(UK) The Concordat to support research integrity (Oct 2019)

[Snowdrop]

I found this and thought it might be a useful reference.

https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/po...e-concordat-to-support-research-integrity.pdf

Long document but here are a few exerpts:

In 2012, the signatories to the concordat recognised a need for greater openness and transparency, and to ensure adherence to consistently high standards across the research community. In 2019, these needs are greater still. Public trust in research is essential: to secure public participation in research; to maintain public support for the funding of research; and to ensure that research findings are mobilised as effectively as possible.Internationally, there are established principles of research integrity. The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010)1 sets out the four principles of responsible research, and outlines responsibilities that should be common to all good research. The publication of the Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations (2013) builds on the initial statement, setting out responsibilities relevant to collaborating partners. In 2017, a revised edition of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity was published by All European Academies (AEA, 2017).

We are committed to using transparent, timely, robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct when they arise. . . .misrepresentation of :data, including suppression of relevant results/data or knowingly, recklessly or by gross negligence presenting a flawed interpretation of data involvement, including inappropriate claims to authorship or attribution of work and denial of authorship/attribution to persons who have made an appropriate contribution interests, including failure to declare competing interests of researchers or funders of a study

Found the document here: https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/po...ges/the-concordat-for-research-integrity.aspx

And refers to other integrity of research documents:

Singapore statement: https://www.wcrif.org/statement
Montreal statement: https://wcrif.org/documents/354-montreal-statement-english/file
Amsterdam agenda: https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/amsterdam-agenda
Hong Kong principles: https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/hong-kong-principles

At a glance they are quite similar documents.

Also found this for the US-- Office of Research integrity:

https://ori.hhs.gov/

A little more labrinthine and seems to be more legal requirement than advice as above documents.

 

[Mithriel]

2012? That worked well then.

Something I have noticed in many aspects of life, we do not need new rules we just need proper application of the existing ones.

Good find.

 

[Ravn]

Hong Kong principles: https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/hong-kong-principles

Clicked through on a link in one of the excellent articles about how to measure scientific contributions discussed in another thread and found the paper below. Have only read the abstract and have no issues with it as such, it's all very good and worthy. Only, at least one of the authors could be having a blind spot as to their own blind spots?


PLOS: The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity (2020)

David Moher, Lex Bouter, Sabine Kleinert, Paul Glasziou, Mai Har Sham, Virginia Barbour, Anne-Marie Coriat, Nicole Foeger, Ulrich Dirnagl

Abstract
For knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous, and transparent at all stages of design, execution, and reporting. Assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor, and transparency. We have developed the Hong Kong Principles (HKPs) as part of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity with a specific focus on the need to drive research improvement through ensuring that researchers are explicitly recognized and rewarded for behaviors that strengthen research integrity. We present five principles: responsible research practices; transparent reporting; open science (open research); valuing a diversity of types of research; and recognizing all contributions to research and scholarly activity. For each principle, we provide a rationale for its inclusion and provide examples where these principles are already being adopted.

Open access.
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737