An interesting analysis of whether the policies and standards issued by European learned societies match the European research integrity policy. An important thing for learned societies and institutions to remember and address, do your local research integrity policies procedures tightly align with your countries standards? If there are differences, are there good reasons for those differences and are they documented?
There is little research on how guidance provided in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA code) compares with recommendations developed by European discipline-specific learned societies. We identified, and conducted a content analysis of, 58 guideline documents from 245 societies. Less than 25% of societies in any discipline provide guidance and there are notable disciplinary differences. Recommendations not reflected in the ALLEA code relate primarily to research culture and environment. Medical and Health Sciences societies often focus on regulatory and procedural aspects of research, whereas Natural Sciences societies emphasize the importance of accurate and appropriate dissemination of results. Humanities and Social Sciences societies’ recommendations are more heterogenous and relate to the nature of specific sub-disciplines. Our results reflect differences in epistemological approaches as well as the specific role and responsibilities of societies as membership organizations. We recommend that societies develop, or endorse, appropriate research integrity guidance.
Social and Behavioral Sciences Medicine and Health Sciences Physical Sciences and Mathematics
open science research ethics research integrity responsible conduct of research science policy
Hastings, R. C., Labib, K., Lechner, I., Bouter, L., Widdershoven, G., & Evans, N. (2022, January 7). Guidance on research integrity provided by European discipline-specific learned societies: A scoping review. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/kn5y9
Publisher (Creative Commons): https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/kn5y9/