Abstract
In Australia and the Netherlands, research institutions and their funders, as well as academics, state integrity agencies, judges, governments, and journalists, have contributed to the development of rules and procedures that might help prevent, investigate, and respond to research fraud and misconduct. Both countries have experienced scandals and have ended up with codes, investigatory committees, and national research integrity committees.
National policy has created a series of expectations for research institutions. However, in both countries, the primary responsibility for research integrity remains with the institutions under whose auspices the research is carried out, as well as with the researchers themselves. Research institutions have to decide how to respond to misconduct, albeit in ways that are open to scrutiny by national advisory committees, the media, courts, and state accountability mechanisms. As a result, many institutions have amended and sharpened their own codes and regulations; refined their mechanisms for advising staff, reporting and investigating suspected misconduct, and responding to findings of misconduct; improved their protection rules for whistleblowers; regulated data storing and archiving; and sought to foster greater transparency in both their research and research integrity procedures. However, while researchers have been encouraged to embed awareness and acknowledgment of these principles through teaching, supervision, and mentoring of students and junior staff, less effort has been placed on resourcing good practice, tracing and understanding the causes of misconduct, and on fostering and entrenching a research culture invested with the values of professional responsibility and integrity.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, W. (2013). How we deal with alleged research misconduct: NHMRC. The Conversation, 16 August. https://theconversation.com/how-we-deal-with-alleged-research-misconduct-nhmrc-17101. Accessed 25 June 2014.
Association of Dutch Universities. (2005). De Nederlandse gedragscode wetenschapsbeoefening (The Netherlands code of conduct for scientific practice). Den Haag: VSNU.
Association of Dutch Universities. (2012a). Herziening van de Nederlandse gedragscode wetenschapsbeoefening (Revised Netherlands code of conduct for scientific practice). http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/Onderzoek/Code_wetenschapsbeoefening_2004_(2012).pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2014.
Association of Dutch Universities. (2012b). Preventiebeleid schending wetenschappelijke integriteit (Policy for preventing the violation of scientific integrity). http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/Onderzoek/Preventiebeleid_schendingen_wetenschappelijke_integriteit.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2014.
Association of Dutch Universities. (2012c). Landelijk model klachtenregeling wetenschappelijke integriteit universiteit (National model dealing with violations of scientific integrity). http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/Onderzoek/Landelijk_Model_Klachtenregeling_Wetenschappelijke_Integriteit_Universiteit_X.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2014.
Association of Dutch Universities. (2014). Herziening van de Nederlandse gedragscode wetenschaps-beoefening (Revised Netherlands code of conduct for scientific practice). http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/Onderzoek/Code_wetenschapsbeoefening_2004_(2014).pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2015
Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2011). The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 666–678.
Carr, K. (2008). Address to managing serious research misconduct workshop, 18 September. http://archive.industry.gov.au/ministerarchive2011/carr/Speeches/Pages/AddresstoManagingSeriousResearchMisconductWorkshop.html. Accessed 25 June 2014.
Drenth, P. J. D. (1999). Scientists at fault; causes and consequences of misconduct in science. In P. J. D. Drenth, J. E. Fenstad, & J. D. Schiereck (Eds.), European science and scientists between freedom and responsibility (pp. 41–52). Luxembourg: Publications of the European Communities.
Drenth, P. J. D., Levelt, W. J. M., & Noort, E. (2013). A rejoinder. The Psychologist, 26(2), 81.
Enserink, M. (2012). Rotterdam marketing psychologist resigns after university investigates his data. ScienceInsider, 25 June. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/rotterdam-marketing-psychologist.html?ref=hp. Accessed 23 Dec 2013.
Erasmus University Rotterdam. (2012). Universiteit trekt artikelen terug (University retracts articles). Erasmus University Rotterdam News, 25 June. http://www.eur.nl/nieuws/detail/article/38616-universiteit-trekt-artikelen-terug/. Accessed 23 Dec 2013.
European Science Foundation and All European Academies. (2011). European code of conduct for research integrity. http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/Code_Conduct_ResearchIntegrity.pdf Accessed 28 Aug 2014.
Gibson, S. (2012). Don’t tar discipline with Stapel brush, Times Higher Education, 20 December. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/dont-tar-discipline-with-stapel-brush/422194.article. Accessed 18 Aug 2014.
Global Research Council. (2013). Statement of principles for research integrity. (Berlin Statement) http://www.globalresearchcouncil.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/grc_statement_principles_research_integrity%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2015.
Hickling Arthurs Low. (2009). The state of research integrity and misconduct policies in Canada. Report prepared for the Canadian Research Integrity Committee. http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/NSERC-CRSNG/HAL_Report_e.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2013.
InterAcademy Council (IAC), & InterAcademy Panel (IAP). (2012). Responsible conduct in the global research enterprise. http://www.interacademycouncil.net/24026/GlobalReport.aspx Accessed 3 Feb 2015.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (1997). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication (5th edn)
Israel, M., Allen, G., & Thomson, C. (2014). The rise and much-sought demise of the adversarial culture in Australian research ethics. In Australasian ethics network 2013 refereed conference proceedings. https://www.aenconference.com/uploads/AEN_Conference_2013_Proceedings.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2015.
Kalichman, M. (2012). Why, what, and how we should be teaching about research integrity. In T. Mayer & N. H. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting research integrity in a global environment (pp. 195–211). Singapore: Imperial College Press/World Scientific Publishing.
Levelt C., Noort C., & Drenth C. (2012). Falende wetenschap: de frauduleuze onderzoekspraktijken van sociaal-psycholoog Diederik Stapel (Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel). Tilburg: Tilburg University. https://www.commissielevelt.nl/. Accessed 18 Aug 2014.
Macquarie University. (2014). Research integrity framework. http://mq.edu.au/policy/docs/research_responsible_conduct/The%20Macquarie%20University%20Code%20for%20the%20Responsible%20Conduct%20of%20Research.pdf. Accessed 26 Sept 2014.
Maslen, G. (2011). Australia-SA: Plagiarising academic loses job twice. University World News, 24 April, p. 76.
Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations. (2013). A global guide to the responsible conduct of research developed at the 3rd world conference on research integrity, Montréal, 5–8 May 2013. http://www.wcri2013.org/doc-pdf/MontrealStatement.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2015.
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. (1997). Joint NHMRC/AVCC statement and guidelines on research practice. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/r24. Accessed 19 Aug 2014.
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. (2007). Australian code for the responsible conduct of research. Available at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2013.
Queensland University of Technology. (2014). Independent external research misconduct inquiry: Summary of findings. http://www.orei.qut.edu.au/integrity/reports/Aug14_Publication_of_Findings_of_Independent_External_Research_Misconduct_Inquiry.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2014.
Retraction Watch. (2013). Aussie university halts trials of skin cancer drug whose developer has four retractions, April 28. http://retractionwatch.com/2013/08/12/aussie-university-halts-trials-of-skin-cancer-drug-whose-developer-has-four-retractions/. Accessed 26 June 2014.
Retraction Watch. (2014). University of Queensland investigation leads to third retraction, April 28. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/28/university-of-queensland-investigation-leads-to-third-retraction/. Accessed 25 June 2014.
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). (2013). Responsible research data management and the prevention of scientific misconduct. Amsterdam: KNAW. http://www.knaw.nl/en/news/publications/responsible-research-data-management-and-the-prevention-of-scientific-misconduct. Accessed 18 Aug 2014.
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). (2014). Correct citeren. Amsterdam: KNAW. https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/correct-citeren. Accessed 18 Aug 2014.
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), The Association of Dutch Universities (VSNU), & The Dutch National Science Foundation (NWO). (1995). Notitie inzake wetenschappelijk wangedrag (Note on scientific misconduct). Amsterdam: KNAW.
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), The Association of Dutch Universities (VSNU), & The Dutch National Science Foundation (NWO). (2001). Notitie wetenschappelijke integriteit (Memorandum on scientific integrity). Amsterdam: KNAW. http://www.nwo.nl/binaries/content/documents/nwo/algemeen/documentation/application/nwo/juridisch/notitie-wetenschappelijke-integriteit. Accessed 17 Aug 2014.
Schuyt, C. J. M. (2012). Wetenschappelijke integriteit I en de normen van wetenschappelijk onderzoek. In P. J. D. Drenth (Ed.), Wetenschappelijke integriteit (pp. 24–31). Amsterdam: KNAW.
Slaughter, S., Feldman, M., & Thomas, S. (2009). Research universities’ institutional conflict of interest policies. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4(3), 3–20.
Stapel, D. (2012). Ontsporing (Derailment). Amsterdam: Prometheus.
Stroebe, W., & Hewstone, M. (2013). Primed, but not suspect, Times Higher Education 28 February. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/social-psychology-is-primed-but-not-suspect/2002055.fullarticle. Accessed 18 Aug 2014.
Thomas, M. (2010). Overture: Professor Mandy Thomas’s address. Quality in postgraduate research: Educating researchers for the 21st Century, Proceedings of the 2010 quality in postgraduate research conference, Adelaide (pp. 21–26). http://chelt.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/people/dr-margaret-kiley/QPR2010_Proceedings.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2014.
Townsend, R., Arnold, B. B., & Bonython, W. (2013). What Australia should do to ensure research integrity. The Conversation, 16 Aug. https://theconversation.com/what-australia-should-do-to-ensure-research-integrity-17091. Accessed 25 June 2014.
van der Heijden, P. F. (2010). Wetenschappelijke integriteit en de universiteit. In P. J. D. Drenth (Ed.), Wetenschappelijke integriteit (pp. 39–44). Amsterdam: KNAW.
Van Der Weyden, M. B. (2004). Managing allegations of scientific misconduct and fraud: Lessons from the ‘Hall affair’ [editorial]. Medical Journal of Australia, 180, 149–151.
Van Der Weyden, M. B. (2006). Preventing and processing research misconduct: A new Australian code for responsible research [editorial]. Medical Journal of Australia, 184(9), 430–431.
Van Der Weyden, M. B. (2011). From the sidelines: Martin Van Der Weyden. MJA Insight 28 February. https://www.mja.com.au/insight/2011/7/sidelines-martin-van-der-weyden. Accessed 25 June 2014.
van Kolfschooten, F. (1993). Valse vooruitgang; bedrog in de Nederlandse wetenschap (False progress; deceit in the Dutch science). Amsterdam: L.J. Veen.
van Kolfschooten, F. (2012). Ontspoorde wetenschap (Derailed Science). Amsterdam: De Kring.
Vaux, D. (2013). From fraud to fair play: Australia must support research integrity. The Conversation, 25 July. https://theconversation.com/from-fraud-to-fair-play-australia-must-support-research-integrity-15733. Accessed 25 June 2014.
Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2012). Responsible research publication: International standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd world conference on research integrity, Singapore, July 22–24, 2010. In T. Mayer & N. H. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting research integrity in a global environment (pp. 309–316). Singapore: Imperial College Press/World Scientific Publishing.
Wicherts, J. M. (2011). Psychology must learn a lesson from fraud case. Nature, 480(7375), 7.
Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., & Molenaar, D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61(7), 726–728.
Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M., & Molenaar, D. (2011). Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS One, 6(11), e26828.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this entry
Cite this entry
Israel, M., Drenth, P. (2015). Research Integrity: Perspectives from Australia and Netherlands. In: Bretag, T. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_64-2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_64-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Online ISBN: 978-981-287-079-7
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education
Publish with us
Chapter history
-
Latest
Research Integrity: Perspectives from Australia and Netherlands- Published:
- 30 October 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_64-2
-
Original
Research Integrity: Perspectives from Australia and Netherlands- Published:
- 29 June 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_64-1