D3.1

Ref.
Ares(2016)5927679 - 14/10/2016
Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension

of Excellence in Research
***
Research Protocol: The extent and incidence of misconduct
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
Deliverable Number D 3.1

Work Package WP3
Task T III.1
Type Research Protocol /
Version 2
Number of Pages 26
Due Date of Deliverable Month 13, 30/09/2016
Acutal Submission Date Month 13, 12/10/2016
Dissemination Level Public
Authors Marijke Van Buggenhout and Jenneke Christiaens (Vrije
Universiteit Brussel – Crime and Society Research Group)
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research
and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 665926.
Table of Contents
Research Protocol: The extent and incidence of misconduct ................................................................. 1

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Aim ............................................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Participating partners ............................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Timing....................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 6
3. Research misconduct: administrative procedures in partner countries .................................. 8
3.1 Institutional structures in dealing with scientific misconduct ............................................ 8
3.2 Levels of registration ............................................................................................................... 8
3.3 What information on the incidence of misconduct do we want to collect? ........................ 9
4. National systems for handling cases of misconduct ................................................................. 11
a. Belgium ................................................................................................................................. 12
b. The Netherlands................................................................................................................... 13
c. Estonia .................................................................................................................................. 14
d. Norway ................................................................................................................................. 14
e. Great Britain ......................................................................................................................... 15
f. Italy ....................................................................................................................................... 15
5. Questions directed at participating partners of WP3.1 ............................................................ 16
6. Data gathering in partner countries ........................................................................................... 17
7. Next steps ..................................................................................................................................... 18
8. List of key contacts ...................................................................................................................... 20
9. Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 21
Attachments .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Proposal of excel sheet to be filled in by the registering bodies of each research institute ............ 22
Inventory of national institutes ......................................................................................................... 23
Research Institutes ........................................................................................................................ 23
National research Funding institutes ............................................................................................ 24
National overarching body of scientific integrity .......................................................................... 24
Other ............................................................................................................................................. 24
Example confidentiality letter ........................................................................................................... 25
D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 2

1. Summary
This work package gathers indicators of the extent of misconduct and analyses how institutions
respond to misconduct or deviance in science. It is located in the empirical phase of the
PRINTEGER project and contributes to our analysis of what policies and organizational responses
are most likely to engender a culture of integrity in research organizations, in which integrity is
an integral part of research. The exploration of the incidence of misconduct is combined with the
institutional response, since it is partly through this institutional response that misconduct is
made explicit, or even defined.
1.1 Aim
Concerning the extent of misconduct
Initially, this research protocol attempts to document the number of misconduct cases visible
through administrative procedures, hereby including the cases that were declared unfounded or
admissible by a body for investigating cases of misconduct. Ultimately, the aim is to make visible
the procedural chain that is followed in cases of misconduct and how the ‘number’ of cases
narrows down in the selection process from ‘alerts and notifications of misconduct’ to actual
‘sanctioning measures’.
An analysis of the responses to misconduct and concerns over integrity will clarify empirical
occurrence, the nature and forms of misconduct and will ultimately result in an overview of the
“institutional reaction”.
With regard to this, three sources of data are relevant: (1) administrative procedures, (2)
misconduct cases that lead to media attention, and (3) misconduct that leads to
withdrawals or retractions of journal publications. In this research protocol we will structure
the script for data-gathering according to the administrative procedures to deal with allegations
of misconduct.
Concerning the registering practices
Besides gathering information on the extent of misconduct, we also aim at mapping “the
procedures to deal with misconduct cases”. The goal is to not just report on the actual procedures
themselves, but also on the process of gathering this data. Methodological issues should be
discussed. The obstacles faced in gathering data on administrative procedures should be
extensively reported upon. Issues with transparency, gaining access or fragmentation of
registration will be described in this deliverable. Accordingly, recommendations could be made
regarding room for improvement on transparency and openness of registering practices.

1.2 Participating partners
Country Institution
The Netherlands RU
LU
Belgium VUB (task leaders)
Estonia CEUT
Norway HiOA
Great Britain UNIV BRIS
Italy UT
1.3 Timing
This draft of the research protocol (written by the leading partner VUB) is based on the expertise
we have of our own national context. In this regard that we do need input of PRINTEGER partners
to create generic similarities that transcend national and institutional bounds.
An initial draft was congregated at the General Assemblée in Oslo (25-26) after which the
necessary adjustments were put in place for the finalized protocol (submission date of the
protocol itself is in the 13th month - September 2016).
At the Oslo meeting, the experts gave the advice to task leader VUB to contact the chair of the Enrio
network in order to get more insight and information in studies that had been previously
conducted in Europe. From this meeting, and a thorough study of the reports and surveys (done
by amongst other Science Europe), we could conclude that this data is not very representative and
usable for Printeger. It was reported to us that there were some transparency issues when it
comes to administrative procedures in the countries that were involved. Above that, we could
conclude that not all the countries involved in our work package were members of the previously
conducted research and that the data gathered does not give us the specific answers that Printeger
is looking for. As a result, we believe we are still designated to WPIII.1 partners to gather
information on registration practices and procedures in their country.
A report on the incidence of misconduct is due in month 16 (December).
The actual data gathering per partner will be done and communicated to partner VUB before the
end of month 16 (December).

Timing Date Milestone Info Partner

Month 12 19/08/2016 Preliminary to the Leading partner RU, CEUT,
research protocol distributes a first HIOA, UNIV
document to the BRIS, UT and
partners for feedback LU
Month 12 26/08/2016 General Assemble Prototype will be All partners
Oslo discussed with all
partners
Month 13 September Submission The leader of WP3 VUB
Deliverable III.1 submit the protocol and
it will make it available
for the partners
Month 15 30/11/2016 Data on incidence The partners will gather VUB, RU,
Gathered the data between CEUT, HIOA,
September and UNIV BRIS, UT
November and LU
Month 16 31/12/2016 Report on the VUB, RU,
incidence of CEUT, HIOA,
misconduct to VUB UNIV BRIS, UT
and LU

2. Introduction1
We can state that there is a clear and increasing attention for the phenomenon of misconduct in
scientific practices today, coming from funding bodies, research institutions, the media, policy
makers and the government as well as civil society. The increased attention has created the
perception of a ‘rise’ of ‘actual misconduct’, yet the frequency of fraud or misconduct in science
has been a controversy in the ‘bad apple’ vs ‘iceberg’ debate. We can argue that up until today we
are dealing with a serious dark number when it comes to the prevalence of deviance in science.
There are several reasons for this:
Firstly, we raise concerns with regard to the consensus model when it comes to conceptualizing
integrity and on what should be considered scientific misconduct.
Secondly, the increased attention has resulted in the development of a much broader concept of
scientific deviance, going far beyond Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism (FFP), causing
scientific misconduct to operate as an umbrella concept. This has consequently caused confusion
and animosity within the scientific community and within the institution in which scientific
practices take place.
Thirdly, there is no clear-cut definition of misconduct in science. This definitional ambiguity needs
to be taken into account when trying to grasp the extent of misconduct and analyze how
institutions respond to misconduct in science.
Fourthly we would like to point out issues in registration, since misconduct is under-reported,
either because it is undiscovered or the discoverers are afraid of the consequences of becoming
whistle blowers.
Fifthly, there is the desire, both from institutions as from the complainant and the accused to keep
the case under the radar. Many cases might thus be handled informally and under the table. An
analysis of the incidence of misconduct has to take into account such biases (the issue of ‘dark
numbers’ of unreported or hard to label misconduct).
This report identifies what data partners should collect and how to document sources, in a unified
way. Yet, the specificity of institutional structure and organizational structure of dealing with
research misconduct of each partner of WPIII.1 has to be taken into account in order to gather
correct information on the extent and incidence of misconduct. Therefore we stress the
1
This introduction is partially based on the description of the work package in the “proposal for coordination
and support actions” of Printeger, and partially on the deliverable DII.5 – Deviance in science. A criminological
analysis.
importance of the co-creation of this protocol, since we can only provide valid information with
regard to our own national context.
Conceptual discussion
Despite multiple attempts at defining the norms of science (e.g. R.K. Merton, 1973), there remains
no general agreement on the fundamental norms of science (Kalichman, Sweet, & Plemmons,
2014; Mcfarlane, Zhang, & Pun, 2014). The phenomenon of deviance or misconduct in science is
complex and it encompasses a wide range of “improper” behaviors and activities, leading to
different possible interpretations. Science, but also concepts such as fraud, misconduct and
deviance must be understood in a way that goes beyond the assumption of consensus, taking into
account the plurality that is inherently part of science.
This definitional ambiguity and the subsequent conceptual debates have an influence on how the
investigating and registering bodies define scientific integrity and scientific misconduct.
Administrative procedures are being initiated after a formal complaint (e.g. whistleblower’s
complaint). Formal complaints however, derive in most instances from clear cases of Falsification,
Fabrication or plagiarism. When it comes to the grey area of scientific misconduct, there is a
tendency to settle the complaint in a rather informal way. Consequently, questionable research
practices rarely result in administrative procedures, and remain uncounted in the official
statistics. When possible we would like to include those grey areas as well. In this deliverable
however, we gather information on the incidence of misconduct in science through the amount of
official registered cases. Therefore it is the definition of several forms of misconduct used by the
registering bodies that is worth exploring.

3. Research misconduct: administrative procedures in partner countries
3.1 Institutional structures in dealing with scientific misconduct
The investigation on allegations of research misconduct might be held at the level of the
institution, region or country. In some countries there is an appeal to an external body in dealing
with misconduct. Yet in other circumstances there is no formal appeal system at all.
With the European Code of Conduct we can observe that it is the ‘employers’ of researchers as
“hosts of the research” have the primary duty of installing administrative procedures to deal with
scientific misconduct in their research institutes.2 Accordingly, we can state that all institutes that
employ researchers should act accordingly to the European Code of Conduct and therefore have
installed administrative procedures and registration of allegations of misconduct. “Typically, the
primary responsibility for promoting integrity and handling issues of research misconduct resides
with the institution that hosted the research and/or is the employer of the researcher against whom
an allegation of misconduct is made”.3
Responsibility for governance and the investigation of scientific integrity can, however, differ
amongst the different national partners involved in this deliverable. Responsibility of dealing with
misconduct can lie within the institution, with regional or national organizations, or through
National Research Integrity Offices.4 Investigation can happen at centralized bodies or can be
decentralized and fragmented. In addition to institutions dealing with misconduct, some countries
can have other bodies who can handle cases of misconduct. These could be national bodies,
independent organizations and bodies of funding agencies. 5
3.2 Levels of registration
Institutional (e.g. Commissions of Scientific Integrity)
In some countries such the responsibility for investigating and registering cases of scientific
misconduct is placed at the relevant research institution (sometimes even by law, cf. Norway).
2
ESF, & ALLEA. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2011).
3
M. Hiney, Research Integrity: What it means, Why it is Important and How we Might Protect it (Science
Europe, 2015), 17.
4
The Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, National systems for handling cases of research
misconduct. (2013), 12.
5
This might be particularly the case when there is no regulatory body in place to deal with integrity
issues.6
Some national structures have established independent commissions at the level of the research
institutions in order to deal with integrity issues in scientific practices. Committees/commissions
as such are not part of an individual research institution and the roles they have range from an
independent advisory role and decision making in cases of misconduct to carrying out supervision
of institutional processes.7 Additionally they can have a mandate to investigate the allegations of
misconduct and formulate recommendations; they can propose procedural adjustments when
this is found necessary8, they can propose criterions on scientific integrity, draft regulations, etc.
National / Regional
“Besides the procedures at the level of the institution, National Integrity Offices can provide
consistent advice, support and guidelines across both the public and private research sectors”.9
These offices or commissions thus provide the investigating institution with an independent
advice, and do consequently play an important role when it comes to administrative procedures.
This advice can be required prior to the final decision of the research instructions, or as a form of
appeal to a decision made by the research institution or Commission of Scientific Integrity.
These bodies are not always qualified to investigate the allegation of misconduct, in some cases
there competency is limited to providing an advice only.
3.3 What information on the incidence of misconduct do we want to collect?
The aim of this deliverable is to go beyond a reporting of the incidence of research misconduct
visible in administrative procedures, but rather it seeks at grasping the procedural structure of
the registering practice by the involved institute or organization. Therefore it is important to map
out at which level registration is happening in the partner countries, and consequently to gain
knowledge on which body for investigating cases of misconduct we need to direct the data-
gathering.
6 The Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, National systems for handling cases of research
7 The Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, National systems for handling cases of research

8
http://www.kuleuven.be/english/research/integrity/procedures/csi/index
9
M. Hiney, Research Integrity: What it means, Why it is Important and How we Might Protect it (Science
Europe, 2015), 20.
Institutional?
Overarching?
National ? Regional ?
Figure 1 Who is responsible for handling cases of misconduct?
The central goal of this deliverable, is thus to find answers to the following questions:
- How many notifications of misconduct reach the registering bodies each year?
- How many of those cases make it into an official file?
- What has been the actual outcome of these cases?
o Admissible
o Non admissible
o sanction
- And if possible: what are the basic characteristics of these cases?
o Nature of the reported facts (FFP,QRP, Other, …)
o Demographic characteristics of the plaintiff and the accused
 Professional status
 Discipline
 gender
Once this information is gathered we will have an overview of the procedural steps in the
registration of scientific misconduct in each partner country, consequently we will be able to
grasp the selection process from notification to actual sanction. This will, eventually, give us
relevant information about ‘the tip of the iceberg’.

sanction
case upheld or
disproven
investigation
Official file
Selection -
Alert/notification of
misconduct process
Figure 2Procedural chain
4. National systems for handling cases of misconduct
Oversight of procedures on dealing with cases of misconduct varies largely according to the
national context. In most countries, responsibility in creating formal mechanisms lies with the
research institutions within their role as “employers”. This means that in some occasions our data
gathering could happen at the institutional level, by asking research institutions or their
committees or commissions for research integrity to provide us with the amount of cases (over
the past 5 years), the characteristics and the procedural chain that has been followed (with as a
tool for example the attached excel sheet).
In other occasions, however, countries have a central and official national body dealing with issues
of research integrity. If these bodies register cases and thus have an active role within the
procedural strain, this will be the level where data collection needs to happen.
Yet some other countries, unfortunately, do not have official registering bodies, and struggle with
vague, unwieldly and fragmented registration. The level of transparency will consequently play a
crucial factor in gathering data on the incidence and extent of scientific misconduct. In that case,
we will be obliged to rely on the goodwill of deans or rectors of research institutes to provide us
with the data they have.
In this next section we aim at sketching an overview of the national administrative procedures for
handling misconduct cases and allegations of misconduct per national partner. We have used our
own expertise when it comes to mapping out these systems in Belgium, but we would like to
underscore the fact that this overview will inevitably contain some gaps when it comes to the
other partnering countries in the deliverable. It is therefore that we rely heavily upon the input of

the partners for further completion or correction and feedback (by answering the questions
addressed in section 5 for example).
a. Belgium
FWO Research Foundation Flemish

F.R.S FNRS National fund for scientific research French speaking
community
VCWI Flemish Commission for Research Integrity Flemish
CWI’s CWI’s installed at the Flemish Universities (register Flemish
and record cases of misconduct)
Unknown Registration and recording of misconduct French French speaking
speaking community is not centralized and community
formalized.
Complaints, questions and suspicions with regard to scientific integrity are directed at the
Commission of Scientific Integrity of the institution in question. When a complaint is filed at a
funding institution, such as for example the FWO (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), it is
immediately redirected at the CSI of that particular research institution since they have a bilateral
agreement in which the commission grants expertise. The CSI of the host institution will
investigate the notice and if necessary a formal complaint will be made. After formalizing the
complaint into a file, the CSI will investigate and eventually decide upon the admissibility of the
complaint with or without a second advice of the VCWI (Flemish commission of scientific
integrity).
In order to map out the incidence and extent of misconduct visible in administrative procedures
in Belgium, it is thus most appropriate to collect data from the Commissions of Scientific Integrity
installed at the research institutions. Taking into account data from for example the FWO or the
VCWI would result in a double count. It is however interesting to know where the complaints
come from (whistleblowers, funding institution) and if a second advice was necessary or not.
The 5 Flemish research institutions (universities) all have official CSI’s:
- University of Antwerp UA: since 2010 (data available since 2012)

- Free University of Brussels VUB: since 2015
- Catholic University of Leuven KUL: since 2006
- University of Hasselt UH: not known
- University of Ghent UGENT: 2010 (revised in 2015) (data from 2011 onwards)

There are however, no official Commissions of Scientific Integrity installed in the French speaking
community:
- Université Saint-Louis-Bruxelles
- Université Libre de Bruxelles
- Université Catholique de Louvain
- Académie universitaire Wallonie-Europe
- Université de Liège
- Académie universitaire ‘Louvain’
- Université de Namur
- Académie universitaire Wallonie-Bruxelles
- Université de Mons
This will impede the procedure of data gathering within these institutes as it is not clear which
people are aware of the amount of cases in that research institution.
The CSI’s do not have collective statistics or a systematic system of data collection, but can, and
are willing to collect all the files from the startup of the commissions until this date and provide
us information on the content of the file (see excel sheet). Considering the fact that not all research
institutes had a CSI since 2010, there will inevitably be gaps in the collection of data on the extent
of misconduct in science in administrative procedures.
b. The Netherlands
LOWI National Board for Research Integrity
“Research misconduct rules in the Netherlands are established in the context of a central body on
research misconduct set up in cooperation between research institutions, institutional
organizations and funding agencies”.10
The initial responsibility for handling cases or research misconduct is placed at the research
institutions. LOWI can give advisory opinions on the preliminary decisions of the research
institutions, it is the research institutions that make the final decision.11
“In 2003, the National Board for Scientific Integrity (LOWI) was set up by KNAW, the Netherlands
Organisation for Scientific Research (NOW) and the Association of Universities in the Netherlands
(VSNU). It acts like a second instance appeal court and is called in if either the complainant or the
10
11
person accused of research misconduct is not satisfied with the way a specific case was dealt with.
If the LOWI considers that the case was not handled properly, it will advise the university
management to restart the process”. 12
LOWI knows what happens on the local level as they cooperate closely with the Ombudspersons
located at the research institution.
c. Estonia
ETAG Estonian Research Council
This is a research funding organization. The research council does not investigate cases. This
organization is probably not aware of what is happening at the local level, they are currently
focusing on promoting research integrity, more than the actual investigation or registration of
cases.
d. Norway
ETIKKOM The National Committees for Research Ethics
Norway has a system based on National Committees of Research Ethics13 since the 1990s. Their
overall responsibility is to advice on issues with research ethics. These committees, however, do
not have a mandate to deal with specific allegations of research misconduct.14 The primary
responsibility for handling cases of research misconduct s places at the research institutions by
law. They may seek advice or even refer the handling of a case to the national Commission for
Investigating Research Misconduct. This specific commission has two functions: (1) investigating
allegations of misconduct, (2) advisory role.15
The Commission does not impose sanctions. Sanctioning actions must be taken by the employer
of the researcher in question.
12
ESF, Stewards of Integrity Institutional Approaches to Promote and Safeguard Good Research Practices in
Europe, (ESF: Survey Report, 2008), 29.
13
Three ethics committees: The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the
Humanities (NESH), the National Committee for Research Ethics in Medicine (NEM) and the National
Committee Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT).
14
ESF, Stewards of Integrity Institutional Approaches to Promote and Safeguard Good Research Practices in
Europe, (ESF: Survey Report, 2008), 31.
15
“In Norway the National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct is not an appeal
body for the decisions of the research institutions. The decisions of the national commission may
be appealed to the Ministry of Education and Research.”16
e. Great Britain
UKRIO UK Research Integrity Office
Research institutions, private sector/commercial organizations, regulatory bodies such as the

General Medical Council and the UK Research Integrity Office are involved in handling cases of
misconduct in Great Britain.
The UK Research Integrity Office was established in 2006 and has always performed an advisory
function. The office does not investigate cases itself.17
There is a new document that states that research institutions and universities should report the
cases they deal with in an annual review. There is an article, however in which Liz Wager states
that there are universities that do not report on their cases because of fear of reputation damage.18
f. Italy
CNR Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
Similar situation to Estonia. There is no national research integrity office registering cases for
now. The national funding agency, CNR, feels responsible about this issue and they have installed
a local committee which, after time, should become a committee on the national level.
16
17
L. Wager, “Research misconduct in the UK”, BMJ, (2012): 344.
18
L. Wager, “Research misconduct in the UK”, BMJ, (2012): 344.
5. Questions directed at participating partners of WP3.1
In order to create a research protocol that identifies and unifies what data partners should collect
and how sources should be documented, the general information on the registration system in
every country of the partners involved needs to be mapped out. Every partner can consequently
map out and report upon the structure in which the institutional procedures are embedded.
Consequently, it will be clear which body for investigating cases of misconduct needs to be
addressed for the data-gathering (either through a system of central registration, through
overarching national bodies, through research funding agencies or integrity offices).
From each national partner we would like to gather answers on the following questions (with the
help of those contacts):
Which body for investigating research misconduct is responsible for the registration of
allegations of misconduct?
It is of utmost importance to map out the national structures and the levels at which the
registration is being done.
- Is the registration happening at the level of the research institutions (either by institution
itself or an independent commission)?
- Is the registration happening at an overarching body or office of research integrity?
Accordingly we will have a better understanding of where to start with the data gathering.
Is it compulsory for the registering body (either at the national, institutional or

overarching level) to report upon the registered cases (on a website, annual report, …)?
In some countries research institutions have the obligation to report the registered cases to an
overarching body. In some cases this happens through an annual report, in other instances reports
of allegations of misconduct are published online (e.g. the Netherlands).
Can you have access to the cases and procedures?
- Are the procedures available?

- Is there public access to reports of the registering bodies?
- Is the registering body willing to share information? (for example by filling out the excel
sheet, see attachment)

6. Data gathering in partner countries
Certain elements can hinder data gathering for your country. Firstly, decentralization of
registration for example makes it very difficult to gather data in a systematic way. Further, the
process of data gathering can be hampered if your country counts a high number of research
institutes, and lacks an overarching body that registered cases of misconduct within those
institutes. Another possible complication can be the reluctance of institutes to share confidential
data (even though anonymity will be guaranteed). Therefore, see the confidentiality letter in the
attachment (example).
With the help of the previous section of questions we aimed at grasping the procedural structure
of the registering practice by the involved institute or organization. The central goal of this
deliverable, however, is to find answers to the following questions:
- How many notifications of misconduct reach the registering bodies each year?
- How many of those cases make it into an official file?
- What has been the actual outcome of these cases?
- (and if possible) What are the basic characteristics of these cases?
Once this information is gathered we will have an overview of the procedural steps in the
registration of scientific misconduct in each partner country, consequently we will be able to
grasp the selection process from notification to actual sanction. This will, eventually, give us
relevant information about ‘the tip of the iceberg’.
In order to systematically gather data on administrative procedures, we have drafted a form that
is to be filled out by the registering bodies (see attachment below). After the initial data gathering,
those separate sheets will be accumulated in one ‘bigger’ database that will eventually facilitate
the analysis.

7. Next steps
With the help of the contact person and chair of Enrio, Nicole Foegel, we have gathered contact
information from experts to get in touch with for the gathering of information and access to data.
(see below)
 As a first step RU, CEUT, VUB, HiOA, UNIVBRIS, UT and LU should contact key persons and
get information on which bodies of registration should be looked in order to include the
full range of misconduct in research organizations.
 Secondly, the body (or bodies) for registering cases of misconduct should be contacted and
asked for permission on data gathering (with the help of the necessary documents,
consent, confidentiality letter, …).
 A data-gathering plan will be drafted by each partner, which states how the data will be
gathered and in which time period and at which body for registering cases of misconduct.
The excel data sheet can be a useful tool, that synchronizes the way in which the national
partners gather their data.
 Further, partners should report on all the aspects of the data gathering, especially the
issues that are involved in this.
For example, it is possible that there are no records from before a certain time period or
in certain parts of the country (as is the case in Belgium for example as the CSI were only
installed fairly recently in Flanders). Unwillingness from registering bodies to cooperate,
fragmented registration etc. are all possible issues that are worth reporting about, both
for the Printeger project as for further research on the topic.
 A report on the incidence of misconduct will be prepared by the partners, and shared with
task leader VUB.
What can (or cannot be) be derived from the data and what does this tell us about the
administrative proceedings and the procedural strain?
The report should include information on the (public?) accessibility of data on scientific
misconduct in research institutes, a report on the levels of registration and the followed
procedures and steps in administrative procedures. The data will hopefully allow the
national partners to report on specific characteristics of a reported case and the forms of
misconduct registered but also the discrepancy between the theory of registration and
registration in practice; cf. the books vs action.

Even in case of scarce data, this report on the incidence of misconduct can be very useful to map
out procedural structures and administrative procedures from each partner country and can
consequently tell us more about issues in data collection.
The task leader, VUB, can be contacted at all times in case of problems, questions or for advice.
The excel sheet can be modified, depending on the situation, so all feedback on it is more than
helpful for us.

8. List of key contacts
Country Name Organization contact

The Netherlands Grace Van Arkel former grace.van.arkel.enrio.eu@gmail.com
secretary
general of LOWI
Fauzia Successor Van Fauzia.roepnarain@lowi.nl
Roepnarain Arkel
Belgium Bert Seghers VCWI bert.seghers@kvab.be
Norway Torkild Vinther Founding torkild.vinther@etikkom.no
members of
ENRIO
UK James Parry Ukrio james.parry@ukrio.org
Marc Taylor Represenatative c.marc.taylor@gmail.com
Enrio meetings
Estonia Kadri Maeger ETAg (national Kadri.Mager@etag.ee
funding agency)
Italy Ilja Pavone CNR iljarichard.pavone@cnr.it
Cinzia Caporale CNR cinzia.caporale@cnr.it

9. Bibliography
ESF, Stewards of Integrity Institutional Approaches to Promote and Safeguard Good Research
Practices in Europe, ESF: Survey Report, 2008.
The Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, National systems for handling cases of
research misconduct, 2013.
Wager, L., “Research misconduct in the UK”, BMJ, (2012).
ESF, & ALLEA. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, 2011.
Hiney, M., Research Integrity: What it means, Why it is Important and How we Might Protect it,
Science Europe: briefing paper, 2015.
Nordforsk, Research integrity in the nordic countries – National systems and procedures, Oslo:
expert seminar, 2014.
Merton, R.K. . The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Emprical Investigations. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1973.
Kalichman, M., Sweet, M., and Plemmons. D., "Standards of Scientific Conduct: Are There Any?".
Science and Engineering Ethics 20, no. 4 (2014): 885-896.

Attachments
Proposal of excel sheet to be filled in by the registering bodies of each research institute
Country: Name Research institution: Registering body:
File Year Informal complaint Formal complaint (Initiated cases) Nature of the reported facts Characteristics of the plaintiff Characteristics of the accused Outcome / sanction
Admissable non-admissable Fals. Fabr. Plagiarism QRP Other Professional status discipline gender Professional status Discipline gender
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Inventory of national institutes
Country:
Research Institutes
Research institutes Acronym Body for investigating and registering cases of

misconduct ( / when non existent)

National research Funding institutes
Name funding institutes Acronym
National overarching body of scientific integrity
Name organization Acronym
Other
Name organization Acronym

Example confidentiality letter
PRINTEGER confidentiality letter for access to statistical information and case studies
We are currently working on the EU-H2020 project Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in
Research (PRINTEGER) in which the VUB (LSTS and CRIS) is a core partner, with a focus upon the
legal and the criminological aspects.
The mission of PRINTEGER is to enhance research integrity by promoting a research culture in which
integrity is part and parcel of what it means to do excellent research, not as an external and restrictive
control system. More information available on https://printeger.eu/
To promote such a culture, an improved governance of integrity and responsible research has to be
informed by practice. We aim at collecting information on misconduct in practice, starting with the
indicators of the extent of misconduct, followed by analysis of what happens in individual cases of
misconduct.
In a third work package of the project, the national partners need to gather indicators of the extent of
misconduct and analyze how institutions respond to misconduct or deviance in science. This is located
in the empirical phase of the PRINTEGER project and contributes to our analysis of what policies and
organizational responses are most likely to engender a culture of integrity in research organizations, in
which integrity is an integral part of research. The exploration of the incidence of misconduct is
combined with the institutional response, since it is partly through this institutional response that
misconduct is made explicit, or even defined. In order to fulfill this task, we need to require access to
procedures that are being followed by registering bodies and data on allegations and cases of scientific
misconduct.
We hereby kindly ask the permission to be able to access registered data on reported cases of scientific
misconduct.
Confidentiality of data
All data will be used expressly and solely for the purposes of the research and shall be treated
confidentially, guaranteeing individual anonymity as well as institutional anonymity (cf. in case of
universities). Collected information (statistics and cases) will only be accessible for “local” (national
partner) researchers on the research team.
When reported upon, following data shall not be identifiable:
- Personal data and information: name(s) of the person(s) accused of or reporting scientific
misconduct,
- The department that the person involved is/was connected to,
- The name of the University and research group the person is/was connected to,
- The name of promotor’s, colleagues, and co-authors of the person(s) in question.

Anonymity is guaranteed; the names of people involved will be anonymized in subsequent write ups
and material submitted for publication and information that can lead to indirect recognition will be
omitted as well.
What will be analyzed and reported upon?
- The suspicions on which the investigation was held

- Origins of the misconduct
- Particularities of the case
- The procedure of the registering body
- The final outcome and decision made by the registering body
If any further information is required about the research or the analysis and use of cases please do not
hesitate to contact us:
Jenneke Christiaens: Jenneke.christiaens@vub.ac.be

Serge Gutwirth: Serge.gutwirth@vub.ac.be
Gloria Gonzalez: Fuster: Gloria.gonzalez.fuster@vub.ac.be
Marijke Van Buggenhout: Marijke.van.buggenhout@vub.ac.be

D3.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

D3.1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D3.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ref.

Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension

Research Protocol: The extent and incidence of misconduct

Deliverable Number D 3.1

Research Protocol: The extent and incidence of misconduct ................................................................. 1

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 2

Concerning the registering practices

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 3

1.2 Participating partners

A report on the incidence of misconduct is due in month 16 (December).

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 4

Timing Date Milestone Info Partner

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 5

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 7

3. Research misconduct: administrative procedures in partner countries

3.1 Institutional structures in dealing with scientific misconduct

3.2 Levels of registration

Institutional (e.g. Commissions of Scientific Integrity)

3.3 What information on the incidence of misconduct do we want to collect?

misconduct. (2013), 12.

Figure 1 Who is responsible for handling cases of misconduct?

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 10

Figure 2Procedural chain

4. National systems for handling cases of misconduct

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 11

FWO Research Foundation Flemish

The 5 Flemish research institutions (universities) all have official CSI’s:

- University of Antwerp UA: since 2010 (data available since 2012)

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 12

LOWI National Board for Research Integrity

ETAG Estonian Research Council

ETIKKOM The National Committees for Research Ethics

UKRIO UK Research Integrity Office

Research institutions, private sector/commercial organizations, regulatory bodies such as the

CNR Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche

5. Questions directed at participating partners of WP3.1

Is it compulsory for the registering body (either at the national, institutional or

Can you have access to the cases and procedures?

- Are the procedures available?

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 16

6. Data gathering in partner countries

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 17

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 18

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 19

8. List of key contacts

Country Name Organization contact

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 20

Wager, L., “Research misconduct in the UK”, BMJ, (2012).

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 21

Country: Name Research institution: Registering body:

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 22

Inventory of national institutes

Research institutes Acronym Body for investigating and registering cases of

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 23

National research Funding institutes

Name funding institutes Acronym

National overarching body of scientific integrity

Name organization Acronym

Name organization Acronym

D III.1 The extent and incidence of misconduct: research protocol| page 24