Research Integrity and Responsible Scholarship Lecture 2: In practice November 9, 2017 René Bekkers Graduate School of Social Sciences VU Amsterdam

About Integrity Contraventions How ‘bad’ are they? Ideal – FFP In which phase does it happen? Suppose we would ask: “How often have you seen this happen?” “How often have you committed this?”

How bad is this? Your dissertation supervisor submits an article that she has written and puts your name as first author. You collected data to test a hypothesis but did not report about it because the hypothesized relationship was below the desired significance level. You reported on interviews that did not take place.

Where does this case fit?

Integrity in Five Research Phases Funds Ideas Data Paper Press

Course objectives

Readings

“Doing the right thing even when no one is watching”. C.S. Lewis “Doing the right thing even when no one is watching”.

Integrity contraventions a. falsification of data b. inputting fictitious data c. secretly rejecting research results d. deliberately misusing (statistical) methods e. deliberately misinterpreting results f. plagiarizing (parts of) other people’s publications and results g. wrongly presenting oneself as a co-author h. deliberately ignoring or failing to credit other’s contributions i. culpable lack of scrupulousness when carrying out research

Forms of market regulation Complete freedom: no regulation at all. Self-regulation: traders make their own rules and enforcement system. Legal regulation: a law prescribes the rules. Mixed forms are also possible.

Market features Guilds: masters, servants, and slaves. Closed markets: driver’s license required. Rescue services: fire brigades and first aid Policing: border patrol and punishment. Doping agency: illegal drugs and detection methods. Incentives: costs and benefits of violations.

Codes of conduct Self-regulation: let professionals judge among themselves Potentially conflicting loyalties with multiple stakeholders: university associations, professional associations, academic publishers, journal editors, funders, university policy The general public and the Ministry of Science do not impose rules (yet)

Fostering Integrity Info Reflect Pledge Practice Check Punish This course Info Reflect Pledge Practice Check Punish May never happen New Faculty Policy

Codes of conduct International Disciplinary European National University Faculty

Codes of conduct and policy ESF/ALLEA: umbrella organization for science funders, researchers, academies VSNU: university association APA: professional association COPE: journal editors EC, foundations: funders VU Amsterdam: university policy Faculty of Social Science: faculty policy

ESF / ALLEA code “It is a canon for self-regulation, not a body of law.” “It is not intended to replace existing national or academic guidelines, but to represent Europe-wide agreement on a set of principles and priorities for the research community.”

ESF / ALLEA code honesty in communication; reliability in performing research; objectivity: capable of proof and review impartiality and independence: from interests openness and accessibility: of data duty of care: with respect to participants fairness: providing references and giving credit, treating colleagues with honesty responsibility for the scientists and researchers of the future: mentorship and supervision

FSS-VU policy Survey employees about conceptions and experiences with integrity (violations) Ask department chairs about activities Encourage openness of data Establish an Ethics Review Board (cf. Internal Review Board in the US) This course (and develop others) Encourage debate in research groups Appoint two Integrity counselors (VPI)

Ethics Review Board When do you need to apply? How does the procedure work? Who is on the board? What if you disagree with an ERB decision?

When is ethics review necessary? Always? Only when ‘necessary’? For which cases is ethics review mandatory? Who should do it?

Ethical Issues Risk for researchers or participants Minors or vulnerable participants Personal / sensitive data Deception and debriefing Informed consent – active/passive Strong incentives Anonymity – data protection

Data management and storage When do you need to store your data? What data do you have to store, in what form, and where? How should your data be documented? How to deal with privacy concerns? The University Library is developing facilities for data management

Assignment 1 Formulate a research question that you will answer in your conference paper. In the paper, you reflect on a dilemma in current research practice. Find two peer reviewers from this group. Agree upon a deadline.

Integrity in 5 Phases Info Reflect Pledge Practice Check Punish

Fostering Integrity Info Reflect Pledge Practice Check Punish Codes of conduct and Faculty policy Assignment Peer review

Why we want open science Because it makes social science better. Others see your mistakes. To avoid mistakes, we become more careful. Because it speeds up progress in science. Others can use your work. Because we are paid by public money. Because funders demand it.

Open science Open access publication. Open data. Open materials. Open code. Open software. Openness about funding.

Assignment 2 Did anyone ever ask you to give access to these data? Would you be able to retrieve the data and the script? Would I be able to reproduce the results reported in the paper from the archived data and script?

Self-check ethics review Any problems with the form? How can we improve it? Which ethics issues surfaced in your case?

Before you conduct research Always complete the self-check. Also when you collect data for the final assignment for this course, e.g. through interviews.