will increase research integrity and remove perverse incentives.

'''<big>The five principles</big>'''

# Assess researchers on responsible practices from conception to delivery including the development of research ideas, research design, methodology, execution and effective dissemination.
# Value the accurate and transparent reporting of all research, regardless of the results.
# Value the practices of open science (open research) – such as open methods, materials and data.
# Value a broad range of research and scholarship, such as replication, innovation, translation, synthesis, and meta-research.
# Value a range of other contributions to responsible research and scholarly activity, such as peer review for grants and publications, mentoring, outreach, and knowledge exchange.

'''<big>Endorsement</big>'''

Research institutions, funders, journals, other research organizations and individual researchers can endorse the principles on the website of the WCRI foundation [https://wcrif.org/guidance/hong-kong-principles here.]
<references />
|Important For=Senior researchers; Funders; Research performing organisations; Reviewers; Research funding organisations; Professors; Junior researchers; PhD students
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:216fd809-8eca-4f5e-8cc7-c118b9bfb0cd;Resource:7782b6fb-6cb9-42b8-bc8b-406a63a51cb3;Resource:10e386f6-6881-4d88-bc72-e6391597029e;Resource:90c5a9cf-16c5-441c-b69e-4de6162ae0e2
|Related To Theme=Theme:0bd48e3b-3590-44ae-a21b-7cf2b425d6cb;Theme:1386bef0-81e2-4c3b-bb65-673d2baead1c
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=David Moher; Lex Bouter; Sabine Kleinert; Paul Glasziou; Mai Har Sham; Virginia Barbour; Anne-Marie Coriat; Nicole Foeger; Ulrich Dirnagl
|Has Timepoint=2020
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Reliability; Honesty; Transparency
}}

Theme:Ab776bfa-a5a2-46a6-9a07-40707dc54111

2021-10-22T12:49:48Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Reward campaign
|Is About=REWARD stands for REduce research Waste And Reward Diligence, and it is a campaign initiated by The Lancet in 2014. The aim of the campaign is to reduce waste and maximize value of research.
|Important Because=Research is an expensive endeavor in terms of finances, time, human, and other resources. Therefore, if the results of research do not serve those who would use it, it becomes waste. Research can be wasted in several ways. First, if the potential results of research will not be of benefit to anybody. Second, if the research design is flawed. Third, if the management and execution of research is inadequate. Fourth, if research information is inaccessible. Finally, if the benefit of the research published is undermined by not publishing or partially publishing research reports.
|Important For=Researchers; Decision makers; Funding institutions; Publishers
|Has Best Practice=To address the issues stated above, the REWARD campaign offers five set of recommendations. First, research priorities need to be selected. This means that prior to engaging in any experimentation or observation, a systematic review of literature should be done, funders should make their criteria for funding transparent, and research funders should develop sources of information about ongoing research.

Second, the REWARD campaign supports rigor in research design, conduct and analysis. This includes improving protocols and making them public, engaging professional staff and non-conflicted stakeholders, as well as rewarding quality and reproducibility of the research, rather than novelty.

Third, research waste can be reduced through research regulation and management. It emphasizes the important role and influence of research regulators who, along with policy makers, should collaborate with researchers, patients and health professionals. Their cooperation should simplify and coordinate laws and regulations that control or guide research. Furthermore, researchers should be able to improve the efficiency of their research using high quality designs that reduce inefficiencies of recruitment, retention, data monitoring, and data sharing. Finally, the integration of research findings in daily clinical practice should be promoted.

Fourth, all information on research methods and findings should be accessible. Academic institutions and funders should reward research that is publicly available and disseminated. REWARD recommends the standardization of protocols and data sharing, as well as the release of complete study reports. Finally, journals, funders, sponsors, research ethics committees, regulators and legislators should support and enforce study registration and availability of complete information regarding research.

Fifth, research reports should be complete and usable. With that aim, the REWARD campaign suggests that the focus of research regulations and rewards should be to encourage complete research reporting. To facilitate this, there is a need for good reporting infrastructure. Authors, editors and reviewers should be trained about reporting guidelines, publication ethics, and research integrity. Funders should support and monitor training.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:19ce25f6-6951-4ee1-8e6e-4ff42636999e
|Related To Theme=Theme:E14104ce-3608-4069-b297-f93b2d77b095;Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=John Ioannidis; Richard Horton; Paul Glasziou; Ian Chalmers
|Has Location=Europe
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Transparency; Accountability; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Responsible research; Reproducibility; Open access
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.08 - Health services, health care research; LS - Life Sciences
}}

Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab

2021-10-22T12:49:12Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Research integrity in practice: dealing with everyday dilemmas
|Is About=For some, an important aspect of research integrity (RI) training is to make clear links between educational material and the “real life” practices of researchers. Discussing dilemmas in practice can be a valuable method to reflect broadly on how to be ‘good’ researchers.
|Important Because=As researchers, we often face RI dilemmas. For example, a dilemma about the inclusion of an extra author in a publication. Most of the time, dilemmas are implicitly or explicitly related to relational aspects (e.g. collaboration with a supervisor or boss). Although guidelines and codes of conduct provide us with guidance on how to act, often we face difficult situations in which contrasting values are at stake. While developing RI training, it is important to reflect on researchers’ day-to-day dilemmas in addition to theoretical knowledge of RI issues (e.g. codes of conduct, best practices, and regulations). This, however, can be challenging. It entails building a bridge between theory and practice, and reflecting on how to act in situations of ethical uncertainty.
|Important For=phd students; Supervisors; Postdocs; Senior researchers; Junior researchers; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=The European Commission funded VIRT2UE project has designed a set of practical tools for recognizing and dealing with RI dilemmas in practice. One of these tools is the so called ‘Virtues, Values and Norms in Perspective’ exercise. In this exercise, inspired by a [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5236068/ virtue ethics approach to RI education], <ref>Pennock T. R., O'Rourke M. Developing a Scientific Virtue-Based Approach to Science Ethics Training. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017; 23(1): 243–262.</ref> participants are asked to reflect on a concrete dilemma experienced by one of the participants. By engaging in a dialogue, trainees are asked to put themselves in the shoes of the people involved in the case at stake and reflect on which values would be important for each of them. Then they are asked to reflect on which virtues are required to deal with the dilemma at stake: are they in conflict with each other? How are they related to salient norms? Which virtue is the most important in this situation? What is needed (concretely) to act in accordance with that virtue?

This exercise aims at fostering reflection in oneself by means of understanding the concepts of virtues/values and norms and their relationship with practice.

Another initiative is the [https://www.eur.nl/sites/corporate/files/24708_integriteitsspel_interactief_2016.pdf Rotterdam Dilemma Game], <ref>Dilemma game. Available at: [https://www.eur.nl/sites/corporate/files/24708_integriteitsspel_interactief_2016.pdf https://www.eur.nl/sites/corpo...]</ref> which focuses less on virtue ethics but nonetheless provides structure to discuss RI dilemmas.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:3344d7a4-7a86-4276-83a7-d5313971a8a9

2021-10-22T12:48:23Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Research Integrity lunch meetings
|Is About=The Research Integrity lunch meeting is a monthly meeting taking place at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, connecting researchers interested in research integrity from different projects. The format is a 1-hour interactive get-together, where work in progress and new ideas are presented. Everyone involved in a research integrity related project can sign up as a speaker.

These meetings are organized with the aim of raising awareness of diverse projects and providing a space for networking and sharing expertise, and for the cross-fertilization of ideas. The lunches are not for the presentation of already finished papers. In order to utilize the meetings to the fullest, one person with a related background prepares a brief reflection on the work presented, after which the other participants are invited to ask questions, give feedback, or come up with suggestions. Lunch is provided
|Important Because=It connects people from within the field of research integrity, since the backgrounds of researchers in this field are diverse and they will not meet each other in discipline specific conferences. Additionally, the field of research integrity is still young, and it’s important to connect and share ideas. Moreover, it provides the possibility to learn from each other and help one another.
|Important For=research integrity researchers
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:3c6a13ad-6861-4a5f-bf5b-491693ee6b6d
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; INSPIRE
|Has Location=The Netherlands; Amsterdam
}}

Theme:5894afe3-923e-4eef-9ad2-12f9ae990a4a

2021-10-22T12:47:38Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Research Integrity champions
|Is About=The role of the Research integrity champion is to offer an informal opportunity to discuss concerns staff and students have about research integrity, in order to reduce the barriers and doubts often associated with reporting and discussing integrity concerns. The champion is responsible for ''a diverse range of integrity related aspects, such as: the promotion of ''good research practice within the context of the relevant disciplines. But also the responsibility of ensuring that the principles and relevant standards are embedded in cross-University and local guidance, in training and procedures, and integrated into mentorship programmes. Moreover, the champions need to ensure that local advice is available to researchers (staff and students) who are unsure about a research conduct issue and may be considering whether to make an allegation of misconduct.
|Important Because=It is important that staff and students have the opportunity to discuss integrity related concerns in an accessible way. By making it easier to find and consult an advisor, institutions make an effort to decrease the barriers for people to discuss their worries or questions. This will benefit the research culture.
|Important For=Research performing organisations; Research institutions; Mentors
|Is Flagged=No
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
}}

Theme:D1477512-52a3-48a3-8ab6-72404cef4ab4

2021-10-22T12:46:59Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Research Integrity and Research Ethics Scenarios for Teaching
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

Each scenario is targeted at three broad groups:

#Researchers;
#Research ethics committees ('RECs') and research integrity offices ('RIOs');
#Research administrators.

Each scenario takes the form of a hypothetical narrative interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide deliberations concerning the issues raised by the narrative.

The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with The [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf '''European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity'''] ('ECCRI') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice. They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

According to the ECCRI, there are eight categories of research ‘contexts’ that are covered by the standards of good research practice. In order to ensure that the set is comprehensive, members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed one scenario for each of the ECCRI's research contexts:

'''1) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead Research Environment]'''

'''2) [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6 Training, Supervision and Mentoring]'''

'''3) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a Research Procedures]'''

'''4) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4 Safeguards]'''

'''5) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674 Data Practices and Management]'''

'''6) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70 Collaborative Working]'''

'''7) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3 Publication and Dissemination]'''

'''8) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183 Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing]'''
|Important Because=The scenarios are ''educational'' in three ways:

#In terms of their content, the scenarios develop upon and extend educational resources in research ethics and research integrity in order to allow users to gain knowledge of, and reflectively apply, [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice;
#In terms of their structure, they take the form of a hypothetical narrative interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide user deliberations concerning the issues raised by the narrative;
#Users have the opportunity to employ the scenarios as learning instruments in a classroom setting.

The scenarios ''stimulate thinking'' by providing questions concerning the good and bad aspects of the research practices invoked by the hypothetical narratives. It is envisaged that the type of reflection employed will be ''strategic'' because, in order to answer the questions and thereby gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices, the user is required to understand and apply the content of the ECCRI to different research activities and contexts in combination with their local regulatory documents pertaining to research integrity and research ethics.
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Early career researchers; Editors; Ethics committee members; Industry; Journal editors; Journals; Junior researchers; Master students; Mentors; Peer reviewers; PhD Students; Postdocs; Principal investigators; Professors; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Research institutions; Research integrity trainers; Researchers; Senior researchers; Students; Supervisors; Universities
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Anonymization; Authorship; Bias; Beneficence; Citing; Collaborative research; Communication; Complaints procedure; Confidentiality; Conflict of Interest; Consent; Copyright; Data Management; Data Protection; Data sharing; Experimental design; Fabrication; Falsification; Good Practice; HARKing; Harm; Institutional Responsibilities; International collaboration; Journal Retractions; Mentoring; Methodology; Misconduct Investigations; Monitoring research; P-Hacking; P-value Hacking; Peer Review; Plagiarism; Pre-registrations; Privacy; Publication Ethics; Questionable research practice; REC approval; Research Environments; Research Integrity; Research Misconduct; Research culture; Research ethics; Respect; Responsibility; Retraction; Responsible research; Reusing Published Data; Reusing Published Material; Safeguards; Safety; Scientific Misdonduct; Scope of University's Complaints Procedure; Selection bias; Supervision; Training; Vulnerable and non-competent subjects; Vulnerable population; Whistleblowers; Whistleblowing
}}

Theme:20f32f16-72a1-46f0-b9a6-24fac05b0937

2021-10-22T12:36:58Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Image Integrity
|Is About=Digital image manipulation is very easy. You might be tempted to make an image more convincing, but simultaneously, no researcher with integrity wants to misrepresent their data. Image manipulation can be classified as scientific misconduct. It can be hard to find the ethical lines of what is and what is not allowed. Also, some images might look suspicious to you as a reviewer or journal editor. Luckily, comprehensive guidelines and tools exist.
|Important Because=Images often serve as primary data (e.g. cell biology). In other instances, they are key in making an article attractive to read or serve comprehensive purposes. Accordingly, images are often included in article abstracts. The information they carry is thus a vital part of research and should remain identical to what is observed in the experiment.<ref>Mike Rossner, Kenneth M. Yamada; What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation . J Cell Biol 5 July 2004; 166 (1): 11–15. doi: <nowiki>https://doi-org.vu-nl.idm.oclc.org/10.1083/jcb.200406019</nowiki></ref>

 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; students; Supervisors; Journal editors; Reviewers
|Has Best Practice=The Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) has a dedicated webpage on image integrity. They identified some of the most important sources and tools on the subject (available [https://www.kuleuven.be/english/research/integrity/practices/image-processing here], accessed on 24-04-2020). As their page is brief, a more elaborate description of what it contains, and additional sources, follows below.

Rossner & Yamada (2004)<ref name=":0">Mike Rossner, Kenneth M. Yamada; What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation . J Cell Biol 5 July 2004; 166 (1): 11–15. doi: <nowiki>https://doi-org.vu-nl.idm.oclc.org/10.1083/jcb.200406019</nowiki></ref> wrote a prominent article arguing for a standard for image integrity. Working as Editors for The Journals of Cell Biology, they noticed the discrepancies between guidelines on image integrity journals gave to their authors (if any). To have a comprehensive overview, they developed their own guidelines for the Journal of Cell biology. They write that, for every aspect of the guideline, the main question is: “Is the image that results from this adjustment still an accurate representation of the original data?”<ref name=":0" /> (p. 5). Whenever the answer is ‘no’, researchers should provide a detailed description of the adjustments, its purpose and the original image on request. If not, their actions might be regarded as misconduct.

A step-by-step translation of the guideline is available on the website of American Journal Experts (access [https://www.aje.com/en/arc/avoiding-image-fraud-7-rules-editing-images/, here], accessed on 24-04-2020) and on the KU Leuven webpage. A similar guideline, and additional editorials on the subject, are given by the journal Nature on their editorial policies page (available [https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/image-integrity here], accessed on 24-04-2020).

The Center for Ethics and Values in the Sciences, of the University of Alabama in Birmingham, created a website for both students and researchers with much material regarding image integrity (available [https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/RIandImages/default.html here], accessed on 24-04-2020). They provide guidelines with more in depth explanations and illustration videos, but also educational material such as case studies, discussion hand outs and a quiz.

The Office of Research Integrity provides a tutorial on how to use ‘action sets’ in photoshop (available [https://ori.hhs.gov/actions here], accessed on 24-04-2020). These actions sets allow you to document the changes you make to an image and ‘slide’ (i.e. going back and forward) between all the steps you made. The process of the image you manipulated will hereby be completely transparent if you provide the ‘action set’ combine with a copy of the original image.

For those reviewing papers, a free open source program, called InspectJ, is available on GitHub to identify cloning, stitching, patching and erased objects within an image. An advanced version also provides histogram equalization and gamma correction for improved image inspections (both available [https://github.com/ZMBH-Imaging-Facility/InspectJ here], accessed on 24-04-2020)
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Ae1b3645-f7f2-4c55-a09d-c24935fd73db
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability
}}

Theme:9ce65544-f86a-4ee4-a4e7-f9bd7fec4f1c

2021-10-22T12:35:29Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Connecting researchers through ORCID
|Is About=The ORCID acronym stands for Open Researcher and Contributor Identification. An ORCID identifier helps to connect individual researchers with their work. ORCID is a non-profit organization established and introduced in 2009 in the US. As well as individual researchers, the ORCID community includes universities, laboratories, research companies, funders, publishers, repositories and professional societies.<ref>Distinguish yourself in three easy steps. ORCID website. Available at: https://orcid.org/. </ref>.
<references />
|Important Because=As a researcher, it is essential to distinguish your work from that of others, not just because publications are valuable for your career, but also because each contribution should be recognized appropriately, fairly and transparently. This is important as sometimes it can be quite challenging to identify authors’ contributions due to long authorship lists, inconsistencies in authorship credit practices, name ambiguities or because a surname has changed.<ref>Granshaw IS. Research Identifiers: ORCID, DOI, and the issue with Wang and Smith. The Photogrammetric Record. 2019; 34(167):236-243.</ref> An ORCID identifier is a great way to make sure your contribution as an author is recognized and linked to your research profile. In addition, an ORCID identifier can be used to connect researchers with their data sets.<ref>Credit where credit is due. Nature. 2009; 462(7275):825. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/462825a#citeas</ref>
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Researchers; Research institutions; Funders; Publishers
|Has Best Practice=In 2012, ORCID launched their Registry as a result of which researchers could be assigned unique identifiers, a 16-character code compiled of numbers 0-9, and thus distinguish themselves from other researchers. In 2019, there are more than 7 million ORCID accounts<ref>ORCID Statistics. ORCID website. Available at: https://orcid.org/statistics</ref> registered to individual researchers, universities, scientific publishers and commercial companies. <ref>ORCID sponsors. ORCID website. Available at: https://orcid.org/about/community/sponsors.</ref> Increasingly, funding organisations are requiring that their applicants provide their ORCID identifier.
<references />
|Is Flagged=No
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:63f356f9-aa1d-4405-9f1d-c27ec593df7b

2021-10-22T12:34:29Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=A National Survey on Research Integrity
|Is About=The online [https://www.nsri2020.nl/ National Survey on Research Integrity] (NSRI) is a project focusing on the variability in research integrity in practice of researchers in the Netherlands. News about researchers faking results, cutting corners and having to retract their works often reach the media. What motivates researchers? Are truth, ambition, fame or other ideals important drivers? Do such goals collide and result in questionable research questions? The NSRI will shed light on these questions. The questionnaire will target a large sample of over 30,000 researchers in the Netherlands from several universities and university medical centres. Completing the questionnaire takes 15 minutes and it aims to include a broad range of disciplines, from humanities to particle physics.
|Important Because=Many researchers work in environments that stimulate responsible behavior. However, scholarly environments are also complex and full of competition. Competition can stimulate people to work hard, but may also have downsides. What are optimal research environments? What working conditions are detrimental to good research practices? Fostering responsible research and preventing questionable practices is important. However, the causes behind the variability in engagement in responsible and questionable practices are largely unknown. Once known, strategies to enhance responsible research practices while reducing questionable practices can be developed and evaluated. The NSRI attempts to play an important role in solving this puzzle.

'''How will the privacy of participants joining the NSRI be guaranteed?'''

Given the sensitivity of the topic, NSRI pays very close attention to fully ensuring the protection of the identity of the participants and their research institutions. Our privacy protection measures include:

#No personal identifying data except disciplinary field and academic rank (PhD, A/Prof, Full Prof) is asked in the survey
#The use of the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvcaziHteAI&feature=emb_logo Randomized Response] (RR) technique for the two most sensitive questions. RR which has been proven in research on doping and social security fraud to reduce the effect of social desirability and thereby elicit a greater sense of trust with respondents. It does so by creating a probabilistic rather than direct association between the answers of respondents and the sensitive question (see also [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124104268664 Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research- Thirty-Five Years of Validation. Sociological Methods & Research 2005; 33 (3): 319-348)]
#All data will be collected by a trusted third party, [https://www.kantar.com/public/ Kantar Public] so the research team never directly receives any personal data.
#IP addresses are not collected. The research team only receives anonymized data by disciplinary field and academic rank.

Because of these measures, no data can be analysed or published that can be traced to individual participants or specific research institutions.

What makes the NSRI unique?

The National Survey of Research Integrity (NSRI) is unique in a number of ways:

#It aims to provide valid disciplinary field-specific estimates on the occurrence of Responsible Research Practices (RRPs) and Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) across the biomedical sciences, the humanities, natural science and engineering, and the social and behavioral sciences.
#It targets the entire population of academic researchers in The Netherlands, the largest sample ever studied in research integrity to date.
#The survey will employ a technique known as the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvcaziHteAI&feature=emb_logo Randomized Response] (RR) which has shown to elicit more honest answers around sensitive topics.
#It will examine a broad range of factors that may impact on scholars engagement in Responsible Research Practices (RRPs) and Questionable Research Practices (QRPs).
|Important For=PhD students; Postdocs; Senior researchers; Early career researchers; Universities
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=NSRI
|Has Timepoint=2020
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Transparency; Scrupulousness; Independence; Responsibility
}}

Theme:A12b4bab-b331-46d1-93e0-dc9e9c5453cd

2021-10-22T12:33:47Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title="Met de billen bloot" (airing your dirty laundry)
|Is About=“''Everybody makes mistakes, even senior researchers, even after twenty years of experience… that makes you realize that we all make mistakes. It’s about how you act when they happen that counts.''” [1]

This initiative concerns an activity that stimulates an open research culture in which research integrity issues can be discussed. The way in which this initiative tries to foster research integrity is through having face-to-face sessions about research integrity in which senior-researchers first share a personal case of ‘sloppy science’ or a research integrity dilemma. By starting with senior-researchers, the session stimulates junior- or other researchers to talk more openly about their obstacles during research projects. Whereas the session mainly aims to foster research integrity, it also stimulates trust in researchers and research so that an open environment and good communication among the researchers is fostered.

[1] ''This text is based on an interview with Mark Dubbelman, PhD student at the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam and current member of the quality committee.''
|Important For=Researchers; department leaders; Research performing organisations; Research institutions; PhD Students; Postdocs; Professors
|Has Best Practice='''How it works''' The session takes place annually in Alzheimer Center Amsterdam. All researchers are obliged to attend. Some preparation from the senior researchers in advance of the session is expected: they are asked to share an example of ‘sloppy science’ or a research integrity dilemma drawn from their personal experience. The session starts with a short introduction and is opened by the head of research. Senior researchers share their stories first, to show that issues happen to everybody, and it’s okay to talk about it. This is key to create an environment where it feels safe to speak about issues. Hearing about the issues and mistakes from the seniors stimulates junior researchers to talk more openly about the obstacles they have encountered in their research projects. The goal is not to discuss all issues during these particular sessions, but rather to keep researchers from feeling afraid or embarrassed to discuss issues during everyday research practice all year round. The session ends with educating the junior researchers about who they can talk to during the year if issues arise, as well as sharing the contact info of the hospital ombudsman.

'''Evaluation''' Whereas there has not yet been an empirical evaluation of the initiative, so far, the responses from researchers are very positive. The experience is that issues within the center are discussed timely. Researchers tend to speak first to people in their close working environment, whom they trust. Since the ‘Billen Bloot’ meetings are embedded in weekly scientific sessions, are costless, take place in the center itself and are mandatory to attend, the feasibility of the ‘Billen Bloot’ sessions is very high. This feasibility allows for a smooth implementation and therefore, it makes it a very attractive initiative.

The success of the formula in Alzheimer Center Amsterdam can partly be explained by the already open environment. It is possible that if this initiative is implemented in a less open work environment, it may be harder to make it a success.

'''What’s next?''' The ‘Billen Bloot’ sessions were initiated within the scope of the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam. However, in the last two years the initiative has been copied by other departments and institutions. Finally, researchers of Alzheimer Center Amsterdam have given presentations on the initiative to share the idea with others.
|Has Detail='''Juniors only''' In 2018, the session was extended with a second meeting where only junior researchers attend. In this session they have the opportunity to discuss issues that they did not feel comfortable to discuss with the seniors present and/or issues related to supervisors.

'''Organizing members''' The ‘Billen Bloot’ sessions are organized by and for researchers from Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, which is also where the initiative was conceived by prof. dr. Van der Flier (head of research), in 2015. The ‘Billen Bloot’ sessions are organized by the research quality committee of the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam and receives no support from external parties.
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Alzheimer Center Amsterdam; Astrid Hooghiemstra; Mark Dubbelman; INSPIRE
|Has Location=Amsterdam; The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Transparency
}}

Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b

2021-10-22T12:32:54Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Initiatives promoting research integrity
|Is About=An increasing focus on Research integrity (RI) has provided the impetus for numerous initiatives aimed at fostering good research practice and building public trust in science. These initiatives take various forms, such as codes, guidelines, recommendations, training sessions and workshops. <ref>Marusic A, Wager E, Utrobicic A, Rothstein HR, Sambunjak D. Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016(4);MR000038.</ref> Developed by various institutions and groups, including research performing and research funding institutions, as well as journals and governmental bodies, initiatives to promote RI help researchers to become aware of, and to adhere to, good scientific practices.
<references />
|Important Because=Initiatives for the promotion of research integrity have a number of aims. First, to help train and educate young researchers and students in how to adhere to ethical research practices so that they can contribute to an honest and open research culture. But initiatives are not only focused on young researchers, they are also valuable for senior researchers when it comes to supervising or teaching research integrity. Initiatives help researchers recognize bad research practices, but they also help institutions in guidance when dealing with cases of misconduct. Their impact and development are not limited to research performing organizations only. Some journals and funders have recognized the importance of building a research integrity culture and starting initiatives for research integrity promotion. <ref>Steneck NH. Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Sci Eng Ethics. 2006;12(1):53-74.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=In the United States, the Office for Research Integrity (ORI) is developing policies, procedures, and regulations related to the responsible conduct of research and research misconduct. Moreover, ORI develops activities and programs aimed to promote research integrity and foster good research practices.

In Europe, the [https://lari.lu/ Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity] and [https://oeawi.at/en/ Austrian Agency for Research Integrity] are good examples of institutions providing all kind of resources for the promotion of research integrity. These organizations have developed guidelines and recommendations that are implemented by research institutions in their countries. Moreover, they offer training and workshops for researchers in different stages of their career and deal with cases of research misconduct.
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:11ec8d68-7372-4dc9-936c-43f263aacdc2;Resource:91c45880-ddbe-4c96-a95d-6f140b463b96;Resource:60bf1373-f7e1-4831-b3e9-cf6e60cc290f
|Related To Theme=Theme:3c6a13ad-6861-4a5f-bf5b-491693ee6b6d;Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1;Theme:8c79e235-8481-45ea-bb57-c744dedbbb8a;Theme:721dc5c7-8e47-41ca-a7b8-73d6a225c3c3
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering; LS - Life Sciences
}}

Theme:6b33725e-f7fa-4796-a4ac-acf19ca43ae6

2021-10-22T12:26:50Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:8c6bf00a-d760-47d8-9aa1-5f48c14ce3f5
|Title=The learning curve - theatre play #MeTooAcademia
|Is About=Developed from scenarios originally performed as #MeTooAcademia for the Dutch Network of Women Professors (LNVH), ‘The learning curve’ is a theatre play about sexual intimidation and abuse of power in the university context. It’s both humorous and bleak, and is written to be followed by a discussion led by a moderator. Different academic stakeholders and the audience can discuss what you can do if you find yourself, your colleagues or members of your team in such situations.
|Important Because=Many of us think academia will provide a safe, sensible and intellectual environment in which #MeToo behaviour is absent. Unfortunately, it sometimes isn’t. Although the play is fictitious, it is based on interviews, some of which were confidential. The purpose of the play is to create awareness of harassment in academia – which tends to impact young researchers or support staff in particular – while also exploring individual and institutional ways to address these issues and create a safe working environment.
|Important For=Research institutions; Research performing organisations
|Is Flagged=No
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ff9344f4-a4ca-4139-9bd7-076612f70e21;Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Het Acteursgenootschap; De Jonge Akademie; INSPIRE
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Bullying; Mentor/trainee relationship; Power abuse; Sexual harassment
}}

Theme:B96ef996-e262-4c0c-a62c-1ea1ef034f36

2021-10-22T12:26:24Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:8c6bf00a-d760-47d8-9aa1-5f48c14ce3f5
|Title=The Dilemma Game
|Is About=The Rotterdam dilemma game is an engaging tool for raising awareness of research integrity and professionalism among researchers in different stages of their careers. It was developed as an initiative of the Erasmus University Rotterdam Taskforce on Scientific Integrity. The game presents various cases involving moral conflicts encountered in research practice and players have to vote on the course of action they would take. The game can help to initiate discussions about research integrity and research culture. The Dilemma game can be played as a card game or be downloaded as a mobile app (see below). The game has been widely used for training purposes in research integrity in a variety of organizations.

 
|Important Because=Being a researcher, sooner or later in your career you may be faced with situations that may cause moral distress. The best way to meet these challenges is to be educated on research integrity and research ethics. As an interactive tool and addition to education, the Rotterdam dilemma game can be used as an exercise for considering and dealing with different research integrity issues. The game includes various themes, e.g. authorship, publications, mentoring Ph.D. students, data processing and data analysis. Whether you are a senior researcher or a Ph.D. student, the dilemma game can help you to reflect on moral issues in research.<ref>Erasmus Research Institute of Management. Dilemma Game. Accessed May 24 2019. Available at: https://www.erim.eur.nl/research-integrity/scientific-integrity/training-and-education/dilemma-game/</ref> By presenting various dilemma scenarios (+75 of them), the “players” engage in discussions which enable them to choose and defend their position in different situations. Through its design, it aims to trigger the reconsideration of opinions and possible actions.

 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers; Teachers; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=The Taskforce Scientific Integrity from the Erasmus University Rotterdam has made a number of recommendations for use of the game in their institution. One of the recommendations is that the game is used as a part of PhD training, as well as a faculty training session on research integrity.<ref>Erasmus University Rotterdam Taskforce Scientific Integrity. Fostering professionalism and integrity in research. 2013. Accessed May 24 2019. Available at: https://www.eur.nl/sites/corporate/files/Taskforce_Scientific_Integrity_EUR.pdf</ref> The dilemma game has also proved useful beyond its home institution, for example it is used as an exercise in [https://www.ucl.ac.uk/research/integrity/training-accordion/integrity-seminars research integrity seminars] provided by University College London and the PRINTEGER project has listed the dilemma game as one of the [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ learning modules] on their platform. As an interactive and educational exercise, the dilemma game is used in training sessions for research integrity trainers by the Horizon 2020 VIRT2UE project.

'''Dilemma game app'''

The developers have been adapting the card game into an app, in order to make the dilemmas not only more accessible, but also more relevant to a rapidly changing research environment and available for different purposes. With this app, researchers and teachers can use it individually, in a classroom game-mode and in a lecture mode, by connecting in a group. Moreover, users are now more regularly confronted with integrity dilemmas through notifications, with new dilemma’s added each month and the invitation to share own research integrity dilemma’s. This app is a great example of an inspiring initiative, since it serves different objectives: it is a usable tool for training purposes, creates ongoing awareness and supports research culture by facilitating discussion.

The dilemma game can be downloaded as an application on [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=nl.eur.dilemmagame&gl=NL Android devices] and [https://apps.apple.com/nl/app/dilemma-game/id1494087665 iOS]. The app has three modes: individual, group and lecture mode, allowing users to interact with the dilemma's in a variety of ways.
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:313feb13-82bc-4489-be7a-387d3415c427
|Related To Theme=Theme:3c6a13ad-6861-4a5f-bf5b-491693ee6b6d
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
|Has Timepoint=2020
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Accuracy; Dignity; Honesty; Objectivity; Reliability; Respect; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethical Dilemma; Integrity; Good Practice; Mentoring; Misconduct; Moral reasoning; Power abuse; Professional standards; Research Integrity
}}

Theme:Ff9344f4-a4ca-4139-9bd7-076612f70e21

2021-10-22T12:25:28Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:8c6bf00a-d760-47d8-9aa1-5f48c14ce3f5
|Title=The ConScience App - theatre play
|Is About=‘The ConScience App’ is a theatre piece by Het Acteursgenootschap, designed to move the debate on scientific integrity from headline scandals to the daily practice of researchers. The play sheds light on challenging scenarios in a lighthearted manner, with the aim of starting discussions amongst colleagues around common research integrity and culture dilemmas and experiences.

The ConScience App was developed based on ideas from members of [https://www.dejongeakademie.nl/en?set_language=en The Young Academy] of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and supported in part by a grant from the Dutch government. It has been performed at the opening session to the 5th World Conference on Research Integrity in Amsterdam in 2017 and at various venues, including universities, research institutes, and conferences in the Netherlands, France, and Norway.
|Important Because=This play handles different themes related to research culture and research integrity. For instance, what is the policy on mentioning co-authors? Or on assessing the work of your competitors? How do individuals balance mentoring others and maintaining the quality of research? What is the influence of the duty to publish on the quality of your research? Therefore, the performance is typically followed by 30-60 minutes of discussion around themes raised in the script, with an instruction manual to facilitate discussions.
|Important For=Research performing organisations; Research institutions
|Is Flagged=No
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Het Acteursgenootschap; De Jonge Akademie; INSPIRE
|Has Location=The Netherlands
}}

Theme:3a32df5c-e6e8-45f9-8132-434db3985a65

2021-10-22T12:24:40Z

0000-0003-3048-2023:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:8c6bf00a-d760-47d8-9aa1-5f48c14ce3f5
|Title=Peer review card game
|Is About=The peer review card exchange game was developed by researchers from the University of Split School of Medicine as a hands-on training session for a summer school on peer review. <ref>Peer review card exchange game, available at: http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/a-peer-review-card-exchange-game/</ref> It is an educational tool designed to inform young researchers about integrity in peer review. The game is free to use, and available [http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/a-peer-review-card-exchange-game/ here].
<references />
|Important Because=Peer review is an important part of scientific process, because it identifies both quality and possible flaws in submitted research, and offers room for improvement. However, the peer review process is not perfect, and is susceptible to a number of conflicts, dilemmas and insecurities. <ref>Hames I. Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century. Science Editing. 2014;1(1):4-8</ref><ref>Csiszar A. Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature. 2016;532(7599):306-8. Epub 2016/04/26.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Students; phd students; Supervisors; Postdocs; Reviewers
|Has Best Practice=The use of card exchange games is an approach used in teaching the philosophy of science. It was developed by Bergquist and Phillips in 1975 and later popularized by Cobern. <ref>Cobern WW. Introducing teachers to the philosophy of science: The card exchange. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 1991;2(2):45-6.</ref> The idea of card games is to foster dialogue between participants about statements written on cards, and such games have been effective in improving students’ knowledge.

In the peer review card exchange game, six different domains of peer review are explored by different statements written on cards. Participants can agree or disagree with the statements, but they are asked to discuss them and reach a consensus as a group. The explored domains are: responsiveness, competence, impartiality, confidentiality, constructive criticism and responsibility to science. Participants have to find which cards they all agree on. After that, they participate in a moderated discussion.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:0222fd27-0a12-4cac-a6ac-6cc37879f72c;Resource:6c0d6e13-17cb-4e94-b66b-510da74c700e;Resource:E3a1be4e-2ff9-4b7f-b44c-abd409fe225a;Resource:A2fda758-06fa-47d9-9fdd-7f12fe36e8ee
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ba949c86-a4cc-4231-996d-7bf601d9cfa9;Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8;Theme:B96ef996-e262-4c0c-a62c-1ea1ef034f36;Theme:F723d94e-5010-4c4a-ad26-cf56fce97a1f;Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2018
|Has Location=Croatia
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty; Reliability; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer review; Publication Ethics
}}