Abstract
Research integrity, research ethics, and research misconduct are increasingly focusing on discussions in academic, professional, and research communities. As formal documents sending a message to the professional community about standards guiding professional behavior, ethics codes seem to be a good place for addressing responsible conduct of research. However, research integrity concepts are not often addressed in ethics codes published in English. It is unclear whether ethics codes will or should become the primary safeguard against research misconduct and what form this would take in the developing landscape of research integrity. One way to go is for the ethics/integrity codes to become binding, strictly defined rules for members of the associations or institutions authoring the codes. Alternatively, ethics codes may serve as an aspirational promotion of responsible conduct of research, with the assumption that the research community has other self-correcting mechanisms to preserve the integrity of the research process. Whatever the future may hold, codes of ethics will remain an essential vehicle of the nascent attempts to safeguard against research misconduct and a good indicator of how the research community will address and resolve the emerging issues in responsible conduct of research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
All European Academies. 2017. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Revised edition. Berlin: ALLEA.
Anderson, Melissa S., and Marta A. Shaw. 2011. A Framework for Examining Codes of Conduct on Research Integrity. In Promoting Research Integrity In A Global Environment, ed. T. Mayer and N. Steneck, 133–147. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.
Antiel, Ryan M., Farr A. Curlin, C. Christopher Hook, and Jon C. Tilburt. 2011. The Impact of Medical School Oaths and Other Professional Codes of Ethics: Results of a national physician survey. Archives of Internal Medicine 171: 469–470. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.47.
Bateman, Connie R. 2012. Professional Ethical Standards: The journey toward effective codes of ethics. In Work and quality of life. Ethical practices in organizations, ed. Nora P. Reilly, M. Joseph Sirgy, and C. Allen Gorman, 21–34. Amsterdam: Springer.
Bonn, Noémie Aubert, Simon Godecharle, and Kris Dierickx. 2017. European Universities’ Guidance on Research Integrity and Misconduct: accessibility, approaches, and content. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 12: 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616688980.
Bosch, Xavier. 2010. Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice in Europe. EMBO Reports 11: 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2010.32.
Bošnjak, Lana, and Ana Marušić. 2012. Prescribed Practices of Authorship: review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines. Scientometrics 93: 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0773-y.
Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (US), Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. 1992. Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
Davies, Sarah R. 2019. An Ethics of the System: talking to scientists about research integrity. Science Engineering and Ethics 25: 1235–1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0064-y.
Devrim, Devo Y. 2015. Grammatical Metaphor: What do we mean? What exactly are we researching? Functional Linguist 2: 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-015-0016-7.
ENERI. 2019a. What is Research Ethics? http://eneri.eu/what-is-research-ethics/. Accessed 3 Feb 2020.
———. 2019b. ENERI Manual. Research integrity and ethics. http://eneri.eu/e-manual/. Accessed 3 Feb 2020.
ENRIO – European Network of Research Integrity Offices. 2019. http://www.enrio.eu/about-enrio/. Accessed 10 Feb 2020.
Erwin, Patrick M. 2011. Corporate Codes of Conduct: The effects of code content and quality on ethical performance. Journal of Business Ethics 99: 535–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0667-y.
Ethics Codes Collection. Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology. http://ethicscodescollection.org. Accessed 6 January 2020.
EU – European Union. General Data Protection Regulation. 2016. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02016R0679-20160504&from=EN. Accessed 8 December 2019.
Farrell, Helen, and Brian J. Farrell. 1998. The Language of Business Codes of Ethics: implications of knowledge and power. Journal of Business Ethics 17: 587–601. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005749026983.
Giorgini, Vincent, Jensen T. Mecca, Carter Gibson, Kelsey Medeiros, Michael D. Mumford, Shane Connelly, and Lynn D. Devenport. 2015. Researcher Perceptions of Ethical Guidelines and Codes of Conduct. Accountability in Research 22: 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.955607.
Godecharle, Simon, Benoit Nemery, and Kris Dierickx. 2014. Heterogeneity in European Research Integrity Guidance: relying on values or norms? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 9: 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614540594.
Horbach, Serge P.J.M., and W. Halffman. 2017. Promoting Virtue or Punishing Fraud: mapping contrasts in the language of ‘scientific integrity’. Science and Engineering Ethics 23: 1461–1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9858-y.
IUA – Irish Universities Association. 2019. National Research Integrity Forum. https://www.iua.ie/for-researchers/research-integrity/#. Accessed 8 Dec 2019.
Kaiser, Matthias. 2014. The Integrity of Science - lost in translation? Best Practices in Research Clinical Gastroenterology 28: 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2014.03.003.
Karačić, Jasna, Pierpaolo Dondio, Ivan Buljan, Darko Hren, and Ana Marušić. 2019. Languages for Different Health Information Readers: multitrait-multimethod content analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews textual summary formats. BMC Medical Research Methodology 19: 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0716-x.
Komić, Dubravka, Stjepan L. Marušić, and Ana Marušić. 2015. Research Integrity and Research Ethics in Professional Codes of Ethics: survey of terminology used by professional organizations across research disciplines. PLoS One 10: e0133662. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133662.
LERU – League of European Research Universities. Towards a Research Integrity Culture at Universities: From Recommendations to Implementation. Advice Paper No. 26 – January 2020. https://www.leru.org/files/Towards-a-Research-Integrity-Culture-at-Universities-full-paper.pdf. Accessed: 29 November 2020.
Marušić, Ana, Lana Bošnjak, and Ana Jerončić. 2011. A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship Across Scholarly Disciplines. PLoS One 6: e23477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023477.
Marwick, Charles. 1989. Congress Puts Pressure on Scientists to Deal with Difficult Questions of Research Integrity. JAMA 262: 734–735.
Mejlgaard, Niels, Lex M. Bouter, George Gaskell, Panagiotis Kavouras, Nick Allum, Anna-Kathrine Bendtsen, Costas A. Charitidis, Nik Claesen, Kris Dierickx, Anna Domaradzka, Andrea Reyes Elizondo, Nicole Foeger, Maura Hiney, Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, Krishma Labib, Ana Marušić, Mads P. Sørensen, Tine Ravn, Rea Ščepanović, Joeri K. Tijdink, and Giuseppe A. Veltri. 2020. Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature 586: 358–360. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02847-8.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. 2014. New Guidelines for Responding to Misconduct in Research. http://www.mext.go.jp/en/news/topics/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2015/07/14/1360017_2.pdf. Accessed 6 Dec 2019.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. 2018. Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
NLM – National Library of Medicine. Medical Subject Headings. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/?term=research+integrity. Accessed 6 Dec 2019.
NRIN – Netherlands Research Integrity Network. https://www.nrin.nl/. Accessed 6 Dec 2019.
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. 2019. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Act (PIPEDA). https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/the-personal-information-protection-and-electronic-documents-act-pipeda. Accessed 8 Dec 2019.
Pentz, Mary Ann, Calvin Cormack, Brian Flay, William B. Hansen, and C. Anderson Johnson. 1986. Balancing Program and Research Integrity in Community Drug Abuse Prevention: project STAR approach. Journal of School Health 56: 389–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.1986.tb05779.x.
Rose, M. 1998. What Professionals Expect: Scientific professional organizations’ statements regarding authorship. Science Editing & Information Management, Proceedings of the Second International AESE/CBE/EASE Joint Meeting, Sixth International Conference on Geoscience Information and Thirty-second Annual Meeting, Association of Earth Science Editors; 1998 Sep 10-22 Washington DC., ed. Manson, C.J., and Geoscience Information Society, 15–22. Alexandria: Geoscience Information Society.
Sama, Linda M., and Victoria Shoaf. 2008. Ethical Leadership for the Professions: Fostering a moral community. Journal of Business Ethics 78: 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9309-9.
Shaw, David. 2019. The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A conceptual schema. Science and Engineering Ethics 25: 1085–1093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0052-2.
Shaw, David, and Priya Satalkar. 2018. Researchers’ Interpretations of Research Integrity: A qualitative study. Accountability in Research 25: 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2017.1413940.
Steneck, Nicholas H. 2006. Fostering Integrity in Research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics 12: 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00022268.
Steneck, Nicholas H., Tony Mayer, Melissa S. Anderson, and Sabine Kleinert. 2018. The Origin, Objectives, and Evolution of the World Conferences on Research Integrity. In Scientific Integrity and Ethics in the Geosciences, Special Publications 73, ed. Linda C. Gundersen, 1st ed., 3–14. New York: Wiley.
US DHHS – Department of Health & Human Services. 1996. Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html. Accessed 8 Dec 2019.
Vicente-Saez, Ruben, and Clara Martinez-Fuentes. 2018. Open Science Now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research 88: 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043.
Wawer, Jaroslaw. 2019. How to Stop Salami Science – promotion of healthy trends in publishing behaviour. Accountability in Research 5: 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1556099.
Wynia, Matthew K., Sandeep P. Kishore, and Cynthia D. Belar. 2014. A Unified Code of Ethics for Health Professionals. Insights from an IOM workshop. JAMA 311: 799–800. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.504.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marušić, S.L., Marušić, A. (2022). Codes of Ethics and Research Integrity. In: Laas, K., Davis, M., Hildt, E. (eds) Codes of Ethics and Ethical Guidelines. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86201-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86201-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86200-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86201-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)