Publishing and research ethics as wicked problems: new thinking and new approaches to making research more accountable and transparent
Organizer and chair:
Virginia Barbour, Chair, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Research and publication ethics issues can usefully be thought of as intertwined wicked problems – that is problems which are "difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize”. The increasing classification of issues as wicked is not just for academic purposes. Such a classification can lead to a rethinking of problems, an understanding of why conventional approaches to solving them have failed thus far, and perhaps novel approaches, even if solutions are not immediately forthcoming. In this session we propose to explore from a number of different perspectives how research and publication ethics are thus entwined, how this has led to many of the issues we see now, which range from the problems of corners being cut to outright fraud, and how if we really want a system of better accountability and transparency we need new thinking and new approaches.
|00:00||Studying the complex issue of research and publication ethics (Marie-Andre Jacob, Keele University, United Kingdom)|
|00:20||Innovation and research ethics (Jeroen Bosman and Bianca Kramer, Utrecht University, The Netherlands)|
|00:30||The need for new incentives in publishing (Phil Hurst, Royal Society, United Kingdom)|
|00:40||Institutional approaches to the complex problem of research ethics (Jane Jacobs, Queensland University of Technology, Australia)|
|00:50||How could editors think differently about the complexities of research and publishing ethics? (Virginia Barbour, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)|
|00:60||Discussion: What is the major problem you face in ethics and what change (or innovation or incentive) could improve ethical behavior?|
Research Integrity in for-profit organizations
Organizer and chair:
Maurice Zeegers, Head of School, Maastricht University, the Netherlands
As industrial sponsored research increases and publicly funded research decreases, the building of trust between industry, academia and the general public has never been more important. The endorsement of Responsible Conduct of Research, including evidence-based and transparent decision-making, by all parties is an important vehicle in this endeavor.
This session will provide some practical examples of science integrity challenges in different industries at various levels (from fundamental research to political decision making). One example is the misinterpretation of peer reviewed publications, reviews and reports by scientific committees and/or decision makers, possibly leading to unnecessary bans or restrictions of chemical substances.
|00:00||Chemicals: Science used in decision making: a different story at different levels (Gerard Swaen, Maastricht University, The Netherlands)|
|00:20||Pharmaceuticals: Research Integrity in for-profit organizations – the view of pharmaceutical industry (Anja Gilis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Belgium)|
|00:40||Food and Drink: Principles of Research Conduct in the European Food and Drink Industry (Rob Hamer, Unilever, The Netherlands)|
|00:60||Cosmetics: Development of non-animal methodology and EU legislative requirements: a delicate balance for cosmetics (Vera Rogiers, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium)|
|00:80||Conclusion: Dame Anne Glover (University of Aberdeen, former Chief Scientific Adviser of the European Commission, United Kingdom)|
Predatory journals: Transparency and accountability – who should take action?
Organizer and chair:
Ana Marušic, European Association of Science Editors, Croatia
Online publishing has radically increased opportunities for authors to publish research in a way that permits wide and effective dissemination. Many journals and publishers exploit new open access business models, the relative ease of operating and maintaining basic form of the online journal, but some lack legitimate publishing and editorial operations and basic publishing standards. This session will address the problem of potential predatory journals, in particular discussing the needs and challenges of quality open access journals from small research communities. The panellists will frame the issues and the audience will be invited to discuss creatively and collectively about possible actions to promote responsible publication practices and stop “predation” in research publishing.
|00:00||Editors, predatory journals and academic communities (Ana Marušic, European Association of Science Editors, Croatia)|
|00:15||What do we know about articles published in potential predatory journals? (David Moher, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Canada)|
|00:30||Predatory journals and research in developing countries (Jocalyn Clark, The Lancet, United Kingdom)|
|00:45||Many shades of journal publishing: what colour is a predatory journal? (Jadranka Stojanovski, University of Zadar, Croatia )|
Re-thinking retractions: the pros and cons of self-retraction
Organizer and chair:
Elizabeth Moylan, BioMed Central, United Kingdom
Daniele Fanelli (Stanford University, USA) will introduce his proposal for a system of self-retraction for honest error. Richard Mann (University of Leeds, UK) will give the researchers’ viewpoint from his own experience of retraction. Ivan Oransky (Retraction Watch) will highlight the challenges involved. If retraction notices were more explicit, and all parties were transparent, would retractions have less of a stigma? Virginia Barbour (Chair, Committee on Publication Ethics) will give her view from the perspective of COPE’s guidance on retractions. Can we go further and could technology solutions now enable better policies: is a more radical re-think of retractions achievable?
|00:00||A system of self-retraction for honest error (Daniele Fanelli, METRICS, Stanford University, United States of America)|
|00:15||Viewpoint from own experience of retraction (Richard P Mann, University of Leeds, United Kingdom)|
|00:30||Highlights the challenges involved (Ivan Oransky, Retraction Watch, United States of America)|
|00:45||View from the perspective of COPE’s guidance on retractions (Virginia Barbour, Committee on Publication Ethics, United Kingdom)|
Reducing research waste, improving integrity: roles of funders & research institutions
Organizer and chair:
Paul Glasziou, Director, CREBP, Faculty HS&M, Bond University, Gold Coast
Using the model of research waste proposed in the 2014 Lancet series, we describe our current knowledge about the problems of poor design, poor conduct, non-publication, and poor reporting of research and examine ways this estimated 85% waste may be reduced. Because of their support and oversight of research, research institutions - Universities and Research Institutes - and research funders potentially have a central role in reducing research waste. The session will include the example of one funder's progress (the UK's National Institute for Health Research's
Adding Value in Research framework), and some suggestions for future improvements for all organisations based on the COM-B model (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation -> Behaviour) of behaviour change.
|00:00||The problems of poor design, conduct and reporting of research Professor (Patrick Bossuyt, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)|
|00:10||Reducing waste from inappropriate ethics analysis and hyper-regulation of research (Iain Chalmers, James Lind Initiative, Oxford, United Kingdom)|
|00:20||What can funders and research institutions do to improve reporting? (Elizabeth Wager, Visiting professor, University of Split, Croatia)|
|00:30||The UK NIHR's "Adding Value in Research" program: lessons from 6 years of improvement (Matt Westmore, National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, United Kingdom)|
|00:40||The need for research methods and processes to be evidence-based when performing research (Hans Lund, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark)|
|00:50||The potential use of text mining and automated tools to monitor & reduce waste and improve integrity (Paul Glasziou, Bond University, Australia)|
Responsible Research Funding Practices: What funders can do to increase value and reduce waste in research
Wendy Reijmerink, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development
Henk Smid, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development
Powered by a global need for more social relevance, scientific quality, integrity and efficiency of research, funding agencies are among and with significant others actively thinking about their contribution to increase value and reduce waste in research. This is based on their unique role as commissioner and funder of research. The joint responsibility is to advance the professional practice of research funding in order to advance knowledge with impact for science and society.
In this session a selected overview will be given of promising Responsible Research Funding Practices (RRFP) by several national public funding agencies from different leading countries. These include for instance open access, data management and replication. How are or should the changing requirements for researchers (be) reflected in the working processes and procedures of funding agencies? How are or should public demands of transparency and accountability (be) reflected on both levels?
Participants will be encouraged to give feedback on demonstrated 'work in progress' and come up with proposals for the global ‘Research on Research’ agenda.
Program: Overview Responsible Research Funding Practices
|00:00||Adding Value in Research: the case of NIHR (Matt Westmore, NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, United Kingdom)|
|00:15||Research Integrity within the FWO (Olivier Boehme, Research Fund – Flanders, Belgium)|
|00:30||Promoting Responsible Conduct of Research in Canada (Susan Zimmerman, Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, Canada)|
|00:45||Responsible Research Funding Practices in the Netherlands (Kas Maessen, The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, The Netherlands)|
|00:60||Participatory panel discussion on (Research for) Responsible Research Funding Practices (Moderator: Henk Smid, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development)|
Being more scientific about scientific integrity: what can improve how we’re doing?
Organizer and chair:
C.K. Gunsalus, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, National Center for Professional and Research Ethics, United States of America
The Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SOURCE), a validated instrument that correlates individuals’ self-reported research behaviors, can be a powerful tool for leaders, as it measures climate and sub-climates of research integrity in academic organizations. It allows decision-makers to identify bright spots and successful approaches as well as threats to research integrity, as ample evidence shows traditional one-time responsible conduct of research (RCR) courses cannot ensure institution-wide RCR practices. Promoting transparency and accountability in research institutions is multifaceted, requiring informed institutional leadership attending to the overall research environment. In complex institutions, this includes structures, processes, policies, and their implementation in a wide range of micro-climates. Multiple universities have used the SOURCE, contributing their results to our norming database. To bring meaning to individual institutional results, this tool permits leaders to assess both institutions and compared to the database as a whole. This session will address climate surveys as a tool to foster research integrity, present evidence from a randomized trial of efficacy of such an approach, demonstrate an on-line reporting tool, and discuss real-world considerations with attendees and applicability in international settings where research is conducted.
|00:00||The Value of a Comparative Benchmarking Database for Research Integrity Climates (C.K. Gunsalus, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States of America)|
|00:20||Main Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial to Test Reporting and Feedback to Foster Research Integrity Climates in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Research Service (Brian C. Martinson, HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, United States of America)|
|00:40||Embedding climate assessment in a research project on the epistemic responsibilities of universities: The Netherlands Experience in planning, rationale, and considerations for implementation of an organizational climate assessment tool. (Lex M Bouter, VU University Medical Center and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)|
|00:60||Exploring Cross-Cultural Similarities, Differences and Collaborative Interests in Measuring Organizational Climate for Research Integrity (Carol R. Thrush, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, United States of America)|
Assuring responsible conduct in researchers’ day-to-day work: roles of researchers, funders, publishers and administrators
Organizer and chair:
Michele Garfinkel, EMBO, Germany
The primary responsibility for research integrity resides with researchers themselves. Some aspects of responsible conduct of research are straightforward and easy to achieve routinely. But a surprising number of responsibilities are unclear to researchers, and many times it is difficult for them to find explanations of their obligations. As well, research administrators, publishers, and funders have critical roles to provide support to researchers, allowing them to do their jobs well and responsibly. The speakers will review the concerns of each of these parties, and we will discuss innovative and collaborative researcher-focused approaches to assuring research integrity.
|00:00||Introduction and overview. (Michele Garfinkel, EMBO, Germany)|
|00:05||Stakeholders’ responsibilities. (Lori Knowles, University of Alberta, Canada)|
|00:25||Researchers’ and administrators’ roles in assuring research integrity (Claudio Sunkel, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Portugal)|
|00:45||How journals encourage transparency: the EMBO Press test case. (Bernd Pulverer, EMBO Press, Germany)|
Transparency & accountability during and after misconduct investigations: roles of research institutions and journalsv
Organizer and chair:
Elizabeth Wager, Sideview, Princes Risborough, United Kingdom
Research misconduct is often first detected either during or after publication. Therefore both academic journals and research institutions are involved in responding to suspected or proven misconduct and often need to liaise and share information. This session will explore the practical challenges of such interactions and discuss possible solutions based on the work of the Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE) Project.
|00:00||Challenges facing research institutions (Paul Taylor, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia)|
|00:20||Challenges facing journals (Chris Graf, COPE / Wiley, Oxford, United Kingdom)|
|00:40||Recommendations from CLUE meeting (Heidelberg) (Elizabeth Wager, Sideview, Princes Risborough, United Kingdom)|
Methodology for evaluating evidence for infringements of scientific integrity
Organizer and chair:
Jelte Wicherts, Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Recent years have seen various high-profile cases of scientific misconduct. Arguably the most severe infringements of scientific integrity are the fabrication of data and/or the fabrication of reported results. Fraudulent science erodes public trust in science and hampers the cumulative nature of the scientific endeavor. Hence, the detection of fraudulent research is important. Often, a case of fraud finds exposure through a suspicion that turns into an allegation. In many cases, the researcher under suspicion is unable or unwilling to disclose the raw data sets underlying the suspicious manuscripts. In these situations the possibility of data tinkering must be evaluated on the basis of (anomalies in) the reported (summary or spreadsheet-type) data alone. This session will present, by way of case studies, the newest methodology for the statistical evaluation of non-raw data for evidence of manipulation. The session will be at a low technical level and aims to be of broad interest to the scientific integrity community.
|00:00||Various statistical tools to detect data anomolies on the basis of summary statistics (Chris Hartgerink, Tilburg University, The Netherlands)|
|00:25||Benford's law and other methods of fraud detection (Andreas Diekmann, ETH Zurich, Switzerland)|
|00:50||Evaluating Evidence for Infringements of Scientic Integrity: A Case Study Using an Evidential Value (Carel F.W. Peeters, VU University medical center Amsterdam, The Netherlands)|
|00:75||General Discussion about possibilities and challenges in using statistical tools to detect data fabrication/falsification|
Accountability and transparency for research integrity via country report cards
Organizer and chair:
Sabine Kleinert, The Lancet, United Kingdom
At the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity, one of the focus sessions explored the national role in fostering and monitoring of a research environment that is conducive to research integrity, The participants explored the possibility for, potential usefulness of and discussed the required elements by presenting four examples of such a country report card. This session will take the discussions further by presenting four country report cards, three from Europe and one form the USA, as examples how these report cards on research integrity could look and how they could contribute to transparency and accountability at a country level. A final panel discussion will explore how countries could be encouraged to present their national profile in this way,
|00:00||A country report card of research integrity from the UK (Elizabeth Wager, Sideview, United Kingdom)|
|00:15||A country report card of research integrity from the USA (Zoe Hammatt, ORI, United States of America)|
|00:30||A country report card of research integrity from Norway (Espen Engh, Director, De nasjonale forskningsetiske komiteene, Oslo, Norway)|
|00:45||A country report card of research integrity from Croatia (Ana Marusic, University of Split, Croatia)|
|00:60||Discussion (Sabine Kleinert, The Lancet, London, United Kingdom)|
When Research Misconduct Becomes Unlawful
Organizer and chair:
Harold "Skip" Garner, Executive Director, Primary Care Research Network and the Center for Bioinformatics and Genetics, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine (VCOM)
While traditionally Research Integrity violators are held accountable by institutional committees and government agencies, recently we have seen that some transgressions violate the law, and are investigated and prosecuted through the courts. In this panel session we will explain the applicable law, differentiate where research integrity violations move from committees to the courts, discuss how government agency approaches are changing, provide some examples which illustrate how these cases are found, investigated, prosecuted and adjudicated. We will discuss recent cases involving research misconduct, such as Han (Iowa State), Potti (both research misconduct and med-mal component), the recent Australian case, and others. Further, funding agencies and institutions are attempting to recover damages from investigators who conduct fraudulent experiments and fabricate data. In another example, the US Department of Justice, and not the US funding agencies themselves, is responsible for recovery of misspent (US) government research dollars via Qui Tam (False Claims Act) statutes.
|00:00||Introduction to Research Integrity and the Law: Finding potential grant double-dippers (Harold "Skip" Garner, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Virginia campus, United States of America)|
|00:20||The unfortunate mingling of ethics and law in cases of scientific integrity (Matthias Kaiser, University of Bergen, Bergen Norway)|
|00:40||Harnessing the Law to Enhance Research Integrity (Ian Freckelton, Barrister, Melbourne, Australia)|
|00:60||The Parallel Tracks of Legal Accountability for Research Misconduct in the United States (John Thomas and Matthew Broughton, Gentry Locke, United States of America)|