COMPETENCY PROFILE

FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

RESEARCH INTEGRITY

Jurij Selan

Mira Metljak

Sanja Berčnik

Mateja Dagarin Fojkar

COMPETENCY PROFILE

FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

RESEARCH INTEGRITY

This competency profile was developed as an output (IO2 Development and publication of a competency profile for all levels of study) within the project ‘INTEGRITY’ that ran from 1 October 2018 until 31

December 2021 with the support of the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union, project number: 2018-1-NL01-KA203-038900.

Participating institutions in the ‘INTEGRITY’ project: UNIVERSITEIT UTRECHT, project coordinator (Heidelberglaan 8, Utrecht, the Netherlands), UNIVERZITA KARLOVA (Ovocný trh 5/3, 11636, Praha 1, Czech Republic), UNIVERZA V LJUBLJANI (Kongresni trg 12, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia), ELEVATE BV

(Heidelberglaan 8 – 4.17; 3584CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands), ACADEMIC INTEGRITY CONSULTING

LTD (Dobson House, Regent Centre, Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 3PF United Kingdom).

IO2 leading organisation

UNIVERZA V LJUBLJANI

Participating organisations

UNIVERSITEIT UTRECHT, UNIVERZITA KARLOVA, ELEVATE BV, Academic Integrity Consulting LTD

Contents

Introduction

1

Purpose and Background

1

Methodology

1

Definitions

2

Elements

2

Annotations

2

Theoretical Background

5

Research Integrity as Integral Part of Research

5

Objectives and Goals of RCR Education

7

Intermediate Concepts

11

How to Teach Research Integrity?

12

At which Study Level to Teach RCR?

15

Grey Zone and Questionable Research Practices

17

Validation of Competency Profile

18

References

18

Objectives and Outcomes

21

Learning Objectives

21

Learning Outcomes

24

Sources and Resources

31

Model

33

Values and Principles

35

Research Practice

38

Publication and Dissemination

41

Violations

44





Introduction

Purpose and Background

Acting in accordance with the principles of research integrity is increasingly complex and challenging in contemporary science and research. Therefore, students at all levels of study (Bachelor (BA), Master (MA), and doctoral (PhD)) should develop the ability to do so and become ‘streetwise’ concerning research integrity. This competency profile provides a set of competencies to enable that.

‘Streetwise’ means that students are aware of what constitutes good conduct in research by learning how to recognise problematic situations, how to discuss these situations with their fellow students, and how to develop strategies for dealing with them. Doing so requires them to:

1. become competent in identifying problematic issues and dilemmas related to research integrity,

2. become aware of cultural differences related to research integrity among different disciplines, institutions, and countries,

3. learn to reflect on these issues and apply strategies that help them find solutions, 4. take responsibility for their actions and decisions in specific situations, 5. internalise certain values and dispositions, such as mindfulness, responsibility, and courage, that are necessary to meet the standards of honesty and integrity in conducting research.

Methodology

The profile was created via the following procedure. First, a list of possible sources was compiled, including various codes of conduct, policies on research integrity, and similar (see Sources and Resources section). After reviewing the sources, the categories of competencies in the profile were determined. Since most sources identify roughly the same categories with minor differences and subtleties, the goal was to create (collect, merge, or group) a cross-section and unified set of competencies that name all possible aspects of research integrity that one might encounter in various sources and literature. This was then underpinned by a thorough theoretical investigation (see Theoretical Background section). Once the overall structure of the competencies was established (see Model section), the behavioural indicators for them were defined and clustered into a competency rubric (see sections: Values and Principles, Research Practice, Publication and Dissemination, Violations) according to a set of basic assumptions (see Annotations below). As a final point, the extensive list of research integrity competencies was summarised into core learning objectives and outcomes for all study levels (see Objectives and Outcomes section).

1





Definitions

Competence

A combination of related knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA) that correlates with (contributes to or predicts) performance and is criterion-referenced (i.e., behaviourally related and observable so that it can be measured against specific criteria and accepted standards).

Behavioural Indicators

Descriptions of behaviours (Thoughts, Actions, Feelings (TAF) that correlate with Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes (KSA)) that demonstrate in a concrete, verifiable, and observable way that a student has acquired and is able to demonstrate a particular competency.

Competency Profile

A detailed compilation/description of the competencies and behavioural indicators necessary for successful performance related to research integrity.

Competency Rubric

A set of behavioural indicators of competencies divided and clustered by complexity.

Competency Model

A visualisation of the structure of fields and subfields in a competency profile.

Elements

The following elements are provided for each competency in a profile (see sections: Values and Principles, Research Practice, Publication and Dissemination, Violations): a name or label (indicating the competency described), a general definition (a brief description that provides a broad understanding of the type of behaviour expected of a competency), a brief explanation (of the content addressed in a competency), and behavioural indicators (specific TAFs indicating that an individual has acquired the KSA) clustered in competency rubrics by level of complexity, roughly corresponding to levels of study (BA, MA, PhD).

Annotations

When reading through the competency profile, the user must consider some implicit assumptions underlying it. These assumptions are not always explicitly stated in a particular competency/behavioural indicator, so a user of the profile should be implicitly aware of them when assessing the competencies/behavioural indicators: Levels of Complexity

We speak of levels of complexity rather than levels of study because different educational environments have different expectations for students at different levels of study. For example, what the University of Ljubljana expects from an undergraduate student is not necessarily of the same complexity as what the University of Utrecht expects from its undergraduate students. Therefore, the proposal of levels set in the profile may correspond to study levels for some institutions but not others. The purpose of the profile is that each institution can uniquely ‘build’ the combination of indicators from different levels of complexity that fits its educational process. Clustering competencies by levels of complexity also suggests that the 2

behavioural indicators are progressive but not regressive. If an indicator is relevant to the basic level, it is also relevant to the intermediate and advanced levels; however, an indicator relevant to the advanced level may not be relevant to the basic and intermediate levels.

Therefore, if an indicator is missing (marked with the symbol ‘/‘), it means that either the competency is not relevant for this level or that an indicator from a previous level still applies.

Grey Areas

One of the most important aspects of becoming ‘streetwise‘ is the ability to respond to situations that are not black and white (corresponding to blatant misconduct vs appropriate behaviour) but ‘grey‘ (corresponding to questionable research practises). Various codes of conduct can guide students and researchers about blatant misconduct, particularly in relation to legally sanctioned practices such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP).

However, there is a large grey area between right and wrong where things can be altered to suit different perspectives and where it is difficult to give unconditional answers; this is the area known as questionable research practises (QRP). Research integrity policies (national, institutional, etc.) set out principles and rules to distinguish appropriate conduct from blatant misconduct and to determine in a straightforward way what is (legally) permissible and what is not. In reality, however, researchers usually find themselves in ‘grey‘ situations in which it is not immediately clear what is right or wrong, and in which they have to decide whether there is a risk of questionable research practises and determine how to avoid them - practises that, although not legally prohibited, may nevertheless undermine responsible conduct of research. Thus, researchers need to understand such ‘grey‘ situations and acquire the ability to make integrity-enhancing decisions within them. They need to be able to recognise such situations, discuss them with their colleagues, and develop strategies for dealing with them.

The profile incorporates the idea of ‘grey areas‘ in two ways: first, by mentioning questionable research practises (QRP) in more detail in the profile (see Violations section); second, by also understanding the idea of levels of complexity as representing a progression from black and white situations to increasingly complex situations in which students are confronted with

‘grey areas’. Although students may encounter ‘grey areas‘ in their research practice at the BA level, they become increasingly important at the MA and PhD levels. Therefore, students should gradually develop, roughly in line with progression through the study levels, the ability to navigate ‘grey areas’ and make decisions when confronted with dilemmas in complex real-life situations.

From One’s Domain to Other Domains

Research integrity practices vary among different academic fields, research disciplines, na-tions, cultures, and institutions. The competency profile takes this diversity into account in such a way that students develop competencies at the BA and MA levels in relation to their national, institutional, and professional environment and scholarly field, and gradually gain the ability to engage with practices from different environments and fields at the PhD level.

Doctoral-level research often requires interaction with institutions and researchers from other research environments (including internationally), so PhD students need to understand possible differences in research practices.

3

From Knowledge to Actions

Each competency is defined by a triad of knowledge, skill, and attitude (KSA) and a triad of corresponding behavioural indicators (Thoughts, Feelings, Actions (TAF)). However, the gradual transition from black and white situations to ‘grey areas‘ goes hand in hand with a progression from the acquisition of knowledge to the development of the ability to act and display the right attitude. Whereas black and white situations in research integrity require mainly knowledge (students need to know the rules, the do’s and don’ts of research), grey zones require an attitude and a corresponding ability to act in difficult situations in which it is not enough to decide on the basis of rules. This situation also roughly corresponds to the progression within Bloom’s taxonomy through six levels, divided into three groups: Knowledge and Understanding, Application and Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation. To become

‘streetwise‘ in terms of research integrity is to build self-confidence in behaving responsibly in research. To do this, a student must acquire the appropriate knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

Since not all BA students will go on to the MA level and not all MA students will become PhD students, it is important to note that competency at any level of study requires the integration of all three elements (KSA); this is emphasised in a competency definition. Nevertheless, we can assume that the behavioural indicators for each competency progress from knowledge-based to attitudinal and skill-based competency indicators across levels of study, including on the basis of students’ personal growth. Therefore, the competency rubric emphasises knowledge at the basic level and attitude and skill at the intermediate and advanced levels.

From Mentorship, Supervision to Autonomy and Independence Progressing through the levels of complexity also requires a student to gradually develop the ability to act autonomously and independently in terms of research integrity in any given real-world situation. Acting autonomously means that a student is able to stand behind his or her values/actions and make free and uninfluenced ethical choices, and take responsibility for them. Acting independently on the other hand suggests that a student is able to solve an issue and work on his/her own, without mentorship and supervision. Therefore, when

‘reading through‘ competencies across levels, one must keep in mind that at the basic and intermediate levels, competencies are acquired and tested under mentorship and supervision, and at the advanced level, students should eventually develop an ability to act autonomously and independently. This is not to say that when students become independent researchers, they should not consult others and discuss difficult questions, but, at the most advanced level, they should be able to take full responsibility for their actions and solve issues independently.

4





Theoretical Background

Research Integrity as Integral Part of Research

According to Böttcher and Thiel (2018), research competencies can be divided into five skills: 1. skills in reviewing the state of research, 2. methodological skills, 3. skills in reflecting on research findings, 4. communication skills and 5. content knowledge.

Hauser, Reuter, Gruber, and Mottok (2018) reconfigured these five skills into four factors that are particularly characteristic of research:

1. Content knowledge, 2. Methodological skills, 3. Evaluation and operationalisation of research, and 4. Ethical issues.

The US National Postdoctoral Association (NPA Core Competencies Committee, 2007-2009) also lists six core research competencies:

1. Discipline-specific conceptual knowledge; 2. Research skill development; 3. Communication skills; 4. Professionalism; 5. Leadership and management skills; 6. Responsible conduct of research (RCR).

Thus, research integrity (ethical issues or responsible conduct of research (RCR)) is not external to the research but is an integral part of the research. The US National Research Council also emphasises this in its report in the chapter ‘Promoting Integrity in Research through Education‘ (2002):

However, in this chapter, the committee argues that the provision of instruction in the responsible conduct of research derives from a premise fundamental to doing science: the responsible conduct of research is not distinct from research; on the contrary, competency in research entails responsible conduct and the capacity for ethical decision making. Indeed, the committee argues that integrity in research should be developed in the context of an overall research education program. (p. 84) In its project ‘OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030‘, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2019, pp. 59-70) also emphasises the three crucial trans-formative competencies that students need to develop in the future in order to be able to meet the challenges of the 21st century:

1. creating new value, 2. reconciling tensions and dilemmas, and 3. taking responsibility.

The second and third competencies are closely related to issues of integrity and research integrity:

In an interdependent world, students need to be able to balance contradictory or seem-ingly incompatible logics and demands, and become comfortable with complexity and ambiguity. This requires empathy and respect. Students who have the capacity to take responsibility for their actions have a strong moral compass that allows for considered reflection, working with others, and respecting the planet. (OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030, 2019, p. 61)

The ethical dimension is thus the crucial aspect of future competencies.

5

The US National Research Council (2002) lists the main practices that characterise responsible conduct of research (RCR) at the individual and the institutional level: Individual level: For the individual scientist, integrity embodies above all a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one’s actions and to a range of practices that characterize the responsible conduct of research, including: intellectual honesty in proposing, performing, and reporting research; accuracy in representing contributions to research proposals and reports; fairness in peer review; collegiality in scientific interactions, including communications and sharing of resources; transparency in conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest; protection of human subjects in the conduct of research; humane care of animals in the conduct of research; and adherence to the mutual responsibilities between investigators and their research teams. (p. 5) Institutional level: Institutions seeking to create an environment that promotes responsible conduct by individual scientists and that fosters integrity must establish and continuously monitor structures, processes, policies, and procedures that: provide leadership in support of responsible conduct of research; encourage respect for everyone involved in the research enterprise; promote productive interactions between trainees and mentors; advocate adherence to the rules regarding all aspects of the conduct of research, especially research involving human participants and animals; anticipate, reveal, and manage individual and institutional conflicts of interest; arrange timely and thorough inquiries and investigations of allegations of scientific misconduct and apply appropriate administrative sanctions; offer educational opportunities pertaining to integrity in the conduct of research; and monitor and evaluate the institutional environment supporting integrity in the conduct of research and use this knowledge for continuous quality improvement. (p. 5)

The US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) lists the following best practices in a checklist for researchers, which includes research integrity: Research Integrity: Maintain high standards in own work; Understand policies; Raise questions and problems promptly and professionally; Strive to be a generous and collegial colleague. (p. 174)

Data Handling: Develop data management and sharing plan at the outset of a project; Incorporate appropriate data management expertise in the project team; Understand and follow data collection, management, and sharing standards, policies, and regulations of the discipline, institution, funder, journal, and relevant government agencies. (p. 174) Authorship and Communication: Ensure that general and disciplinary standards are followed for research publications; Acknowledge the roles and contributions of authors; Be transparent when communicating with all audiences. (p. 174) Mentoring and Supervision: Model and instruct on research best practices; Regularly check work of subordinates and ensure adherence to best practices; Clarify expectations. (p.

174)

Peer Review: Provide complete and timely review; Maintain confidentiality; Disclose conflicts, and eliminate or manage them as appropriate. (p. 174) 6





Research Compliance: Protect human subjects and laboratory animals; Follow environmental and other safety regulations; Do not engage in misuse; Disclose and manage conflicts of interest. (p. 174)

The US National Postdoctoral Association (NPA Core Competencies Committee, 2007-2009) similarly suggests the following Core Competencies Self-Assessment Checklist for researchers; responsible conduct of research (RCR) also plays an important part: 1. Discipline-Specific Conceptual Knowledge: Analytical Approach to Defining Scientific Questions; Design of Scientifically Testable Hypotheses; Broad-Based Knowledge Acquisition; Interpretation and Analysis of Data.

2. Professional/Research Skill Development: Literature Search Strategies and Effective Interpretation; Experimental Design; Statistical Analysis; Data Analysis and Interpretation; Laboratory Techniques and Safety; Principles of the Peer Review Process.

3. Communication Skills: Writing; Speaking; Teaching; Interpersonal; Special Situations.

4. Professionalism: Workplace; Institutional; Collegial; Universal.

5. Leadership & Management Skills: Leadership-Strategic Vision; Leadership-Motivating and Inspiring Others; Management-Project Management; Management-Data and Resource Management; Management-Research Staff Management.

6. Responsible Conduct of Research: Conflicts of Interest; Data Ownership and Sharing; Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship; Identifying and Mitigating Research Misconduct; Research with Human Subjects (when applicable); Research Involving Animals (when applicable).

Objectives and Goals of RCR Education: a Four-Component Model

The US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017, p. 166) distinguishes between Objectives, Goals, and Benefits of RCR Education in relation to Research Integrity Education or Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Education.

Objectives are the general aims that RCR education seeks to achieve in the long term. In this regard, the objective of the Erasmus+ Integrity project, under which this competency profile was created, was to make students ‘streetwise‘ in research integrity. Alternatively, as the US

National Academy of Engineering (2009) puts it:

Workshop participants generally agreed that a major goal of ethics education is to encourage faculty and students to question the decisions, practices, and processes around them so they can make better informed decisions and help shape a community of which they want to be part. (p. 11)

The US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) lists the following eight major objectives 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 7

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 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 globalization 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 established to be narrower in scope and more specific to be measured in the assessment of a given activity. Therefore, learning goals are specific learning outcomes related to learning objectives in the sense that they can contribute to them. However, in addition to the objectives and goals, RCR education may have other benefits that are not identified as objectives or goals of RCR education itself but may benefit other areas (The US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017, p. 166).

According to the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), learning goals or learning outcomes are statements of what a learner knows, understands and is able to do on the completion of a learning process. Learning goals are defined in terms of competencies, meaning knowledge, skills, and attitudes (The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, 2011).

The Tuning Project (Gonzáles & Wagenaar, 2008) distinguishes even more precisely between learning outcomes and competencies:

Learning outcomes are statements of what a learner is expected to know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate after completion of learning. They can refer to a single course unit or else to a period of studies, for example, a first, a second and a third cycle programme. Learning outcomes specify the requirements for award of credit.

Competencies represent a dynamic combination of knowledge, understanding, skills and abilities. Fostering competences is the object of educational programmes. Competences will be formed in various course units and assessed at different stages. (pp. 16-17) Furthermore, the Tuning Project distinguishes three types of competencies (Gonzáles & Wagenaar, 2008, pp. 16-17, 29-30):

Instrumental Competences are those that have an instrumental function. They include cognitive skills; the ability to understand and manipulate ideas and thoughts; methodological skills to manipulate the environment (such as time management and learning strategies, making decisions, or solving problems); technological skills related to the use of technological devices, computing, and information management skills; linguistic skills such as oral and written communication or knowledge of a second language.

Interpersonal Competences are individual skills that refer to the ability to express one’s feelings, critical and self-critical skills. Social skills, which refer to interpersonal skills or teamwork or the expression of social or ethical commitment. They are used to facilitate processes of social interaction and cooperation;

8

Systemic competences are skills and abilities that relate to whole systems. They require a combination of understanding, sensitivity, and knowledge that allows one to see how the parts of a whole relate and come together. These skills include the ability to plan change to make improvements in whole systems and to design new systems. Systemic competencies require the prior acquisition of instrumental and interpersonal competencies as a foundation.

Tuning (Gonzáles & Wagenaar, 2008) structures these three types of competencies into 30

competency units:

Instrumental competences: Capacity for analysis and synthesis; Capacity for organisation and planning; Basic general knowledge; Grounding in basic knowledge of the profession; Oral and written communication in your native language; Knowledge of a second language; Elementary computing skills; Information management skills (ability to retrieve and analyse information from different sources); Problem solving; Decision-making (p. 31) Interpersonal competences: Critical and self-critical abilities; Teamwork; Interpersonal skills; Ability to work in an interdisciplinary team; Ability to communicate with experts in other fields; Appreciation of diversity and multiculturality; Ability to work in an international context; Ethical commitment; (pp. 31-32)

Systemic competences: Capacity for applying knowledge in practice; Research skills; Capacity to learn; Capacity to adapt to new situations; Capacity for generating new ideas (creativity); Leadership; Understanding of cultures and customs of other countries; Ability to work autonomously; Project design and management; Initiative and entrepre-neurial spirit; Concern for quality; Will to succeed (p. 32) The US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017), lists (after the US National Academy of Engineering (2009)) the following set of nine goals that should be developed in RCR education:

1) Recognize and define ethical issues; 2) Identify relevant stakeholders and sociotechnical systems; 3) Gather relevant data about stakeholders and systems; 4) Understand stakeholder perspectives; 5) Identify conflicting values; 6) Construct viable alternative actions or solutions and identify constraints; 7) Evaluate alternatives in terms of consequences, public defensibility, and institutional barriers; 8) Engage in reasoned dialog or negotiation; 9) Revise options, plans, or actions (p. 167).

The US National Postdoctoral Association (NPA Core Competencies Committee, 2007-2009) distinguishes between components/principles and delineation of specific skills in RCR

education:

Components/Principles: 1. Improve ability to make ethical and legal choices; 2. Develop appreciation for the range of accepted practices for conducting research; 3. Be familiar with the regulations, policies, statutes, and guidelines that govern the conduct of government-funded research, as appropriate. 4. Be aware of the available tools and resources to which they can turn when ethical questions and concerns arise.

Delineation of Specific Skills: 1. Data ownership and sharing (a. Sharing of data with collabora-tors, including industry-specific concerns as appropriate; b. Ownership and access to data, particularly once a postdoctoral fellow’s appointment ends; c. Legal ramifications of intellec-9

tual property, patents and copyright.); 2. Publication practices and responsible authorship (a.

Criteria for authorship; b. The elements of responsible publication); 3. Research with human subjects (a. Ethical principles for conducting research with human subjects; b. Informed consent and subject confidentiality; c. Institutional Review Boards; d. Reporting clinical trials.); 4. Research involving animals (a. Ethical principles and federal policies for conducting research with animals; b. Understanding the Three Rs: Replace, reduce and refine animal use in research; c. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.); 5. Identifying and mitigating research misconduct (a. Definitions; b. Reporting procedures; c. The role and risks of being a whistle-blower.); 6. Conflicts of interest (a. Personal and intellectual conflicts; b. Conflicts of commitment; c. Financial conflicts; d. Profits and intellectual property rights; e. Confidentiality and bias in peer review; f. Conflicts and potential competition between mentor and trainee.) Learning goals in RCR education are more systematically divided by Bebeau (2002b, 2002c; Bebeau & Thoma, 1999) and Davis (Davis & Riley 2008; Davis & Feinerman, 2010) into four aspects of RCR education according to Rest’s four-component model of morality (Rest, 1983; see also National Research Council, 2002, p. 88): 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 some 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 knowing 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 student commitment to the standards of their profession and the likelihood that the student will act on them.

Similarly, Antes, and DuBois (2014) divide research integrity learning outcomes into four categories: ethical problem-solving skills; ethical sensitivity skills; knowledge of research ethics; attitudes and values.

The US National Research Council (2002) also elaborates on the four-component model: The educational program should be built around the development of abilities that give rise to responsible conduct. These include the ability to (a) identify the ethical dimensions of situations that arise in the research setting and the laws, regulations, and guidelines 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 values (identity formation) and appropriately prioritize 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)

10





Intermediate Concepts

Bebeau and Thoma (1999) emphasise the need for intermediate concepts in RCR education.

They distinguish three levels of abstraction in moral or ethical cognition and RCR education.

The most general level involves abstract concepts and related principles (such as the concept of equality and the corresponding principle ‘everyone must be treated equally‘). However, such abstract concepts are difficult 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 profession, as different scientific groups have different codes. Such codes are rarely explained in terms of general ethical theories but are taken for granted, functioning like the ‘ten commandments‘.

Teaching ethics courses in various fields, however, takes place somewhere between the abstract and the concrete. Ethics courses are often organised around concepts that are more concrete but still general enough to combine practical instruction 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. Intermediate level concepts provide more concrete guidance for actions than the general concepts and link concrete actions to theory, which codes do not do.

Davis and Feinerman (2010) have developed a list of such intermediate concepts for teaching RCR to graduate engineering students. However, they emphasise that most of the concepts relate to research in general, so they are relevant to teaching research integrity in various scientific fields. The list is as follows:

Accessibility (designing with disabilities in mind); Animal subjects research; Authorship and credit (co-authorship, faculty and students); Publication (presentation: when, what, and how?); National security, engineering research, and secrecy; Collaborative research; Computational research (problems specific to use of computers); Conflicts of interest; Cultural differences (between disciplines as well as between countries); Data management (access to data, data storage, and security); Confidentiality (personal information and technical data); Human subjects research in engineering field; Peer review; Research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, and incomplete disclosure of data); Obtaining research, employment, or contracts (credentials, promises, state of work, etc.); Responsibilities of mentors and trainees; Treating colleagues fairly (responding to discrimination); Responsibility for products (testing, field data, etc.); Whistle blowing (and less drastic responses to wrongdoing). (pp. 354-355, footnote 5)

The competencies in the competency profile we have developed in the Erasmus+ Integrity project are intermediate concepts that link concrete actions to abstract principles and theory. They are intended to cover all aspects of integrity in research, and the user can choose from them those that are relevant to his/her research area.

11





How to Teach Research Integrity?

Having identified the four aspects of learning outcomes in RCR education, the most important question that follows is: how should these four aspects be taught?

For RCR education, the US National Research Council (2002) draws on the analogy with the education of students in the critical analysis of the research literature: The committee believes that useful insight into the best practice for education in the responsible conduct of research comes by analogy to the education of students in the critical analysis of the research literature in their fields. How is critical reading taught?

First, students are introduced to the primary literature as soon as they enter an educational program. Second, the complexity of the readings and the depth of the analysis are gradually increased. Third, critical reading of journal articles, under the guidance of a mentor, is integrated into all aspects of the curriculum: core courses, seminars, the design of research projects, and the preparation of research manuscripts. Fourth, critical reading is taught by the very scientists who provide instruction in other aspects of research and who serve as primary role models. Finally, student competence is tested whenever students are asked to provide support for their ideas and conclusions. Consistent with the principles of effective instruction, assessment and feedback are continually provided from a student’s first seminar presentation to the final thesis defense and submission of manuscripts for publication. (p. 85)

Similarly, just as 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 (ethical sensitivity, ethical knowledge, ethical judgment, and ethical commitment) should form the basis of education in the responsible conduct of research. The US National Research Council (2002, pp. 87-97) elaborates on how this should be done. Each of these aspects is considered from two perspectives: Teaching Strategies and Assessment Methods.

Ethical Sensitivity

Ethical sensitivity involves the researcher’s awareness of how his actions affect others. It includes the following skills: anticipating the reactions and feelings 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 considering 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 reasoning (about issues) in the following ways. Ethical sensitivity is the ability to recognise (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 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 misconduct; author-12

ship practices and policies; data management; conflicts of interest, 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 policies 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, identify stakeholders, consider consequences, and engage in probabilistic reasoning. Sensitivity training differs from standard ethics courses in that cases are presented without any preconceived interpretation to stimulate sensitivity in identification and subse-quent 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 analyze their own moral arguments and develop defensible points of view for new problems that are likely to emerge during the course of professional life. (National Research Council, 2002, p. 90) Students should develop the ability to determine how to modify existing rules to meet the new moral problem. The most useful instructional strategy 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 arguments. In this way, the intervention affects students’ reasoning in two ways: developing new thinking to meet new moral problems; and reducing or rejecting 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 evaluated 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 ethical sensitivity and those intended to stimulate ethical reasoning is this: cases designed to enhance sensitivity are de-13

signed to make finding and understanding 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 discussion of dilemmas can lead to fruitless exchanges of student opinions, the teacher should intervene and encourage students to explore the criteria for evaluating 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 ethical motivation. Ethical motivation requires the individual to weigh many legitimate 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. Ethical motivation (doing the right thing) is therefore linked to personal responsibility in identity formation (doing the right thing because I truly believe it is my responsibility to do so). Indeed, individuals may do the right thing not for the sake of personal responsibility but for 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 formation is a lifelong process, instructional strategies could be used to encourage it. In the past, personal responsibility was developed informally, through social interaction with the positive research environment and role models, such as mentors 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 sensitivity, reasoning, and judgement, but also commitment. The US National Research Council (2002) calls this

‘survival skills‘:

14





Fundamental to responsible conduct in any profession is the ability to perform the complex tasks of the discipline with integrity, i.e., to have acquired survival skills. /.../ Integrity, ego strength, perseverance, backbone, toughness, strength of conviction, and courage are also qualities required for effectiveness as a researcher. A researcher may be ethically sensitive, may make good ethical judgments, and may place a high priority on professional values; but if he or she wilts under pressure, is easily distracted or discouraged, or is weak willed, a moral failure may occur because of a deficiency in character and competence.

(p. 96)

Ethical commitment or courage could be fostered so that students develop skills that are often neglected in research training but are essential as a survival skill 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 critical 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 collabora-tors; 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 similar tasks The point of stimulating and assessing ethical commitment is that students should develop the courage to communicate with the research community, 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.

At which Study Level to Teach RCR?

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 varying 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 setbacks remain: 1) RCR education is mostly reserved for the postgraduate level.

Research integrity is mostly taught at 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 in various contexts 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 (in the U.S. via course-based undergraduate research experiences called CUREs; see Diaz-Martinez et al., 2019), there is also a growing need for undergraduate RCR education that does not stand alone but is integrated with research itself.

Diaz-Martinez et al. (2019) suggest that teaching teams seeking to implement RCR education effectively within their undergraduate research consider an approach that includes: 15





1. identification of appropriate RCR student learning objectives (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 professional development for those individuals implementing E/RCR education within CUREs (e.g., instructors of record, teaching assistants, peer leaders).

Diaz-Martinez et al. (2019) identified six student learning objectives (SLOs) that are broadly relevant. Based on these objectives, learning goals could be developed for students in specific research areas specific to the experiences students will encounter in their research. Diaz-Martinez et al. (2019) present an example for biology education in the table below (p. 5): SLOs

Special considerations

Curriculum example(s)

Assessment example(s)

1. Students will be able Emphasis should be placed on the Instructors can assign stu- Students’ views regarding to describe the impor- ethical values that drive the scien- dents the following article the importance of E/RCR as tance of E/ RCR as part tific pursuit (i.e., honesty, fairness, and make use of scaffold- part of the research process of the research process. trustworthiness, objectivity, open- ed discussion prompts to can be formatively evaluated ness, and respect) rather than on begin to connect general using one or more free-re-examples of misconduct.

topics addressed in the sponse prompts. In turn, re-

article with the research sponses can be used as the

focus of the CURE.

basis for further discussion.

2. Students will be able The specific topics to be ad- Active-learning approach- Knowledge can be assessed to define research mis- dressed depend on the type of es should be used; e.g., using Hirsch’s survey, which conduct, questionable data being obtained in the CURE. the following three-part consists of 30 content ques-research practices,

If the goal is to publish the findings exercise could be im- tions covering all nine RCR

proper data acquisition generated in the CURE, the top- plemented: 1) an over- areas defined by the Office and management, col- ics of authorship and authors’ re- view of applicable ethical of Research Integrity. Case laboration, and author- sponsibilities should be addressed. guidelines; 2) analysis of a responses can be assessed ship in the context of

relevant case study; and using a case-study rubric.

the CURE.

3) interactive role-play of

the case study.

3. Students will be able Students should be able to apply Use the Decision Proce- The Decision Procedure to identify potential eth- E/RCR standards to identify ar- dure Checklist (DPC) to Scoring Guide allows inical concerns associated eas of their own projects where analyze potential ethical structors to score responses with the development potential questionable research concerns encountered in to the DPC as a summative and/or implementation practices could arise. This will al- the CURE. This checklist assessment.

of their own research.

low students to be fully aware of walks a student through the E/RCR standards that apply the process of identifying specifically to their projects.

stakeholders, resources

to address the problem,

4. Students will be able Emphasis should be placed on and the short- and long-to articulate and/or im- how to effectively facilitate stu- term consequences of plement mechanisms to dent discussion of E/ RCR con- the proposed solutions.

address potential ethi- cerns, with the CURE instructor, cal concerns that might as such concerns arise.

arise in the conduct and

reporting of their own

research.

5. Students will be able Emphasis should be placed on While not unique to Student collaboration can to collaborate respect- defining roles and responsibilities, CUREs, engaging stu- be assessed using the Asso-fully and professionally

identifying mechanisms for effec- dents in creating a group ciation of American Colleges tive decision-making and team contract can serve to ad- and Universities Teamwork accountability, and defining when dress one or more special Valid Assessment of Learning and how to end unproductive col- considerations associated in Undergraduate Education laborations.

with this SLO.

(VALUE) Rubric. Specific

guidelines and instructions

for using the rubric are in-

cluded with the rubric itself.

6. Students will be able In CURES with a community-en- Activities can include dis- Cognitive map analysis can to articulate potential gagement dimension, this SLO cussions and the creation be used for assessment scientific and social im- should go beyond awareness of of a cognitive map depict- purposes by analyzing the plications of their re- implications and address also the ing the ethical implications complexity, relationships, search.

responsibilities, benefits, and chal- of students’ research and message of the cognitive lenges of engaging the community projects.

map.

in the research process.

16





Grey Zone and Questionable Research Practices 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., misattribution of authorship, omission of outliers, and salami slicing of data).

Butler et al. (2017), in their study of business school academics, identify the next most common QRP practices: playing with numbers, playing with models, and playing with hypotheses (also called HARKing - making or changing hypotheses after the results are known).

Butler et al. (2017) attribute the existence of QRPs to three reasons: the inadequate training of researchers, the pressures and incentives to publish in certain outlets, and 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.

Butler et al. (2017) find the reason – ironically – in the increasing awareness of FFP, which leads scientists to systematically ‘push‘ their results in the desired direction by artificially inflating significance in some way, but being careful not to cross the line into overt misconduct.

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‘. However, 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, as editors want to inflate impact factors and increase journal rankings, and therefore encourage authors to ‘play the game‘ to increase their chance of publication.

Similarly, Hall, and Martin (2019, p. 415) emphasise that misconduct does not occur in a vacuum but arises from organisational or institutional constraints and incentives - so-called

‘organisational misconduct.‘ Wherever one chooses to draw the line, FFPs are seen as inher-ently negative, ‘black‘ practices, while QRPs fall into an ethical ‘grey area‘ between acceptable (scientific best practices) on the one hand and unacceptable (‘black‘ FFPs) on the other. For this reason, QRPs are a fruitful starting point for discussing research ethics within an academic field (Butler et al., 2017). Butler et al. (2017), therefore, appeal: The stakes of studying QRPs now become clear: If our aim is to promote research integrity and research ethics, rather than simply to expose and punish wrongdoers for their flagrant transgressions, then we must take the grey zone into full consideration. (p. 96) 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) therefore suggested redefining academic misconduct as ‘distorted reporting‘, which can refer to any omission or misrepresentation of information necessary to assess the validity and significance of research, meaning any discrepancy between 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).

17





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 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., Winsorization).

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 severity (in premeditated dishonesty and intentional rule-bending), to medium (in less intentional poor behaviour that may arise due to complexity, sloppiness, ignorance) and to low severity (in honest error). For each of these categories, Hall and Martin (2019) give examples of behaviour, theoretical sources of misconduct and samples of corrective measures.

Validation of Competency Profile

In the competency profile we developed, competencies are defined in terms of categories (a kind of intermediate concepts (see above)) that cover all possible areas of research integrity.

These categories could be translated into factors of a measurement instrument to assess competencies at all four levels of RCR (sensitivity, reasoning, motivation, commitment). Such an instrument could validate the competency profile in a similar way that Hauser, Reuter, Gruber, and Mottok (2018) validated and modified the factor structure of Böttcher and Thiel’s (2018) F-Comp questionnaire to measure research competencies. Similarly, based on factor analysis, the categories in the profile could be modified into a validated and more appropriate factor structure by accentuating some categories that are not as exposed now and eliminating others. This is an opportunity for future research on the presented competency profile.

References

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, 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 18

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, 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022057316180

Böttcher, F., & Thiel, F. (2018). Evaluating research-oriented teaching: A new instrument to assess university students’ research competences. Higher Education, 75, 91–110. https://

doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0128-y

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

Davis, M., & Feinerman, A. (2010). Assessing graduate student progress in engineering ethics.

Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, 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

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., May-field-Meyer, T., McDonald, K. K., Rosenberg, M., Yarborough, 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

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-en-glish-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.re-spol.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.

IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Tenerife, 109-117. https://doi.

org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363216

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. Lick-ona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and social issues (pp. 31-53).

Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

19

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

Rest, J. (1983). Morality. In P. H. Mussen, J. Flavell, & E. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3, Cognitive Development ( 4th ed.) (pp. 556–629). Wiley.

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). Glos-sary: Quality in education and training. Publications Office of the European Union. https://

www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/4106_en.pdf

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 Academy of Engineering. (2009). Ethics education and scientific and engineering research: what’s been learned? What should be done? Summary of a workshop. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12695

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

20





Objectives and Outcomes

The research integrity competencies defined in the profile (see sections: Values and Principles, Research Practice, Publication and Dissemination, Violations) can be summarised as:

• core learning objectives, which encompass the most general aims of integrity education,

• learning outcomes, which summarise competencies across all levels of study.

Learning Objectives

‘Streetwise‘ in terms of integrity means that students have developed all four aspects of integrity education in research (sensitivity, reasoning, motivation, and commitment) according to Rest’s four-component model of morality (see Theoretical Background section). To become ‘streetwise‘, students should be able to recognise and discuss integrity issues and problematic situations with their colleagues (sensitivity), develop and justify strategies to respond to integrity issues (reasoning), be motivated and confident to respond to integrity issues (motivation), and commit to promoting research integrity in their research environment (commitment) (recognise-justify-respond-promote). Therefore, the following set of core objectives corresponding to the four aspects of research integrity education (see Theoretical Background section) can be summarised. These objectives can be considered key goals that students should achieve after completing the three levels of study (BA, MA, PhD).

Purpose and Value

Students should understand the importance, purpose, and value of research integrity as a fundamental component of quality research. They should have internalised the values and dispositions of research integrity, such as the mindfulness, responsibility, and courage necessary to meet the standards of honesty and integrity in the conduct of research.

Relevance

Students should be aware of the relevance of research integrity to all disciplines, including the relevance of research integrity to their research.

Responsibilities

Students should be aware of the responsibilities of researchers and institutions. They should understand and be able to explain the key ethical responsibilities they have as researchers, the challenges they might face in fulfilling those responsibilities and take responsibility for their actions and decisions in specific situations.

FFPs and QRPs

Students should be aware of practices that undermine the trustworthiness of research, not only those that are widely accepted as blatant (FFP) but also those in the ambiguous ‘grey area’: the ‘questionable research practices’ (QRP).

21

Sensitivity

Students should develop sensitivity to problems, conflicts, and dilemmas related to research integrity in order to recognise, define, and respond to them in relevant situations.

Strategies

Students should be able to develop, justify, and demonstrate strategies for dealing with pressures and difficult situations.

Consequences and Alternatives

Students should be aware of the consequences of their actions and be able to develop and adequately justify an acceptable alternative course of action. They should be able to evaluate and justify alternatives in terms of consequences, public defensibility, and institutional barriers, and construct viable alternative courses of action or solutions and identify constraints.

Guidance

Students should know where to find guidance, advice, and support on good research practice and misconduct, and they should know who to contact when confronted with research misconduct. They should be aware of the tools and resources available to them to turn to when ethical issues and concerns arise, and they should explain and follow the correct procedures.

Legislation

Students should be aware of the legislation (governmental and institutional), professional guidelines, and related governance processes (rules, issues, options, and resources) of research integrity and be able to address any legal and regulatory requirements that affect their research.

Ethical Approval

Students should understand and be able to explain when ethical approval for research should be obtained and understand and be able to outline the processes necessary to obtain this approval.

Commitment

Students should commit to translating the governing principles of research integrity into trustworthy research.

Stakeholders

Students should be able to identify relevant stakeholders and sociotechnical systems and understand their perspectives.

Impact

Students should be able to manage the impact of research on the world outside the laboratory, including society and the environment.

22

Differences

Students should be aware of cultural, national, and institutional differences related to the research integrity.

Uncertainties and Changes

Students should be aware of the uncertainty of some norms and standards in research practice (due to factors such as changes in technology used in research and the globalisation of research).

Reflect

Students should be able to critically analyse/reflect on their actions and behaviours in conducting research and in their interactions with research participants, supervisors, collabora-tors, and similar.

Defend and Justify

Students should be able to justify and defend the ethical management (design, data collection, etc.) of their research (e.g., before an examining committee; before an ethics committee).

Promote

Students should develop a positive attitude towards continuous learning about research ethics and awareness to promote public trust in science.

Transfer

Students should be able to transfer research integrity skills to any career, which will help them become a more well-rounded individual (e.g., revise options, plans or actions; engage in reasoned dialogue or negotiation; collaborate effectively; stick to one’s principles; make fully informed judgements and take appropriate action; be self-aware and know when to ask for advice; be an independent learner; be better prepared to overcome challenges in their research; be ‘professionally socialised’ within their research discipline and in the higher education context).

23





Learning Outcomes

Learning outcomes set the aims and standards that students have to achieve for each study phase in order to acquire the core objectives of research integrity education. Differentiation of learning outcomes on the BA, MA, and PhD levels is aligned to the EHEA Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area,* whose qualifications were adapted to fit the research integrity goals.

* Paris Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education 24-25 May 2018 (2018). The Framework of Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (revised 2018). Paris Communiqué Appendix III. (May 25th 2018). Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/

media.ehea.info/file/2018_Paris/77/8/EHEAParis2018_Communique_AppendixIII_952778.pdf BA

Values and Principles

Bachelor students recognise research integrity as an issue that is part and parcel of research practice and for which account should be made.

Bachelor students are able to describe the importance of research integrity as part of the research process.

Bachelor students are able to define and explain basic values and principles of research integrity (including values underlying human and animal research) and apply them by developing and sustaining arguments and solving problems in small-sample research in their research area.

Bachelor students can communicate values related to the research integrity to both professional and non-specialist audiences.

Bachelor students should develop the skills necessary to conduct further study and research consistent with research integrity with a high degree of autonomy.

Bachelor students should understand the process of ethical decision making and can apply it to their small-sample research project.

Research Practice

Bachelor students are able to define and explain basic research designs (e.g., qualitative, quantitative), basic research methods (sampling, data collection, etc.), basic qualitative and quantitative data collection styles (e.g., survey, interview), and are able to apply them in small-sample research.

Bachelor students are able to collect and interpret relevant data in their research area to make judgments consistent with research integrity.

Bachelor students are able to find, identify, collect, and organise ideas and current knowledge to make analyses and decisions consistent with research integrity.

Bachelor students know and understand why they must obtain consent when conducting research and understand that subjects have the right to withdraw from research.

Bachelors students are able to recognise potential research integrity issues related to the development and/or conduct of their research.

Bachelors students are able to work respectfully and professionally with their fellow students and supervisors.

24

Bachelors students are able to articulate potential scientific and societal implications of their research.

Publication and Dissemination

Bachelor students are able to communicate information, ideas, problems, and solutions about their research consistent with research integrity.

Bachelor students are able to define and explain the difference between skimming, scanning, intensive reading, and extensive reading and are able to apply them in their writing.

Bachelor students understand why they need academic writing skills and are able to recognise the skills needed to write an academic paper.

Bachelor students are able to identify and differentiate among various styles of academic writing.

Bachelor students are able to identify and explain the structure of an academic paper (abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion) and elements of responsible publication (IMRaD) and are able to apply them in writing.

Bachelor students are able to recognise different citation styles and apply knowledge of citation (citation styles, in-text citation, and end-of-text citation) in their writing.

Bachelor students know how to find information from reliable sources (using search engines on the Internet) and are able to write about a topic by analysing sources and literature.

Bachelor students are able to identify the importance and reliability of sources from contextual clues (title, author, images, illustrations, etc.) Bachelor students are able to distinguish between paraphrasing and quoting and to choose when to quote and when to paraphrase, and make a proper citation or paraphrase.

Bachelor students are able to follow the author guidelines of their institution when writing a research paper.

Violations

Bachelor students are able to define and distinguish appropriate conduct, blatant research misconduct (FFP), and questionable research practices (QRP) in the context of their field of study or research.

Bachelor students are able to define and distinguish plagiarism, identify different types of plagiarism, and identify ways to avoid plagiarism.

Bachelor students are able to articulate and implement mechanisms to address potential ethical concerns that may arise when conducting and reporting one’s research.

Bachelor students understand personal conflicts of interest and how to avoid them in their studies and research.

Bachelor students are able to find information on policies and procedures regarding violations and allegations of misconduct at their university and know how and to whom to report identified misconduct.

Bachelor students are aware of the importance and risks of reporting misconduct in order to make a proper decision about whether or not to make a report, and they understand the consequences of making a false allegation.

Bachelor students know how to handle peer pressure situations.

25

MA

Values and Principles

Master students demonstrate knowledge and understanding that extends and enhances Bachelor level and provides a foundation for originality in developing research ideas consistent with research integrity.

Master students know the key ethical frameworks and understand how they provide a way of thinking about research dilemmas.

Master students are able to apply their knowledge, understanding and problem-solving skills to new or unfamiliar situations within broader (or multi-disciplinary) contexts and with due regard for research integrity.

Master students can integrate knowledge and deal with complexity in their area of research and formulate judgments in accordance with values and principles of research integrity with incomplete or limited information while also reflecting on social and ethical responsibilities.

Master students can clearly and unambiguously communicate their conclusions on research integrity issues and the knowledge and arguments that underpin them to both expert and non-expert audiences.

Master students have the learning skills that enable them to engage with issues of research integrity in a largely self-directed and autonomous manner.

Master students know the milestones in the development of concepts and approaches to research integrity and understand the relationships and differences between general academic integrity, research integrity and the ethics of their future profession (e.g., MD, teachers, social workers, etc.).

Research Practice

Master students understand and are aware of sensitive research areas (human and animal rights, environmental protection, health, safety) and possible misuse of research.

Master students understand and are aware of new and emerging research approaches and their ethical challenges (e.g., online research, administrative data, Big Data, etc.).

Master students understand and are able to apply advanced research methods (research analysis and research statistics) and are aware of the potential misuse of research methods (e.g., ‘cargo cult science‘, the use and misuse of statistical methods, hypotheses ex ante, ex post, etc.).

Master students are able to manage relationships with research participants and can assess risks.

Master students are able to compare and contrast basic principles and ethical issues in different types of research (ethnographic, critical, action research, etc.).

Master students are able to deal with sensitive information and data in research (data protection, GDPR, chance/secondary findings).

Master students understand and are aware of the importance of the FAIR principle of data curation.

26

Master students are aware of the process of ethical review of research proposals at their research institution.

Master students can prepare a research plan and submit it to their institution’s ethics committee.

Master students can prepare a consent form appropriate for diverse populations.

Master students understand their roles in research teams and are able to collaborate with colleagues and supervisors on research projects (teamwork, collaboration on manuscript writing, collaboration with third parties outside the university, working in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary teams).

Publication and Dissemination

Master students are aware of the discrepancy between the reporting of research and the actual research process (understanding that different research designs in different scientific fields have different organisation and timeline, but the report itself is uniformly structured and presents a research process as linear).

Master students understand the process of publishing the manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal.

Master students are able to provide feedback to peers, are able to handle critical feedback/

review of their research paper, and are able to revise the paper (essay, thesis) accordingly.

Master students are aware of new trends, requirements, but also new pitfalls in scientific communication (predatory / vanity publishing, etc.).

Master students are able to use anti-plagiarism software and other tools for writing and editing manuscripts.

Master students are aware of trends in open access publishing.

Master students understand authorship issues in publishing research.

Violations

Master students understand the main reasons and sources why scientists deviate from good research practice.

Master students understand different types of conflicts of interest, can give examples of them, and can avoid them in their research.

Master students appreciate the value of good research practice (GRP), can explain the difference between bad research practice (BRP, such as FFP) and questionable research practice (QRP), and understand the dangers of BRP and QRP for individuals, their careers, institutions and society.

Master students understand the legal aspects of research integrity within and outside the research institution (e.g., intellectual property, copyright) and know where to find policies on research integrity governing their area of research.

27

PhD

Values and Principles

Doctoral students demonstrate a systematic understanding of research integrity and an independent and autonomous mastery of research skills and methods in a manner consistent with research integrity.

Doctoral students are able to differentiate what values underlie research practice (such as honesty, transparency, and responsibility ) and understand how issues that arise in practice relate to these values (as trade-offs between values, as in need of protection, as in need to be actively promoted, etc.).

Doctoral students can use reflection on research values to predict the most appropriate decisions or actions in complex, ‘grey area’ situations.

Doctoral students can communicate with their colleagues, the larger scientific community, and society at large about research integrity issues.

Doctoral students can assess how research values affect decisions and actions in their own research context.

Doctoral students incorporate the core values of human interaction (e.g., respect, fairness, health, safety, welfare, and efficiency) into research practice and are encouraged to develop attitudes of respect toward colleagues, human research subjects, animals, and nature.

Doctoral students are stimulated to become aware of problems that can arise in human interactions (leading to unfairness, risk, a reduction in welfare, etc.) and have learned strategies to address them.

Doctoral students are motivated to contribute to a culture of research integrity within the institution.

Research Practice

Doctoral students demonstrate the ability to prepare independently and rigorously (conceive, design, conduct, and adapt) a substantive research process with respect for research integrity and are aware of the risks involved.

Doctoral students are able to contribute through original research that extends the frontier of knowledge within their research field in accordance with research integrity.

Doctoral students are capable of critical analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of new and complex ideas in their research field, consistent with the principles of research integrity.

Doctoral students are able to carry out complex research procedures independently and responsibly (e.g., research design, choice of appropriate methodology, data collection, data analysis, and data reporting) with due diligence.

Doctoral students have knowledge of (institutional) policies relevant to the conduct of research, standards respected in their discipline, and the ability to reflect critically on the strengths and weaknesses of their chosen process.

Doctoral students are able to explain what ethical problems may arise during a research procedure (such as the handling of human subjects), are able to reflect on these problems and apply strategies (within their institute or country) to help overcome them.

28

Doctoral students demonstrate sufficient knowledge and understanding of the regulations (institutional, national, and international) governing the handling of research data.

Doctoral students are able to develop a data management plan and know how to find support to improve the plan.

Doctoral students will know how to comply with international regulations on data protection and data security and that they are accountable as researchers.

Doctoral students are able to independently manage data (storage) and identify potential risks of the infrastructure used to store research materials.

Doctoral students are able to distinguish the elements that constitute a good research environment in their field and are actively encouraged to contribute to a good research environment.

Doctoral students are able to assess (mutual) expectations regarding supervisory and mentoring responsibilities in order to maintain a productive and supportive research environment.

Doctoral students are able to assess mutual responsibilities in mentoring and to discuss issues related to the process and content of mentoring (frequency, quality of mentoring, conflicts of interest, etc.) with their senior supervisor.

Doctoral students are able to self-reflect on their mentoring roles to bachelor and master’s students and how their mentoring fosters a productive and supportive research environment.

Doctoral students are able to assess their responsibilities in working with others and manage mutual expectations in relation to fellow researchers, stakeholders and third parties.

Doctoral students are able to take a lead role in research processes and assign work to others on a research team.

Doctoral students encourage open, transparent, and collegial collaboration among researchers and are able to ensure that issues of data collection, data management, intellectual property, and publication are decided fairly.

Publication and Dissemination

Doctoral students are able to promote the responsible conduct of research in academic and professional contexts.

Doctoral students are able to determine authorship order, acknowledgements, and conflicts of interest when preparing manuscripts and are able to identify and discuss deviations in practice.

Doctoral students know what strategies to use when reviewing the work of others (e.g., what criteria to use) and are able to evaluate the work of others in an unbiased and constructive manner.

Doctoral candidates are able to independently assess the quality of, for example, research proposals in the context of an evaluation.

Doctoral students demonstrate the ability to independently write a research proposal and find support within the institution to complete the proposal.

29

Doctoral students are able to independently write a scientific report, respecting the elements of responsible publication, evaluating different types of publication according to rank and form, and know that authors should adhere to the same integrity criteria regardless of journal rank.

Doctoral students can independently assess the quality of publishers and follow submission procedures in different journals as corresponding authors.

Violations

Doctoral students understand how different stakeholders (other researchers, students, employers/institution, editors/journals, societal stakeholders) are affected by different types of research misconduct.

Doctoral students understand what infrastructure is available for research (mis)conduct issues at their institution and at the state level and how to handle research inquiries properly.

Doctoral researchers know where to find support when dealing with third parties (e.g., legal advice) and how to reflect on and deal with conflicts of interest that arise when dealing with third parties or society.

Doctoral students understand research infrastructure, can deal with processes of research funding systems and grant application procedures and are able to deal with relevant ethical issues (e.g., conflicts of interest).

30





Sources and Resources

A Guidebook on Competency Modelling and Profiling (2017). Australian Government through the Philippines Australia Human Resource and Organisational Development Facility (PAHRODF). https://archive.australiaawardsphilippines.org/partners/pahrodf-1/2013-2014/

HROD%20Plan/Prioritised%20HROD%20Interventions/hrodf-a-13-03-km-product-competency-modeling-guidebook/Miscellaneous%20Files/misc_2/publications/pahrodf-competency-modelling-guidebook-0829.pdf

Academic integrity in research: The University of Oxford’s Code of practice and procedure on academic integrity in research (2020). Oxford University. https://hr.admin.ox.ac.uk/academic-integrity-in-research

Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics (2014). Wiley. https://authorservices.wiley.com/

ethics-guidelines/index.html

Code of practice for research: Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct (2009). UKRIO

– UK Research Integrity Office. https://ukrio.org/publications/code-of-practice-for-research/

Collections (n. d.). Ethics Education Library. http://ethics.iit.edu/eelibrary/node/17816

Core practices (2017). COPE – Committee for Publication Ethics. https://publicationethics.

org/core-practices

ENERI project - European network of research ethics and research integrity (n. d.). https://eneri.eu/

Ethical guidelines for journal publication (2017). Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/__data/as-sets/pdf_file/0009/300888/Ethical-guidelines-for-journal-publication-V2.0-May-2017-Elsevier.pdf

Ethics in social science and humanities (2018). European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020_ethics-soc-science-humanities_en.pdf Ethics. Horizon 2020 online manual (n. d.). European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/ethics_en.htm IAU-MCO Guidelines for an institutional code of ethics in higher education (2012). International Association of Universities; Magna Charta Observatory. https://etico.iiep.unesco.org/en/

resource/iau-mco-guidelines-institutional-code-ethics-higher-education Journal publication ethics (n. d.). MIT Press. https://direct.mit.edu/journals/pages/publication-ethics

Montreal statement on research integrity in cross-boundary research collaborations (2013). World Conference on Research Integrity. https://wcrif.org/

Netherlands code of conduct for research integrity (2018). Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Netherlands Federation of University Medical Centres (NFU), the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), Associated Applied Re-31

search Institutes (TO2 Federation), the Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences and the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU). https://doi.

org/10.17026/dans-2cj-nvwu

PRINTEGER project – Promoting integrity as an integral dimension of excellence in research (n. d.).

https://printeger.eu/documents-results/

Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (2019). International Comitee of Medical Journal Editors. http://www.icmje.org/

recommendations/

Recommended checklist for researchers (2009). UKRIO – UK Research Integrity Office. https://

ukrio.org/publications/code-of-practice-for-research/

Research policy handbook (n. d.). Stanford University. https://doresearch.stanford.edu/policies/

research-policy-handbook

SATORI project – Stakeholders acting together on the ethical impact assessment of Research and Innovation (2015). https://satoriproject.eu/deliverables/

Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010). World Conference on Research Integrity.

https://wcrif.org/

Steneck, N. H. (2007). Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. The US Office of research integrity. https://ori.hhs.gov/ori-introduction-responsible-conduct-research Taylor & Francis editorial policies (n. d.). Taylor & Francis. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.

com/editorial-policies/

The Ethics Codes Collection (n. d.). Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions at Illinois Institute of Technology. http://ethicscodescollection.org/

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Revised Edition (2017). ALLEA - All European Academies. https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/

The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees. (n. d.). https://www.forskningsetikk.

no/en/topics/

WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (2018). World Medical Association. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declara-tion-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/

32





Model

The model identifies four main areas of research integrity: Values and Principles, Research Practise, Publication and Dissemination, and Violations. Each is divided into four sub-fields covering issues within the main field. The model is visualised in a box-like structure, and each field is also identified by a colour that has symbolic value: blue to symbolise wisdom for values and principles; yellow to symbolise an action for research practice; green to represent a ‘green light‘ for publication and dissemination; and red to represent ‘stop‘ for what is not allowed for violations.

Basic

Human

Animal

Regulations

Author

ation

ship

Values

Collabor

Repor

Public

ting

Research

Knowledge

ation

R

Integrity

eviewing

Practice

ing

entorM

Publi

Violations

shing

onment

Envir

Misconduct

Sources

Conflicts

Dealing

33

Basic

Human

Animal

Regulations

Author

ation

ship

Values

Collabor

Repor

Public

ting

Research

Knowledge

ation

R

Integrity

eviewing

Practice

ing

entorM

Publi

Violations

shing

onment

Envir

Misconduct

Sources

Conflicts

Dealing





Values and Principles

Competency

Competency Rubric (Behavioural Indicators)

Subfield

Competency

Competency

Levels of Complexity/Study Levels

Name

Definition

Explanation

Basic/BA

Intermediate/MA

Advanced/PhD

Values underlying

Understanding and

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Students can define and explain the basic

Students are able to compare and contrast

research activities

showing awareness

Researchers should develop, conduct, review, report, and commu-issues regarding the basic values of research

(honesty, transparency,

of the importance of

values of research (honesty, transparency,

basic values of research and address their

nicate research in an honest, that is, transparent, truthful, careful, (discuss potential ethical problems and

objectivity, accuracy,

honesty, transparency,

thoughtful, accurate, and unbiased manner.

objectivity, accuracy, carefulness) and apply

research problems in a careful, well-

wrong-doing with peers) and respond

carefulness)

objectivity, accuracy as

them in smal -sample research.

considered, and unbiased way.

basic values of research.

appropriately.

Understanding and

Students are able to commit to the highest

Values underlying human

showing awareness

Researchers should treat students, staff, colleagues, research partic-Students show proper behaviour towards

Students are able to compare and contrast

ethical standards and human rights and face

interactions in research

of the importance of

ipants, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage, and the environment people when performing smal -sample

diverse points of view, demonstrate their

dilemmas and issues by examining their own

practices (respect,

respect, fairness, health, with respect and fairness. Researchers shall be considerate of the health, safety, and welfare of the community, col aborators, and research and treat all people with dignity

understanding in their research work,

biases and behaviours to avoid stereotyping

fairness, health, safety,

safety, welfare, efficiency others associated with their research. Researchers should be effi- and equality, regardless of their social status, and are able to establish open and honest

(they remain fair and objective when

cient by using resources wisely and avoiding waste.

Basic Values

welfare, efficiency)

as basic values of

race, gender, and sexual orientation.

communication with peers and mentors.

determining skills needed for projects when

treatment.

selecting effective team members).

Students take full responsibility for all

Students can define and explain the

Students demonstrate discipline and

work activities and personal actions in their

Understanding and

basic values of responsibility (honour

Researchers should be responsible for research from idea to publi-willingness to produce outputs and are able

research (implement decisions that have

commitments; stay focused on tasks) and

Values of responsibility

showing awareness

cation, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision, and mentoring, and for its wider impact. Like any other hu-to take responsibility for their actions in

been agreed upon; maintain confidentiality;

(accountability, trust,

of the importance of

are able to apply them to smal -sample

man activity, scientific research is built on trust. Scientists trust the research projects (do the right thing, do not

acknowledge and learn from mistakes

and trustworthiness)

accountability, trust, and results reported by others, and society trusts the results of research. research projects (follow instructions; meet trustworthiness as basic Trust will only endure if the scientific community is dedicated to make excuses for errors, acknowledge and

without blaming others; recognise the

deadlines; keep promises and commitments

values of responsibility.

upholding the values associated with ethical scientific conduct.

correct mistakes, do not manipulate others

impact of one’s behaviour on others

made to others; tell the truth and be honest

etc.).

(maintain professional presence and poise,

in all dealings).

even under pressure).

In human subjects research, researchers should respect individuals Understanding basic

and their right to make decisions for and about themselves without undue influence or coercion from anyone else (such as researchers, Respect, beneficence,

principles in human

Students can define and explain basic values

Students are able to defend the basic

Students are able to recognise possible

funders, etc.). Researchers should have beneficence or a commit-justice

research: respect for

ment to maximise benefits and reduce risks to subjects. Researchers in human research and can adhere to them

principles of human research when treating

threats in human research and can solve

persons, beneficence,

should develop justice or a commitment to distribute benefits and in smal -sample research.

human subjects in their research.

issues autonomously and independently.

justice.

risks equally without disadvantaging certain individuals or groups (e.g., mentally disadvantaged, according to race or gender, etc.).

Values and

Principles

in Human

Students are able to classify possible positive

Research

and negative impact on others during

Understanding that

Students know about laws, rules, and

and after research (check assumptions

Human research is carefully regulated by society to ensure that the Regulations and risk

human subject research

regulations with which society regulates

Students are able to justify laws, rules and

risks do not outweigh the benefits. Researchers should therefore against facts) and are able to gather

without benefit

is regulated by society

avoid exposing people to risk without knowing the benefits of the human research, know where to find them,

regulations in human research and are able

to prevent risk without

relevant information in legislation to

research.

and are able to apply them to smal -sample

to act accordingly in their own research.

benefit.

decide accordingly autonomously and

research

independently (propose a course of actions

or make recommendations).

35

Understanding the

Researchers are responsible for obtaining appropriate permission importance of obtaining in accordance with the regulations of their country and institution before conducting research involving human subjects. Approval is appropriate approval

based on three questions: 1) Does the work qualify as research? 2) Students are able to face and judge complex

before conducting

Does it involve human subjects? 3) Is it exempt from the require-Students can define and explain why

Students can justify the need for gathering

dilemmas regarding the informed consent

ments for obtaining permission. Research is conducted with the consent is important, are able to get

informed consent in their research projects

and the right to withdraw (that some

Approval, Informed

research involving human intent to draw conclusions, has some general applicability, and consent, right to

subjects and how to do uses a generally accepted scientific method. People are considered approval when doing smal -sample research (ensure that information is well-organised,

subjects cannot give informed consent),

subjects if the researcher directly interacts with or interferes with withdraw

it. Understanding the

and understand that research subjects have

understood by all parties and shared in

are able to address the most vulnerable

importance and the role them or collects identifiable private information. Decisions about whether studies are exempt from the requirements from obtaining the right to withdraw from research at any

timely manner using the most appropriate

groups in human research autonomously

of informed consent.

permission must be made by a responsible institutional official and point.

method).

and independently and to decide upon

Understanding the

not by the researcher. Subjects should be fully informed of the regulations.

importance of the right research in which they are participating and give prior consent.

Subjects should have the right to withdraw from experiments at to withdraw.

any time.

Understanding the moral There are several moral questions regarding the use of animals Students can define and explain moral

issues regarding the use in research, such as: What animals can reasonably be used in re-issues (e.g., moral considerations regarding

of animals in research

search, testing, and teaching? Should animals be used to test the safety of experimental drugs? Should they also be used to test the different species in animal research, like

and the issues raised

toxicity of chemicals or cosmetics (as was once common, but has Students can compare and contrast different

primates or pets) regarding the use of

Moral issues, proper

by concern for different now been largely abandoned)? Animal research also raises moral approaches in using animals in research

Students are able to face dilemmas and

animals in research, know animal behaviour

care, concern for

species. Understanding considerations whether some animals, such as primates and pets, deserve more protection than other animals. Researchers should and use practices and procedures for the

issues autonomously and independently

different species and

the importance of

(e.g., signs of pain) and practices and

follow the rules and regulations for transporting, caring for, and care and management of animals in their

regarding the use of animals in research

reducing pain and

proper care in animal

using laboratory animals, such as feeding and housing the animals procedures (rules and regulations for the

research (monitor animal wellbeing, rules,

and judge the usage of different species in

Values and

suffering

research. Understanding appropriately and providing veterinary care. When using research transportation, care and use of research

animals, researchers should use appropriate sedation, analgesia, or and regulations for transportation, and

specific research.

Principles

the importance of

anaesthesia. They should avoid or minimise pain, discomfort, and animals, know how to reduce pain and

methods for reducing pain and suffering).

distress when consistent with sound scientific practices. Some ex-suffering in animal research, etc.) which

in Animal

reducing pain and

suffering in animal

perimental information cannot be obtained without inflicting pain should be considered if performing research

Research

and suffering on animals. How much pain and suffering is accept-research.

able in experiments is not easily determined.

on animals.

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Understanding basic

issues regarding the RRR in animal

Replacement means using non-animal models, such as computer RRR (Replacement,

principles in animal

Students are able to plan research within the

simulations, or lower species. Reduction means the use of methods Students can define and explain RRR as the

research and are able to propose, plan,

reduction, refinement)

research: replacement,

aimed at reducing the number of animals. Refinement means the basic principles of animal research under

basic principles in animal research.

and use alternative research approaches

reduction, refinement.

elimination or reduction of unnecessary pain and suffering.

supervision.

(e.g., computer simulations when eligible)

autonomously and independently.

Understanding the

sources of rules

for the responsible

Sources of rules for the responsible conduct of research are: gov-conduct of research

ernment regulations, institutional policies, professional codes, and Students can define and explain four

(where the rules come

personal beliefs. Countries and institutions have different regula-Students are able to compare and contrast

Students understand the differences in the

Regulations

tions, policies, requirements, guidelines, and recommended prac-basic sources of rules of research integrity

many government regulations, institutional

norms for responsible conduct between

Government regulations,

from). Understanding

tices regarding the conduct of research. Institutional guidelines (government regulations, institutional

and

institutional policies, and government regulations, are often more comprehensive than governmental policies. Several policies and professional codes in research

fields (countries, institutions, scientific

institutional policies,

policies are adopted as fundamental by many countries and socie-policies, professional codes, and personal

Safeguards

professional codes

conduct and can use them in their research.

areas, etc.) and are able to adhere to them

and professional codes. ties, such as the Nurnberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki.

convictions) and are able to find publicly

Information on institutional research policies, links to government They can justify the necessity for integrity

autonomously and independently when

Understanding the

available sources and adhere to them in

policies, forms and instructions, research training programmes, policies to be publicly available.

researching.

importance of public

and lists of key personnel should be posted by research institutions smal -sample research.

availability of integrity

on their websites.

policies in research

institutions.

36

Students know how to face, discuss, and Understanding the need

resolve complex ethical and moral dilemmas

for developing personal

within their research field and are able to

responsibility in research Rules set only the minimum standards for research integrity; there-Students are able to defend and judge

fore, responsible research requires more than just following rules.

use good judgement in addition to rules.

ethical and moral dilemmas in research,

Personal responsibility

integrity. Understanding It is not enough to follow the rules to resolve personal conflicts and moral dilemmas that arise in research. Rules must therefore Students recognise and internalise rules of

They are able to take prompt action in cases

and professional self-

and showing awareness

adapt and change their behaviour

be supplemented by good judgment and a strong sense of personal research integrity as minimal standards and

of unprofessional or unethical behaviour,

regulations

of the importance

integrity. The level of research integrity in society depends on suc-accordingly and respond with personal

of self-regulation

cessful professional self-regulation, which requires conscientious apply them to smal -sample research.

act without consideration of personal gain,

responsibility and professional self-

in avoiding and

community participation. This means that researchers must take resist undue pressure and do not acquiesce

regulation to avoid misconduct.

dealing with research

responsibility for their actions.

to inappropriate personal requests for

misconduct.

favours, political pressure, or promise of

gain.

Students can carefully comply with the

Students are able to face and discuss

Compliance with

Understanding the

Students can define and explain codes

codes and regulations relevant to their

research and ethical standards within

A safeguard for researchers to avoid research misconduct is careful the standards of the

importance of complying adherence to the codes and regulations relevant to their discipline, of conduct and regulations within their discipline when doing research under

their research discipline as well as legal

discipline and legal and

with the standards of

the legal requirements in their society, and the ethical regulations discipline and apply them to smal -sample

supervision and justify compliance to

and ethical provisions and are able to

ethical provisions

the discipline and legal in their field of research.

and ethical provisions.

research.

the codes, regulations, ethical, and legal

act accordingly in an autonomous and

provision.

independent way.

Students are able to screen out irrelevant

and vague information, keeping only the

high-quality data. They question the limits,

Students are able to compare and contrast

quality, and accuracy of data and are able

Being aware of the

found data for their research assignment, are

Students are able to find, identify, collect

to search for details and confirm suspect

state-of-the-art of

A safeguard for researchers to prevent research misconduct is their able to pursue leads for additional sources of

State-of-the-art

research ideas and

and organise ideas and the most up-to-date

data. They know when more information

awareness of the state of development of research ideas in their re-information within their research area and

knowledge in the field of search area.

knowledge for analysis and decision-making

is needed and when enough has been

can clearly document sources and organise

research.

within their field of research.

collected to reach a conclusion. They find

the information according to the research

the trends and relationships in the emerging

needs.

fact pattern and identify new or related

lines of research that lead to more successful

or complete conclusions.

Students have a detailed knowledge of

Training in research

Understanding the

In every research discipline, there are established research protocols Students are able to compare and contrast

(research design,

importance of training in designed to standardise research and prevent research misconduct.

Students recognise and internalise that

research protocols within their research

research protocols, select them accordingly

method, analysis,

research and being able Research protocols thus serve as safeguards, and researchers should knowledge of research protocols contributes field and are able to execute research

follow these protocols carefully. Training in research protocols is and comply to them in their research

protocols, ethics)

to comply with research

to the quality of the research.

autonomously and independently within

protocols.

an important safeguard to prevent research misconduct.

projects.

these protocols.

Understanding and

showing awareness of

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Students understand and distinguish

Minimal standards

the difference between There is a difference between a minimal standard and a desirable level of research integrity. Avoiding research misconduct is only a issues in their research regarding the level

vs desirable level of

minimal standards

between minimal standards in avoiding

minimal standard, meaning that even though majority of research-

/

of integrity in the research field and strive

integrity

in avoiding research

ers do not commit research misconduct, this does not necessarily research misconduct and the desirable level

misconduct and the

suggest that the overall level of research integrity is high.

to the highest standards of integrity in their

of integrity.

desirable level of

research.

integrity.

Students are able to autonomously and

Being able to recognise One safeguard to prevent research misconduct is the ability of re-Students can define and explain potential

Students are able to compare and contrast

Managing risks

and manage potential

independently anticipate risks and are able

searchers to identify, anticipate, and manage potential harms and risks in research and respond to them in

potential risks in their research and respond

risks in research.

risks associated with their research.

to compose proper protocols for avoiding

smal -sample research.

to them properly.

potential misconduct in their research.

37





Research Practice

Competency

Competency Rubric (Behavioural Indicators)

Subfield

Competency

Competency

Levels of Complexity/Study Levels

Name

Definition

Explanation

Basic/BA

Intermediate/MA

Advanced/PhD

Students are willing to col aborate and can

A ‘good‘ research environment should provide: 1) Equal treatment Students can define and explain the

justify col aboration with junior students

Students can motivate others and

Understanding the

(regarding race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc.); 2) Professional practice (researchers should maintain a research environ-conditions of a good research environment

‘Good‘ environment

criteria for a good

and/or teachers regardless of their social

autonomously and independently establish

ment that respects accepted practices for conducting research re-and know how to col aborate when

research environment.

sponsibly; trainees learn by example and therefore mentors should status, ethnicity, nationality, and race and,

a col aborative research project with junior

maintain a research environment that sets appropriate examples); researching with other students and/or

when needed, act as a bridge between junior

and senior researchers.

3) Training in research integrity.

teachers.

students and teachers.

Understanding the

responsibilities of

Students can defend and justify the rules

Students respect research and they know

The role of leadership

institution leadership

Research institutions and organisations need to provide clear poli-Students can define and explain the rules

of their university and other institutions

the rules of research policies on different

and promoting

also regarding the

cies on research integrity and how to deal with violations. Research and research policies at the university where

on the national level, know where to find

levels (institutional, professional, national)

awareness

promotion of the

institutions should promote a culture of research integrity.

they study and know where to find them.

them and are aware of the consequences of

and are able to justify and protect them

awareness of research

misuse.

when improper use is detected.

integrity.

Understanding the

Students are able to detect possible risks of

importance of the

Students know where they can obtain and

Students are able to manage storage of

infrastructure for the storage of research

Proper infrastructure,

proper infrastructure,

Research institutions should have infrastructure and funding to manage and protect data and research materials (qualitative and properly store research materials at their

research funds and safe

proper use of research

research materials on their own. They are

materials. They know how to manage

quantitative data, protocols, processes, research artefacts, associ-university (e.g., online archives of the

able to justify the safe use of hazardous

research funds and judge their proper

Research

use of materials

funds, and safe use of

ated metadata, etc.) necessary for the reproducibility, traceability, institution) and are aware of hazardous

hazardous materials in and accountability of research.

materials in their research.

usage in research autonomously and

Environment

materials.

their research setting.

independently.

Students can autonomously and

Open and reproducible

Understanding the

independently select research team

Research institutions and organisations should provide open and Students know the employment policies of

hiring

importance of open and replicable practices in hiring and promoting researchers.

/

members in an unbiased selection

reproducible hiring.

their institution.

procedure (regardless of gender, social, and

family background, etc.).

Public funders, such as governments, oblige research institutions to use data collected with public funds for the public good. Private funders retain the right to use the data commercially. Philanthropic Students understand complex issues

Students understand the risks of improper

Understanding

organisations hold or give away property rights, depending on their regarding data ownership and protection

interests. Before collecting data, ownership issues must be carefully Data storage, ownership,

issues regarding

data storage and possible misuse. They

addressed. Before beginning, researchers must answer the follow-Students know how and where to store

(e.g., when their data is jointly owned),

and protection

data ownership and

ing questions: Who will own the research data? What rights will I are able to compare and contrast different

collected data.

are able to switch between different

protection.

have to publish the data? Will I incur any obligations as a result of protocols of storage and defend their

collecting this data? Also, the proper storage and protection of the protocols and have the ability to treat data

choice.

data regarding damage/loss/theft, confidentiality (personal data accordingly (e.g., EU funding).

and other data protection restrictions, etc.), and retention period must be clearly regulated.

38

Good mentoring is based on a clear understanding of mutual responsibilities, appropriate supervision, and review, with the intention that the primary purpose of mentoring is to prepare trainees Students can define and explain the

Students can justify their choice of

Understanding the

to become successful researchers. Senior researchers mentor their responsibilities and limits of mentoring

mentorship for their research project. They

Students are aware of possible risks of

Proper mentoring and

importance of proper

team members and provide guidance and training to develop, design, and structure research activities properly. Interns need to basic responsibilities of

mentoring and the

and students’ own work (regarding time,

understand the limits and differences of

insufficient references of the proposed

know how much time to devote to their mentor’s research, what mentors and trainees

responsibilities of

criteria are used to evaluate their work, are standard operating workload, etc.) and can properly prepare

mentorship and authorship (when the

mentor and are able to present arguments

individual parties.

procedures and research protocols what, and how authorship when approaching a mentor regarding their mentor is doing the work instead of the

for having more mentors.

and ownership are determined. Interns should be conscientious about performing their assigned work, respect authorities, follow research proposal.

student).

research regulations and protocols, and adhere to authorship and ownership agreements.

Supervision

and

Mentors must ensure adequate instruction in research methods, Students can autonomously and

promote the development of the intern, provide an understanding Mentoring

independently decide when they can

From supervision and

Understanding proper

of responsible research practices, and carefully review work conducted under their supervision (e.g., reviewing research notes and Students are able to adapt and change

review to independent

supervision and what it

Students take their mentor’ suggestions

conduct their research or parts of it without

other data collections; carefully reading manuscripts written by in-their research in line with their mentor’s

research

takes to develop into an terns; meeting regularly with interns to keep abreast of their work; seriously and apply them as intended.

supervision and judge their mentor’s

independent researcher.

and encouraging interns to present and discuss data at research comments.

feedback on the principles and values of

meetings). Mentors should routinely check to see if the intern is developing into a responsible researcher.

research ethics.

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Understanding and

Students are able to detect and recognise

issues regarding the misuse of seniority.

Misusing seniority

showing awareness of

When senior researchers induce junior researchers to violate re-Students know the limits of seniority in the

possible malpractices in different research

They are able to detect and judge complex

the misuse of seniority

search integrity, they abuse their seniority.

relationship between student and mentor.

roles (e.g., misuse of seniority by their

malpractices regarding seniority and solve

as research malpractice.

mentors and senior researchers).

them consensually with other members of

the research team.

Students know and can explain basic

Students are able to compare and contrast

Students autonomously and independently

Research design

Understanding research Research institutions and organisations should ensure that re-research designs (e.g., qualitative,

different research designs (e.g., action

select research designs, judge their

design.

searchers receive rigorous training in research design.

quantitative) and use them in smal -sample research, evaluation, etc.) and are able to use effectiveness, and can combine them in new research projects.

them in their research under supervision.

approaches.

Students autonomously and independently

Students are able to justify and defend their

Students know and can explain basic

select and design their research method and

selection of research methods regarding

research methods (e.g., sampling, data

are aware of risks of the selected method.

Research

Research method

Understanding research Research institutions and organisations should ensure that re-method.

searchers receive rigorous training in research methodology.

the quality of research and are able to use

gathering, etc.) and use them in smal -

They are able to judge the effectiveness of

Knowledge

selected research methods in their research

sample research projects.

different methods and combine them in

under supervision.

mixed method research.

Students are able to choose the data

Students are able to compare and contrast

collection style or styles, judge the

Students know and can explain basic

advanced qualitative and quantitative

effectiveness of use and know the risks

Data collecting

Understanding data

Data collection takes appropriate methods, attention to detail, au-qualitative and quantitative data collecting

data collecting styles (e.g., survey, tests;

of choosing an improper data collection

collection.

thorisation (permissions) and recording.

styles (e.g., survey; interview) and use them

interview, monitoring) and are able to use

process autonomously and independently.

in smal -sample research projects.

selected research methods in their research

They are able to discuss the risks and

under supervision.

benefits of an individual data collection

style with their peers.

39

Students understand complex issues in

There are four basic aspects to consider when curating data: Own-Students know and can explain basic issues

ership, Collection, Storage, and Sharing. Research institutions data curation (e.g., some data are difficult

regarding data curation (e.g., they must not

Understanding FAIR

should ensure appropriate curation of all data and research mate-Students are aware of the consequences of

to store; business confidentiality; national

rials with secure storage for an appropriate period, recognise data adjust acquired data to their needs, and the

FAIR principles in data

(Findable, Accessible,

as legitimate and citable products of research, provide access to changing collected data. They know how

security). They take responsibility for their

collected data must not be changed in any

curation

Interoperable and Re-

data as openly as possible, and in accordance with FAIR principles their data can be reused or shared and can

data not to be adjusted in any part of the

usable) principles in data (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable). In addition, way) and use them in smal -sample research estimate the threats of using personal data

research process and take responsibility

curation.

some complex issues need to be considered in data curation: com-projects. They know how to manage

plexity (some data are difficult to store); control (in large projects, in research.

for their data, meaning that all other

data control is often a problem); data confidentiality (e.g., national personal data that might appear during the

researchers can with trust use these data for

security).

research.

possible further research.

Students are able to upgrade the

Students have advanced knowledge

knowledge of statistical analysis

of descriptive and inferential statistics

Students know and can explain basic

autonomously and independently, if

(correlations, parametric/non-parametric

Research analysis

Understanding

Research institutions and organisations should provide research-descriptive and inferential statistics (e.g.,

needed for their research. They can discuss

research analysis.

ers with training in research analysis (e.g., statistics).

test, etc.) and are able to compare and

chi-square) and use them in smal -sample

different statistical analyses with their

contrast them when defending their usage.

research projects.

peers and senior colleagues and know

They are able to use them in their research,

when the analyses are not sufficient for

under supervision.

giving hard evidence statements.

Any project with more than one researcher requires col aboration. In col aborative projects, additional responsibilities of researchers come from complex roles and relationships, different Students take their role in the research

Understanding the

interests, management requirements, and cultural differences.

Students can take the role of a lead

Before work begins, everybody should understand the goals of responsibly (but still under mentorship)

Understanding roles

role of the principal

the project, the role each partner will have, data collecting proce-researcher. They are able to appoint

Students can define and explain different

and know how to relate properly vis-à-vis

and relationship

investigator and other

dures, storage, how data will be shared, how changes in research work to other researchers in the research

roles in collaborative

design will be made, who will be responsible for writing publica-roles in research teams.

other researchers in the research team.

team properly, taking into account their

work.

tions, the criteria for ranking authors; how intellectual property They understand the principle of not

rights and ownership issues will be resolved, and how the col abo-qualifications.

ration may be modified and when it will end. Col aborators must hiding information from lead researchers.

share results within the col aboration and pay attention to the work of partners.

All partners in research col aborations should take responsibility for the integrity of the research. All partners should for-Students are aware that approaches

mally agree at the outset of their col aboration on expectations in different fields of research must

Responsibility and

Understanding the

and standards related to research integrity, applicable laws and Collaborative

regulations, protection of col aborators’ intellectual property, agreement between

responsibility of all

be considered and coordinated in

Students are able to manage and lead

and procedures for handling conflicts and potential instances of Students take their role in a col aborative

Working

all partners and

partners, collaborative

misconduct. When researchers from different disciplines bring col aborative research. They are able to

research in col aboration and coordinate

research team seriously.

collaboration issues

work, and common-

different practices or expectations to a project, they should heed take responsibility and independently

approaches from different fields.

sense rules.

two common-sense rules: Don’t ignore responsibilities and execute a smaller part of col aborative

choose the most challenging option when given the choice to act appropriately. When in doubt, one should strive for the highest, research.

not the lowest, standard of integrity.

Researchers, research institutions, and organisations should provide transparency about how their data and research materials can be accessed or used. Data should be made as widely and freely available as possible for other researchers to review and use, while Data transparency and

Understanding issues

Students can autonomously and

respecting the privacy of participants and protecting confidential Students can define and explain the

Students can analyse circumstances and

sharing

regarding data sharing.

and proprietary data. It is widely agreed that research data should independently manage research data and

principle of anonymity of presented data.

defend their decision on data sharing.

be shared, but it is often difficult to decide when and with whom.

judge the effectiveness of its sharing.

Researchers should not publish preliminary data, meaning data that have not been carefully reviewed and validated, unless it is of immediate public health importance, or similar.

40





Publication and Dissemination

Competency

Competency Rubric (Behavioural Indicators)

Subfield

Competency

Competency

Levels of Complexity/Study Levels

Name

Definition

Explanation

Basic/BA

Intermediate/MA

Advanced/PhD

Since researchers are evaluated on the quality and quantity of the-Understanding the

ir publications, the authorship on publications should truthfully Students can judge the assignment of

authorship contribution represent those responsible for the research. Authors are those in-Students can define and explain the

Students can justify the assignment of

authorship with respect to the contribution,

Authorship contribution,

and sequence.

dividuals who were instrumental in the conception and design of the research, the collection and analysis of data, and the writing of importance, sequence,

Understanding the role

assignment of authorship with respect

authorship with respect to contribution,

importance, and sequence and are able

the publication. Authors are listed in order of importance, with the and responsibility

of the corresponding

first and last authors often given special weight. All authors must to the contribution, importance, and

importance, sequence, and the role of a

to act as a corresponding author when

author and ability to act agree on the order of authorship. One author, called the correspon-responsibility of each author.

corresponding author.

submitting to the journals within their

Authorship

ding author, is responsible for all aspects of a publication: the ac-as one.

curacy of the data, the names listed as authors, the approval of the scientific area.

final draft by all authors, and the handling of all correspondence.

Developing and

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Students can justify the role of other

fostering an attitude

Often, other individuals and institutions (e.g., col aborators, assis-Students can define and explain the

issues regarding the difference between

Acknowledgements

to acknowledge other

contributors besides authors and are able to

tants, funders, etc.) have contributed to the research; this should be difference between authorship and

authorship and acknowledgement and are

contributors and funders appropriately acknowledged in the publication.

decide when to acknowledge them in their

acknowledgements.

able to deal with them independently and

appropriately.

research work.

autonomously in their research.

It should be understood that different research designs in different Understanding the

scientific fields may have different organisation and research pro-Students are able to face dilemmas and

Discrepancy between

discrepancy between

cesses, but scientific papers are uniformly structured and present Students are aware of the discrepancy

issues regarding the discrepancy between

reporting research and

reporting research and the research process as linear, although this is often not the case. In the research process, there are often obstacles, interruptions, and

/

between reporting research and the actual

reporting research and the actual research

actual research process

the actual research

similar that are not apparent from the research report. Therefore, research process in different scientific areas.

process and discuss them with their peers

process.

the research report should be understood as an idealisation of an and the larger scholarly community.

actual and often ‘chaotic’ research process.

A research publication of any kind should present a description of the work done, a report of the results, and an evaluation of the Understanding the

results. It should answer the questions: what was done (methods), elements of responsible what was discovered (results), and how are the results relevant and Students can autonomously and

publication and having

should be interpreted (discussion). The structure of a publication independently write a scientific report

depends on the discipline. Nevertheless, most empirical research is the ability to use them. reported according to the IMRAD structure: Abstracts summari-Students can justify how every element of a

respecting the elements of responsible

Elements of a

Understanding and

se the content of the publication in sufficient detail to allow other Students can define and explain elements

research report contributes to a responsible

publication, can judge different types of

responsible publication

having an attitude that researchers to assess the relevance of the publication; Methods al-of responsible publication (e.g., IMRAD

low other researchers to review and replicate the research; Results publication and are able to use it in

publication by ranking and form and know

structure).

Reporting

regardless of the rank

allow other researchers make their conclusions; Discussion assesses reporting their research.

that regardless of the ranking a journal has,

the journal has, authors the significance of the results; Annotations, bibliography, and ack-authors should adhere to the same integrity

Research

should adhere to the

nowledgements place the publication in context and acknowledge others for their ideas, support, and work. Researchers should ad-criteria.

same integrity criteria.

here to the same criteria whether they publish in a highly ranked journal or in another alternative publication format. A responsible publication should always meet minimum standards.

Values in reporting

Understanding and

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Students know that basic values of research

research and

fostering the values

Research should be published in an open, honest, transparent, ti-issues regarding the values in reporting

communicating results

in reporting research:

mely, and accurate manner. In reporting research, nothing impor-are relevant also in the process of reporting

Students can justify the importance of

tant should be concealed or withheld, nor should anything that has research by giving examples and discussing

(accuracy, timeliness,

open, honest, timely,

research and are able to respect these in a

values in reporting their research.

not been done be fictionalised.

them with their peers and/or senior

transparency)

transparent, and

smal -sample research report.

accurate reporting.

researchers.

Students can independently and

Understanding and

Authors often refrain from reporting negative results that do not Students can justify why negative results

autonomously face dilemmas and issues

Negative results

acknowledging that

confirm the proposed research hypotheses, as most journals prefer Students know that negative results should

negative results should positive results. However, negative results should be considered as should also be reported and are able to

regarding reporting negative results and

also be reported.

also be reported.

valid for publication and dissemination as positive results.

defend them in their research reports.

know how to discuss them with peers and/

or senior researchers.

41

Students are able to formulate a response when corrections are needed or a

Understanding and

Students are able to contrast the pros and

publication should be retracted and are

In some cases, publications have to be corrected or even withdrawn Corrections and

acknowledging that it is

cons of correcting or retracting publication.

able to appropriately defend and present

after publication, despite positive reviews. Authors and publishers retractions

important to correct or issue such corrections or, if necessary, withdraw the work, clearly

/

They know how to justify and present

the given case to their peers and senior

retract a publication if

stating the reason for doing so.

corrections of their research work on a basic

researchers. They are able to face dilemmas

necessary.

level and discuss them with their peers.

about their published research presented by

other researchers and present dilemmas they

discovered in other published research.

Since an average person cannot properly assess the quality and importance of research, peer review is the basis for ensuring that only high-quality research is funded, published, and promoted. The-Knowing how to write

refore, most important decisions about research depend on peer Students can define and explain different

Students can compare and contrast criteria

Students can autonomously and

Types of reviews and

different types of reviews review: which projects to fund (grant review), which research to criteria of proper

and being able to act

publish (manuscript review), which researchers to hire and promo-types of reviews (e.g., peer review, grant

of proper reviewing in different types of

independently write different types of

te (staff review), and which research is reliable (literature review).

reviewing

within the criteria of

reviews, manuscript reviews, personnel

reviews and are able to write a simple review reviews and present commentaries in a clear Because the quality of research depends on peer review, and peer proper reviewing.

review is subject to personal biases, peer review depends on the per-reviews, etc.).

of peers’ work.

and transparent way.

sonal responsibility of the peer to adhere to the following criteria: timely, thorough, constructive, free of personal bias, and respecting the confidentiality.

Understanding

the importance of

peers participating

in review processes.

Because peer review is the foundation of quality assurance in re-Students are able to face dilemmas and

Understanding

search, researchers should take their obligation to the research community seriously by participating in peer review. If they have a Students can find objectives for peer

issues independently and autonomously

and acknowledging

conflict of interest, reviewers should recuse themselves from invol-Participation, withdrawal,

the importance of

vement in decisions about publication, funding, appointment, pro-reviewing and participating in the review

regarding participating in different types

Students know that review protocol must

and meeting deadlines

withdrawal when facing motion, or reward. Research is competitive and should, therefore, process. They are aware that possible

of review (e.g., grant reviews, manuscript

be reported as soon as possible. Because peer review is usually an be taken seriously (e.g., meeting deadlines).

a conflict of interest.

unpaid effort, it can easily be given less priority compared to other conflicts of interest should be properly

reviews, personnel reviews, etc.). They are

Understanding and

obligations of researchers. However, if researchers agree to provide addressed (e.g., withdrawal).

able to select proper reviewers according to

acknowledging the

peer review, they should find time to meet the deadlines and fulfil references and avoid potential biases.

the obligation on time.

importance of meeting

Reviewing

deadlines in the review

process.

(Peer Review)

Understanding

and acknowledging

the importance of

Confidentiality is one of the most important values in peer review; confidentiality in

therefore, reviewers should maintain confidentiality unless prior the review process.

permission for disclosure has been obtained. Confidentiality is im-Students are able to face dilemmas

portant in peer review of grants and manuscripts to protect ideas Students understand that ideas, data, or

Confidentiality

Understanding and

before they are funded or published, and in peer review of col abo-Students understand confidentiality as the

and judge what is or is not misuse of

acknowledging the

rators to protect personal privacy. Because reviewers and editors interpretations they come across in the

most important value in the review process.

confidentiality regarding ideas, data, and

importance of not

are researchers themselves, they often find inspiration in ideas, data, review process must not be abused.

and interpretations they review. However, they should appropria-interpretation in the review process.

abusing ideas, data or

tely respect the rights of authors and proposers and not misuse interpretations from the ideas, data, or interpretations presented in peer-reviewed research.

research that is being

reviewed.

The ability to assess the In peer review, researchers assess the quality of research findings and make judgments about their significance. This involves asses-quality and importance sing the quality of all levels of reported research: research methods, of research in reviews.

results, interpretations, and relevance of the literature. With re-Students are able to assess the quality and

Students understand how to assess quality

Assessing quality, judging

Understanding

gard to the significance of the research, reviewers should answer the following questions: Is the research important to conduct? Are importance of different types of reviews in

importance, and writing

and acknowledging

and importance in the review process and

the research findings important enough to be published? One of

/

their field of research and are able to write

transparent reviews.

the importance of

the most important issues in reviewing is to avoid personal bias.

are able to write simple, transparent reviews

transparent reviews of other researchers’

transparency in reviews Because reviewers are also researchers with personal beliefs and af-of peers’ work, avoiding personal biases.

filiations, it is often difficult to be objective. One way to reduce the works autonomously and independently.

and an ability to write

impact of bias is to write transparent reviews; ‘transparent’ means transparent reviews.

that it is made clear to anyone reading the review how the review was written and how the reviewer may be biased.

42

Students are able to face and discuss

Reviews can be blind or non-anonymous, both of which have their strengths and weaknesses. Some believe that eliminating anony-dilemmas and issues regarding blind vs.

Blind vs non-anonymous Understanding pros and mous reviewing reduces the effects of bias by holding reviewers Non-anonymous review within their

review

cons of blind vs Non-

more accountable. However, others argue that non-anonymous

/

/

anonymous reviews.

reviews would reduce the openness and rigour of reviews. Most research field and in different types of

review processes are anonymous, which places an obligation and reviews (e.g., grant reviews, manuscript

responsibility on the reviewer to be fair.

reviews, personnel reviews, etc.).

Knowing publishers

Students know and are able to compare

Students can autonomously and

Publishers and

and understanding the The publication process takes time and goes through stages that are and contrast key journals in their research

independently judge the quality of

publication process

publication process in

standardised in scholarly publishing: Submission, Editorial Scree-

/

fields and are able to find publicly available

publishers and, as corresponding authors,

journals within different ning, Peer Reviewing, Manuscript Decision, Publication.

information about the publication process

follow submission procedures in different

research fields.

and procedure.

journals.

Understanding and

ability to adhere to

the author guidelines

Students know and can apply different

Students are able to apply basic rules of

Students are able to apply all aspects of

of journals in different

Each journal or publisher has specific guidelines for authors, sta-Author guidelines (e.g.,

research fields.

ting how a paper should be written, how references should be cited, writing styles (e.g., APA, Chicago, MLA,

writing styles (e.g., citation and referencing)

different writing styles (e.g., formatting

writing style and format)

Understanding different etc. There are numerous standardised writing styles and formats for etc.) and are able to follow authors’

and are able to follow authors’ guidelines

of tables, figures, etc.) and follow authors’

scholarly publications that vary by discipline. The most widely used writing styles within

are APA, Chicago, MLA, among others.

guidelines at their university in writing

of a chosen journal/institution in their

guidelines in writing complex research

different research fields

simple papers/reports.

research field.

reports.

and an ability to use

them.

Knowing journals,

Students are able to find, compare, and

Students are able to autonomously and

Publishers’ integrity

publishers and

Publishers have ethical or integrity policies, stated on their websi-understanding their

contrast publicly available integrity policies independently judge and adhere to integrity Publishing

policies

tes, which explain that authors should adhere to research integrity

/

integrity policies within standards when publishing with them.

of journals and publishers within their

policies of journals and publishers within

different research fields.

research field and understand them.

their research field.

Students are able to judge and confront

Students know that journals are ranked

Indexation and impact

Understanding the

dilemmas regarding indexation, journal

Journals are included in various indexes (Web of Science, Scopus, and indexed according to the quality of

factor

indexation, ranking and etc.) and have different impact factors depending on the discipline.

/

rankings and impact factors and do not

impact factor of journals.

published papers (e.g., on the basis of

blindly accept given rankings as indicators

citations).

of quality.

Students understand the criteria and face

dilemmas of predatory publishing and the

Understanding the

difference between predatory and fake or

issues and dangers of

Students know that predatory publishing

hijacked journals. They are able to identify

predatory publishing

In contemporary publishing, bogus publishers and journals have in scientific publication exists and threatens

wreaked havoc with naive researchers. The establishment or su-predatory and fake publishers and journals

Predatory publishing

and hijacked journals.

pport of predatory journals undermines research quality control the legitimacy and integrity of scientific

Understanding that

and research integrity. Researchers should be especially careful not

/

within their scientific area and report to

publication. Students understand that

supporting predatory

to become involved in such activities, either intentionally or inad-the proper authority and alert colleagues.

vertently.

supporting predatory journals is a form of

journals amounts to

They know different white and blacklists of

publication malpractice.

publication malpractice.

predatory publishers (e.g., Beal ’s) and are

able to face and discuss dilemmas regarding

the lists of predatory publishers.

43





Violations

Competency

Competency Rubric (Behavioural Indicators)

Subfield

Competency

Competency

Levels of Complexity/Study Levels

Name

Definition

Explanation

Basic/BA

Intermediate/MA

Advanced/PhD

Guidelines and regulations define research misconduct as FFP: fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, conducting, reviewing, or reporting research. This is also established as the legal threshold for proving misconduct. Fabrication is making up Understanding and

results as if they were genuine. Falsification is the manipulation of Students are able to face dilemmas and

acknowledging clearly

research materials, equipment, or procedures, or the unauthorised alteration, omission, or suppression of data or results. Plagiarism is issues autonomously and independently

Students can define and explain fabrication,

Students are able to organise their research

Blatant misconduct - FFP defined and universally the use of another person’s work or ideas without properly credi-regarding fabrication, falsification, and

(Fabrication, Falsification,

accepted rules

ting the original source. Self-plagiarism is the republication of sub-falsification, plagiarism in research and

in such a way that fabrication, falsification,

stantial portions of one’s own prior publications, including transla-plagiarism in their research. They are

Plagiarism)

concerning blatant

know how to avoid this in smal -sample

and plagiarism is avoided. They understand

misconduct such as

tions, without properly acknowledging or citing the original. The able to judge FFP and discuss detected

law usually defines that for an act to be considered research mis-research.

‘serious deviations’ in their research setting.

fabrication, falsification,

‘serious deviations’ with peers and senior

conduct, it must constitute a significant departure from accepted and plagiarism.

practices, must have been committed intentionally or knowingly or researchers.

recklessly, and must be supported by evidence. The term ‘significant deviation’ or ‘serious deviations’ is found in institutional guidelines, indicating that researchers should be aware of what constitutes such deviations in their area of research.

Understanding and

acknowledging that

any distorted reporting Some forms of research misconduct are generally accepted and defined as blatant (such as FFP). Other forms may vary by discipline, Research

(playing with numbers/

country, institution, and/or journal, or even have no rules at al .

Students are able to face complex dilemmas

Students can define and explain

Misconduct

results, hypotheses,

Questionable research practices (QRP) are therefore not strictly Questionable research

models, authors,

or legally prohibited, but they significantly distort the reporting of Students are able to compare and contrast

and issues regarding questionable

questionable research practices and how

practices (QRP)

etc.), even though not

research. In the absence of clear rules, the ‘reasonable reader’ test blatant practices and questionable research

research practices and are able to decide

is the best way to avoid such behaviour. This means that the rese-they differ from blatant misconduct and are

necessarily blatant

archer should put himself in the role of an outside observer and practices and avoid them in their research.

autonomously and independently on how

able to avoid them in smal -sample research.

misconduct, is potentially imagine what he would think of himself if he were to engage in to avoid them.

research misconduct and such behaviour. Would he see himself as an offender who is embar-rassed/unwilling to disclose?

a questionable research

practice.

Understanding HARKing

(hypothesising after

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Correcting or even creating hypotheses after research has been Students know and understand what

Students are able to manage HARKing and

HARKing

the results are known)

issues regarding HARKing and are able to

in reporting as a

completed to make them consistent with research is a questionable HARKing is and avoid it in smal -sample

are able to act accordingly in their research

research practice.

avoid it in their reporting autonomously

questionable research

research.

reports.

and independently.

practice.

Understanding

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Selective reporting

selective reporting

Students know and understand selective

Students are able to manage selective

(‘cherry picking’) and

and omitting research

Not disclosing all research findings is a questionable research prac-issues regarding selective reporting and

tice.

reporting and omitting data and avoid it in

reporting and omitting data and are able to

omitting data

data in reporting as a

omitting data and are able to avoid it

questionable research

smal -sample research.

act accordingly.

autonomously.

practice.

44

Understanding self-

Self-plagiarism is a variant of plagiarism in which the researcher takes statements and phrases from his or her previously published Students know and understand self-Students are able to face dilemmas and

Self-plagiarism

plagiarism in reporting

Students are able to manage self-plagiarism

as a questionable

work without properly citing the source. Although not as serious as plagiarism and avoid it in smal -sample

issues regarding self-plagiarism and are able

plagiarism by other authors, it should be avoided because it distorts and are able to act accordingly.

research practice.

reporting and duplicates research reports.

research.

to avoid it autonomously.

Understanding overlap

Students are able to compare and contrast

Overlap with other

in reporting with other

Students are able to judge their own work

Overlap between different research reports by the same researcher their own work and know that excessive

papers by author

reports/papers by the

could be considered a form of self-plagiarism.

/

autonomously, and publications and are

author as a questionable

overlap in their own papers is considered

able to avoid overlap.

research practice.

research misconduct.

Students are able to face dilemmas

Understanding selective Selective citing can mean two things: citing to promote the impor-Students can define and explain what

Students are able to compare and contrast

and issues regarding selective citing

Selective citing

citing as publication

tance of someone (a colleague, senior researcher, mentor, etc.) or to malpractice and

please editors, reviewers, or colleagues; or not citing ideas or rese-selective citing is and apply their knowledge sources and are able to avoid selective citing autonomously and independently and are

knowing how to avoid it. arch findings that run counter to one’s research ideas and findings.

on reporting on smal -sample research.

in research reports.

able to argue against selective citing when

appropriate.

Researchers often cite themselves to discuss how their currently published research is based on a continuing evolution of their Understanding hyping

earlier research. Similarly, when authors publish in their journals, and excessive self-publishers prefer that they cite the papers published in their jour-Students are able to face dilemmas and

Excessive self-citation

citation in reporting as nals to promote their relevance. However, excessive self-citation, Students know and understand excessive

which goes beyond the intention of referencing previous research

/

issues regarding excessive self-citation and

a questionable research

self-citation.

and seems to serve only self-promotion, is a questionable research are able to avoid them autonomously.

practice.

practice. This is also why self-citations are a separate category when categorising the impact factors of researchers (such as the h-index) and journals.

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Understanding

Salami publication is the process of dividing the results of a single issues regarding trivial/salami publication

Redundant/trivial or

trivial and duplicate

research into multiple publications, called Least Publishable Units (LPUs), in order to increase the number of publications. Although and duplicate publication autonomously

salami and duplicate

publication as

Students know and understand redundant/

this is not necessarily a bad thing, as more publications can impro-

/

and independently and are able to

publication

publication malpractice ve systematics (journal publications are, in fact, limited in length) trivial or salami and duplicate publication.

and knowing how to

and detail of reporting, salami publication often leads to duplicate independently decide when a research

avoid it.

publications (i.e., multiple publications of the same results).

report can be appropriately divided into

multiple publications.

Understanding and

Students understand misrepresentation

Students are able to face dilemmas

Misrepresenting and/

knowing how not to

Dishonest reporting or misrepresentation of research results, such and exaggeration/hyping of research

and issues regarding misrepresentation

or exaggerating/hyping

misrepresent and/or

as exaggerating the significance and practical applicability of re-

/

achievements as publication malpractice

and exaggeration/hyping of research

research achievements

exaggerate research

sults, is a form of publication misconduct.

and are able to avoid it in their research

achievements and are able to avoid it

achievements.

reporting.

autonomously.

45

Understanding that

consciously not

Students are able to face dilemmas

Students understand why failure to cite

Students are able to recognise issues of

When reporting research, the researcher often finds that other Failure to cite or

referencing other authors

and issues regarding failure to cite or

authors have already researched the topic. If the researcher deli-or acknowledge others is publication

failure to cite or acknowledge other, are

acknowledge others

that have researched

berately fails to acknowledge and reference this previous research, acknowledge others autonomously

the problem is a

malpractice and are able to avoid it in

able to manage them and are able to act

this is a questionable research practice.

and independently and are able to

questionable research

reporting on smal -sample research.

accordingly.

autonomously avoid it in their reporting.

practice.

Understanding the

difference between

paraphrasing and

When one cites other authors, it is not enough to provide a reference. Referencing must be done properly. One must enclose the Students understand the difference between Paraphrasing and

citation and that using

citations in quotation marks and also correctly indicate the page number of the cited document. When paraphrasing, one must re-paraphrasing and citation and that every

citation; sentence lifted

sentences of other

produce the thoughts of other paraphrased authors in one’s own use of sentences of other authors should

/

/

without attribution

authors without properly words and style (and not just substitute words from the source with citing or paraphrasing

synonyms) to avoid hidden quotes (citations without quotation be properly attributed through citation or

them is a questionable marks). Improper quoting and paraphrasing borders on plagiarism, paraphrase.

research practice,

which is paraphrasing or quoting without any reference.

bordering on plagiarism.

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Not withholding

Withholding research results could be a form of violation of resear-issues regarding withholding research results

ch integrity. Conversely, premature publication of research results Withholding research

research results or

may be a violation of research integrity. Researchers should follow and giving premature public statements

results or giving

giving premature

standard publication practices when publishing research results Students understand why withholding

autonomously and independently. They

premature public

public statements and

and should not make premature public statements about their

/

work before it has been reviewed. There are exceptions, such as ear-research results is publication malpractice.

are able to independently decide and give

statements

understanding this as

ly indications of a significant threat to public health or safety, but arguments for withholding research results

publication malpractice.

in general, results should only be published after they have been carefully reviewed and properly prepared for publication.

and are able to avoid giving premature

public statements about their research.

Misconduct in peer review includes actions such as: asking students Understanding and

or others to conduct a peer review on your behalf; using informa-Malpractices in peer

refraining from engaging tion contained in a grant proposal or unpublished manuscript before it becomes publicly available; discussing grant proposals or Students understand and have the ability

review (e.g., fake

in inappropriate

manuscripts that you are reviewing with colleagues; keeping a copy

/

/

not to engage in inappropriate practices

referees)

practices in reviewing

of the material you review (manuscripts and grant applications sho-when they review research.

research.

uld be shredded or returned after the review is completed); discussing personnel and hiring decisions with colleagues who are not involved in the review process.

Understanding and

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Citation cartels are groups of researchers, usually colleagues, who Citation cartels

having the attitude not

issues regarding citation cartels and are able

to engage in citation

col ude to cite each other to increase their impact factors (such as

/

/

the h-index).

to make decisions on how to avoid them

cartels.

autonomously and independently.

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Manipulations of authorship include practices such as ghost or Manipulating authorship

Understanding

honorary authorship, in which individuals who were not involved issues regarding manipulating authorship

(obligatory authorship,

and acknowledging

in the research are listed as authors for other reasons (e.g., because Students are able to identify differences

Students can define and explain ghost or

autonomously and independently and

ghost authorship, gift

manipulating of

they hold the chair of the department or programme in which the between co-authorship and ghost

research was conducted; because they provided funding for the re-honorary authorship.

are able to solve detected dilemmas

authorship etc.)

authorship as

authorship in their research field.

publication malpractice.

search; because they are the lead researcher in the field; or because independently and consensually within

they served as a mentor to the lead author).

their research setting.

46

Students are able to face dilemmas and Understanding

It is one thing to break the rules accidentally or without full con-Students are able to compare and contrast

issues regarding their own and others’

premeditated dishonesty sciousness; however, breaking the rules when being fully aware of Students are aware that every form of

Premeditated dishonesty

as the most severe

them is more serious misconduct. The reasons for this can vary, actions (their own and others’) in terms of

premeditated dishonesty in research and

however, from a desperate need to be published for fear of losing premeditated dishonesty is considered

instance of research

premeditated dishonesty in research and act

handle detected conflicts in terms of

one’s career, to a belief that since others have gotten away with it, it research misconduct.

misconduct.

is acceptable to do it the same way.

upon it.

values and principles autonomously and

independently.

Bending the rules means being aware of the rules but attempting Students are able to face dilemmas and

Understanding that

to push the boundary between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour and exploiting unclear or inconsistent rules for personal Students are aware that even in smal -

Students are able to compare and contrast

issues regarding their own and others’

Bending the rules

bending the rules can

also be considered as

gain. Such bending is related to the belief that ‘anything goes’ and sample research bending the rules is

actions (their own and others’) in terms of

bending the rules in research and handle

‘anything that is not forbidden is allowed’, often accompanied by research misconduct.

specious after-the-fact justifications but with evidence of intent considered as research misconduct.

bending the rules and act upon it.

detected conflicts in terms of values and

and/or covering one’s tracks.

principles autonomously.

Unclear or different rules, editorial guidelines, etc. lead to ambi-Understanding that

guity of rules, i.e., to a general awareness of rules on the one hand, Students are able to autonomously face

Sources of

complexity and

but to their being open to interpretation on the other. Complexity problems can arise when, for example, there are many co-authors, Students are aware that complexity and

Students are able to compare and contrast

dilemmas and issues regarding complexity

Research

Complexity and

ambiguity

ambiguity of the rules

but all of them assume that someone else is doing the final review ambiguity are not an excuse for research

actions (their own and others’) in terms of

and ambiguity in research, take their

Misconduct

is not an excuse for

but no one is actually doing it, leading to some errors, inconsisten-misconduct.

complexity and ambiguity and act upon it.

responsibility and handle detected conflicts

research misconduct.

cies, and integrity problems in publication. Individual co-authors may also submit slightly different versions of the manuscript to di-in terms of values and principles.

fferent journals without knowing each other’s intentions.

Some integrity issues may be culturally related, which is often an excuse for ignorance in the sense of ‘I didn’t know that’. However, Students are able to face dilemmas and

Understanding that

effort should be made to familiarise oneself with the rules, which may be specific to some milieus. Lack of experience, research skills Students are aware that ignorance

Students are able to compare and contrast

issues regarding their own and others’

Ignorance and sloppiness ignorance and sloppiness

is not an excuse for

(e.g., PhD students, junior researchers etc.) can also be used as and sloppiness is considered research

actions (their own and others’) in terms of

ignorance and sloppiness in research and

excuses for misconduct, but such sloppiness should be prevented research misconduct.

through mentoring and supervision. However, this should not lead misconduct even in smal -sample research.

ignorance and sloppiness and act upon it.

handle detected conflicts in terms of values

to a situation where the mentor may have intended to fix a problem and principles autonomously.

but ‘never got around to it.’

Students are able to autonomously face

Understanding that

Students know that even honest mistakes

When caught in research misconduct, researchers often claim that Students are able to compare and contrast

dilemmas and issues regarding their own

Honest mistake

mistakes may lead to

an honest mistake has led to it. However, this is highly unlikely can lead to research misconduct and that

research misconduct

and less credible among established researchers and could only be actions (their own and others’) in terms of

and others’ honest mistakes in research and

proper precautions should be taken to

even if not intended.

believed if it is not systematic or part of a pattern.

honest mistakes and act upon it.

handle detected conflicts in terms of values

prevent mistakes in research.

and principles.

Understanding and

acknowledging the role

of bias in jeopardising

Bias can occur, for example, when a researcher allows funders/

Students are able to face dilemmas and

the research process.

sponsors to influence the research process or the reporting of re-issues regarding conflicts of interest

Understanding that to

sults. Therefore, researchers must disclose all potential conflicts of Students understand different types of

interest when publishing research findings. Prior to conducting and dangers of bias in research and give

avoid bias, all conflicts

research, research institutions must establish administrative pro-conflicts of interests, know the procedures

reasons against it. They are able to detect

cedures for managing conflicts of interest: Reporting significant Bias and managing

of interest must be

how to manage conflicts of interest at their

conflicts before research begins; managing, reducing, or elimina-Students can define and explain bias in

and handle conflicts of interests in their

conflicts of interest

declared prior to and

ting significant financial conflicts of interest; and providing infor-university and are able to avoid bias. They

during the research

research practice.

research autonomously and independently

mation on managing conflicts. ‘Managing’ a conflict means ensu-are able to avoid situations and actions

process and publication. ring that interests do not influence research. Some options are fully prior to and during the research process

considered inappropriate or which might

disclosing all interests so that they are known to others; monitoring and publication. If needed, they are able to

Conflict of

Understanding the

the research or reviewing the results for accuracy and objectivity; present a conflict of interest.

procedures to manage

design a protocol for avoiding conflicts of

Interests

removing those with the conflict from critical steps in the research conflicts of interest and process (in interpreting data or participating in review).

interests in their research field.

the ability to manage

them.

Understanding and

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Financial conflicts of interest create tensions between personal fi-Financial conflicts

knowing how to deal

nancial gain and adherence to the core values of honesty, accuracy, issues regarding financial conflicts and

with financial conflicts of efficiency, and objectivity. The prospect of financial gain should

/

Students understand financial conflicts.

know how to avoid them (e.g., financial

interest.

not influence commitment to truth and honesty.

gain, double financing).

47

Understanding and

Conflicts of commitment place competing demands on resear-Students are able to face dilemmas and

chers’ time and loyalty. A researcher may work on one or more knowing how to

funded projects, prepare a proposal for a new project, teach, and issues regarding conflicts of commitment

advise students, attend, and lecture at professional meetings, serve Conflicts of commitment

deal with conflicts of

Students understand conflicts of

and know how to avoid them (e.g., proper

commitment, allocation as a reviewer, sit on advisory boards, or work as a paid consultant,

/

official, or employee in a private company. These different roles can commitment.

allocation of time; proper relationship with

of time, relationships

conflict with each other. Researchers must be careful to adhere to other research team members; importance

and use of resources.

time-management rules and not use resources purchased with public funds in private research.

of proper use of resources).

Understanding and

knowing how to deal

with institutional

Institutional conflicts arise when institutional work conflicts with Students are able to face dilemmas and

conflicts of interest.

private work (e.g., institutional outputs commercialised by resear-Institutional conflicts

Understanding and

chers in private ventures). Researchers must be careful to separate issues regarding institutional conflicts and

their institutional work from their private work and disclose all

/

Students understand institutional conflicts.

acknowledging the

know how to avoid them (e.g., importance

affiliations. They should not inappropriately use their institutional importance of disclosure research affiliations to further their private interests.

of disclosure of affiliations).

of affiliations to avoid

conflicts of commitment.

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Understanding and

Personal conflicts arise when researchers judge and interpret rese-issues regarding personal conflicts and

Personal conflicts

knowing how to deal

arch results based solely on personal opinion or affiliation rather Students can define and explain personal

Students are able to manage personal

with personal conflicts of than scientific evidence. Therefore, researchers should not review know how to avoid them (e.g., not serve

conflicts.

conflicts and are able to act accordingly.

interest.

grant proposals and publications of close colleagues and students.

as reviewers for grants and publications

submitted by close colleagues and students).

Students are able to face dilemmas and

Understanding and

Intellectual conflict arises when a researcher has strong personal views about an idea or theory that influence how he or she evalu-issues regarding intellectual conflicts and

Intellectual conflicts

knowing how to deal

ates the research of other researchers. Such views should be disc-with intellectual conflicts losed so that others can take them into account when evaluating

/

Students understand intellectual conflicts.

know how to avoid them (e.g., personal

of interest.

the researcher’s claims. The same holds for strong moral beliefs that views of ideas, moral and religious

might influence a researcher’s scientific opinions.

convictions).

Understanding how

different stakeholders

(other researchers,

Students are able to face dilemmas and

students, employers/

Misconduct in research affects everyone involved, not only the re-Students know and understand other

Students are able to predict and manage

Stakeholders affected

institutions, editors/

searchers but also employers, journals, investors, etc. Researchers issues regarding possible implications for

should be aware of the far-reaching effects of their misconduct on stakeholders can be affected in research

possible implications for other stakeholders

journals, societal

other stakeholders in research misconduct

others.

misconduct.

in research misconduct.

stakeholders) are

and are able to autonomously avoid it.

affected by various types

of research misconduct.

Dealing with

Violations and

Understanding the

inappropriateness

Allegations

and consequences of

malicious accusations

of other researchers

Malicious accusations

and avoiding it.

Malicious accusation means falsely accusing someone of miscon-Students understand that malicious

Students understand the inappropriateness

and hampering

Understanding the

duct or other violations and delaying or unreasonably interfering

/

accusations and hampering may have serious of delaying or hampering the work of other with the work of other researchers.

inappropriateness of

consequences.

researchers and avoid such behaviour.

delaying or hampering

the work of other

researchers and avoiding

it.

48

Understanding the

Students are able to face complex dilemmas

importance of not

Students understand the importance of

Students are able to recognise and discuss

and issues of ignoring violations and not

Ignoring violations

ignoring violations that

Failure to report research misconduct can put others at risk and not ignoring violations and misconduct

or failure to report

one may come across as also undermines professional self-regulation. Therefore, ignoring issues of ignoring violations or failure to

reporting misconduct autonomously and

research integrity violations by others or even covering up miscon-they come across as researchers. Students

misconduct

a researcher and having

report misconduct, are able to manage them

independently. They are able to decide

duct is research misconduct in its own right.

are aware that any misconduct should be

the ability to avoid such

and are able to act accordingly.

independently when to officially report

reported.

behaviour.

possible misconduct.

Understanding and

acknowledging the basic

principles in dealing

with accusations of

research misconduct

(fairness, consistency,

Investigations of research misconduct should be fair, comprehen-transparency, and

sive, and expedient without compromising accuracy, objectivity, confidentiality).

or thoroughness. Violations of research integrity should be dealt Understanding that

consistently and transparently. Anyone accused of research misconduct should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

Students understand basic principles

all investigations of

Procedures for dealing with violations should be publicly available of dealing with research violations

Students acknowledge the importance

research misconduct

and accessible to ensure their transparency and consistency. These procedures must include: the list of persons authorised to receive and misconduct (fairness, consistency,

of basic principles (fairness, consistency,

Fairness, consistency,

must be carried out

and investigate allegations of misconduct; provisions for an initial transparency, and confidentiality).

transparency, confidentiality) in dealing

transparency, and

confidentially and must investigation to determine whether the allegations are substan-They understand that all investigations

with accusations of research misconduct or

tiated; provisions for a formal investigation to reach conclusions; confidentiality;

result in a conclusion.

Students know procedures of reporting

the person authorised to rule on the conclusions reached in the of research misconduct must result in

violations. They are able to present evidence

institutional procedures

Understanding that

investigation and to impose administrative measures or sanctions and investigating misconduct at their

a conclusion and that punishment for

for and against potential misconduct in the

and presumption of

punishment for research or take steps to rehabilitate the accused person; and provisions for institution.

reporting findings to other authorities. Individuals accused of rese-research misconduct must ‘fit the crime‘.

investigation procedure. Students know and

innocence

misconduct must ‘fit the

crime’. Understanding

arch misconduct should be informed of all details of the allegation They understand that persons accused of

are able to find procedures for investigating

and must be given the opportunity to respond to the allegations that anyone exonerated and provide evidence. Research misconduct investigation proced-research misconduct are presumed innocent

misconduct at other institutions and the

must be restored.

ures must be conducted confidentially to protect those involved in until accusations are proven and that

national level.

Understanding the

the investigation. Investigations must always lead to a conclusion.

Action taken against individuals accused of misconduct must be anyone exonerated must be restored.

institutional procedures proportionate to the seriousness of the offense. Restorative action for investigating

should be taken when researchers are exonerated of allegations of research misconduct.

misconduct.

Understanding that

persons accused of

research misconduct are

presumed innocent until

accusations are proven.

It is important to protect both parties (the whistle-blower and the Understanding the

respondent) when investigating research misconduct. Allegations should not be publicly revealed until properly investigated and importance of the

confirmed. Exceptions from that are those cases when misconduct Protection for

protection of both

could pose a threat to public health and safety. In such cases, the Students are able to face dilemmas and

whistle-blowers and

parties, whistle-blowers, names of individuals should remain confidential, but steps must be Students understand what whistleblowing

issues regarding the relationship between

taken to prevent negative repercussions in society. Those individu-respondents; Obstruction

and respondents.

Students understand that obstructing

als who report research misconduct in good faith in any way, even means and are aware that all parties in

whistle-blowers and respondents. They

of investigation and

Understanding that

if the allegations turn out to be unfounded, should not be pena-investigation and whistle-blowers is itself a

a potential misconduct investigation

are aware of possibly delicate personal

retaliation against

obstructing investigation lised. As long as they are reporting in good faith, whistle-blowers research misconduct.

must be protected and supported, as they play an important role procedure must be treated fairly.

issues and are able to handle them with

whistle-blowers

and retaliating against

in professional self-regulation. Institutions protect the rights of consideration to all parties.

whistle-blowers is itself a whistle-blowers during investigations and ensure that their career research misconduct.

prospects are not jeopardised. Therefore, obstruction of investigations and retaliation against whistle-blowers are also research misconduct.

49

Competency Profile for Teaching and Learning Research Integrity Authors

Jurij Selan, Mira Metljak, Sanja Berčnik, Mateja Dagarin Fojkar (UNIVERZA V LJUBLJANI) Reviewers

Bert Theunissen, Mariëtte van den Hoven, André Krom, Roald Verhoeff (UNIVERSITEIT UTRECHT) Vratislav Kózak, Josef Fontana (UNIVERZITA KARLOVA) Mirjam Westerlaken, Eline Borsboom (ELEVATE BV)

Claudia Dowell (Academic Integrity Consulting LTD) Proofreading

Terry Troy Jackson

Publisher

Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana

For the Publisher

dr. Janez Vogrinc, dean

Design and Typeset

Jurij Selan

Available at

https://zalozba.pef.uni-lj.si/index.php/zalozba/catalog/category/brezplacne_publikacije

© Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2021

Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani COBISS.SI-ID 66291715

ISBN 978-961-253-277-2 (PDF)





Document Outline


_GoBack