Types of research misconduct
The VSNU Code of Conduct for Research Integrity describes research integrity and misconduct. Research misconduct may take many forms. The clearest and most serious forms of misconduct, as defined in the VSNU Code, are:
- Fabrication – making up data or results and documenting them as if they were real.
- Falsification – manipulating research material, apparatus or processes to change, withhold or omit data or research results without justification.
- Plagiarism – appropriating other people’s ideas, methods, results or texts without giving proper credit.
The VSNU Code lists 61 standards of research integrity. Violations of these standards are not necessarily criminal or malicious acts: they may be subtle failings that could apply to any researcher. Indeed, all researchers should be alert to the risk of questionable research practices (QRPs) and vigilant about avoiding them. The standards formulated in the VSNU Code lay the basis for judging the integrity of research conduct and determining sanctions for misconduct.
Examples of misconduct include:
- Not being transparant about the parties commissioning or funding the research.
- Not reporting the role of external stakeholders and potential conflicts of interest.
- Agreeing to do research that should not be conducted, according to the Code.c
- Basing the choice of research methods on non-scientific interests or preferences.
- Not ensuring that all sources of information are verifiable.
- Not describing the data used honestly, scrupulously and transparently.
- Not enabling all authors to review and approve the final version of the research publication.
- Not being explicit about any relevant data that are not reported.
- Not being transparent about uncertainties and contraindications.
- Not providing references for all previously published data used in the analysis.
- Withholding information about external stakeholders.Not publishing data when that would have been possible.
- Using information acquired when assessing other researchers’ work, without their consent.
- Assessing other researchers’ work when doubts could arise about your independence.
- Being dishonest, not being clear about the limitations of the research, and/or reporting research results to the public prematurely.
- Not mentioning potential conflicts of interest.
- As a research supervisor or director, taking any action that might encourage a researcher to violate research integrity.
- Delaying the work of other researchers to gain unfair advantage.
- Deliberately making a false accusation of research misconduct. Not sufficiently investigating claims of misconduct for political/reputational reasons.