Transcript The Finnish Guidelines on Responsible Conduct of Research

The Finnish Guidelines on Responsible
Conduct of Research
Markku Helin
Promotion of Research Integrity in Finland
• Two basic pillars:
– The Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK);
– The work done at the local level in universities and other
research institutions.
----Proper dialogue and good cooperation between the pillars is
a precondition for good results.
The main objectives of TENK
• Promotion of responsible conduct in research.
• Promotion of discussion and spreading information on
research integrity.
• Monitoring international developments in the area.
• Preventing research misconduct.
(Decree 1347/1991)
Composition of TENK
• Chair, vice-chair and 8 members.
• Appointed by the Ministry of Culture and Education among
the persons proposed by the research community.
• All members, including the chair and vice-chair represent the
research community in their personal capacity.
• The present TENK: 1 university chancellor, 4 university
professors, 1 university lector, 1 lector of the university of
applied sciences, 1 director of a research institute, 2
representatives of major research funding organizations.
• The permanent staff: 1 general secretary, 1 – 2 assisting
persons.
The working methods of TENK in practice
• Organizing seminars on research integrity (RI) and
participation on them at home and abroad;
• Giving opinions on planned reforms having relevance with
regard to RI;
• Giving lections and providing universities with teaching
materials concerning RI;
• Arranging negotiations between TENK and universities in
order to collect information of their specific situations and
problems.
• Giving the second (and final) opinion on alleged violations
against responsible conduct of research.
Guidelines on Responsible Conduct of Research
• The basic document, a corner stone for the promotion of RI in
Finland.
• First Guidelines in 1994; minor revisions in 1998 and 2002,
updating in 2012.
• The Guidelines cover all branches of research.
• Represents the self-regulation of the research community.
The Guidelines has been established by TENK itself after
having consulted different organizationas of the research
community.
• The effectiveness of the Guidelines is based on a voluntary
commitment by the research community to adhere to them.
Commitment to Guidelines
• A research organisation may commit itself to following the
Guidelines by signing the committing form and submitting it
to TENK.
• By signing the document a research organisation undertakes
to
• follow the Guidelines in their activities
• arrange training on RI to its staff
• integrate teaching of RI into their graduate and postgraduate
programs
• Investigate alleged violations of responsible conduct of research
following the procedure set out in the guidelines
• notify TENK initiated procedures and findings made in them.
The contents of the Guidelines
• The Guidelines are divided into three parts:
• 1) Description of responsible conduct of research (RCR)
• 2) Characterisation of violations against RCR
• 3) Guidelines for handling of alleged violations
Violations against responsible conduct of
research (RCR violations)
• Research misconduct
• Disregard for the RCR
• (Other irresponsible practices, that may in their most
serious forms constitute an RCR violation).
Research misconduct
• Fabrication (e.g. reporting of a test that has never
been made)
• Falsification (e.g. modifying the results by striking
out results that does not fit the hypothesis)
• Plagiarism
• Misappropriation (”stealing” another researcher’s
idea, research plan or observation)
Disregard for RCR
• Manifests itself as gross negligence and carelesness
during the research process. Examples:
•
•
•
•
Underestimation of the role of other researchers in publications
Reporting results and methods in a careless manner
Inadequate record-keeping and storage of research data.
Publishing the same results multiple times as novel ones (”selfplagiarism).
• Misleading the research community in other ways.
Other irresponsible practices
• Examples:
– Manipulating authorship (”honorary authors”, ”ghost
authors”)
– Exaggerating one’s own achievements in CV, in a list of
publications or one’s homepage
– Delaying the work of another researcher e.g. in the context
of peer review.
– Manipulating citation index by expanding the bibliography
of a study in an artificial way.
– Maliciously accusing other researcher of RCR violations.
Handling of alleged RCR violations
• The proceedings take place in the organisation, where the
suspect research has mainly been done.
• The chancellor/rector of the university and the general
director of other research organisation are responsible for
carrying out the investigation.
• No specific prescription time, but no duty to initiate
proceedings, if the case is so old that neither the integrity of
research nor the protection of other researchers require
investigation.
• Leading principles: fairness of the proceedings, impartiality,
hearing of all parties involved, expediency.
Steps in the proceedings
• A written notification of the whistleblower or the rector’s
decision to institute the investigation on its own motion.
• A preliminary inquiry
• The investigation proper and the appointment of an ad hoc
investigation committee for that purpose.
• Preparation of the report of the case that includes a reasoned
assesment on, whether research misconduct or disregard of
RCR was found.
• Submitting the report to the rector/chancellor that takes the
decision on the basis of it.
The role of TENK in handling RCR violations
• A party that is dissatisfied with the rector’s (chancellor’s)
decision can request a stament of TENK within 6 months of
the decision.
• The opinion of TENK may be asked concerning
• The appropriateness of the proceedings in the university or
• The conclusions of the rector (chancellor) as regards the findings
concerning , whether there was an RCR violation or not.
• TENK may:
• Send the case back to the university, if it finds severe erros in
procedures or collection of evidence was insufficient.
• Confirm the decision of the rector or change it as it finds appropriate.
Sanctions
• A statement that RCR violation was found in a reprimand of
the research community to the researcher.
• The only sanction in RCR –proceedings is publicity.
• The documents submitted to TENK are in principle available to
public.
• TENK may recommend that its finding are published in a
proper way.
----The rector may have other sanctions at disposal (suspending the
researcher, cancellation of degree etc.). But these measures
derive from legislation and are outside the scope of research
integrity.
Statistics
RCR-cases in universities (and research institutions)
2012
2013
Notifications to TENK on
instituted RCR-proceedings
8
19
Misconduct or disregard found
Misconduct or disregard not found
Cases pending
5
5
2
4
10
10
Statistics (continued)
• Number of Statements of TENK in RCR-cases
2012
Request of statements received
by TENK
Number of statements given
By TENK
2013
8
5
5
5
The website of TENK
www.tenk.fi