Science is predicated on trust. Without confidence in the integrity of their peers, researchers would be unable to trust one another’s work. Researchers should at all times follow professional academic practices and ethically sound teaching and research. Research integrity is, without question, of the highest priority, and misconduct in research should be avoided at all times. In addition, science has become increasingly dependent upon collaboration. Researchers working together has become more norm than rarity. It is possible that when working with others, questions or complaints about the integrity might arise.

However, misconduct only pertains to a small share of these complains. Collaboration is a frequent source of problems. It could be a mentorship that is not progressing the way it should, or perhaps the question of authorship has given rise to a dispute between coworkers. Issues of academic integrity can be difficult to deal with. As a result, the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen and the University Medical Center have five confidential advisors with whom questions and complaints about academic integrity can be discussed.

More information can be found in the regulations for the confidential advisors for the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen and the University Medical Center (Dutch).

The role of the confidentiality advisor is to give advice to those with questions regarding academic integrity, or to mediate and help come up with a solution between two parties that are in conflict concerning academic integrity. In any case, they are confidential: upon hearing the complainant they will not initiate any action unless requested.

For more information on research ethics and integrity and an overview of confidential advisors at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen and the University Medical Center, follow this link.

Every researcher in the Netherlands has to declare they are familiar with the Dutch Code of Conduct for Academic Practice and that they will obey it. If you have concerns about the academic integrity of your research, do not hesitate to contact the confidential advisors.

Errors arising from human fallibility occur in science. Scientists do not have limitless working time or access to unlimited resources. Honest mistakes can happen. Negligence however, does not fall in that category. When we talk about negligence, we refer to a person being sloppy. Haste, carelessness, inattention – any number of faults can lead to work that does not meet the standards demanded in science. When a scientist is negligent, he or she is not following the methodological rules of science.

While both deliberate dishonesty and negligence are harmful to science, but the consequences will be different. Negligence can often be repaired; fraud is un-repairable.

Further Reading:

• For a more in depth view, take a look at the discussion over at Resources for Research Ethics Education.

We speak of deliberate dishonesty when there is a premeditated act of fraud that may include forged or fabricated data, falsified or invented results, plagiarism, etcetera. The scientist in question has, intentionally, ignored the rules for good scientific practice. He or she is not following the moral rules of science. Trust is undermined, which can have dire consequences both in the field of research and in the public eye.

For a student’s perspective on deliberate dishonesty, take a look at the video below.

Science is predicated on trust. Without confidence in the integrity of their peers, scientists would be unable to trust one another’s work. Scientific research demands ethical and responsible conduct, they are necessary to the whole of science. Researchers benefit from a culture of integrity and constructive mutual relationships. In an environment where they can trust the work of their colleagues, fruitful cooperation and creativity will be promoted.

Research misconduct is harmful for knowledge. It could mislead other researchers, it may threaten individuals or society – for instance if it becomes the basis for unsafe drugs or unwise legislation – and, by subverting the public’s trust, it could lead to a disregard for or undesirable restrictions being imposed on research.

We recognize two different kinds of research misconduct: deliberate dishonesty and negligence. Both deliberate dishonesty and negligence are harmful to science, but they differ in their workings.

“Science’s reputation of reliability is confirmed and enhanced through the conduct of every scientific practitioner. A scientific practitioner is reliable in the performance of his research and in the reporting, and equally in the transfer of knowledge through teaching and publication.”

“Science’s reputation of reliability is confirmed and enhanced through the conduct of every scientific practitioner. A scientific practitioner is reliable in the performance of his research and in the reporting, and equally in the transfer of knowledge through teaching and publication.”

“Scientific activities are performed scrupulously, unaffected by mounting pressure to achieve.”

Good scientific practice and conduct form the basis of scientific research. At the request of the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (Vereniging van Universiteiten, VSNU), a code of conduct for scientific practice was drawn up. This Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice applies to scientific practice, which is understood to include scientific teaching and research at all universities in the Netherlands. More precisely, the Code is intended for the individual scientific practitioner.

The principles form the ground rules for scientific research promote a research environment that guarantees integrity. Whenever these principles are compromised there is an increased risk of violation of academic integrity. By following these principles, organizations support their researchers in their ability to give account of the moral and scientific quality of their research. The UMCG has incorporated these principles in their Research Code.

Below you can find the five principles and a short explanation. We highly recommend you to take a look at the VSNU Code of Conduct and the UMCG Research Code.

Researchers talk about their passion for science.

Student’s Perspective: Iris de Jong on Scientific Integrity