Dealing with suspected violations of research integrity
While prevention of research misconduct should be the priority, any suspected misconduct must, obviously, be investigated. The principles underlying such investigation are based on the VSNU Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and the standards it describes, as well as the ALLEA European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Responsibility for addressing questions or complaints regarding research integrity lies with confidential counsellors and/or the university committees established for this purpose. For more information, see the Academic Integrity Complaints Regulations of UvA and the Academic Integrity Complaints Procedure of VU-VUmc, which apply to AMC and VUmc employees, respectively. In the event of any discrepancies between this Research Code and the UvA regulations or VU-VUmc procedure, the guidelines of the relevant university should be followed.
Confidential counsellors
Amsterdam UMC has confidential counsellors, including two focusing on research integrity. The essential criteria for this role include a firm scientific background, an impeccable reputation and the ability to deal with difficult, complex situations. The confidential counsellors work independently from the executive board.
- location VUmc: Prof. Frank Snoek (fj.snoek@amsterdamumc.nl)
- location AMC: Prof. Janneke Horn (j.horn@amsterdamumc.nl)
Employees from one Amsterdam UMC location can consult a confidential counsellor from the other location, or from another faculty of the university to which they are affiliated, if they prefer.
Any employee or external party involved in research at Amsterdam UMC who has a question about research integrity, suspects research misconduct, or has been accused of such misconduct, can discuss this with the confidential counsellors. They are easily accessible in the institution. They can give advice about any question regarding research integrity, including whether or not to file a complaint. They can also mediate if needed and wanted, and they can support the submission of a formal complaint to the research integrity committee (see section 3.2 below). Given the confidential nature of their role, they will not share the information discussed with anyone else unless the person reporting the possible research misconduct gives them explicit permission to do so.
Research integrity committees
Universities hold responsibility for research done in their institution, including the medical faculties. Consequently, the executive boards of the UvA and VU have established committees for research integrity which handle complaints. These committees consist of a chairperson and at least two other members, preferably from different scientific disciplines. The committee can, if needed, invite other persons to support its judgement in areas of specific expertise.
The committee first decides whether a complaint is admissible — that is, whether the complainant has provided sufficient grounds for further consideration. If so, the committee will decide whether the behavior reported by the complainant amounts to research misconduct, based on the Dutch code of conduct mentioned earlier. The committee can gather information from all relevant employees and bodies of theinstitution, and consult with internal or external experts or third parties before making its assessment. On the basis of this assessment, the committee issues an advice to the university’s executive board, which issues its own initial judgement based on this advice, and informs the complainant and defendant accordingly. This initial judgement becomes final six weeks later, unless the complainant or defendant has requested a second opinion from the Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI). If a second opinion has been requested, the executive board takes that into consideration in its final judgement.
Additional remarks
- An anonymous complaint of alleged research misconduct will be considered only if there are compelling reasons to do so and the factual basis for the complaint can be investigated without input from the complainant. The UvA recommends that a person who wishes to submit an anonymous complaint first seeks guidance from a confidential counsellor; such guidance is mandatory according to the VU-VUmc procedure.
- If complainants feel that they are being treated unfairly, they can take action in accordance with the Amsterdam UMC Whistleblowing Procedure. For example, initiating a complaint of research misconduct may not cause financial or contractual repercussions for the whistle blower.
- All Amsterdam UMC employees are obliged to cooperate with investigations into research integrity.
- The Amsterdam UMC guidelines for handling suspected cases of data fabrication or falsification are described separately (See Aanpak en aandachtspunten bij vermoeden en/of vaststellen van falsificatie/fabricatie van data of onderzoeksresultaten (in Dutch)).