View source for Theme:284026b0-27a2-4a8e-aa3a-3ab6e29a62a3

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Other
|Title=Development and Value of National Research Integrity Codes
|Is About=International declarations such as the Hong Kong principles and the San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment (DORA) aim to foster research integrity among the global research community <sup>1, 2</sup>. At the European level, the European Code of Conduct (ECoC) is a research integrity document that aims to harmonize the research integrity standards across Europe <sup> 3</sup>. In addition, many individual European countries have developed their own national guidance detailing the principles and practices of research integrity and addressing instances of research misconduct. This theme page describes the development and value of these national research integrity codes in Europe.
|Important Because=Research integrity and research misconduct are of immense interest to stakeholders both within and outside the scientific community. Integrity in research not only enables good quality research, supports effective collaborations and delivers benefits to the public, but also safeguards the trust of the public in the research community. Research misconduct, on the other hand, can diminish trust in science, affect the quality of research results and misspend public funds. To prevent this, it is crucial that researchers receive guidance on research integrity. 

National documents are important in laying down specific norms that are to be followed. For instance, the Estonian document provides considerations to be taken into account during different stages of the research, such as planning, conduct and publication <sup>4</sup>. In the Danish and Swiss guidelines, the procedures to address a suspected breach of integrity are described in detail <sup>5, 6</sup>. The Swiss document, in addition, also provides the legal background and implications of misconduct <sup>6</sup>.  

Whilst there is a value for countries to have their own RI code or statement, challenges can arise when there are divergences both among national documents and between national level documents and the ECoC regarding the guiding values of research integrity and what constitutes research misconduct. These divergences are important to map and define, for two broad reasons:  firstly, it could mean that in cases of research misconduct in international collaborations, responses to misconduct may vary, depending on the national norms, and secondly, these divergences go against the harmonizing effect envisaged in the ECoC, and could affect the overall coherence of research integrity guidance <sup>4</sup>. These considerations are of importance not only to policy makers, but also to research institutions and researchers in general.
|Important For=Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Policy makers; Research performing organisations
|Has Best Practice=The Irish national statement for research integrity  <sup>7</sup> is developed in line with the ECoC. 

-       Principles of Research Integrity

-       Research Misconduct

-       Collaboratiosns
|Has Detail=The detailed report on national guidelines in Europe is available here: 

[https://community.embassy.science/c/entire/entirerep/24 Latest EnTIRE/Repository topics - The Embassy of Good Science]

References: 

1.            Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, et al. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLOS Biology 2020;18(7): e3000737.

2.            Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), [https://sfdora.org/about-dora/ https://sfdora.org/about-dora/#]; 2012 [accessed 2022.11th January].

3.            All European Academies (ALLEA). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf; 2017 [accessed 2021.11th January].

4.            Council ER. Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, https://www.eetika.ee/sites/default/files/www_ut/hea_teadustava_eng_trukis.pdf; 2017.

5.            Ministry of Higher Education and Science. Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2014/files-2014-1/the-danish-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity.pdf; 2014.

6.            The Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. Code of Conduct for Scientific Integrity, https://api.swiss-academies.ch/site/assets/files/25709/kodex_layout_en_web.pdf; 2021.

7.            Forum RIN. Irish National Policy Statement for Ensuring Research Integrity, https://www.iua.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/IUA_Research_Integrity_in_Ireland_Report_2019.pdf; 2014.

<br />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:63530b4d-df94-4dde-8235-2c0fa9c63b9d;Resource:3cf12442-8943-4684-9e9c-8e5128674a79;Resource:216fd809-8eca-4f5e-8cc7-c118b9bfb0cd
}}
{{Tags}}