Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 1421–1436 | Cite as

Differing Perceptions Concerning Research Integrity Between Universities and Industry: A Qualitative Study

  • Simon GodecharleEmail author
  • Benoit Nemery
  • Kris Dierickx
Original Paper


Despite the ever increasing collaboration between industry and universities, the previous empirical studies on research integrity and misconduct excluded participants of biomedical industry. Hence, there is a lack of empirical data on how research managers and biomedical researchers active in industry perceive the issues of research integrity and misconduct, and whether or not their perspectives differ from those of researchers and research managers active in universities. If various standards concerning research integrity and misconduct are upheld between industry and universities, this might undermine research collaborations. Therefore we performed a qualitative study by conducting 22 semi-structured interviews in order to investigate and compare the perspectives and attitudes concerning the issues of research integrity and misconduct of research managers and biomedical researchers active in industry and universities. Our study showed clear discrepancies between both groups. Diverse strategies in order to manage research misconduct and to stimulate research integrity were observed. Different definitions of research misconduct were given, indicating that similar actions are judged heterogeneously. There were also differences at an individual level, whether the interviewees were active in industry or universities. Overall, the management of research integrity proves to be a difficult exercise, due to many diverse perspectives on several essential elements connected to research integrity and misconduct. A management policy that is not in line with the vision of the biomedical researchers and research managers is at risk of being inefficient.


Research integrity Research misconduct Industry University 



We wish to thank the interviewees for their participation. This research was funded by Research Foundation—Flanders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen), PhD Fellowship: 11U8214N.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11948_2017_9965_MOESM1_ESM.docx (53 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 52 kb)


  1. All European Academies. European Code of Conduct for Research Intregrity. Revised Edition. 08 August 2017.
  2. Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82, 853–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosch, X., et al. (2012). Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals. PLoS ONE, 6, e51928. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. JERHRE, 1, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DeAngelis, C. D., & Fontanarosa, P. B. (2008). Impugning the integrity of medical science: The adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA, 299, 1833–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4, e5738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS One, 5, e10271. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 2012(109), 17028–17033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garegnani, G. M., Merlotti, E. P., & Russo, A. (2015). Scoring firms’ codes of ethics: An explorative study of quality drivers. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 541–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013). Guidance on research integrity: No union in Europe. Lancet, 381, 1097–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2014). Heterogeneity in European research integrity guidance: Relying on values or norms? JERHRE, 9, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2017). Scientists still behaving badly: A survey within industry and universities. SEE. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9957-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hvistendahl, M. (2013). Corruption and research fraud send big chill through big pharma in China. Science, 341, 445–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ICMJE. 04 July 2017.
  16. Kaptein, M., & Schwartz, M. S. (2008). The effectiveness of business codes: A critical examination of existing studies and the development of an integrated research model. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kornfeld, D. (2012). Perspective: Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87, 877–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10, 712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosenbaum, L. (2015a). Conflicts of interest: Reconnecting the dots—Reinterpreting industry-physician relations. New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 1860–1864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosenbaum, L. (2015b). Conflicts of interest: Beyond moral outrage—Weighing the trade-offs of COI regulation. New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 2064–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Seife, C. (2015). Research misconduct identified by the US food and drug administration: Out of sight, out of mind, out of the peer-reviewed literature. JAMA Internal Medicine, 175, 567–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. (2010).
  24. Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 249–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steneck, N. H. (2007). ORI—Introduction to the responsible conduct of research link to external site. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  26. Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A., & Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453, 980–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Watts, L. L., et al. (2016). Are ethics training programs improving? A meta-analytic review of past and present ethics instruction in the sciences. Ethics and Behavior. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2016.1182025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Godecharle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Benoit Nemery
    • 2
  • Kris Dierickx
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and LawUniversity of LeuvenLouvainBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Environment and HealthUniversity of LeuvenLouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations