c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 33 Developing and Validating the Competency Profile for Teaching and Learning Research Integrity Jurij Selan* 1 and Mira Metljak 2 • Since research integrity is not external to research but an integral part of it, it should be integrated into research training. However, several hin - drances regarding contemporary research integrity education exist. To address them, we have developed a competency profile for teaching and learning research integrity based on four assumptions: 1) to include all levels of study (BA, MA, and PhD); 2) to integrate research integrity into research education itself; 3) to address research integrity issues in context-specific practices; and 4) to pay particular attention to the ‘grey zone’ or questionable research practices. To assess the validity of the content of the competency profile and to determine if some adjustments to the profile are needed, we translated the competencies of the profile into items of a measurement instrument (a questionnaire) and conduct - ed a survey amongst University of Ljubljana students that allowed us to 1) obtain information about students’ attitudes toward issues of integ - rity in research; 2) analyse differences in these attitudes among BA, MA, and PhD students; and 3) statistically validate the competency profile and suggest possible improvements. The results showed that 1) students are highly aware of research integrity issues, as scores were high on all items assessed. However, there were some deviations to lower scores, especially in relation to questionable research practises, confirming our assumption that the ‘grey zone’ issues are those that should be particu - larly addressed and given special attention in contemporary research integrity education. 2) The differences in the attitudes of BA, MA, and PhD students showed that higher-level students showed significantly more awareness of integrity issues than lower-level students did, sug - gesting that research integrity issues should be given special attention at the BA study level. 3) The measurement characteristics showed that the reliability of the questionnaire was very high, suggesting a good overall structure of the competency profile. The principal component analysis 1 *Corresponding Author. Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; jurij.selan@pef.uni-lj.si. 2 National Institute of Biology, Ljubljana, Slovenia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1618 34 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... also confirmed the four-field structure of the Competency profile (Val - ues and Principles, Research Practise, Publication and Dissemination, and Violations). However, the analysis also showed that the substructure of the four main areas of the profile did not fully match the results of the factor analysis, suggesting that the distribution of competencies in the competency profile could be reconsidered, especially in the area of Research Practice. The most recent developments in the field of research integrity also suggest that the competency profile should be updated with issues regarding the impact of artificial intelligence on research integrity. Keywords: competency profile, research integrity, responsible conduct of research, factor analysis, artificial intelligence c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 35 Razvoj in validacija kompetenčnega profila za poučevanje in učenje raziskovalne integritete Jurij Selan in Mira Metljak • Ker raziskovalna integriteta ni nekaj ločenega od raziskovanja, ampak njen sestavni del, jo je treba vključiti v usposabljanje na področju razi - skovanja. Obstaja pa več ovir v povezavi s sodobnim izobraževanjem o raziskovalni integriteti. Da bi jih odpravili, smo razvili kompetenčni pro - fil za poučevanje in učenje raziskovalne integritete, ki temelji na štirih predpostavkah: 1) vključiti vse stopnje študija (dodiplomski, magistrski in doktorski študij); 2) vključiti raziskovalno integriteto v raziskovanje; 3) obravnavati vprašanja raziskovalne integritete v kontekstualno speci - fičnih praksah; 4) posebno pozornost nameniti »sivi coni« ali spornim raziskovalnim praksam. Da bi ocenili veljavnost vsebine kompetenčne - ga profila in ugotovili, ali so potrebne njegove prilagoditve, smo kompe - tence v profilu prevedli v postavke merilnega instrumenta (vprašalnika) in izvedli raziskavo med študenti Univerze v Ljubljani. Raziskava nam je omogočila naslednje: 1) pridobiti informacije o odnosu študentov do vprašanj raziskovalne integritete; 2) analizirati razlike v tem odnosu med študenti dodiplomskega, magistrskega in doktorskega študija; 3) statistično potrditi kompetenčni profil in predlagati morebitne izbolj - šave. Rezultati so pokazali naslednje: 1) študentje se zelo dobro zavedajo vprašanj raziskovalne integritete, saj so pri vseh ocenjenih postavkah dosegli visoke rezultate. Kljub temu je bilo nekaj odstopanj pri nižjih ocenah, zlasti v povezavi z vprašljivimi raziskovalnimi praksami, kar potrjuje našo domnevo, da so vprašanja »sive cone« tista, ki jih je treba v sodobnem izobraževanju o raziskovalni integriteti še posebej obravna - vati in jim nameniti posebno pozornost; 2) razlike v stališčih študentov dodiplomskega, magistrskega in doktorskega študija so pokazale, da so se študentje višje stopnje bistveno bolj zavedali vprašanj integritete kot študentje nižje stopnje, kar nakazuje, da bi bilo treba vprašanjem razi - skovalne integritete nameniti posebno pozornost že na ravni dodiplom - skega študija; 3) merske značilnosti so pokazale, da je bila zanesljivost vprašalnika zelo visoka, kar kaže na dobro splošno strukturo kompe - tenčnega profila. Tudi analiza glavnih komponent je potrdila strukturo kompetenčnega profila (vrednote in načela, raziskovalna praksa, objava 36 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... in razširjanje ter kršitve). Analiza pa je pokazala tudi, da se podstruktu - ra štirih glavnih področij profila ni povsem ujemala z rezultati faktor - ske analize, kar kaže, da bi bilo treba ponovno razmisliti o razporeditvi kompetenc v kompetenčnem profilu, zlasti na področju raziskovalne prakse. Nedavni razvoj na področju raziskovalne integritete prav tako kaže, da bi bilo treba kompetenčni profil posodobiti z vprašanji glede vpliva umetne inteligence na raziskovalno integriteto. Ključne besede: kompetenčni profil, raziskovalna integriteta, odgovorno izvajanje raziskav, faktorska analiza, umetna inteligenca c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 37 Introduction Research integrity as an integral part of research In its project ‘OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030‘ , the Organisa - tion for Economic Co-operation and Development (2019, pp. 59–70) empha - sises ‘reconciling tensions and dilemmas’ and ‘taking responsibility’ as crucial transformative competencies that students need to develop in the future to meet the challenges of the 21 st century. These competencies are closely related to issues of research and, therefore, to the issues of research integrity. Acting in accordance with moral and ethical principles is an integral part of research. According to Böttcher and Thiel (2018), research competen - cies can be divided into five skills, which Hauser, Reuter, Gruber, and Mottok (2018) reconfigured into four factors that are particularly characteristic of re - search, one of which is ‘ethical issues’ . The United States’ National Postdoctoral Association (NPA Core Competencies Committee, 2007–2009) also lists ‘Re - sponsible conduct of research (RCR)’ among six core research competencies. Similarly, The US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017, p. 174) lists the best practices in research related to Research Integrity, Data Handling, Authorship and Communication, Mentoring and Supervision, Peer Review and Research Compliance. Thus, research integrity or responsible conduct of research (RCR) is not something external to the research but is an integral part of it and should, therefore, also be integrated into research education (National Research Coun - cil, 2002, p. 84). Objectives and goals of RCR education: a four-component model We can distinguish between the Objectives, Goals, and Benefits of Re - search Integrity Education (The US National Academies of Sciences, Engi - neering, and Medicine, 2017, p. 166). Objectives are the general aims that RCR education seeks to achieve in the long term. The US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) summons the eight major objec - tives of RCR education identified in the literature: 1) Ensuring and improving the integrity of research; 2) Promoting good behaviour and quality research conduct; 3) Preventing bad behaviour; 4) Decreasing research misconduct; 5) Making trainees aware of the expectations about research conduct within the research enterprise and as articulated in various federal, state, institutional, and professional laws, policies, and practices that exist; 6) Making practitioners 38 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... and trainees aware of the uncertainty of some norms and standards in research practices due to such factors as changes in the technology used in research and the globalisation of research; 7) Promoting and achieving public trust in science and engineering; 8) Managing the impact of research on the world beyond the lab, including society and the environment. (p. 197) Since RCR educational objectives are difficult to measure within a given course, learning goals or learning outcomes, as opposed to objectives, are estab - lished to be narrower in scope and more specific to be measured in the assess - ment of a given activity. Therefore, learning goals are specific learning outcomes related to learning objectives in the sense that they can contribute to them. Learning goals or learning outcomes are statements of what a learner knows, understands and can do on the completion of a learning process (The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, 2011). Learning goals are defined in terms of competencies, which ‘[…] represent a dynamic combination of knowledge, understanding, skills and abilities’. (Gonzáles & Wagenaar, 2008, pp. 16–17). Learning goals in RCR education could be divided into four aspects ac - cording to Rest’s four-component model of morality, which stresses four cat - egories of research integrity learning outcomes: ethical problem-solving skills, ethical sensitivity skills, knowledge of research ethics, and attitudes and values (Rest, 1983, Antes & DuBois, 2014). These four aspects could be summarised as (Bebeau, 2002b; Bebeau, 2002c; Bebeau & Thoma, 1999; Davis & Riley, 2008; Davis & Feinerman, 2010): 1. Ethical sensitivity (interpreting the situation as ethical): improving and increasing students’ sensitivity to issues concerning the standards of their profession and the ability to identify the ethical issues in a specific situation; 2. Ethical knowledge or judgment (judging which of the available actions are most justified): increasing and improving students’ knowledge of how to resolve an ethical problem once it has been noticed (from being aware of the appropriate standard to consider (and how to interpret it) to know where to go to make a complaint or seek advice); 3. Ethical motivation (prioritising ethics over other important concerns): improving students’ judgment and ability to develop an acceptable course of action and provide an appropriate rationale; 4. Ethical commitment or character (being able to construct and implement actions that serve ethical decision-making): reinforce and increase stu - dent commitment to the standards of their profession and the likelihood that the student will act on them. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 39 According to the National Research Council (2002), the four-compo - nent model of morality, therefore, introduces the crucial abilities in research education that enable responsible conduct: These include the ability to (a) identify the ethical dimensions of situ - ations that arise in the research setting and the laws, regulations, and guide - lines governing one’s field that apply to those situations (ethical sensitivity); (b) develop defensible rationales for a choice of action (ethical reasoning); (c) integrate the values of one’s professional discipline with one’s own personal val - ues (identity formation) and appropriately prioritise professional values over personal ones (showing moral motivation and commitment); and (d) perform with integrity the complex tasks (e.g., communicate ideas and results, obtain funding, teach, and supervise) that are essential to one’s career (survival skills). (p. 86) Intermediate concepts The important aspect that should be introduced into RCR education is intermediate concepts that mediate two levels in moral or ethical cognition (Bebeau & Thoma, 1999). The most general level involves abstract concepts and related principles (e.g., the concept of equality and the corresponding principle, ‘everyone must be treated equally’). However, such abstract concepts are diffi - cult to apply to practice because they offer little guidance for one’s actions. The six stages of moral development described by Kohlberg (1969, 1976) tend to be general and abstract, like epochs in history, rather than detailed. At the other end of the spectrum, there are very concrete concepts in professional codes of ethics, which are very specific and highly contextual, based on the profes - sion, as different scientific groups have different codes. Such codes are rarely explained in terms of general ethical theories but are taken for granted, func - tioning like the Ten Commandments. RCR education, however, takes place somewhere between the abstract and the concrete. It is organised around concepts that are somewhere ‘in-be - tween’: They are concrete but still general enough to combine practical instruc - tion with moral theory and reasoning. These are concepts such as ‘professional autonomy’, ‘confidentiality’, ‘informed consent’, ‘whistleblowing’, and similar. Such concepts mediate the abstract and the concrete and can be referred to as ‘intermediate level’ concepts, which provide more concrete guidance for ac - tions than the general concepts and link concrete actions to theory (see Davis & Feinerman, 2010, pp. 354–355, footnote 5, for a list of such intermediate con - cepts for teaching RCR to graduate engineering students). 40 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... How can research integrity be taught? Having identified the four aspects of learning outcomes in RCR educa - tion, the most important question that follows is: How should these four as - pects be taught? One might draw an analogy to the training of students in the critical analysis of research literature. Students are first introduced to the primary lit - erature, and then complexity is added, for example, through critical reading of journal articles under the supervision of a mentor, through scholars teaching other aspects of the research serving as primary role models, and through as - sessment of student competence when students are asked to provide evidence for their theories and conclusions. Students are assessed and receive ongoing feedback from the initial seminar presentation through the dissertation defence and submission of the manuscript for publication. (National Research Council, 2002, p. 85) Similarly, just as a critical analysis of research literature is an integral part of training in all subjects in a study programme, RCR education should be an integral part of training in all subjects in a field of study. In this sense, the four aspects of RCR education (ethical sensitivity, ethical knowledge, ethical judgment, and ethical commitment) should be considered from the perspective of Teaching Strategies and Assessment Methods (National Research Council, 2002, pp. 87–97). Ethical sensitivity Ethical sensitivity involves the researcher’s awareness of how his actions affect others. It includes the following skills: anticipating the reactions and feel - ings of others involved in the research (colleagues, mentors, participants, etc.); anticipating alternative courses of action and their effects on all those involved in the research; constructing possible scenarios with knowledge of cause-and- effect chains of events; having empathy and the ability to assume roles; seeing things from the perspective of others involved in the research and consider - ing research scenarios from the perspective of legal, institutional, and national viewpoints; recognising when to apply laws, regulations, and standards in one’s profession. Ethical sensitivity (to issues) differs from the capacity for ethical reason - ing (about issues) in the following ways. Ethical sensitivity is the ability to rec - ognise (and not overlook) an ethical issue in a complex situation. In contrast, ethical reasoning is the ability to argue and discuss why an already identified ethical problem is a problem. Thus, focusing on policies and practises related to c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 41 the conduct of research (e.g., the use of humans and animals in research; codes related to health and safety; procedures for dealing with allegations of miscon - duct; authorship practices and policies; data management; conflicts of inter - est, etc.) is merely a foundation that allows students to develop sensitivity to identifying ethical issues. Ethical sensitivity, however, is not about memorising policy documents and passing knowledge tests but about understanding that such policies and regulations exist and, more importantly, why they exist and how to apply them in real-world situations. Therefore, policies and regulations should be referred to as often as possible in courses so that students become familiar with them and their ability to identify ethical issues and refer to poli - cies becomes habitual. In training ethical sensitivity, students should develop the ability to recognise ethical problems in complex situations. Therefore, a useful training strategy for improving students’ ethical sensitivity is to design complex, real or hypothetical cases or situations that require students to refer to policies, iden - tify stakeholders, consider consequences, and engage in probabilistic reason - ing. Sensitivity training differs from standard ethics courses in that cases are presented without any preconceived interpretation to stimulate sensitivity in identification and subsequent discussion. The cases simply present clues to an ethical problem, and students should refer to guidelines and codes themselves to demonstrate proper behaviour. Therefore, the student ethical sensitivity test should assess the student’s ability to identify ethical problems, meaning to distinguish relevant from irrelevant information in the cases presented and to identify the norms and values from the guidelines by which the cases should be considered. Several such tests have been developed in which students are presented with hypothetical situations via video; students respond to the cases presented to them, and their responses are assessed. Ethical reasoning or judgement Ethical reasoning implies that professionals should be able to critically analyse their own moral arguments and develop defensible points of view for new problems that are likely to emerge during the course of their professional lives (National Research Council, 2002, p. 90). Students should develop the ability to determine how to modify exist - ing rules to meet the new moral problem. The most useful instructional strat - egy for promoting ethical reasoning is a teaching and assessment strategy that incorporates the dilemma discussion technique (see also Bebeau, 2002a). The greatest improvement is achieved when the teacher’s intervention is added gradually with instruction to enable students to develop well-reasoned written 42 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... arguments. In this way, the intervention affects students’ reasoning in two ways: developing new thinking to meet new moral problems and reducing or reject - ing students’ simplistic thinking based on personal interest arguments. According to the US National Research Council (2002, p. 92), ethical or moral reasoning is defined as the ability to systematically examine a situation and then choose and defend a position on that issue. Arguments are evalu - ated in terms of the respondent’s ability to describe ethical issues and points of conflict, including precedents, principles, rules, or values that support the prioritisation of one interest over another; stakeholders or parties that have a vested interest in the outcome of the situation; likely consequences of possible courses of action; and ethical obligations of central characters. The difference between hypothetical cases intended to stimulate ethi - cal sensitivity and those intended to stimulate ethical reasoning is this: cases designed to enhance sensitivity are designed to make finding and understand - ing the ethical problem or conflict difficult (to stimulate sensitivity to ethical issues); in contrast, cases for improving reasoning are designed so that ethical problems or conflicts are relatively easy to identify. However, they are presented as dilemmas that stimulate argumentation and interpretation. Because discus - sion of dilemmas can lead to fruitless exchanges of student opinions, the teach - er should intervene and encourage students to explore the criteria for evaluat - ing moral arguments before engaging in discussion and then to use the criteria to critique each other’s oral or written arguments. Assessing ethical reasoning is, therefore, different from assessing ethical sensitivity. In assessing sensitivity, students are presented with complex cases in which they are asked to detect an ethical problem; in tests assessing ethical reasoning, ethical problems are presented through dilemmas, and students are expected to be able to reason and debate them. Ethical motivation Why be moral? This is the fundamental question that promotes ethi - cal motivation. Ethical motivation requires the individual to weigh many le - gitimate concerns that may be incompatible with moral choices (e.g., financial and professional pressures, established relationships, personal concerns) that compete for the researcher’s attention (National Research Council, 2002, p. 94). Ethical motivation is the responsibility to bridge the gap between knowing the right thing to do and doing it. Therefore, ethical motivation (doing the right thing) is linked to personal responsibility in identity formation (doing the right thing because I truly believe it is my responsibility to do so). Indeed, individu - als may do the right thing not for the sake of personal responsibility but for c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 43 other opportunistic reasons (e.g., to gain rewards or esteem to avoid negative consequences) without achieving personal responsibility. Although the development of personal responsibility in identity forma - tion is a lifelong process, instructional strategies could be used to encourage it. In the past, personal responsibility was developed informally through social interaction with a positive research environment and role models, such as men - tors and colleagues; today, it can also be developed in more formal ways, such as through lectures on norms and values in science or by presenting exemplary scientists and their stories. Doing so encourages students to identify with good examples of scientists who have contributed to a larger society and thus develop their sense of responsibility. Assessment of ethical motivation can be achieved by asking students to write and reflect on the role of scientists (‘What does it mean to be a scientist?’) and to refer to the norms and values of science in their writing. This work is then assessed by a teacher. Another more quantitative method, as described by Bebeau (2002c), is to use a norm-referenced measure of role concept that measures the extent to which the individual incorporates norms and values of the profession into their identity. Ethical commitment or character Becoming ‘streetwise’ in research integrity requires not only ethical sen - sitivity, reasoning, and judgement but also commitment: these are the ‘survival skills’ that enable researchers ‘to perform the complex tasks of the discipline with integrity’ (National Research Council, 2002, p. 96). A researcher can be ethically sensitive and make good ethical decisions, but if he or she slacks off under pres - sure or has a weak will, moral failure can result because of a lack of character. Ethical commitment or courage could be fostered so that students de - velop skills that are often neglected in research training but are essential as survival skills for a scientist: how to present results at scientific meetings; how to defend one’s methods; how to write written reports; how to learn from criti - cal comments made by one’s colleagues and how to comment or evaluate one’s colleagues; how to obtain funds for one’s research; how to hire collaborators; how to teach courses; and how to mentor students. Therefore, the assessment of ethical commitment could be achieved by asking students to edit a description of an experiment, review a research article written by a colleague, and perform similar tasks. The point of stimulating and assessing ethical commitment is that students should develop the courage to communicate with the research com - munity, to express and accept criticism of their work, and thereby be prepared for the types of evaluation they will encounter and experience in their careers. 44 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... At which study level should RCR be taught? Historically, the primary responsibility for training scholars in RCR has rested with their mentors, meaning RCR training occurred informally, led by examples within a research group, led by a senior researcher who served as a mentor to all novices in the group. In recent decades, RCR has been formalised at the initiative of national agencies and governments, resulting in widely vary - ing approaches to RCR education, with the majority of institutions adopting a framework that requires students to complete online courses (Diaz-Martinez et al., 2019). Despite these efforts, according to Diaz-Martinez et al. (2019), the following three hindrances remain: 1) Research integrity is mostly reserved and taught at the PhD level when students are more intensively engaged in research and research collaboration. 2) Although RCR is an integral part of research, RCR training is mostly taught in a stand-alone format that places it outside the context of the research sphere. 3) RCR education is most often designed to address issues in general and does not address context-specific practices and standards of research integrity. With the recent impetus to include authentic research opportunities as part of the undergraduate curriculum, there is also a growing need for under - graduate RCR education that does not stand alone but is integrated with research itself. Diaz-Martinez et al. (2019) suggest that teaching teams seeking to imple - ment RCR education effectively within their undergraduate research consider an approach that includes: 1) identification of appropriate RCR student learning ob - jectives (SLOs) and specific topics that are relevant to the research; 2) The design and/or identification of curricular minilessons that are aligned with assessment(s) and SLO(s); 3) development and/or identification of appropriate assessments that are aligned with respective curriculum and SLO(s); 4) facilitation of profes - sional development for those individuals implementing E/RCR education within CUREs (e.g., instructors of record, teaching assistants, peer leaders). Grey Zone and Questionable Research Practices (QRP) Butler et al. (2017) caution that obvious examples of overt fraud revealed in public, such as in falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP), obscure less blatant and more subtle instances of ‘questionable research practices’ (QRP), which often involve misrepresentations, inaccuracies, or bias (e.g., misattribu - tion of authorship, omission of outliers, and the so-called salami slicing of data). They attribute the existence of QRPs to three reasons: the inadequate training of researchers, the pressures and incentives to publish in certain outlets, and c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 45 the demands and expectations of journal editors and reviewers. Studies have shown that QRPs are far more widespread than FFPs, with between 30% and 90% of researchers using them. The rise of QRPs could be attributed – ironically – to the increasing aware - ness of FFP , which leads scientists to systematically ‘push’ their results in the de - sired direction by artificially inflating significance in some way while being care - ful not to cross the line into overt misconduct (Butler et al., 2017). Like athletes, scientists are aware of the ‘black’ line of misconduct and are therefore careful not to cross it but to approach it as closely as possible to increase ‘performance’ . How - ever, the responsibility for QRP does not rest on individuals, and exposing a few individuals only masks systemic problems, such as the role of journals in creating an environment in which QRPs thrive (see also Western cultural bias by which publication is more complicated for non-Western academics and other discrimi - native practices in an academic environment; Alemu, 2020, p. 84; Hussain, 2023), as editors want to inflate impact factors and increase journal rankings, and there - fore encourage authors to ‘play the game’ to increase their chance of publication. Therefore, we should emphasise that misconduct does not occur in a vacuum but arises from organisational or institutional constraints and incentives, so-called ‘organisational misconduct. ’ (Hall & Martin, 2019, p. 415) Wherever one chooses to draw the line, FFPs are seen as inherently nega - tive, ‘black’ practices, while QRPs fall into an ethical ‘grey area’ between accept - able (scientific best practices) on the one hand and unacceptable (‘black’ FFPs) on the other. For this reason, the grey zone QRPs should be taken into full considera - tion to promote research integrity instead of merely simply exposing and punish - ing wrongdoers for their flagrant transgressions (Butler et al., 2017). Focusing only on FFP allows a whole range of practices to fall through the cracks and results in published work that is misleading in some way (Butler et al., 2017, p. 106). Fanelli (2013, p. 149; see also Butler et al., 2017, p. 106) there - fore suggests redefining academic misconduct as ‘distorted reporting’, which can refer to any omission or misrepresentation of information necessary to as - sess the validity and significance of the research, meaning any discrepancy be - tween what was done and what was reported. Such an approach would capture not only FFPs but also QRPs, shifting the focus from the most egregious cases of FFP to more subtle forms of potential misconduct where the greatest public harm occurs (Steneck, 2006, p. 66). For that reason, Hall and Martin (2019) developed a formal taxonomy that: 1. Distinguishes appropriate conduct from blatant misconduct but with a particular focus on the ‘grey areas’ between these extremes in the form of questionable and inappropriate behaviour. The taxonomy differentiates 46 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... between the categories of blatant misconduct (e.g., data fabrication, data falsification), inappropriate conduct (e.g., selective reporting, omitted data), questionable conduct (e.g., HARKing), and appropriate conduct (e.g., Winsorisation). 2. Assesses these categories based on the stakeholders (other researchers, employees, students, editors and journals, societal stakeholders) affected by the misconduct as well as the severity, ranging from very high sever - ity (in premeditated dishonesty and intentional rule-bending) to medi - um (in less intentional poor behaviour that may arise due to complexity, sloppiness, ignorance) and to low severity (in honest error). Research problem and research goals Acting in accordance with the principles of research integrity is increas - ingly complex and challenging in contemporary science and research. Since research integrity is not something that is external to research but an integral part of it, it should be integrated into research training. Although there are many codes of conduct, policies, guidelines, and manuals on what research in - tegrity encompasses and how it should be taught, our theoretical review shows that there is no common educational model–a competency profile–that could address all the drawbacks of current RCR education and thus provide a system - atic and all-encompassing RCR education that activates the four levels of RCR education (sensitivity, reasoning, motivation, commitment). The drawbacks regarding RCR education can be summarised in four interrelated points, as explored above: 1) Research integrity education is mostly reserved for the PhD level, while it is less systematically addressed at the un - dergraduate level. In particular, there is no set progression regarding how RCR education should become more complex from BA, MA, to PhD levels. 2) Al - though research integrity is an integral part of research, it is usually taught ‘per se’ and not integrated into the professional disciplines in which the research ‘takes place’ . 3) As a result, RCR training in such a stand-alone format is often very general but does not address the standards of research integrity in the specific context and practices within the professional fields. 4) Because RCR training mostly provides only general directions from codes of conduct, poli - cies, and guidelines, it usually includes and addresses only the obvious research misconduct (FFPs), but not the ‘grey area’ or questionable research practices (QRPs) where the real research integrity issues occur. With this in mind, we have developed a competency profile for teach - ing and learning research integrity (See Selan et al., 2021, for more detail on c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 47 the development and structure of the profile) that responds to these drawbacks and could serve as a basis for systematic and all-encompassing RCR education to students of different study programmes and at all three levels of study (BA, MA, and PhD). Our competency profile (Selan et al., 2021) identifies four main areas of research integrity: Values and Principles, Research Practise, Publication and Dissemination, and Violations. Each area is divided into four sub-areas cover - ing topics within the main area. The goal was to create a cross-section and uni - fied set of competencies that name all possible aspects of research integrity that might be encountered. The profile thus includes 80 competencies (15 for Values and Principles; 16 for Research Practice; 17 for Publication and Dissemination; and 32 for Violations). This overall structure of competencies is then translated into specific actions or behavioural indicators that progressively increase in complexity according to the three levels of study (BA, MA, PhD) and are sum - marised in core learning objectives and outcomes for all levels of study (BA, MA, PhD) that round out the four levels of RCR education (sensitivity, reason - ing, motivation, commitment). It is important to emphasise that the competencies in the competency profile are conceptualised and designed as ‘intermediate concepts’ that link concrete actions (behavioural indicators) to abstract principles and theories. They are intended to cover all aspects of research integrity, and the user (teach - er, student) can select from them those that are relevant to his or her field of research. The competency profile has been implemented into educational practice and served as a basis on which the courses on research integrity for students of BA, MA and PhD levels of different study programmes were designed. The courses were designed and conducted at the University of Ljubljana, Karlova University, and the University of Utrecht within the project ‘INTEGRITY’ with the support of the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union, project num - ber 2018-1-NL01-KA203-038900. Some of these courses are also evaluated in papers presented in this special issue of CEPS Journal (See article Academic Writing in Teaching Research Integrity on pages 129–154). However, the competency profile has not yet been empirically validated with regard to the content of the competency profile and to see if some ad - justments to the profile are needed. Thus, our goal for empirical research was threefold. Because the profile is intended to provide a foundation for teaching and learning about integrity in research for students at all levels of study (BA, MA, and PhD), we wanted to obtain information about 1) students’ attitudes, awareness, and opinions about issues of integrity in research that are addressed 48 in a profile; 2) specifically, how students’ attitudes, awareness, and opinions about issues of integrity in research differ among BA, MA, and PhD students; 3) because the competency profile is theoretically based, we wanted to validate it empirically and, if necessary, modify the categories in the profile (by accen - tuating some categories and eliminating others) based on a statistical analysis similar to how Hauser, Reuter, Gruber, and Mottok (2018) validated and modi - fied the factor structure of Böttcher and Thiel’s (2018) F-Comp questionnaire to measure research competencies. Method To achieve these three goals, we used a quantitative research method: a survey. We translated the categories of the profile into items of a measure - ment instrument: a questionnaire. Based on four fields (and corresponding subfields) of research integrity identified in the competency profile (Values and Principles, Research Practice, Publication and Dissemination, and Violations), the questionnaire also formed four basic scales with comparable items. The 80 competencies in the competency profile were translated into 74 items (18 for Values and Principles, 17 for Research Practice, 15 for Publication and Dissemi - nation, and 24 for Violations ) of a questionnaire that asked students to rate, on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (fully), the extent to which they understand, know, are aware of, or are able to act as researchers in the area of research integrity. Sample A total of 177 University of Ljubljana students responded and partici - pated in the survey: 84.2% were female, and 14.7% were male. The BA students represented 65.5% of the total, 29.4% were MA students and 5.1% PhD students. They were of different study areas; see Table 1. Table 1 Area of study (FORD classification) f f % Natural sciences 26 14.7 Technical and technological sciences 18 10.2 Medicine and medical sciences 12 6.8 Social sciences 97 54.8 Humanities 24 13.6 Total 177 100.0 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 49 Instrument The online questionnaire, designed in the 1ka platform 3 , was sent via e-mail through administration support systems to all University of Ljubljana students of different study programmes and of all three levels of study (BA, MA, PhD). Data were collected between December 7 , 2022, and January 5, 2023. Based on the data and to obtain an answer to our research goals, we then 1) made descriptive statistics about the importance of each item (students’ an - swers) in four designed scales; 2) analysed differences between subgroups (BA, MA, and PhD students); and 3) calculated the measurement characteristics of the questionnaire. Data analysis The questionnaire and students’ responses were analysed and verified by statistical analysis in the following way. Data were processed using the SPSS software (version 22) for statistical analysis to measure the characteristics of four basic scales, individual items, and the profile as a whole. Descriptive sta - tistics are presented with mean and standard deviation parameters; sub-groups differences were analysed with the Kruskal-Wallis test since the distribution was not normal. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was calculated for the reli - ability of the measurement characteristics of the questionnaire and, finally, a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to test validity. Results Descriptive statistics To measure the importance of each item, we analysed students’ re - sponses/assessments in four designed scales that provided answers to our first research goal: to obtain information about students’ attitudes, awareness, and opinions about research integrity issues addressed in a profile. The following four tables (Tables 2–5) show the three highest and three lowest-scoring items of the four scales: Values and Principles, Research Prac - tice, Publication and Dissemination, and Violations. The entire questionnaire with descriptive statistics for all 74 items is included in the Appendix (see Ap - pendix 1). 3 1KA is an application that enables online surveys (www.1ka.si). 50 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... Table 2 Three highest and lowest assessed items of the Values and Principles scale Item no. N Min Max Mean Std. Dev. 3 highest assessed items 6 I am aware that I must not encourage participants to participate in the research in an inappropriate way (coercion, bribery, etc.). 177 2 5 4.85 0,453 7 I am aware that, as a researcher, my conduct should not affect the judgment, actions, or responses of the participants in the research. 175 2 5 4.82 0.452 4 I am aware that participants in the research must participate on a voluntary basis. 176 2 5 4.82 0.521 3 lowest assessed items 17 I believe that research must be regulated at the national level with appropriate laws, codes, regulations and, as a result, sanc- tions for violations. 177 2 5 4.45 0.804 15 I am aware that, as a researcher, before starting the research, I have to check possible harmful effects or research implications. 177 1 5 4.44 0.909 10 I am aware that I can only con- duct research with animals if I am properly qualified to do so. 177 1 5 4.40 1.056 All items in the Values and Principles scale scored quite high: the lowest mean score was 4.40 out of 5. Students indicated that they are most aware that they must not motivate participants to be part of research in the wrong way (e.g., coercion, bribery, etc.). They are least aware that they must not involve animals in research unless they are properly qualified to do so. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 51 Table 3 Three highest and lowest assessed items of the Research Practice scale Item no. N Min Max Mean Std. Dev. 3 highest assessed items 25 I believe that older (more expe- rienced) researchers should not abuse their position (e.g., to sign the research as authors, even though they did not participate in it). 140 2 5 4.84 0.517 33 If we are conducting research in a group, I understand that I must share the data I obtain with the other researchers in the research group. 141 3 5 4.82 0.441 34 If we are conducting research in a group, I am aware that everyone who participates in the research is responsible for the proper conduct of the research. 141 2 5 4.73 0.546 3 lowest assessed items 27 I know different research ap- proaches. 141 1 5 3.84 0.973 26 I know the research methodol- ogy in my field of expertise. 141 1 5 3.82 0.968 29 I know the appropriate proce- dures for data processing (e.g., statistics). 141 1 5 3.70 0.941 The lowest average scores in the Research Practice scale are slightly low - er than in the Values and Principles scale. It is interesting to note that the high - est score is for the item that senior researchers should not abuse their position (e.g., sign as author of research in which they were not involved). The lowest scores were for items related to knowledge in the research field: knowledge of research styles, knowledge of methodology in the field, and knowledge of data analysis. 52 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... Table 4 Three highest and lowest assessed items of the Publication and Dissemination scale Item no. N Min Max Mean Std. Dev. 3 highest assessed items 40 I am aware that I must also publish negative results in the research report if they occur. 132 2 5 4.79 0.539 39 I am aware that I must include only real data and performed activities in the research report, and I must not subsequently modify the results and per- formed activities. 132 3 5 4.78 0.499 41 I am aware that I must not tailor data and research results to the expectation of the publisher (e.g., journal) where I want to publish them. 132 2 5 4.75 0.558 3 lowest assessed items 49 I am aware that I must publish the results of the research only in a journal/publication with an appropriate review process. 132 1 5 4.13 1.029 44 I am aware that as a peer reviewer, I must not share the results of the research I am reviewing with other colleagues before the paper is published. 132 1 5 4.11 1.148 45 I know that as a published author myself, I need to inquire about the different publication procedures of different media/ magazines. 132 1 5 4.11 1.009 It is encouraging that in the Publication and Dissemination scale, par - ticipants, on average, gave the highest rating for being aware that negative re - sults must also be included in the report. The lowest rating was for knowing that authors themselves are responsible for making inquiries about publication protocols in various journals/media. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 53 Table 5 Three highest and lowest assessed items of the Violations scale Item no. N Min Max Mean Std. Dev. 3 highest assessed items 70 I am aware that no matter how many people do it, cheating in research is always just as problematic. 126 2 5 4,80 0,522 69 I am aware that I must not duplicate data/results, even if others do. 126 2 5 4,79 0,546 51 I am aware that I must not ad- just the data afterwards in order to achieve desirable results that would confirm my hypotheses. 125 1 5 4,78 0,633 3 lowest assessed items 63 I am aware that I must not make the results public before they have been peer-reviewed. 125 1 5 4,13 1,164 58 I am aware that I should not publish the same research re- ports multiple times in different journals. 126 1 5 3,53 1,355 57 I believe that I should not use the results of one research study for several different publications. 126 1 5 3,30 1,358 The last scale referred to Violations. It is encouraging that students are aware that misconduct in research is always problematic, no matter how many others do it. The lowest mean score was for the assessment that students believe that the results of a research study cannot be used for more than one publi - cation. Interestingly, the lowest scoring items on the Violation scale are those dealing with the ‘grey zone’ or Questionable Research Practices (QRPs), which was to be expected since QRP issues are not obviously right or wrong but re - quire a subtle awareness of misconduct. Sub-group differences To obtain an answer to our second research goal, regarding how stu - dents’ attitudes, awareness, and opinions about issues of integrity in research differ among BA, MA, and PhD students, we analysed the differences among subgroups in students’ ratings of the items. As can be seen in Table 6, statistically significant differences between 54 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... levels of study were seen in 2 of 18 items in the Values and Principles scale, 3 of 17 items in the Research Practice scale, 5 of 15 items in the Publication and Dis - semination scale, and 7 of 24 items in the Violations scale. For Items 2, 27, 28, 40, and 45, 47, the PhD students’ assessment on aver - age was higher than those of the other two groups (BA, MA). Most of the items are in the scales Research Practice and Publication and Dissemination; the rea - son for this could be that PhD students have more knowledge and experience in research and are more competent and confident in methods and publication. In the Violations scale, with the exception of one item, BA students rated their knowledge/awareness/belief lower than the other two groups (MA, PhD). For two items (38, 41), BA students’ ratings were lower than those of MA students, and for one (26) they were lower than those of PhD students. The mean rating of Item 1 was highest for PhD students and lowest for BA students. Furthermore, in assessing other items for which a statistically significant value was not found, there is a trend for higher-level students to show greater awareness or knowledge of the research integrity issues. This result is to be ex - pected as MA students and doctoral students have more research knowledge and experience compared to BA students. Table 6 Kruskal-Wallis test of between-group comparison on items where statistically significant differences were shown Item no. Study level N MR M SD Χ 2 (2) Values and Principles 1 I am aware that I must conduct the research according to ethical principles. BA 2,3* 115 83.77 4.66 0.62 6.425 .040 MA 3 52 95.76 4.87 0.35 PhD 9 107.00 5.00 0.000 Total 176 2 I am aware that I must conduct the research objectively, honestly and in a transparent manner. BA 114 82.17 4.65 0.624 7.791 .020 MA 51 96.07 4.84 0.464 PhD 1,2 9 106.50 5.00 0.000 Total 174 Research Practice 26 I know the research methodology in my field of expertise. BA 87 65.22 3.67 1.008 6.908 .032 MA 45 77.00 3.98 0.866 PhD 1 9 96.83 4.44 0.726 Total 141 c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 55 Item no. Study level N MR M SD Χ 2 (2) 27 I know different research approaches. BA 87 67.64 3.76 0.988 7.777 .020 MA 45 70.56 3.84 0.952 PhD 1,2 9 105.67 4.67 0.500 Total 141 28 I know the appropriate procedures for data collection. BA 87 67.97 3.86 0.809 7.866 .020 MA 45 69.92 3.89 0.935 PhD 1,2 9 105.67 4.67 0.500 Total 141 Publication and Dissemination 38 I am aware that I must prepare a research report (e.g., a paper) responsibly, regardless of the quality, importance, and reputation of the publication (e.g., jour- nals, monographs, etc.) in which the report will be published. BA 2 82 61.15 4.54 0.670 7.122 .028 MA 41 76.50 4.85 0.358 PhD 9 69.72 4.67 0.707 Total 132 40 I am aware that I must also publish negative results in the research report if they occur. BA 82 61.63 4.68 0.646 8.793 .012 MA 41 73.93 4.95 0.218 PhD 1,2 9 77.00 5.00 0.000 Total 132 41 I am aware that I must not tailor data and research results to the expectation of the publisher (e.g., journal) where I want to publish them. BA 2 82 61.80 4.66 0.633 6.878 .032 MA 41 74.59 4.90 0.374 PhD 9 72.50 4.89 0.333 Total 132 45 I know that as a pub- lished author myself, I need to inquire about the different publication procedures of different media/magazines. BA 82 65.88 4.11 0.981 7.141 .028 MA 41 61.22 3.95 1.094 PhD 1,2 9 96.17 4.89 0.333 Total 132 47 I understand that the structure and style of a research report may vary by professional field. BA 81 62.30 4.43 0.724 6.421 .040 MA 41 67.82 4.49 0.840 PhD 1,2 9 91.00 5.00 0.000 Total 131 Violations 51 I am aware that I must not adjust the data afterwards in order to achieve desirable results that would confirm my hypotheses. BA 2,3 76 58.86 4.67 0.755 6.950 .031 MA 41 68.93 4.93 0.346 PhD 8 72.00 5.00 0.000 Total 125 56 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... Item no. Study level N MR M SD Χ 2 (2) 52 I know that I should not selectively interpret the research results in a way that would better answer my research questions. BA 2 76 57.59 4.54 0.807 9.586 .008 MA 41 72.82 4.88 0.510 PhD 9 71.00 4.89 0.333 Total 126 61 I know that I must properly cite (cite or paraphrase) when I sum- marise other authors. BA 2,3 76 59.39 4.66 0.684 5.981 .050 MA 41 68.70 4.90 0.300 PhD 9 74.50 5.00 0.000 Total 126 62 I know that I need to properly reference (cite or paraphrase) when summarising my past research. BA 2,3 76 58.32 4.47 0.887 7.706 .021 MA 41 69.82 4.80 0.558 PhD 9 78.50 5.00 0.000 Total 126 71 I am aware that I must avoid conflicts of interest when doing research (e.g., personal - I make a negative review because I don’t like someone; financial - I manipulate the results of the drug’s effectiveness because I am funded by the com- pany that manufactures the drug; ideological - I disagree with research results because they contradict my beliefs; etc.). BA 2,3 76 58.05 4.58 0.753 8.942 .011 MA 41 70.74 4.90 0.300 PhD 9 76.50 5.00 0.000 Total 126 73 I believe that handling violations should be transparent, fair, and confidential/anonymous until the process is of- ficially closed. BA 2,3 76 57.99 4.47 0.840 8.227 .016 MA 3 41 69.99 4.78 0.525 PhD 9 80.50 5.00 0.000 Total 126 74 I believe that if I notice and report a violation, I should be properly protected (by the institu- tion). BA 2,3 76 57.81 4.55 0.737 9.143 .010 MA 41 70.87 4.88 0.331 PhD 9 78.00 5.00 0.000 Total 126 *Indicates between groups comparison where Games Howell Post Hoc test showed statistical signifi- cance (p ≥.05) Measurement characteristics of the profile To obtain an answer to our third research goal, which was to empirically validate the competency profile and, if necessary, to modify its categories (com - petencies), we calculated the measurement characteristics of the questionnaire. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 57 First, we calculated the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient to determine the reliability of the questionnaire. As can be seen (Table 7), the reliability coef - ficients for the four scales and the questionnaire as a whole are all around .900 or higher. Therefore, we can conclude that the overall reliability of the question - naire and also the reliability of all the individual scales is highly satisfactory and strong, so there is no need for adjustment, which also suggests that the overall structure of the competency profile is good. Since the Research Practice scale deviates slightly in the negative direction of reliability, perhaps some im - provements could be made to this scale. The factor analysis we conducted (see Table 8) also suggests that the Research Practice domain of the profile could be reconsidered. Table 7 Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients Scale Cronbach‘s Alpha N of Items N of valid cases Values and Principles .918 18 171 Research Practice .898 17 140 Publication and Dissemination .909 15 131 Violations .950 24 121 All items .975 74 119 A factor analysis was then performed to determine the extent to which shared variance existed between the items of the questionnaire. The 74 items of the questionnaire were subjected to principal component analysis (PCA). First, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was checked. A review of the correlation matrix revealed that many coefficients were .3 and above. The Kai - ser-Meyer-Olkin value was .766, which is well above the recommended value of .6, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical significance (p≤.000), confirming the factorability of the correlation matrix. Principal component analysis (Table 8) yielded several possible solu - tions, but a four-component option was the most robust, explaining a total of 55.84% of the variance, with Component 1 contributing 39.79%, Component 2 7.89%, Component 3 4.43%, and Component 4 3.74% of the variance. A four- component oblimin rotation was performed. Component 1 showed a loading of 28 items, Component 2 of 19 items, Component 3 of 22 items, and Component 4 of 5 items. 58 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... Table 8 Principal Component Analysis (PCA) Item no. Area in Competency profile Component 1 2 3 4 74 Violations .855 70 Violations .853 40 Publication and Dissemination .828 71 Violations .822 67 Violations .822 69 Violations .818 68 Violations .815 61 Violations .785 60 Violations .767 41 Publication and Dissemination .755 66 Violations .733 51 Violations .730 55 Violations .721 38 Publication and Dissemination .705 52 Violations .693 6 Values and Principles .686 39 Publication and Dissemination .678 3 Values and Principles .654 7 Values and Principles .650 59 Violations .638 4 Values and Principles .634 62 Violations .626 33 Research Practice .620 65 Violations .620 46 Publication and Dissemination .618 73 Violations .615 25 Research Practice .583 72 Violations .553 49 Publication and Dissemination .776 50 Publication and Dissemination .766 45 Publication and Dissemination .761 58 Violations .759 63 Publication and Dissemination .704 28 Research Practice .674 57 Violations .672 64 Violations .657 22 Research Practice .640 c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 59 Item no. Area in Competency profile Component 1 2 3 4 44 Publication and Dissemination .633 27 Research Practice .602 47 Publication and Dissemination .581 48 Publication and Dissemination .566 29 Research Practice .561 30 Research Practice .552 37 Publication and Dissemination .549 26 Research Practice .548 43 Publication and Dissemination .535 36 Publication and Dissemination .420 13 Values and Principles .770 14 Values and Principles .767 2 Values and Principles .728 15 Values and Principles .715 23 Research Practice .699 5 Values and Principles .683 18 Values and Principles .670 35 Research Practice .666 1 Values and Principles .636 21 Research Practice .633 31 Research Practice .620 17 Values and Principles .620 24 Research Practice .615 12 Values and Principles .606 42 Publication and Dissemination .592 11 Values and Principles .589 32 Research Practice .584 9 Values and Principles .579 20 Research Practice .569 16 Values and Principles .552 10 Values and Principles .547 19 Research Practice .523 56 Violations -.727 34 Research Practice -.647 54 Violations -.636 8 Values and Principles -.609 53 Violations -.603 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalisation. 60 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... Discussion Numerous codes of conduct, policies, guidelines, and manuals on what research integrity encompasses exist. However, our literature review shows that there is no common educational model, no specifically developed competency profile that could address all the drawbacks of current RCR education and thus provide a systematic and all-encompassing RCR education that activates the four levels mentioned above (sensitivity, reasoning, motivation, commitment). A competency profile we developed for teaching and learning research integrity (Selan et al., 2021) responds to the drawbacks that Diaz-Martinez et al. (2019) highlight regarding current research integrity training (1) RCR is mostly taught at the PhD level; 2) RCR training is mostly taught in a stand-alone format that places it outside of the research context; 3) RCR training is mostly designed to address general topics rather than context-specific practices) and, in addition to that, systematically include and address ‘grey area’ topics or questionable re - search practices (QRPs) in research integrity education, as emphasised by Hall and Martin (2019) and Butler et al. (2017). Therefore, the critical contribution of our competency profile to RCR education is to 1) progressively increase the complexity of research integrity competencies and enable students at all levels of study (Bachelor (BA), Master (MA), and doctoral (PhD)) to become pro - gressively ‘streetwise’ about research integrity; 2) integrate RCR into research education itself; 3) provide context-specific behavioural indicators that can be used to address research integrity issues in different professional fields; and 4) pay particular attention not only to overt misconduct (FFPs) but also to more subtle and harmful questionable research practices (QRPs) from which, as pointed out by Steneck (2006, p. 66), the greatest public harm occurs. Even though competency models are normatively justified and have a conclusive theoretical basis, they are not static, so they need to be validated and updated regularly in the process of gathering and analysing evidence to support the relevance and accuracy of competency models (Schaper, 2017; LinkedIn, 2023). Validation identifies strengths but also gaps and areas for improvement in competency models to determine if they must be updated (revised and re - fined) and how. According to Schaper (2017), there are four criteria of validation, which must be met to assume that a competency model generates new insights and can be justifiably used for the intended purpose: for improving teaching qual - ity, whatever the educational context may be. First, the model should be based on proven and evidence-based notions about the structure and ranking of competencies in a field of application. Second, a competency model should be c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 61 consistent and generalisable in their descriptions of competencies for a par - ticular professional domain. Third, a competency model should be organised and formulated such that it can be understood by the target groups while mak - ing reference to needs and prior conceptions to ensure sufficient acceptance within the target group. Fourth, the practical applicability of a competency model should be based on theoretically and empirically supported evidence and arguments. Different empirical methods can be used to validate compe - tency models, including interviews, surveys, observations, focus groups, and subject matter experts, among others. In reference to the first criterion, our competency profile is constructed in such a way that it enables RCR education to be all-encompassing and thor - oughly integrated into the research education itself, thus enabling students to become ‘streetwise’ and ‘to perform the complex tasks of the discipline with integrity’ meaning activating not only ethical sensitivity, reasoning, and judge - ment, but also commitment: as The US National Research Council (2002, p. 86, 96) emphasises, these are ‘survival skills’. Activating the four aspects of RCR education according to Rest’s four-component model of morality emphasised by many researchers (Bebeau, 2002b; Bebeau, 2002c; Bebeau & Thoma, 1999; Davis & Riley, 2008: Davis & Feinerman, 2010) is one of the key aspects of our competency profile. Regarding the second and third criteria, the important aspects of our competency profile are that competencies are conceived and designed as ‘inter - mediate concepts’ that link concrete actions (behavioural indicators) to abstract principles and theories (Bebeau & Thoma, 1999). Thus, our competency profile can serve as a list that encompasses and covers all areas of research integrity (similar to Davis and Feinerman’s (2010) list for teaching RCR to graduate en - gineering students; Davis and Feinerman, pp. 354–355, footnote 5) and can be applied to a particular professional domain in a way that it can be understood by the target groups. However, in light of recent developments and regarding the all-encom - passing nature of our competency profile, a highly relevant area is missing from our competency profile and list of intermediate concepts. We developed the competency profile in 2021 (Selan et al., 2021). Although the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in research did not appear out of the blue, and its threat to academic integrity was detected a few years ago (Nanda, 2021), it was not until November 2022, when ChatGPT was launched, and its ability to extract infor - mation and generate text was made widely publicly available, that it became an issue to be seriously considered within the research integrity education. Because AI tools can produce seemingly human-written texts by drawing on 62 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... knowledge disseminated throughout the internet, their use greatly compromis - es research integrity. Government institutions, universities, academic journals, and publishers have, therefore, in the past year begun desperately and inten - sively to implement safeguards to prevent the misuse of AI tools in research and its publication (Bison, 2023; Brent, 2023; Council of Europe, 2023; Eaton, 2023; Hussain, 2023; Ohio State University, 2023; Trachtenberg, 2023; Turnitin, 2023; University of Cambridge, 2023; York University, 2023; Zobel, 2023). The rela - tionship between AI and research integrity has become one of the most active and vital areas of discussion on research integrity in 2023, with many scholarly articles and books already published (Currie, 2023; Dawson, 2023; Eke, 2023; Olatunde Oduoye et al., 2023), and thus the inclusion of this area also requires an improvement of our competency profile. Regarding the fourth criterion of practical applicability (Schaper (2017), our competency profile has been put into educational use in the courses de - signed and conducted at the University of Ljubljana, Karlova University, and the University of Utrecht within the project ‘INTEGRITY’ with the support of the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union, project number: 2018-1-NL01- KA203-038900. Some of these courses are also evaluated in the articles of this special issue of the CEPS Journal (See article Academic Writing in Teaching Research Integrity on pages 129–154). These courses demonstrate and confirm the practicality and usefulness of the competency profile in terms of its all- encompassing nature. Indeed, the courses designed were highly diverse and served students of different levels and different study programmes, from BA, MA, to PhD levels and from humanities and social sciences to natural sciences. However, to provide empirical validation and empirically assess the valid - ity of the content of our competency profile and to determine whether some ad - justments to the profile are needed, we also tested it statistically in a way Hauser, Reuter, Gruber, and Mottok (2018) validated and modified the factor structure of Böttcher and Thiel’s (2018) F-Comp questionnaire to measure research com - petencies. The overall reliability of the questionnaire and the reliability of all the individual scales are shown to be strong; only the Research Practice scale devi - ates slightly, suggesting some improvements would be possible. In relation to the four-field structure of the competency profile, the factor analysis (i.e., principal component analysis (PCA)) also suggested that a four-component option was the most robust. Based on the PCA, we can thus make the following interpretation about the structure of our original competency profile. The four-component so - lution we derived from PCA seems to confirm that the four-field structure of the original Competency profile (Values and Principles, Research Practise, Publica - tion and Dissemination, and Violations) is overall sound and firm. However, the c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 63 distribution of items in Components 1, 2, 3, and 4 is not as clear-cut as originally defined in the questionnaire (Table 8). Component 1 consists predominantly of Violation items (16 out of 28), Component 2 consists predominantly of items on Publication and Dissemination (10 out of 19), Component 3 consists predomi - nantly of items on Values and Principles (13 out of 22), while Component 4 con - sists of only five items, most of which are from the Violations domain (3 out of 5). The Research Practice items are not predominant in any of the four compo - nents but are most prevalent in Component 2 (6 of 19) and Component 3 (8 of 22). Therefore, the substructure of the components does not fully align with our theoretically defined subdomains and competencies of the competency profile, suggesting that the distribution of subdomains and competencies in the origi - nal competency profile could be reconsidered and reorganised. In particular, the Research Practice area could perhaps be reconsidered, as also suggested by its somewhat lower reliability (Table 7). As suggested above, problems regarding AI and research integrity should also be included in the competency profile to keep it up to date with the most contemporary issues and dilemmas in RCR education. Conclusion The goal of our research was to develop and validate the competency profile for teaching and learning research integrity. The profile is based on four assumptions: 1) to include all levels of study (BA, MA, and PhD); 2) to integrate RCR education into research education itself; 3) to be specific enough to ad - dress research integrity issues in context-specific practices; 4) to pay particular attention to the ‘grey zone’ or Questionable Research Practices (QRPs). To test and validate the profile, we developed a questionnaire that al - lowed us to 1) obtain information about students’ attitudes toward research integrity issues, 2) identify differences in these attitudes among BA, MA, and PhD students, and 3) statistically validate the competency profile and suggest possible improvements. The results showed that: 1. In general, students are well aware of research integrity issues, as the scores were quite high on all items assessed. However, there were some deviations to lower scores on the items in Research Practice and Vio - lations scales. For Research Practice, the lowest score was related to knowledge of methodological procedures, and for Violations, the lowest score was related to the ‘grey zone’ or QRPs, confirming our assumption that the ‘grey zone’ issues are precisely the ones that should be addressed and given special attention in present-day research integrity education. 64 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... 2. The differences in the attitudes of BA, MA, and PhD students indicated that the higher-level students have a significantly stronger awareness of integrity issues than the lower-level students. This suggests that special attention should be paid to addressing integrity issues in research, even at the lowest levels of study, and not only to PhD students. Again, this confirms one of the assumptions on which we based our profile, namely that research integrity should not only be taught to PhD students but that training in research integrity should begin at the BA level and grad - ually increase in complexity through MA to PhD level. 3. The measurement characteristics have shown that the ‘overall reliability of the questionnaire and also the reliability of all individual scales is very high, so an adjustment of the questionnaire and its scales is not necessary, which also indicates a good overall structure of the Competency profile. Only the Research Practice scale deviates slightly in a negative direction, indicating that if improvements to the Competency profile are to be considered, they should be focused on Research Practice. The PCA also points in this direc - tion. The four-component solution confirms that the four-field structure of the original Competency profile (Values and Principles, Research Practise, Publication and Dissemination, and Violations) is overall sound and firm. However, the distribution of items in Components 1, 2, 3, and 4 is not en - tirely clear, as the items on research practice do not predominate in any of the four components. Therefore, the substructure of the components does not fully match the theoretically defined sub-areas and competencies of the competency profile, suggesting that the distribution of competencies could be reconsidered, especially in the Research Practice area. Recent develop - ments in the field of research integrity also suggest that the competency profile should be expanded to include issues related to the impact of artifi - cial intelligence (AI) on research integrity. References Alemu, S. K. (2020). Transnational mobility of academics: Some academic impacts. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal , 10(2), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.464 Antes A., & DuBois J. M. (2014). Aligning objectives and assessment in responsible conduct of research instruction. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education , 15(2), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.852 Bebeau, M. J. (2002a). Influencing the moral dimensions of professional practice: Implications for teaching and assessing for research integrity. In N. A., Steneck, & M. H. Sheetz (Eds.), Proceedings of the first ORI research conference on research integrity (pp. 179–187). Office of Research Integrity, c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 65 Department of Health and Human Services. https://ori.hhs.gov/documents/proceedings_rri.pdf Bebeau, M. J. (2002b). The defining issues test and the four component model: Contributions to professional education. Journal of Moral Education , 31(3), 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022000008115 Bebeau, M. J. (2002c). Outcome measures for assessing integrity in the research environment (Appendix B). In US National Research Council. Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct (pp. 143-166). The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/read/10430/chapter/11 Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Intermediate concepts and the connection to moral education. Educational Psychology Review , 11(4), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022057316180 Bison, R. (2023, July 19). Rise of AI stokes fears research misconduct could accelerate . Research Professional News. https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-world-2023-7-rise-of-ai- stokes-fears-research-misconduct-could-accelerate/ Böttcher, F., & Thiel, F. (2018), Evaluating research-oriented teaching: A new instrument to assess university students’ research competences. Higher Education , 75(1), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0128-y Brent, T. (2023, June 27). European research integrity code updated to reflect advances in artificial intelligence . Science Business. https://sciencebusiness.net/news/AI/european-research-integrity- code-updated-reflect-advances-artificial-intelligence Butler, N., Delaney. H., & Spoelstra S. (2017). The gray zone: questionable research practices in the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education , 16(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0201 Council of Europe (2023, April 26). EduTalks@Council of Europe – Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity . Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/education/-/edutalks-council-of-europe-artificial-intelligence-and- academic-integrity Currie, G. M. (2023). Academic integrity and artificial intelligence: is ChatGPT hype, hero or heresy? Seminars in Nuclear Medicine , 53(5), 719–730. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2023.04.008 Davis, M., & Feinerman A. (2010). Assessing graduate student progress in engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics , 18(2), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9250-2 Davis, M., & Riley K. (2008). Ethics across the graduate engineering curriculum: An experiment in teaching and assessment. Teaching Ethics , 9(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/ 10.5840/tej20089115 Dawson, A. G. (2023). Artificial intelligence and academic integrity . Aspen Publishing. Diaz-Martinez, L. A., Fisher, G. R., Esparza, D., Bhatt, J. M., D’ Arcy, C. E., Apodaca, J., Brownell, S., Corwin, L., Davis, W . B., Floyd, K. W ., Killion, P . J., Madden, J., Marsteller, P ., Mayfield-Meyer, T., McDonald, K. K., Rosenberg, M., Y arborough, M. A., & Olimpo, J. T. (2019). Recommendations for effective integration of ethics and responsible conduct of research (E/RCR) education into course- based undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-10-0203 66 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... Eaton, S. E. (2023, March 4). Artificial intelligence and academic integrity, post-plagiarism . University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20230228133041549 Eke, D. O. (2023). ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: Threat to academic integrity? Journal of Responsible Technology , 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100060 Fanelli, D. (2013). Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature , 494(7436), 149. https://doi.org/10.1038/494149a Gonzáles J., & Wagenaar R. (Eds.) (2008). Universities’ contribution to the Bologna Process: An introduction (2nd Edition) . Universidad de Deusto. https://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/publications/278-universitiesacontribution-to-the-bologna- process-an-introduction-english-version.html Hall, J., & Martin, B. R. (2019). Towards a taxonomy of research misconduct: The case of business school research. Research Policy , 48(2), 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.006 Hauser, F., Reuter, R., Gruber, H., & Mottok, J. (2018). Research competence: Modification of a questionnaire to measure research competence at universities of applied sciences. In C. S. González González, M. Castro & M. Llamas Nistal (Eds.), Proceedings of 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON 2018) (pp. 109–117). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363216 Hussain, M. M. (2023). The policy efforts to address racism and discrimination in higher education institutions: the case of Canada. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal , 13(2), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.965 Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive development approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory (pp. 347–480). Rand McNally. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and social issues (pp. 31–53). Holt, Rinehart and Winston. LinkedIn (2023, August 3). What are some best practices for validating and updating competency models? https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-some-best-practices-validating-updating-1e Nanda, N. (2021, December 7). Is artificial intelligence a threat to academic integrity? Original by Turnitin. https://www.ouriginal.com/is-ai-a-threat-to-academic-integrity/ NPA Core Competencies Committee (2007-2009). The NPA postdoctoral core competencies . https://www.nationalpostdoc.org/page/CoreCompetencies OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 (2019). OECD learning compass 2030: A series of concept notes . http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning- compass-2030/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf Olatunde Oduoye, M., Javed, B., Gupta, N., & Valentina Sih, C. M. (2023). Algorithmic Bias and Research integrity; the role of non-human authors in shaping scientific knowledge with respect to Artificial Intelligence (AI); a perspective. International Journal of Surgery . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000000552 c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 67 Rest, J. (1983). Morality. In P . H. Mussen, J. Flavell, and E. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3, Cognitive Development (4th ed.) (pp. 556–629). Wiley. Schaper, N. (2017). Why is it necessary to validate models of pedagogical competency? GMS Journal for Medical Education , 34(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3205/zma00112 Selan, J., Metljak, M., Berčnik, S., & Dagarin Fojkar, M. (2021). Competency profile for teaching and learning research integrity . Faculty of Education University of Ljubljana. https://zalozba.pef.uni-lj.si/index.php/zalozba/catalog/book/176 Steneck, N. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definition, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics , 12(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022268 The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (2011). Glossary: Quality in education and training . Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/4106_en.pdf The Ohio State University (2023, April 6). Artificial intelligence and academic integrity. The Ohio State University. https://oaa.osu.edu/artificial-intelligence-and-academic-integrity The US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017). Fostering integrity in research. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21896 The US National Research Council (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct . The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10430 Trachtenberg, B. (2023). ChatGPT, artificial intelligence, and academic integrity. Office of Academic Integrity. University of Missouri. https://oai.missouri.edu/chatgpt-artificial-intelligence-and-academic-integrity/ Turnitin. (2023). Academic integrity in the age of AI . Turnitin. https://www.turnitin.com/resources/academic-integrity-in-the-age-of-AI University of Cambridge (2023). Artificial Intelligence. University of Cambridge. https://www.plagiarism.admin.cam.ac.uk/what-academic-misconduct/artificial-intelligence Y ork University (2023, August 16). AI technology and academic integrity for instructors. Y ork University. https://www.yorku.ca/unit/vpacad/academic-integrity/ai-technology-and-academic-integrity/ Zobel, J. (2023, May 19). We need to retain research integrity in the AI era . Pursuit and Research, University of Melbourne. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/we-need-to-retain-research-integrity-in-the-ai-era 68 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... Appendix 1 Item no. N Min (1) Max (5) Mean Std. Dev. Values and Principles 1 I am aware that I must conduct the re- search according to ethical principles. 176 3 5 4.74 0.545 2 I am aware that I must conduct the research objectively, honestly and in a transparent manner. 174 2 5 4.72 0.573 3 I am aware that as a researcher I am responsible for the credibility of the research results. 176 3 5 4.76 0.513 4 I am aware that participants in the research must participate on a volun- tary basis. 176 2 5 4.82 0.521 5 I am aware that I must provide infor- mation to research participants in an objective and honest manner. 176 2 5 4.76 0.534 6 I am aware that I must not encour- age participants to participate in the research in an inappropriate way (coercion, bribery, etc.). 177 2 5 4.85 0.453 7 I am aware that, as a researcher, my conduct should not affect the judg- ment, actions, or responses of the participants in the research. 175 2 5 4.82 0.452 8 I am aware that I must allow partici- pants to withdraw from the research at any time. 176 2 5 4.74 0.595 9 I am aware that I must be particu- larly careful when I intend to include special groups of participants in the research (e.g., persons with special needs, socially vulnerable groups, refugees, etc.). 177 2 5 4.67 0.696 10 I am aware that I can only conduct research with animals if I am properly qualified to do so. 177 1 5 4.40 1.056 11 I am aware that I must treat animals properly in research - in an ethical way (care, nutrition, accommodation, mini- misation of pain and suffering, etc.). 177 1 5 4.67 0.822 12 I believe that research on animals should be properly regulated (e.g., by laws, regulations, and codes). 176 1 5 4.68 0.816 13 I am aware that, as a researcher, I must acquire adequate knowledge in the field of research methods before conducting independent research. 176 1 5 4.66 0.647 c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 69 Item no. N Min (1) Max (5) Mean Std. Dev. 14 I am aware that, as a researcher, I must acquire adequate knowledge in the field of research content before conducting independent research. 177 1 5 4.74 0.544 15 I am aware that, as a researcher, be- fore starting the research I must check possible harmful effects or research implications. 177 1 5 4.44 0.909 16 I am aware that for the appropriate- ness of the quality and integrity of the research, it is not enough to follow only the minimum ethical standards (‘what is not allowed according to the rules’), but I must strive to follow the highest possible standards. 177 2 5 4.54 0.691 17 I believe that research must be regulated at the national level with ap- propriate laws, codes, regulations and, as a result, sanctions for violations. 177 2 5 4.45 0.804 18 I believe that research must be regu- lated at the level of the institution with appropriate codes, regulations and, as a result, sanctions for violations. 177 2 5 4.59 0.670 Research Practice 19 I am aware that as the leader (or will have to as the future leader) of the research group, I have to familiarise younger colleagues with all phases of the research and be a suitable example for them. 142 3 5 4.69 0.535 20 I am aware that in order to carry out the research successfully, I must have appropriate research equipment available. 142 3 5 4.71 0.540 21 I understand that as a researcher I must ensure that the research data is properly archived and protected. 142 2 5 4.49 0.751 22 I am aware that, as a researcher, I must make the raw (unprocessed) research data available (to other subsequent researchers) to verify the relevance of the results. 142 1 5 4.35 0.932 23 I am aware that I have to prepare the research in such a way that other researchers can always check it or repeat (taking into account any new or different circumstances). 142 1 5 4.51 0.805 24 I believe that a research institution should provide adequate mentoring for junior researchers. 142 2 5 4.68 0.612 70 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... Item no. N Min (1) Max (5) Mean Std. Dev. 25 I believe that older (more expe- rienced) researchers should not abuse their position (e.g., to sign the research as authors, even though they did not participate in it). 140 2 5 4.84 0.517 26 I know the research methodology in my field of expertise. 141 1 5 3.82 0.968 27 I know different research approaches. 141 1 5 3.84 0.973 28 I know the appropriate procedures for data collection. 141 2 5 3.92 0.854 29 I know the appropriate procedures for data processing (e.g., statistics). 141 1 5 3.70 0.941 30 I understand that I must know the relevant statistical procedures and be able to interpret the results, even though data processing may be car- ried out by other researchers. 141 1 5 4.50 0.780 31 I am aware that without adequate methodological knowledge, I cannot interpret the results of the research. 141 2 5 4.65 0.623 32 Even if we conduct research in a group, I know that I need to know the whole or all phases of the research in which I participate. 141 1 5 4.56 0.740 33 If we are conducting research in a group, I understand that I must share the data I obtain with the other re- searchers in the research group. 141 3 5 4.82 0.441 34 If we are conducting research in a group, I am aware that everyone who participates in the research is responsible for the proper conduct of the research. 141 2 5 4.73 0.546 35 I believe that the results of the research I obtain should be freely available to the widest possible public (open access). 141 1 5 4.52 0.789 Publication and Dissemination 36 I understand that, if there are several authors of the publication, we are all equally responsible for the entire publication (not only for the part that we prepared ourselves). 132 1 5 4.39 0.808 37 I know that I must appropriately acknowledge everyone who, in ad- dition to the authors, contributed to the research (e.g., sponsors, external collaborators, etc.). 132 2 5 4.30 0.906 c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 71 Item no. N Min (1) Max (5) Mean Std. Dev. 38 I am aware that I must prepare a research report (e.g., a paper) responsibly, regardless of the quality, importance, and reputation of the publication (e.g., journals, mono- graphs, etc.) in which the report will be published. 132 3 5 4.64 0.607 39 I am aware that I must include only real data and performed activities in the research report, and I must not subsequently modify the results and performed activities. 132 3 5 4.78 0.499 40 I am aware that I must also publish negative results in the research report if they occur. 132 2 5 4.79 0.539 41 I am aware that I must not tailor data and research results to the expecta- tion of the publisher (e.g., journal) where I want to publish them. 132 2 5 4.75 0.558 42 I am aware that if I discover an error in the results after publication, I must subsequently correct the published research report or withdraw it from publication. 132 1 5 4.42 0.917 43 I understand that when preparing a review (so-called peer reviewing; this also includes providing feedback or evaluating seminar and other assignments), I must not include my personal preferences (e.g., including favourite literature, theories, attitudes, beliefs, etc.). 132 1 5 4.38 0.861 44 I am aware that as a peer reviewer, I must not share the results of the re- search I am reviewing with other col- leagues before the paper is published. 132 1 5 4.11 1.148 45 I know that as a published author myself, I need to inquire about the different publication procedures of different media/magazines. 132 1 5 4.11 1.009 46 I am aware that I must always prepare the review in an objective and trans- parent manner. 132 3 5 4.61 0.650 47 I understand that the structure and style of a research report may vary by professional field. 131 2 5 4.49 0.748 48 I am aware that I need to know the quality of journals/media that publish results in my field of expertise. 132 2 5 4.47 0.756 49 I am aware that I must publish the re- sults of the research only in a journal/ publication with an appropriate review process. 132 1 5 4.13 1.029 72 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... Item no. N Min (1) Max (5) Mean Std. Dev. 50 I am aware that I may not publish in journals with inappropriate publica- tion practices (so-called predatory journals). 132 1 5 4.40 0.881 Violations 51 I am aware that I must not adjust the data afterwards in order to achieve desirable results that would confirm my hypotheses. 125 1 5 4.78 0.633 52 I know that I should not selectively interpret the research results in a way that would better answer my research questions. 126 1 5 4.67 0.714 53 I understand that I must not take data from other research without permis- sion in case I do not have enough of my own data available. 126 1 5 4.56 0.785 54 I am aware that I must not subse- quently adjust/change the hypotheses when I see what the results will be. 126 1 5 4.58 0.804 55 I am aware that I must include all results in the report, not just those that I ‘like’ or provide a desired answer to my research questions. 125 2 5 4.70 0.622 56 I am aware that I must not exclude data that spoils ‘good results’ from the report. 126 2 5 4.74 0.609 57 I believe that I should not use the re- sults of one research study for several different publications. 126 1 5 3.30 1.358 58 I am aware that I should not publish the same research reports multiple times in different journals. 126 1 5 3.53 1.355 59 I am aware that when preparing the report, I must also take into account sources that oppose or do not confirm the results of my research. 125 1 5 4.38 0.949 60 I understand that I must present the results realistically, without exaggerat- ing their importance. 126 2 5 4.67 0.645 61 I know that I must properly cite (cite or paraphrase) when I summarise other authors. 126 2 5 4.76 0.572 62 I know that I need to properly refer- ence (cite or paraphrase) when sum- marising my past research. 126 1 5 4.62 0.778 63 I am aware that I must not make the results public before they have been peer-reviewed. 125 1 5 4.13 1.164 64 I am aware that I must not hide the results of the research from the public. 126 1 5 4.39 0.938 c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 3 | Y ear 2023 73 Item no. N Min (1) Max (5) Mean Std. Dev. 65 I am aware that I must not take advan- tage of personal acquaintances for the personalised review process. 126 1 5 4.58 0.763 66 I understand that the authors of the paper can only be those who partici- pated in the preparation, execution, and analysis of the research. 125 2 5 4.76 0.614 67 I am aware that the funders/sponsors of the research must not influence the process and results of the research. 125 3 5 4.70 0.609 68 I am aware that ignorance and super- ficiality are no excuses for inappropri- ate research (and violation of research integrity). 125 2 5 4.67 0.645 69 I am aware that I must not duplicate data/results, even if others do. 126 2 5 4.79 0.546 70 I am aware that no matter how many people cheat in research, it is always just as problematic. 126 2 5 4.80 0.522 71 I am aware that I must avoid conflicts of interest when doing research (e.g., personal - I make a negative review because I don’t like someone; financial - I manipulate the results of the drug’s effectiveness because I am funded by the company that manufactures the drug; ideological - I disagree with re- search results because they contradict my beliefs; etc.). 126 2 5 4.71 0.631 72 I am aware that I must not ignore/be silent if I notice a violation or inap- propriate research, but I must report this to the responsible person (at the institution). 126 1 5 4.51 0.807 73 I believe that handling violations should be transparent, fair, and confi- dential/anonymous until the process is officially closed. 126 1 5 4.61 0.737 74 I believe that if I notice and report a violation, I should be properly pro- tected (by the institution). 126 2 5 4.69 0.626 74 developing and validating the competency profile for teaching and learning ... Biographical note Jurij Selan, PhD, is an Associate Professor in visual art theory and vice-dean for quality assurance at the Faculty of Education at University of Ljubljana. His research interests include the nature of visual art language and visual art grammar, the role of visual art language in art education, the nature of artistic development in children, the role of colour models in art education, the nature of art hermeneutics and interpretation etc. In recent years, due to his work as vice-dean for quality assurance, his research also extended to the field of academic and research integrity. Mira Metljak works as a project administrator/manager at the Na - tional Institute of Biology. Before, she was working at the University of Ljublja - na, Faculty of Education as a project manager and, for some time, as a Teaching Assistant for pedagogical methodology. Her main interests were quality assur - ance in education, developing research competence of students and profes - sional development of in-service teachers. She was included in many national and international projects in different fields of education (students with special needs, quality assurance, digital competences in education, ...).