promoting integrity as an integral dimension of excellence in … · 2018. 5. 3. · the case was...

Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research

***

Fair procedures

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

Deliverable Number

III.10 Work Package

WP III

Task

T III.10 [originally T III.7] Type

Report

Version

1.1 Number of Pages

48

Due Date of Deliverable

Month 24, 31/08/2017 Actual Submission Date

Month 33, 03/05/2018

Dissemination Level

Public Authors Gloria González Fuster and Serge Gutwirth (Law, Science,

Technology & Society, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, VUB)

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 665926.

Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3

1. General requirements of fairness in procedures ............................................................................. 4

1.1 ECHR and case law of the ECtHR ............................................................................................... 4

1.2 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ............................................................................................ 7

2. A variety of structures .................................................................................................................... 8

3. Fair procedures in research integrity codes and legislation ........................................................... 11

3.1 On the necessity of procedures .............................................................................................. 12

3.2 On the necessity of fairness .................................................................................................... 13

3.3 On compliance with the procedures ....................................................................................... 15

3.4 Visibility and transparency ...................................................................................................... 16

3.5 Clearly delimited scope and limitations .................................................................................. 17

3.5.1 Material scope and time limitations ................................................................................. 17

3.5.2 Part-time researchers ...................................................................................................... 18

3.5.3 Delimiting misconduct ..................................................................................................... 18

3.5.4 Scientific controversies as an external limitation .............................................................. 19

3.6 Access to preliminary advice ................................................................................................... 20

3.7 Preliminary decision on the launch of an investigation ........................................................... 20

3.8 Right and/or duty to report suspected misconduct ................................................................. 21

3.8.1 The right to report suspected misconduct ........................................................................ 21

3.8.2 A duty to report suspected misconduct? .......................................................................... 22

3.9 Possibilities for anonymous reporting ..................................................................................... 23

3.10 Tackling ‘bad faith’ allegations .............................................................................................. 26

3.11 Rights of the accused ............................................................................................................ 27

3.12 Protection of the accuser ...................................................................................................... 29

3.13 Nature of the investigating and deciding bodies ................................................................... 29

3.13.1 Scientific expertise and expertise in misconduct ............................................................ 30

3.13.2 Independence and impartiality ...................................................................................... 31

3.14 Publicity and confidentiality of the procedure ...................................................................... 31

3.14.1 Confidentiality before the procedure? ........................................................................... 32

3.14.2 During the procedure..................................................................................................... 32

3.14.3 After the conclusion of the procedure............................................................................ 33

3.15 The determination of misconduct ......................................................................................... 35


DIII.10 Fair procedures | page 2

3.15.1 Applying a broad or a narrow interpretation .................................................................. 36

3.15.2 Establishing the subjective element of misconduct ........................................................ 36

3.16 Sanctions .............................................................................................................................. 38

3.17 Possibility of appeal .............................................................................................................. 41

3.18 Efficient conclusion............................................................................................................... 42

3.19 Reaching out to other authorities or institutions................................................................... 42

3.20 Restoring reputations ........................................................................................................... 43

4. Concluding remarks ...................................................................................................................... 44

References ....................................................................................................................................... 47



Introduction ThisreportrelatestotheempiricalworkconductedunderthePromotingIntegrityasanIntegralDimensionofExcellenceinResearch(PRINTEGER)researchprojectonresearchintegrity and scientific misconduct.1 It briefly presents the general requirements offairness inprocedures(Section1), introducesthevarietyofstructures inplace for thefollow-upofallegationsofmisconduct(Section2),andreviewsthespecificrequirementsforthefairnessoftheprocedurestofollowupallegationsofmisconductasderivedfromexistingcodesandlegislationonresearchintegrity,takingalsointoaccountinsightsfromthepracticaladjudicationofcasesandrelevantpolicyandlegislativedocuments(Section3). This report complements and builds upon the analysis of normative instrumentspresentedinPRINTEGERDeliverableDIII.4,andaimstoinformbothtrainingmaterialsandpolicyrecommendationspreparedinthePRINTEGERproject.

Thecorpusofinstrumentsstudiedfortheanalysisoffairproceduresisdeterminedbytheframingoftheproject,whichprivileges,butisnotlimitedto,thegeographicalscopeoftheproject’s consortium.2 The instruments studied have been reviewed and discussed byfocusing on some of the generic features or requirements that relate to the notion offairness,ratherthanonmappingorcomparingthedifferentregulatoryorinstitutionalapproaches theymirror. These institutional approaches can be very diverse, as someEuropeancountrieshavecentralauthoritiesdealingwithresearchintegrityorresearchmisconduct,while others do not, and thosewho count on central authorities can stillattributethemdifferentroles.

Asmentioned,theanalysispresentedhastakenintoaccount,mainlyforthepurposesofillustratingrecurringproblemsandchallenges,availableinformationonthepracticeofprocedures.Itmustbenotednonethelessthat,aselegantlynotedinaprogressreportonthe situation in the United Kingdom (UK), ‘[d]ata and information on allegations ofmisconductremainimperfect’,notonlyinsaidMemberState,butgenerallyinEurope.3

A terminological warning must be made explicit upfront. The variety of documentsreviewed,generallyintegratedintodifferentnormativesystemsandoriginallyelaboratedin different European languages, inevitably conveys certain apparent terminologicalinconsistencies.For instance,whereas somedocuments refer to the individualputtingforwardallegationsofmisconductasthe‘reporter’,otherswillpreferthe‘informant’,andstillothers(takingtheperspectiveoftheinvestigationprocedure)useratherthe‘accuser’,orthe‘complainant’.Althoughthesetermsaretechnicallynotfullyequivalent,theywillbeusedinthecontextofthisreportaspotentiallyreferringtothesameperson.Similarly,theindividualtowhomallegationsrefermightbereferredtoasthe‘accused’,butalso,dependingonthecircumstances,the‘petitioner’(incaseforinstanceofhavingrequested 1MoreinformationaboutPRINTEGERcanbefoundattheproject’swebsite:https://printeger.eu/.2MainlycomposedofpartnersfromMemberStatesoftheEuropeanUnion,butalsoofnon-MemberStates.3UniversitiesUK, ‘TheConcordattoSupportResearchIntegrity:AProgressReport’(London,November2016),38.



an external opinion). Also, for the sake of simplicity, in this report the proceduresdiscussed will generally designated ‘procedures for the follow-up of allegations ofscientificmisconduct’, even if in practice theprocedures at stakemight refer toothernotionssuchasbreachesorviolationsofresearchintegrityorgoodpractice.

1. General requirements of fairness in procedures

Theterm‘fairprocedures’isusedinthepresentreporttorefertopoliciesorsystemsinplacetodealwithallegationsofscientificmisconduct,andmoreconcretelytoadesignofsuchpoliciesandsystemsthatwouldmeetbasicrequirementsfortheprotectionoftherights and interests of all parties involved. The parties involved can be individualresearchers,butalsoinstitutionsorotheractors.Proceduresapplicabletothefollow-upofallegationsofscientificmisconductmustbeinlinewithlegalrequirementsapplicabletothesettinginwhichtheyemerge,butalso,moregenerally, general legal requirements, and most notably fundamental rightsrequirements.FromaEuropeanUnion(EU)lawperspective,thisindeedrequirestakingintoaccountthestandards established by the by the Charter of Fundamental Rightsof the EU and theEuropeanConventiononHumanRights.1.1 ECHR and case law of the ECtHR

Article6oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR)recognisestherighttoafairtrial,settingoutaseriesofguaranteesforindividualsinthedeterminationoftheircivil rights and obligations, or of any criminal charge against them. The scope ofapplicationoftheseguaranteesisdelimitedbythenotionof‘thedeterminationoftheircivilrightsandobligationsorofanycriminalchargeagainstthem’,butthisnotioncannotbeinterpretedinarestrictivemanner,inaccordancewiththeobjectandpurposeoftheConvention.4TheguaranteesencompassedbyArticle6oftheECHRare:therightofaccesstoacourt;5 theright toa fairhearing(notablyincluding,asgeneralrule, theright toahearinginone’spresence,therighttoparticipateeffectively,theprincipleofequalityof

4Noting that to someextent rightsandobligationsarisingoutofemployment in thepublic serviceareexcludedfromArticle6,butthattheextentofthisexemptionisincreasinglylimited:DavidHarrisetal.,LawoftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2014),386.5 In the context of administrative decisions, when decisions determining rights and obligations ofindividualsmightbetakenbytheexecutiveorsomeotherbodythatisnotatribunal,Art.6oftheECHRrequires the possibility of judicial review (or, in some cases, an appeal on themerits), by a body thatcomplieswithArt.6;Harrisetal.,392.



arms,therighttoanadversarialtrial,somerulesforevidence,therighttohaveone’scaseproperlyexamined,therighttoareasonedjudgment,theprincipleoflegalcertainty);therighttoapublichearingandthepublicpronouncementofajudgment;andtherighttoanindependentandimpartialtribunalestablishedbylaw.

Insomecases,Article5oftheECHRmightalsoberelevant,ontherighttolibertyandsecurityoftheperson,aswellasArticle7,onfreedomfromretroactivecriminaloffencesandpunishment.Insofarasanallegedmisconduct,ortheveryaccusationofmisconduct,mightamounttoaviolationofarighttotheECHR,Article13alsobecomesrelevant,asitestablishesthateveryonewhoserightsandfreedomsassetforthintheECHRareviolated‘shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that theviolationhasbeencommittedbypersonsacting inanofficialcapacity’.Furthermore,allotherECHRprovisionsremainpotentiallyrelevant;inpractice,Article10ontherighttofreedomofexpression,andArticle8ontherighttorespectforprivatelife,comeoftenintoplay.

AninterestingjudgmentpublishedbytheECtHRin2009concernedpreciselyaviolationofbothArticle6(righttofairtrail)andArticle10(freedomofexpression)oftheECHR.6The casewas aboutM. Luigi Lombardi Vallauri, who tought philosophy of law at theFacultyofLawoftheUniversitàCattolicadelSacroCuore,inMilan,inadditiontoteachingalso at the University in his native Florence.7 InMilan, he did not have a permanentcontract, but temporary contracts which were regularly renewed during a period oftwentyyears.8In1998,LombardiVallaurihaddecidedtoapplyforanopenpositionatthe university in Milan, and in this context had an informal discussion with arepresentaitiveoftheCongregationforCatholicEducation,abodyoftheHolySee.9Therepresentative concluded that the opinions ofLombardi Vallauriwere not compatiblewith catholicdoctrine, andmadehimanunsuited candidate to teachat theUniversitàCattolicadelSacroCuore.Inaletter,healertedtheDean,informinghimoftherefusaloftheCongregationtosupportLombardiVallauri’sapplication.ThisdecisionwasdiscussedatameetingoftheCounciloftheFacultyofLaw,whichconcludedthatitwasthereforeimpossibletoproposeanothercontracttotheapplicant.Duringthemeeting,therewereemotional tributes paid to him by his colleagues, some ofwhich expressed LombardiVallauriwasoneofthebrightestteachersevermet,andamanofgreatculturalandhumanopenness.Therewerealsotechnicaldiscussionsaboutwhetheritwaspossibletoformally

6 Judgment of the Court (Second Section) of the 20 October 2009, Case of Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy,ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1020JUD003912805.7Vallauri,§5.8Theimplicationsof thisfactwerediscussed in the judgment,with theECtHR taking theposition that,despitetheformalprecarityofthesituation,theregularrenewalofcontractsmeantthattheapplicanthadasolidprofessionalpositiongrantinghimequivalentprotectionasregardstoArticle10oftehECHRastheonegrantedtoprofessorswithpermanentcontracts(§38).ADissentingOpinionofJudgeCabralBarretocontestedthisassessment.9Ibid.,§8.



require a justification by the Congregation of the reasons beyond its decision; theprofessorsconsideringitwasnotlegallypossibleeventuallywonavoteonthismatter.10

LombardiVallauriappealedbeforeanadministrativecourt,requiringtheannulementofthedecisionoftheCounciloftheFacultyofLaw,andofthedecisionoftheCongregation.11Astheadministrativecourtconfirmedthevalidityofthedecisions,hedecidedtotakethecasetotheECtHR.Initsjudgment,theStrasbourgCourtnotedthattheuniversitycouldhavealegitimateinterestinofferingteachinginspiredincatholicdoctrine,butthatsuchinterest could not be given a weight that would override the procedural guaranteesinherenttoArticle10oftheECHR,onfreedomofexpression.12Inthiscontext,theCourtobserved the Council of the Faculty had not informed the applicant about how hisallegedly heterodoxal opinions impacted his teaching, which is something that hadactuallynotbeenevaluated.13Asamatteroffact,theapplicantwasneverinformedaboutthe exact content of his presumably problematic opinions,which affected his right tocontradicttheassessmentatthecoreofthedecisions,andthisdespitethefactthatduringtheCounciloftheFacultysomeprofessorshadinsistedontheneedtoknowthegroundsjustifying the Congregation’s refusal.14 The ECtHR thus concluded there had been anunjustifiedviolationofArticle10oftheECHR.Remarkingthatthedomesticcourtshadnotdulyexamined these isssues, theCourt alsodetermined theapplicanthadnothadeffectiveaccesstoacourt,andtherehadalsobeenaviolationofArticle6oftheECHR.15

Articles6,8and10oftheECHRcanberegardedasdeeplyinterconnected.Inajudgmentconcerningascientistwhoclaimedthethreehadbeenviolated,theEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsfoundtherehadindeedbeenaviolationofArticle10,andthenonthisbasisassertednoseparateissuesarisedunderArticle6orArticle8.16ThecaseconcernedMrHertel,authorofathesissubmittedtotheZürichInstituteofVeterinarySciences.17Hertelhadwritten a research paper based on a study of the effects on humanbeingsof theconsumptionoffoodpreparedinmicrowaveovens,whichconcludedthatthemeasurableeffectsonhumanbeingsoffoodtreatedwithmicrowavesincludedchangesinthebloodwhichappearedtoindicatetheinitialstageofapathologicalprocesssuchasoccursatthestart of a cancerous condition.18 In 1992, a quarterly journal inwhich his work wasmentionedfeaturedonthecoverapictureoftheReaperwithamicrowaveoven,withthetitle‘Thedangerofmicrowaves:scientificproof’.19TheSwissAssociationofManufacturersandSuppliersofHouseholdElectricalAppliancesreactedbyrequestingtothecourtstheprohibition of associating any image that would suggest the idea of death with a

10Ibid.,§8.11Ibid.,§12.12Ibid.,§55.13Ibid.,§47.14Ibid.,§53.15Ibid.,§72.16 Judgment of the Court (Chamber) of 25 August 1998, Case of Hertel v. Switzerland,ECLI:CE:ECHR:1998:0825JUD002518194.17Hertel,§7.18Ibid.,§8.19Ibid.,§9.



representationofamicrowaveoven,20andlodgedanapplicationtargetingspecificallytheactivitiesoftheapplicant.21ThiseventuallyresultedinabanimposedonHertelbytheSwisscourts,onpainofcriminalsanctions(potentially includingemprisonment), fromstatingthatfoodpreparedinmicrowaveovensisadangertohealthandleadstochangesinthebloodofthosewhoconsumeit,indicatingapathologicaldisorderandpresentingapatternthatcouldbeseenasthebeginningofacarcinogenicprocess,andfromusing,inpublicationsandpublicspeechesonmicrowaveovens,theimageofdeath.22

The ECtHR concluded such measure, although allegedly pursuing legitimate interests(moreconcretely,therightsofothers,andthepreventionofeconomicdisorder),23couldnotberegardedasproportionatetotheaimpursued,andconstitutedthereforeaviolationofArticle10oftheECHR.24TheCourtbasedsuchassessmentontheobservationthattheapplicanthadmerelysentacopyofhisresearchpapertotheeditorsofthequarterly,andnot taken part in other editorial decisions.25 Thus, therewas a disparity between themeasureatstakeandthebehaviouritwasintendedtorectify.26

1.2 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

IntheCharterofFundamentalRightsoftheEU,akeyprovisionisArticle47,ontherighttoaneffectiveremedyandtoafairtrial.Article47establishesindeedthateveryonewhoserightsandfreedomsguaranteedbyEUlawareviolated‘hastherighttoaneffectiveremedybeforeatribunal’,is‘entitledtoafairandpublichearingwithinareasonabletimebyanindependentandimpartialtribunalpreviouslyestablishedbylaw’and‘shallhavethepossibilityofbeingadvised,defendedandrepresented’.TherequirementimposedbyArticle47 on right to an effective remedy before a tribunal is more extensive than therequirement under Article 13 of the ECHR, which merely requires remedy before anationalauthority.Similarly,underArticle47oftheChartertherighttoafairhearingisnot confined to disputes relating to thedeterminationof criminal and civil rights andobligations,asunderArticle6(1)oftheECHR.

OtherrelevantEUCharterprovisionsincludeArticle48,onthepresumptionofinnocenceandrightofdefence;Article49,onprinciplesoflegalityandproportionalityofcriminaloffencesandpenalties,andArticle50,ontherightnottobetriedorpunishedtwiceincriminalproceedingsforthesamecriminaloffence.

Additionally,theCharterofFundamentalRightsoftheEUenshrinesinArticle41arighttogoodadministration,which,even ifonlyapplicableassuchtoadministrationbyEU

20Ibid.,§16.21Ibid.,§20.22Ibid.,§31.23Ibid.,§40.24Ibid.,§51.25Ibid.,§48.26Ibid.,§50.



institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, includes useful guidance on what is to beregardedasproceduralfairnessunderEUlaw.Article41(1)foreseesindeedthat‘[e]veryperson has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within areasonabletime’,andArticle41(2)specifiesthatsuchrightincludes:

‘(a) the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken;

(b) the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy;

(c) the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions’.

It can be argued that researchers are only rarely criminally charged for scientificmisconduct.27Fundamentalrightsrequirements,nonetheless,alsoapplyinnon-criminalproceduresandbeyondtheimpositionofpunitivesanctions–notablythosederivedfromArticles 6 and 13 of the ECHR, and from Articles 41 and 47 of the EU Charter ofFundamentalRights.

Moregenerally, it isworthwhilerecallingoncemorethat the fairnessofprocedures isonlyoneofthedimensionstobetakenintoaccountwhenregulatingproceduresforthefollow-upofallegationsofscientificmisconduct.Otherimportantprinciplesinclude,forinstance,academicfreedom.28

2. A variety of structures

Tobetter understand theway inwhich procedures for the follow-up of allegationsofmisconductoperate inpractice,aswellas the challengesrelatedtoguaranteeingtheirfairness, it isuseful tobrieflyconsiderthecurrentdiversityofapproachestoresearchintegrityframeworksinEurope.29Thestructureinplaceineachframeworkhasindeedsignificantimplicationsfortheestablishedprocedures,andforthewayinwhichtheyaredefined.

27AmongstthemostpublicisedcasesstandoutforinstancetheconvictionsoftheAustralianresearchersCarolineBarwoodandBruceMurdoch; see, for instance,on this case: ‘“Brazen”UQResearchFraudsterCaroline Barwood given Suspended Sentence’, ABC News, 25 October 2016,http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-25/uq-dr-caroline-barwood-avoids-jail-on-fraud-charges/7963178;‘FormerUniversityofQueenslandProfessorBruceMurdochChargedoverAllegedFakeParkinson’sResearch’,ABCNews,30June2015,http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/university-of-queensland-professor-on-fraud-charges/5964476.28Onacademicfreedom,seeSection1.1.ofPRINTEGERDeliverableIII.4.29 On this subject, see also: Göran Collste, ‘Principles and Approaches in Ethics Assessment: ResearchIntegrity’ (StakeholdersActingTogether on theEthical ImpactAssessment of Researchand Innovation(SATORI),June2015),8.



In general, a shared principle is that at least someproceduresmust be in place in allinstitutions involved in research or research support (or at least in organisationsconductingresearch),whicharethusexpectedtohavetheirown,institutionalprocedures–ifnotforall,forsomecasesofmisconductorbreachesofresearchintegrity.

In some European countries, nevertheless, there are additionally central or regionalbodies, with diverse competences and degrees of independence from researchorganisations and from other authorities, which exercise external functions such asprovidingguidance,reviewingdecisionstakenatthefirstinstitutionallevel,ordealingdirectlywithsomeinvestigationsandtakingdecisions.30Thesebodiesmightbealertedsystematicallyoronlyonacasebycasebasisbyotherinstitutionsdealingwithallegationsof misconduct. When these ‘external’ bodies exist, they shall also have their ownprocedures.

Somenotableexamplesof‘external’bodiesdealingwithresearchintegrityare:

• In Finland, the Advisory Board on Research Integrity (Tutkimuseettinenneuvottelukunta, TENK)31 (1991), appointed by the Ministry of Education andCulture.TheTENKprovidesstatementsregardingdecisionsmadebyinstitutions(including decisions not to initiate inquiries), following requests introduced byinterestedparties.TheTENKdoesnotintervenewhenthereareviolationsofthenormsofaspecificacademicdiscipline,unlesstheyconstituteafraudasdescribedin the Responsible Conduct of Research and Procedures for HandlingAllegationsofMisconductinFinland;32itdoesnotaddressallegedviolationsofthelaw,suchascopyrightlaworpatentlaw;anddoesnotcommentonmattersofopinion,onschoolsofthought,oronissuesofprofessionalethics.33

• InAustria,theAustrianAgencyforResearchIntegrity(ÖsterreichischeAgenturfür wissenschaftliche Integrität, OeAWI)34 (2008), responsible for investigatingalleged cases of scientific misconduct in Austria, evaluating the severity ofviolations, and proposing consequential measures to institutions. Theinvestigation of cases and the evaluation of violations are assigned to aCommission for Research Integrity, an independent body composed of non-Austrianscholars.

• IntheUK,althoughthereisnooverallstatutoryregulationofresearchintegrityorscientific misconduct, there is the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO)35(2006), an independent charity, offering advice and support to further good

30Someoftheseagencies’existencewastriggeredbylocalresearchintegrityscandals,andisindifferentwaysinspiredintheworkoftheUnitedStates(US)OfficeofResearchIntegrity(ORI).31 More information: http://www.tenk.fi/en/investigation-of-misconduct-in-finland. The TENK wasestablishedbyDecree1347of15November199132 ResponsibleConduct of Research andProcedures forHandlingAllegations ofMisconduct in Finland,GuidelinesoftheFinnishAdvisoryBoardonResearchIntegrity2012[hereafter,‘FinnishRCRGuidelines’].33FinnishRCRGuidelines,29.34Moreinformation:http://www.oeawi.at.35Moreinformation:ukrio.org.



practice inacademic,scientific andmedicalresearch.TheUKRIOdoesnothaveinvestigatorypowers.

• In Denmark, the Danish Committee on Research Misconduct (Nævnet forVidenskabeligUredelighed) (DCRM)36 (1992,operatinguntil2017as theDanishCommittees on Scientific Dishonesty), an independent body which handlesinvestigations of allegationsof researchmisconduct at the national level.37 TheDCRMhasexclusivecompetencetodealwithsuchcases;ifaresearchinstitutionis involved in sucha case, itmust, afteran initial assessment, forward it to theDCRM.Researchinstitutionshavetheobligationtohandlecasesofquestionableresearchpractice,anddecideonthose.

• In Flanders, the Flemish Commission for Research Integrity (VlaamseCommissievoorWetenschappelijkeIntegriteit,VCWI)38(2013):itsmaintaskistoprovidegeneraladvicesonresearchintegrityonrequestorbyitsowninitiative;when requested by a party in a local procedure, it provides a second advice(different from an appeal) about complaint files on research integrity initiallyhandledbyresearchinstitutions.

• In theNetherlands, theNetherlandsBoard forResearch Integrity (LandelijkOrgaanvoorWetenschappelijkeIntegriteit,LOWI)(2003).39TheLOWIactsasanindependentbody,andadvisesonrequesttheBoardsofitsaffiliatedinstitutionsonpreliminary(that is,whichcanornotbeconfirmedafter theLOWI’sadvice)decisionsonpossibleviolationsofprinciplesofresearchintegrity.Whenitrulesthat a petition for opinionwill not be considered or is unfounded, there is nofollow-up;when itregards thepetitionaswell-foundedand followsupwithanopinion it requests the advised Board to make available a copy of its finaldecision.40

• In Norway, the National Commission for the Investigation of ResearchMisconduct41 (Granskingsutvalget) (2007): it may investigate allegations ofserious research misconduct, and issue a public statement on whether anyresearchmisconducthasoccurredornot.Theimpositionofsanctionsrestswithresearchinstitutions.

36 More information: https://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/councils-and-commissions/The-Danish-Committee-on-Research-Misconduct. InDenmark, a new lawon researchmisconduct came intoforceon1July2017:Actno.383of26April2017onresearchmisconductetc.37WhiletheDanishAgencyforScienceandHigherEducationundertheMinistryofHigherEducationandSciencehasthetaskofpromotingresearchintegrity.38Moreinformation:http://www.vcwi.be.Seealso:VlaamseCommissievoorWetenschappelijkeIntegriteitReglement(enteredintoforceon11January2016).39 A new Regulation is applicable to LOWI since March 2018: Het Reglement Landelijk OrgaanWetenschappelijkeIntegriteit2018[hereafter,‘ReglementLOWI’].Moreinformation:https://www.lowi.nl.40 The Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI), ‘Annual Report 2015’ (Amsterdam, February2016),8.41More information: https://www.etikkom.no/en/our-work/about-us/the-national-commission-for-the-investigation-of-research-misconduct/.



Thus,inrelationtotheinvestigationofallegationsofmisconduct,these‘external’bodiesmight have their own procedures for investigation, exercise a control upon theinvestigationscarriedoutatinstitutional(first)levelbyothers,provideassistanceforthehandlingof such investigations, or influence indirectly those procedures by providinggeneralguidanceonresearchintegrityandscientificmisconduct.Onlysomeofthem,andin some cases, will be responsible for carrying out the investigation and deciding onappropriatemeasures.

3. Fair procedures in research integrity codes and legislation

Codes and legislation specifically devoted to research integrity sometimes establishproceduresforthefollow-upofallegationsofscientificmisconduct,andsometimesdonotestablishsuchproceduresdirectly,butputforwardrecommendationsorobligationstobetakenintoaccountbyotheractorswhensettingthemup.ThisSectionreviewssomeofthemostprominentfeaturesofthewayinwhichtheseinstrumentsaddressthedesignofprocedures.Thenotionof ‘codesandlegislation’hasbeen interpretedherebroadly, toencompass the wide range of ad-hoc documents that may determine applicableprocedures(codesofconduct,rulesofprocedure,‘misconductstrategies’,etc.).

Itisimportanttohighlight,nevertheless,thatbeyondtheletterofanysuchinstruments,and even in the cases in which they do not refer to them, some general principlesapplicabletorulesofproceduremightbedirectlyapplicable.Thisisnotablythecase,inpublicinstitutions,byvirtueofadministrativeproceedingsprovisions.42Inthissense,forinstance,theDanishCodeofConductforResearchIntegrity43isaccompaniedbyanannex with ‘Recommendations for responding to breaches of responsible conduct ofresearch’, which explicitly clarifies that these recommendations must be ‘viewed andinterpretedinaccordancewithDanishlegislationsuchasDanishadministrativelaw,e.g.onstatusaspartytothecase,accesstoinformation,etc’.44

Thefeaturesreviewedherehavebeenselectedonthegroundsoftheirconnectionwithgeneral legal requirements on fairness, as well as their salience in discussionssurroundingthedesignof‘fairprocedures’forthefollow-upofresearchmisconduct.

42 Observing this implies, in the Norwegian context, respecting impartiality rules, the need to grantappellantsanddefendantstheopportunitytocommentonthecase,rulesontherightofaccess,rulesonrightsasapartytoacase,theneedtotakedecisionswithoutunduedelay,therightundercertainconditionstomakeoralstatements,therighttoberepresentedbyalawyer,andadutyofsecrecyaboutprivateissues:NorwegianMinistryofEducationandResearch,‘ConsultationPaper–ResearchEthicsinNorway’,2015,19.43 Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science,Copenhagen,November2014[hereafter,‘DanishCodeofConduct’].44DanishCodeofConduct,23.



Thereviewofnormativeinstrumentsonresearchintegrityhasbeencomplementedwithinsightsfromtheadjudicationofcases,aswellaspolicyandlegislativedocumentssuchas the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on theprotection of persons reporting on breaches on Union law published by the EuropeanCommissioninApril2018,45whichaimsatstrengthenwhistleblowerprotectionacrosstheEU.

3.1 On the necessity of procedures

There have been numerous calls for research organisations to develop and establishproceduresonhowtodealwithmisconduct.46TheSingaporeStatementonResearchIntegrity47proclaimsproceduresforrespondingtoallegationsofmisconductandotherirresponsibleresearchpracticesshallbeputinplacebyall‘[r]esearchinstitutions,aswellasjournals,professionalorganizationsandagenciesthathavecommitmentstoresearch’.48Inits2015ConclusionsonResearchIntegrity49theCounciloftheEUinvited‘researchorganisations and Member States to find appropriate channels for the examination ofallegedmisconduct towards researchers and, if appropriate, institutionswhere researchmisconduct takes place’.50 In theUK, theConcordat to SupportResearch Integrity51establishes that it ‘is imperative that when an allegation of researchmisconduct arisessuitableproceduresareinplacetodealwithiteffectivelyandfairly’.52

Theexistenceofcentralstructuresorbodiesdoesnotassuchliberateinstitutionsfrombeingobliged(orrecommended)tohaveproceduresinplace.

The 2014 Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity puts forwardrecommendationsforestablishingabasicplatformforinstitutionstodealwithsuspicionsof breaches of responsible conduct of research, intended to co-exist with the centralnationalbodydealingwithresearchmisconduct.Concretely,itstatesthat‘Institutionsareresponsibleforensuringthatasystemforaddressingwell-foundedsuspicionsofbreachesofresponsibleconductofresearchisinplaceattheinstitutionallevel’.53

45 EuropeanCommission,Proposal for aDirective of the EuropeanParliament and of theCouncil on theprotectionofpersonsreportingonbreachesonUnionlaw,COM(2018)218final,Brussels23.4.2018.46 For instance: ScienceEurope, ‘Research Integrity in theEuropeanPolicy Landscape:Open Letter byScienceEuropeGoverningBoard’,15December2016,2.47 Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, developed at the 2nd World Conference on ResearchIntegrity,21-24July2010,inSingapore,asaglobalguidetotheresponsibleconductofresearch.48Responsibility§12oftheSingaporeStatementonResearchIntegrity.49 Council of the EU. ‘Council Conclusions on Research Integrity, adopted by the Council at Its 3431stMeetingHeldon1December2015’.Brussels,1December2015.50Ibid.,para.6.51ConcordattoSupportResearchIntegrity,UniversitiesUK,July2012[hereafter,‘UKConcordat’].52UKConcordat,18.53DanishCodeofConduct,20.



The 2017 Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity54 states that ‘researchinstitutionshavetherighttodecidewhatthefairandproportionalreactionistobreachesofprinciplesofresearchintegrityandwhichproceduralrulesarethemostappropriatefordealingwithsuspicionsofbreaches’.55

Insum,thus,thereisageneralagreementontheneedforresearchinstitutionstohavetheirownproceduresforthefollow-upofallegationsofresearchmisconduct.Thiscanbephrased in normative instruments as an obligation (institutions must have suchprocedures inplace), orasa right todetermine thewhichproceduresarebest suited(institutionscandecidethedetailsofsuchprocedures).

Codesandlegislationonresearchintegritytypicallydonotaddresstheissueofjustifyingthe need for sui generis procedures for the follow-up of allegations of researchmisconduct, that is, the fundamentalquestionofwhetherrelevant investigationscould(or should) be carried out through other existing procedures, such disciplinaryproceduresorviaordinaryjudicialmechanisms.

The National Policy Statement on Ensuring Research Integrity in Irelandexceptionallyspecifiesexplicitlythat‘anyproceduresfordiscipliningastaffmemberofaUniversity must be specified in the statute of that University’, and that such statutoryprocess‘istheonlyprocessthroughwhichanemployeeofaUniversitymaybedisciplinedforanyreason’.56

Interestingly,codesandpolicydocumentsonresearchintegrityoftenargueinfavouroftheneedforaspecialtreatmentofresearchintegritybyreferringtotherelevanceofself-regulation, in thesenseof theneedto leavescientificmattersaffectingacademicsandscientistsinthehandsofpeers.Atthesametime,however,itcanbeseenthatthesamecodesand legislationparadigmaticallyexclude from the scopeofmisconductanythingrelatedtoscientificmattersassuch,whichthenleavesopenthequestionastowhywouldspecifically scientistsbeneeded inorder toaddressnon-scientificmatters,unlessonewantstoarguethatwhattheyaddressisacertaintypeofmisconductaboutwhichonlyscientistsknow.

3.2 On the necessity of fairness

The Global Science Forum of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) has emphasised that ‘[q]uestions of fairness are particularly

54EstonianCodeofConduct forResearch Integrity,Tartu,2017 [hereafter, ‘EstonianCodeofConduct’].ElaboratedasacooperationbetweenEstonianresearchinstitutions,theEstonianAcademyofSciences,theEstonianResearchCouncil,andtheMinistryofEducationandResearch.55EstonianCodeofConduct,17.56IrishPolicyStatement,18.



importantwhendealingwithmisconduct,becausetheinvestigationprocessisaquasi-legalone;thatis,ithasmanyoftheattributesofcriminalorcivilprocedures,butisreducedincomplexityandismeanttofunctionmorequickly’.57TheOECDGlobalScienceForumhasalsostressedthepotentialseverityoftheimpactofinvestigations,possibly‘amountingtothedestructionofascientist’sreputationandcareer’.Inthissense,ithasadvocatedthat‘[p]recisedefinitions,policiesandproceduresformisconductinvestigationsareneededtopreventtheperception(or,worse,thereality)ofa“witchhunt”’.58Bydoingso,theGlobalScienceForumstressesthatbeyondgeneralrequirementsforfairnessthereisagenuineneedforfairnessinlightofthepossibleconsequencesandmisperceptionsconnectedtotheinvestigationofpotentialmisconduct.

The OECD Global Science Forum also published aPractical Guide for InvestigatingResearch Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative ResearchProjects59 which lists among its ‘Overarching Principles for Investigating ResearchMisconductAllegationsinInternationalCollaborativeProjects’theprincipleof‘fairness’.60Suchprincipleisfurtherelaboratedinthepracticalguidedetailingthatitimpliesthattheinvestigation‘shouldbeconductedinamannerthatisfairtoallpartiesandinaccordancewithrelevantlaws’,thatpersonsaccused‘mustbegivenfulldetailsoftheallegation(s)inwriting and allowed a fair process for responding to allegations, asking questions,presentingevidence,callingwitnesses,andprovidingresponsestoinformationpresented’,andthatwitnessesshallbeallowed ‘tobeaccompaniedbyorseekadviceandassistancefromanyoneof their choosing’.61 Somehowconfusingly, theGuidealso lists asanotherOverarching Principles for Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations inInternationalCollaborativeProjects’theprincipleof‘integrity’,describedasincludingtheideathat‘Investigationsintoresearchmisconductallegationsmustbefair’.62

The All European Academies (ALLEA) European Code of Conduct for ResearchIntegrity63 equally refers to the need to incorporate into investigation processes theprinciplesofintegrityandfairness,asanelementoftheprincipleofintegrity,togetherwithotherssuchastheneedforinvestigationstoactuallybecarriedthroughaconclusion,or protecting the rights of whistleblowers. The principle of fairness is described asrequiringinvestigationstobecarriedout‘withdueprocessandinfairnesstoallparties’;guaranteeingthatpersonsaccusedaregivenfulldetailsoftheallegation(s)andallowed‘afairprocess’forrespondingandpresentingevidence;makingsureactionistakenwhich

57GlobalScienceForumof theOrganisation forEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment (OECD), ‘BestPracticesforEnsuringScientificIntegrityandPreventingMisconduct’,2007,9.58Idem.59OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD)GlobalScienceForum,InvestigatingResearchMisconductAllegationsinInternationalCollaborativeResearchProjects:APracticalGuide,April2009[hereafter,‘OECDPracticalGuideforInternationalCollaborativeResearch].60OECDPracticalGuideforInternationalCollaborativeResearch,6.61Idem.62Idem.63AllEuropeanAcademies(ALLEA),TheEuropeanCodeofConductforResearchIntegrity:RevisedEdition(Berlin,2017)[hereafter,‘EuropeanCodeofConduct’].TheCodewasoriginallydevelopedbytheEuropeanScienceFoundationandALLEAin2011;itwaspresentedinitsrevisedversioninMarch2017.AllfollowingreferencestotheCodearetoitsrevisedversion.



is proportionate to the severity of the violation, that appropriate restorative action istaken when researchers are exonerated of an allegation, and that anyone accused ispresumedinnocentuntilprovenotherwise.64

The European Science Foundation (ESF) stressed in 2010 the need for ‘[p]rocessesadvertisedtodenounceand todealwithsuspectedcasesofscientificmisconductatbothlocalandnationallevel’tobe‘fairandtransparent’,connectingthesetworequirementstothepurposeofmakingsureallstakeholderstrust theseprocesses,andcooperatewithinstitutionalactors.65

The National Policy Statement on Ensuring Research Integrity in Ireland66 listsunder the principle of ‘fairness’ the following requirements for the processes ofinvestigation and determination of research misconduct: investigation should beconductedinamannerthatis‘fairtoallparties’,andinaccordancewithrelevantlaws;persons accused must be given full details in writing and allowed a ‘fair process’ forresponding,andtohavearepresentativeorworkcolleaguepresent foranyassociatedmeetingorinterview;proportionateactionshouldbetakenagainstpersonsfoundtohavecommittedmisconduct;andanyactiontakenshouldbesubjecttoarightofappeal.67

According to theResponsible Conduct of Research and Procedures for HandlingAllegationsofMisconductinFinland,68themostcrucialfactorsensuringthefairnessoftheprocedure toallpartiesare: the fairness69 and the impartialityof theprocess, thehearingofalltheinvolvedparties,andthecompetenceandexpediencyoftheprocess.70

Allinall,itmightbeassertedthereisageneralconvergenceintheanalysedinstrumentsregarding the need for procedures to be fair, even if there is limited conceptualconsistencyontheexactsubstanceofthefairnessofprocedures.

3.3 On compliance with the procedures

Itmightbecommonlyassumedthatprocedures,once inplace,shalloperateandworkproperly. Codes and legislation, in any case, do not generally place any particular

64EuropeanCodeofConduct,9.65 European Science Foundation (ESF) Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity, ‘FosteringResearchIntegrityinEurope’(Strasbourg:2010,n.d.),23.66NationalPolicystatementonEnsuringResearchIntegrityinIreland,developedbytheIrishUniversitiesAssociationincollaborationwithaseriesoforganisations,2014[hereafter,‘IrishPolicyStatement’].67IrishPolicyStatement,17.68 ResponsibleConduct of Research andProcedures forHandlingAllegations ofMisconduct in Finland,GuidelinesoftheFinnishAdvisoryBoardonResearchIntegrity2012[hereafter,‘FinnishRCRGuidelines’].69Probablyatautology,atleasttosomeextent.70FinnishRCRGuidelines,34-35.



emphasisonthismatter,evenifinpracticeitcouldbearguedthatinsomecircumstancesitmightdeserveattention.71

TheUKPolicyandGuidelinesonGovernanceofGoodResearchConductspecifywithsomedetailthesanctionsandpenaltiestobeimposedbyresearchcouncilsonresearchorganisations that fail to complywith their obligations related to the investigation ofcases.Forfailuresrelatedtoindividualcases,fundingresearchcouncilsreservetherightto revoke awards and/or reject existing applications; for more systematic failures,research councils reserve the right, in addition, to impose any sanctions in respect ofspecificcases,tosuspendanyfurtherapplicationsfromthatorganisation.72

Insomesystemswith‘external’bodiesandagencies,itmightbepossibletorequestadviceoraninterventionfromsuchbodytomakesureinvestigation–orlackthereof–meetsapplicablestandards.

3.4 Visibility and transparency

Anumberof instrumentsunderlinethatprocedures for the follow-upofallegationsofmisconductshallnotonlyexist,butalsobevisible-inthesenseofwell-publicisedandaccessible-andtransparent-inthesenseofbeingclear,understandable,andpredictable.

TheOECD Global Science Forum identified as a desideratum for ensuring scientificintegrity and preventing misconduct that ‘pertinent principles, rules, and proceduresshouldbeclearlydefinedandwellpublicised’.73TheGlobalScienceForumhasspecifiedthese ‘should include the definitions of misconduct, and the steps for receiving andprocessing allegations’, asserting that this ‘promotes fairness (in both perception andreality)’.74

TheEuropeanScienceFoundation(ESF)emphasisedin2010that‘[t]hereneed[s]tobeclearlyunderstoodproceduresformakingandreceivingallegations’.75TheDanishCodeofConductforResearchIntegrityestablishesthat‘Systemsforaddressingthesematters

71AninterestingexampleforreflectioncouldbeplagiarismaccusationsthatweremadepubliclyagainstaMinisterofScience inCroatia in2016, in thecontextofwhich journalists stated thatactually thesameaccusationshadalreadybeensubmittedtoahighereducationethicscommitteefiveyearsbefore,butthatthecommitteehadbeeninactivebetween2011and2014,andthusnobodyhadbeenalerted;see:NenadJariç Dauenhauer, ‘Plagiarism Probe Opened into Croatia’s New Science Minister’, Chemistry World, 3November 2016, https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/plagiarism-probe-opened-into-croatias-new-science-minister/1017637.article.72RCUKPolicyandGuidelines,9-10.73GlobalScienceForumof theOrganisation forEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment (OECD), ‘BestPracticesforEnsuringScientificIntegrityandPreventingMisconduct’,4.74GlobalScienceForumoftheOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD),7.75 European Science Foundation (ESF) Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity, ‘FosteringResearchIntegrityinEurope’,23.



[that is, ensuring that well-founded suspicions of breaches of responsible conduct ofresearchputforwardingoodfaithareaddressedadequately]shouldbeclearlydescribedandeasilyaccessible’.76

The National Template for the Complaints Procedure77 supported by the DutchAssociationofUniversitiesintheNetherlands(VSNU)tostreamlineproceduresatDutchuniversitiesstressestheimportanceofhavingclearprocedures.

According to the Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity,78 researchinstitutionsmustcreate‘clearguidelinesforreportingonpossiblebreachesofprinciplesofresearchintegrityanddefinesclearlywhoshouldbeapproachedinthecaseofsuspicionsandquestions’.79

3.5 Clearly delimited scope and limitations

Proceduresshallnotonlybeclearinthesenseofbeingintelligible,butalsodefiniteindelimitingtheirscopeanditslimitations.Thisrefersnotablytodelimitingwithprecisiontowhichpracticestheyapply,carriedoutbywhom,inwhichcontexts,butalsohowaredefinedanddelimitedsanctionablepractices–agenerallegalprincipleisthatnoonecanbesanctionedifsuchsanctionwasnotpredictable.Codesonresearchintegritycanhaveaverybroadscopeofapplication,aimingforinstancetoreachallresearchinacountry,whichcreatesevenmorenecessityforprocedurestonarrowdownclearlytowhattheyapplyexactly.

3.5.1 Material scope and time limitations

TheResponsibleConductofResearchandProceduresforHandlingAllegationsofMisconductinFinland80areparticularlydetailedinthisregard,specifyingtheyapplytoresearch and publications, but also ‘other types of written works in conjunction withacademic work, irrespective of their form of publication’, as well as academic thesessubmittedforaMaster’sdegreeorahigheracademicdegree,includingthehigherdegreesintheuniversitiesofappliedsciences.81Theyalsostatethat‘[r]esearchmisconductanddisregardfortheresponsibleconductofresearchwillnotexpire’,butthatinstitutionscan

76DanishCodeofConduct,21.77‘Landelijkmodelklachtenregeling’.78EstonianCodeofConduct forResearch Integrity,Tartu,2017 [hereafter, ‘EstonianCodeofConduct’].ElaboratedasacooperationbetweenEstonianresearchinstitutions,theEstonianAcademyofSciences,theEstonianResearchCouncil,andtheMinistryofEducationandResearch.79EstonianCodeofConduct,18.80 ResponsibleConduct of Research andProcedures forHandlingAllegations ofMisconduct in Finland,GuidelinesoftheFinnishAdvisoryBoardonResearchIntegrity2012[hereafter,‘FinnishRCRGuidelines’].81FinnishRCRGuidelines,34.



decidenottoconductaninvestigationwhen‘asignificantamountoftimehaspassed’andtheinvestigationwouldnolongeraffectethicallysustainableresearchpractices,researchqualityassuranceorthelegalprotectionofotherparties.82

3.5.2 Part-time researchers

An issue deserving special attention is the question of part-time scientists, andmorespecifically the question to what extent universities are responsible for the scientificintegrityoftheirpart-timeemployees.83TheLOWIhasrepeatedlyexaminedthematter,first toarguethat ‘extracurricularactivities’mayfallunderthescopeof theapplicableDutch codeonacademicpracticeprovided theseactivities canbe classifiedas sciencepractice,and later tonuancethatactuallymattersdependontheselectedscopeof thespecificprocedureandpossibleagreementsmadewiththepart-timescientistinvolved.84Inlightofitsexperienceindealingwiththiskindofcases,theLOWIhasrecommendedthat ‘explicit arrangements be made for part-time appointments with regard to theacademicresponsibilityoftheinstitutionandforexamplealsoregardingtheuseofacademictitlesforactivitiesthatfalloutsidetheframeworkofthepart-timeappointment’.85

3.5.3 Delimiting misconduct

As is widely known, there is no general agreement in Europe on a definition ofmisconduct, and thereare, additionally, concernsabout the lackof cleardefinitions indifferentsystems.86

According to the OECD Global Science Forum’s Practical Guide for InvestigatingResearchMisconductAllegationsinInternationalCollaborativeResearchProjects,ingeneral theprocedure(s)usedforsuch investigationsshould ‘[d]efinethescopeandlimitationsforinvestigationsandinclude(agreed)definitionsofmisconduct’.87

Itcanbearguedthatitisnotonlynecessaryforcleardefinitionstoexistandbemadeexplicit in relevant codes or legislation: beyond legal requirements on predictability,

82Idem.83Alreadynotingin2005that ‘[a]lthoughthescaleatwhichabusesoccurisnotpreciselyknown,a largenumber of problems have been revealed in recent years regarding contract research, sponsoring, and“sidelines” engaged in by researchers’: Johan Heilbron, ‘Scientific Research: Dilemmas and Temptations(SecondEdition)’(Amsterdam:RoyalNetherlandsAcademyofArtsandSciences,2005),9.84 The Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI), ‘Annual Report 2016’ (Amsterdam, February2017),3.85TheNetherlandsBoardonResearchIntegrity(LOWI),3.86Notingagreementonthefactthatthereare‘difficultiesforadoptingcleardefinitionsinthearea’:ScienceEurope,‘AdvancingResearchIntegrityPracticesandPolicies:FromRecommendationtoImplementation(WorkshopReport:Brussels,22February2017)’,4.87OECDPracticalGuideforInternationalCollaborativeResearch,8.



researchersmightalsorequireextraguidance,especiallyifthegeneralpurposeisnotjustthattheydonotincurinsanctionablepractices,butmorewidelythattheyfullyembraceresearchintegrity.

The Research Councils UK /RCUK Policy and Guidelines on Governance of GoodResearch Conduct88 state that research organisations must put in place a systemincluding‘[c]learpolicyandguidanceonwhatisacceptableandnotacceptable’inlinewithallrelevantcodes.89

3.5.4 Scientific controversies as an external limitation

A critical issue in many instances is to clearly delineate the boundaries between aninvestigationon researchmisconduct, on theonehand, and scientificdisputes,on theother.Proceduresonresearchmisconducttypicallyrefertothefactthattheyshallnotbeused to address scientific disagreements, or questions related to research quality.Proceduresshallinprinciplenotleadtoanyfindingofmisconductwhentheissuerelatesexclusivelytoascientificcontroversy.90

Some national approaches explicitly exclude scientific discussions from the notion ofmisconduct.91ThisisforinstancerelevantinDenmark,inthecontextoftheworkoftheDanishCommitteeonResearchMisconduct.Forinstance,inacaseinvestigatedbytheDanishCommitteeonResearchMisconduct in2015concerningarangeof issues in15scientificarticles,theCommitteefoundthedefendantnotguiltyofscientificdishonestyinteraliabecausepartofthecomplaintwasoutsideitsscopeofaction,asitconcernedtheresearchqualityofascientificproduct,orthevalidityortruthofscientifictheories.92

Having said that, even if scientific disputes are to be formally separated frominvestigations on misconduct, it is nevertheless still possible that during proceduresrelatedtomisconductsomebodiesmightprovideadviceonhowtoadequatelydealwithscientificdisputes.Inthiscontext,forinstance,theLOWIpublishedanopiniononacaseinwhichthepetitionerdisagreedwithonsomefeaturesofastudy(thescope,relevantliterature,andconclusions)withinterestedparties.TheLOWIassessedthatthecasewas‘not about research integrity but rather concerns a difference of opinion betweenresearchers’.93Itdidalsoproclaim,however,thatalthoughitdidnotdeemitunreasonablethatatsomepointtheinterestedpartieshaddecidedtostoprespondingtothepersistent 88ResearchCouncilsUK(RCUK),RCUKPolicyandGuidelinesonGovernanceofGoodResearchConduct,February2013,asupdatedinJuly2015andApril2017[hereafter,‘RCUKPolicyandGuidelines’].89RCUKPolicyandGuidelines,4.90See,forinstance,LOWIAdvies2014,nr.7.91 TheDanishAgency for Science,Technology and Innovation, ‘National Systems forHandling Cases ofResearchMisconduct:ReportBasedonaSurveyConductedintheFallof2012with15RespondentsfromVariousCountries’,January2013,6.92DanishCommitteeonResearchMisconduct,Decisionof26June2015onanumberofpointsofscientificdishonestyin15scientificarticles.93LOWI,SummaryofLOWIOpinion2015-04,1.OriginalOpinion:LOWIAdvies2015,nr.4.



criticism,thisdecisionshouldhavebeencommunicatedclearlysothepetitionerwas‘notleftinthedark’.94

3.6 Access to preliminary advice

In spite of the general attention given to the need for procedures to be visible andtransparent, some instruments recommend or mandate the existence of specificmechanisms allowing to obtain preliminary advice on whether a conduct constitutesmisconducttobereportedornot.

TheUKConcordatrecommendsthat‘employersofresearchersprovideanamedpointofcontact or recognise an appropriate third party to act as confidential liaison forwhistleblowersoranyotherpersonwishingtoraiseconcernsabouttheintegrityofresearchbeingconductedundertheirauspices’,clarifying‘[t]hisneednotbethesamepersonasthememberofstaffidentifiedtoactasfirstpointofcontactonresearchintegritymatters’.95

TheNationalTemplatefortheComplaintsProcedure supportedbytheVSNUgivesparticularimportancetotheneedtoseparate functionallytheconfidentialadvisorandtheresearchintegritycommission.

TheRecommendationsoftheDanishCodeofConductforResearchIntegrityidentifyasoneofthenecessaryelementsofprocedures,‘inordertoensurecoherentandeffectivehandlingof suspicionsofbreachesof responsible conductof researchat the institutionallevel’relatesto‘Preliminaryadviceconcerningasuspicionofapotentialbreach:Anyonewithawell-foundedsuspicionthatabreachofresponsibleconductofresearchhasoccurredshould have the opportunity to request personal, impartial and professional adviceconcerningthesuspicion,e.g.througha‘namedperson’orsimilar.96

Thispossibilitytoobtainpreliminaryadvicecanbeinterpretedasservingtheinterestsoftheindividualwhodoubtswhethersomeconductismisconductornot,especiallyinthesystems where there would be an obligation to report misconduct. It can also,nevertheless,servetheinterestsoftheotherindividual(notablythosewhoseconductisregardedassuspicious,butmaybeisnotmisconduct)andtheinstitution(byworkingasafilter).

3.7 Preliminary decision on the launch of an investigation

94Idem.95UKConcordat,19.96DanishCodeofConduct,22.



Someproceduresmarkinaclearlydistinctmannerinsideinvestigationsafirstphaseofassessmentonwhetheramoreformalinvestigationshouldbelaunchedornot.

TheUKPolicyandGuidelinesonGovernanceofGoodResearchConductforeseesthatallegations of unacceptable research conduct should first be considered through aresearch organisation’s procedures for preliminary informal investigation. If theallegation is not accepted, theGuidelines state an opportunity for response should beprovidedtothe individualwhobrought it forward, incasetheybelievethat theyhavebeenmisunderstoodorkeyevidencehasbeenoverlooked.97

Inthiscontext,itappearscrucialtopursuetherightbalancebetweenensuringtheproperfollow-up of allegations that require such follow-up, and stopping unfounded orinadmissibleallegations in timetominimisethepossiblenegative impactof launchinginvestigations.

3.8 Right and/or duty to report suspected misconduct

The reporting of suspected misconduct can be primarily framed as a right or as anobligation.

3.8.1 The right to report suspected misconduct

Therighttoreportsuspectedmisconductmayberegardedasintrinsicallylinkedtotheexistenceandavailabilityofrelevantprocedures.Ingeneral,wherethereexistproceduresforthefollow-upofallegationsofmisconduct,allegationsmightbebroughtforwardbyanyone,withoutanylimitation.

InlinewiththeVSNUNationalTemplatefortheComplaintsProcedure,forinstance,anybody who suspects a researcher employed by or under the responsibility of theuniversityhascommittedaviolationofacademicintegritycansubmitacomplainttotheindependentAcademicIntegrityCommitteeofthatuniversity(whichcanbeapermanentortemporarycommittee).

TheUKPolicyandGuidelinesonGovernanceofGoodResearchConductadvancethatallindividualsworkinginresearchshouldfeelabletoraiseconcernsaboutstandardsofresearch conduct ‘with the relevant senior person in the RO [Research Organisation]responsibleforassuringgoodresearchconduct’.98

97RCUKPolicyandGuidelines,8.98Ibid.,4.



3.8.2 A duty to report suspected misconduct?

TheSingaporeStatementonResearchIntegritypurportsoneoftheresponsibilitiesofresearchersisto‘reporttotheappropriateauthoritiesanysuspectedresearchmisconduct,includingfabrication,falsificationorplagiarism,andotherirresponsibleresearchpracticesthat undermine the trustworthiness of research, such as carelessness, improperly listingauthors,failingtoreportconflictingdata,ortheuseofmisleadinganalyticalmethods’.99Itassumes therefore that there is a duty for researchers to report suspected researchmisconduct,while at the same time failing to clearly delimit its boundaries (researchmisconduct being potentially any ‘irresponsible research practice’ capable ofunderminingthetrustworthinessofresearch).

TheUKConcordatsetsoutthatresearchersmust‘handlepotentialinstancesofresearchmisconduct in an appropriatemanner; this includes reportingmisconduct to employers,fundersandprofessional,statutoryandregulatorybodiesascircumstancesrequire’.100

Theobligationtoreportcanbeexpressedinnegativetermsasamandatenottocovermisconduct. The Code of Ethics of the Researchers of the Czech Academy ofSciences101establishes, for instance, that researchersdo ‘notdefend, concealor justifyconduct that contravenes the principles set forth in this Code, not even on the basis ofnecessaryobedienceandloyalty’.102ThesameCodealsoexpressesthatresearchesdo‘nothesitatetonotifytherelevantauthoritiesofviolationsofethicsinscientific-researchwork,ifawareofthem’.103

InlinewiththeEstonianCodeofConductforResearchIntegrity,researcherswouldhavetheresponsibilitytoreportand‘beopen’aboutsuspicionsofbreaches,askingforadviceincaseofdoubt:

‘How to react to probable breaches of principles of research integrity? (…) The researcher informs colleagues or the research institution about probable breaches of principles of research integrity and, if in doubt, asks for advice. (…) The researcher is open and gives explanations about all suspicions concerning his/her breach of principles of research integrity.’104

The OECD Global Science Forum’s Practical Guide for Investigating ResearchMisconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Research Projects sets out

99Responsibility§11oftheSingaporeStatementonResearchIntegrity.100UKConcordat,18.101CodeofEthicsoftheResearchersoftheCzechAcademyofSciences,assupplementedbyAddendumNo.1from22April2010,AddendumNo.2from16December2014,andAddendumNo.3of15December2016[hereafter,‘CzechCodeofEthics’].102CzechCodeofEthics,I(e).103CzechCodeofEthics,I(n).104EstonianCode,p.17.



thatproceduresshallincorporatea‘[d]utytoreportpoorconductinresearch’.105Thisdutygoes presumably beyond the duty to report researchmisconduct, as it refers to ‘poorconduct’,whichcouldbeawidernotion.106

Beyondresearchers,otherindividualsinvolvedinresearchpractice,fundingorsupportmight have different reporting duties. The Scientific Misconduct Strategy of theEuropeanResearchCouncil(ERC)107establishesforinstanceanobligationformembersoftheERCScientificCouncilorERCExecutiveAgency(ERCEA)stafftoinforminwritingthe ERCEA Director and the Chair of a Standing Committee on Conflict of Interests,ScientificMisconductandEthicalIssues(CoIME)oftheirknowledgeorsuspicion‘withoutdelay’ whenever they become aware of any scientific misconduct concerning an ERCapplicantorproject.

Themainconsequenceofconfiguringadutytoreportsuspectedmisconduct,ifembeddedinresearchintegrityregulation,istopotentiallyelevatethenon-reportingofmisconducttoanotherinstanceofmisconduct(moreprecisely,of‘meta-misconduct’,understoodasasanctionablepracticedefinedbythelackofappropriateactioninthefaceofsanctionablepractices).Tosomeextent,itcanalsobedescribedasformulatingadutyofdelation.

3.9 Possibilities for anonymous reporting

Therearedivergentapproaches incodesandlegislation,butalso inpolicydocuments,regarding thepossibility toacceptanonymousallegationsofmisconduct.This issue issometimes conflated with the protection of whistleblowers, even though they shouldideallybetreatedasseparateissues:whistleblowers,inordertobegrantedprotection,typicallyrequiretobeidentified,eveniftheiridentitymightneedtobekeptconfidential(whichisnotthesameasbeinganonymous).Often,documentsreferto‘whistleblowers’betweenquotationmarks,implyingreferenceismadeingeneraltoindividualswishingtobringforwardallegationsinaconfidentialmanner.

Insomesystems,regardingwhistleblowerssomemoregenerallegalobligationsontheirprotection might apply. The UK Policy and Guidelines on Governance of GoodResearch sets out that research organisations must have in place procedures forwhistleblowers ‘in line with The Public Interest Disclosure Act (1998) and associatedlegislation’,toguaranteeindividualsmakingallegationsingoodfaithareprotectedandsupported.108

TheOECDGlobalScienceForumadvancesasoneofthekeyquestionstoanswerwhendesigningproceduresforallegationsonmisconductwhetherwhistleblowerscanbegiven

105OECDPracticalGuideforInternationalCollaborativeResearch,8.106ThenotionisnotfurtherspecifiedinthePracticalGuide.107EuropeanResearchCouncil(ERC),ScientificMisconductStrategy,5October2012.108RCUKPolicyandGuidelines,4.



anonymity and be protected from retaliation, without generating spurious/frivolousallegations.109

In line with the Responsible Conduct of Research and Procedures for HandlingAllegationsofMisconductinFinland,110allegationsofviolationsofresponsibleconductof research must be communicated in writing to the rector, and ‘cannot be madeanonymously’.111 Nonetheless, the can also initiate an investigationof allegations that‘havecometotheirattention fromotherchannels’,112 whichpresumablyallowsfor thetakingintoaccountofanonymousallegations.

TheLOWIhasadvocatedagainstallowingcomplainantstomaintaincompleteanonymityin cases concerning possible violations of the principles of research integrity.113Moreover, ithas suggested thatwhenat institutional level anonymouscomplaintsareallowed,thesemightneverthelessrequire‘greatcaution’,astheymightinterferewiththerequirementsof transparency, the rightofdefense, and the rightofbothparties tobeheard.114

AdocumentpromotingresearchintegritypublishedbyScienceEuropestatedthatthefact many whistleblowers experience negative consequences in their personal andprofessional lives is something occurring ‘[s]omewhat unfairly’115 – leaving open thequestionofwhetherthatcouldalsohappensomehowfairly.Morerecently,hasbeenputon the table the fact that the term ‘whistle-blower’ could have in itself negativeconnotations,togetherwiththesuggestionofusingtheterm‘witness’instead.116

Fromanindividualrightsperspective,thepossibilitytoreportinananonymouswayshallbeconsideredinlightofthepossibleobligationtoreportsuspicionsofmisconduct,andthedifficultsituationsinwhichindividualsmightfindthemselvesiftheydocomplywithsuchanobligationincertaincircumstanceswithoutanyprotectionoftheiridentity.Suchprotection,nonetheless,couldbepursuedalsothroughstrictconfidentiality.

Fromaninstitutionalperspective,acceptinganonymousallegationscanberegardedasimposingaspecialcaretoprotecttheaccusedfromundueinterferenceswiththeirrights,which could in that case come from a variety of actors and for a variety of reasons,includingpotentiallyfromoutsideofacademia.117

109GlobalScienceForumoftheOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD),‘BestPracticesforEnsuringScientificIntegrityandPreventingMisconduct’,10.110ResponsibleConductofResearchandProcedures forHandlingAllegationsofMisconduct inFinland,GuidelinesoftheFinnishAdvisoryBoardonResearchIntegrity2012[hereafter,‘FinnishRCRGuidelines’].111FinnishRCRGuidelines,36.112Idem.113TheNetherlandsBoardonResearchIntegrity(LOWI),‘AnnualReport2015’.114Idem.115ScienceEuropeWorkingGrouponResearchIntegrity-TaskGroupKnowledgeGrowth,‘SevenReasonstoCareaboutIntegrityinResearch’(Brussels:ScienceEurope,June2015),6.116 Science Europe, ‘Advancing Research Integrity Practices and Policies: From Recommendation toImplementation(WorkshopReport:Brussels,22February2017)’(Brussels:ScienceEurope,May2017),5.117Itcanberecalledinthiscontextthatresearchers’rightstobeprotectedincludetheiracademicfreedom,butalsoforinstancetheirrighttofreedomofexpression,inparticularwhereissuesofpublicinterestare



TheEuropeanCommission’sProposalforaDirectiveoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilontheprotectionofpersonsreportingonbreachesonUnionlaw118canberegardedas a useful reference to better understand legal issues surrounding whistleblowerprotectioninEurope.Takingasastartingpointthattheprotectioncurrentlygrantedinthe EU is currently fragmented and uneven, the Proposal sets out principles to guideMemberSateactionwhenintroducingorreviewingnormative,institutionalandjudicialframeworkstoprotectindividualswho,inthecontextoftheirwork-basedrelationship,reportordiscloseinformationonthreatsorharmtothepublicinterest.

TheProposalwouldapplytopersons119reportingbreachesofEUlawinaseriesofspecificfields(suchasprotectionoftheenvironment,nuclearsafety,publichealth,orprivacyandpersonaldataprotection). Itdoesnot includereferences to scientific research, and itsapplicabilitytoissuesrelatedtoresearchintegrityandscientificmisconductwouldbeinprinciple limitedonlytosomespecific instances, ifany– that is, to thecases inwhichmisconduct would constitute a breach of EU law falling within one of the identifiedfields.120TheProposal’spreamblenotesnevertheless that each time anewEU act forwhich whistleblower protection might be relevant, consideration could be given toexpandingthescopeoftheDirective.121

The European Commission’s Proposal grants special attention to the prevention ofretaliationagainstwhistleblowers,andtotheneedtoprovideeffectiveprotectiontothemwhenfacingsuchconduct.ItsExplanatoryMemorandumobservesthatwherepotentialwhistleblowers ‘donot feel safe tocomeforwardwiththe informationtheypossess, thistranslatesintounderreporting’,andthereforealsointo‘missedopportunities’toprotectthepublicinterest.122

In thiscontext, theProposalestablishesthatall formsofretaliationare forbiddenandshouldbesanctioned,123andthatwhistleblowerssufferingretaliationshouldhaveaccesstofreeadviceandadequateremedies(includinginterimreliefsuchasmeasuresagainstharassment,orpreventingdismissal).Additionally,asretaliatorymeasuresarelikelytobepresentedasbeingjustifiedongroundsotherthanthereporting,124theburdenofproofwould be reversed so whenever a person or organisation adopts measures againstwhistleblowers they shall be the ones proving they are not acting in retaliation (as

concerned(see,onthis,forinstance:JudgmentoftheCourt(SecondSection)of1December2009,CaseofKarsaiv.Hungary,ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1201JUD000538007).118COM(2018)218final.119Fortheexactdelimitationoftheproposedpersonalscope,seeArt.2oftheproposedDirective.120Thepreambledoesindirectlylinkwhistleblowerprotectiontoissuesof‘ethicsandintegrity’bynotingthat information about reporting procedures may ‘be included in courses and trainings on ethics andintegrity’(seeRecital(47)oftheproposedDirective).121SeeRecital(19)oftheproposedDirective.122COM(2018)218final,1.123ExamplesofprohibitedformsofretaliationareprovidedinArt.14oftheproposedDirective,andincludesuspension, lay-off and dismissal; demotion or withholding of promotion; coercion, intimidation,harassmentorostracismattheworkplace;damage,includingtotheperson’sreputation,andblacklisting.124SeeRecital(70)oftheproposedDirective.



opposedtoobligingthewhistleblowertoprovethatthemeasureswereindeedtakeninretaliation).

3.10 Tackling ‘bad faith’ allegations

The concerns surrounding anonymous allegations can be placed inside a broaderpreoccupationwiththepossibilityofallegationsbroughtforwardforthewrongreasons,that is, not for the purpose of protecting science or research integrity, but to impactnegativelytheaccused.

The OECD Global Science Forum’s Practical Guide for Investigating ResearchMisconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Research Projects statesnobodyshouldsufferanypenaltyformakinganallegationofresearchmisconductingoodfaith, ‘butactionshouldbetakenagainstpersons foundtohavemadeallegations inbadfaith’.125ThePracticalGuidedoesnotspecifywhichkindofactionshouldbetakeninthelattercase,orhowtoestablishbadfaith.

The2009EthicsCodeforScientificResearchinBelgium126establishesthattoaccusesomebodywronglyknowinglyofanunethicalconductconstitutes,initself, isunethicalconduct.127Thisthusextendsthepossiblewaysofbehavingunethically.

The Recommendations of the Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrityrecommendthat’complaintsstrictlybroughtforwardinbadfaith(asharassment)shouldinthemselvesbeconsideredabreachofresponsibleconductofresearch’.128Thisexpandstheverydefinitionofbreachesofresponsibleconductofresearch.

According to theEstonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: ‘The researcheravoidsbaselessmalevolentorself-seekingaccusationsagainstcolleaguesandconsiderssuchaccusations contradictory to integrityof research.’129Here, also,baselessmalevolentorself-seekingaccusationsareframedasincontradictiontoresearchintegrity.Itisunclearhoweverwhyonlyaccusationsagainstcolleaguesaretoberegardedassuch,asitwouldseem to imply baseless malevolent or self-seeking accusations against researchers inotherinstitutionsarenotaproblem.

125OECDPracticalGuideforInternationalCollaborativeResearch,7.126 Code d’ethique de la recherche scientifque en Belgique / Ethische code voor hetwetenschappelijkonderzoek inBelgie [hereafter, ‘BelgianEthicsCode’],AcademieRoyaledesSciences,desLettresetdesBeauxArtsdeBelgique,l’AcademieRoyaledeMedecinedeBelgique,laKoninklijkeVlaamseAcademievanBelgievoorWetenschappenenKunstenetlaKoninklijkeAcademievoorGeneeskundevanBelgie,withthesupportoftheSPPPolitiquescientique/PODWetenschapsbeleid,2009.127BelgianEthicsCode,4.128DanishCodeofConduct,23.129EstonianCode,17.



Insum,codesandlegislationonresearchintegrityandscientificmisconductcandepictasscientificmisconducttheimproperuseofproceduresforthefollow-upofallegationsofmisconduct.

TheUKPolicyandGuidelinesonGovernanceofGoodResearchpointsout that ‘allstaffmustbeprotectedfrommaliciousallegations’.130Fromthisstandpoint,thedocumentputsforwardthat‘[f]ailingtodealappropriatelywithmaliciousallegations,whichshouldbe handled formally as breaches of good conduct’, constitutes ‘improper dealing withallegationsofmisconduct’, tobetreatedasunacceptableconduct.131Thiscombinesthephenomenon just described (characterising the improper use of procedures asmisconduct)withphenomenonofdefining‘meta-misconduct’practices:itisnotonlyabreachofgoodconducttomaliciouslyputforwardanunfoundedallegationofbreachofgoodconduct,butitisalsoabreachnottodealproperlywiththemaliciousallegation,whichisabreachthatneedsthustobeadequatelyaddressedassuch.

From a legal perspective, it could be questionedwhether the launchingofmalevolentaccusations of scientific misconduct should necessarily be considered a scientificmisconduct issue, or rather be addressed throughother legal frames. Such actionsdomorelikelyevokemoregeneralformsofmisconductaslibelanddefamation,orviolationofprofessionaldutiesandliabilties.

TheEuropeanCommission’sProposalonwhistleblowerprotectionincludessafeguardsaimed at discourageingmalicious and abusive reports. In particular, it conditions thegranting of protection to the requirement that the reporting persons had reasonablegroundstobelieve,atthetimeofreporting,thattheinformationprovidedwastrue.132Protectionisnotlost,however,wherethepersonmadeaninaccuratereportinhonesterror.133Equally,thereportingpersonsareentitledtoprotectioniftheyhadreasonablegroundstobelievethatthereportedinformationfellwithinthescopeoftheinstrument,evenifthatwasactuallynotthecase.134

3.11 Rights of the accused

The individual towhom refer the allegationsofmisconduct shall be given a series ofrights,whichcanbelinkedtothegenerallegalrequirementsapplicabletofairhearings

130RCUKPolicyandGuidelines,4.131Idem.132COM(2018)218final,12.Suchareasonablebeliefshouldbepresumedunlessanduntilprovenotherwise(Recital60oftheproposedDirective).133Idem.134Idem.



and proceedings.135 Generally speaking, they concern the accused’s right to be heard,which is intrinsically connected to a right to receive information in order to preparepossibleinterventionsorsubmissions.AllthiscanalsoberegardedasconnectedtotheEU Charter of Fundamental Rights reference in Article 41(2)(b) to the right of everypersontohaveaccesstotheirfile.

The OECD Global Science Forum has put forward that those devising misconductproceduresshallconsiderthefollowingquestionsinrelationtothismatter:

‘How can the accused defend him/herself? Does he/she have access to documents, testimony? Can the accused confront accusers and witnesses? Can the accused be assisted by a lawyer during the proceedings? Does the accused have a right to question the composition of the investigating body? Can one set of allegations give rise to more than one investigation (“double jeopardy”)? In general, how do the rights of the accused compare to those in a criminal or civil proceeding?’136

According to the Recommendations of the Danish Code of Conduct for ResearchIntegrity,‘incasesofqualifiedgroundsforthesuspicion,thecaseshouldbesubmittedforfurtherinvestigationinaccordancewithinstitutionalproceduresandthepartiestothecaseshould be informed immediately’.137 Moreover, the Recommendations note that ‘Theparties to the case should be highly involved in processing the case by being allowed tocommentontheinvestigationalmaterialandbybeingcontinuallyinformedofthestatusofthecase’.138Inanycase,theDanishCommitteeonResearchMisconductmustensurethatallcasesareadequately informed,andthusobtainallnecessary information.ThismeansthattheCommitteehastocarryoutconsultationsinaccordancewiththeDanishActonpublicadministration,givingtheaccusedachancetoprovideastatement.

TheUKPolicyandGuidelinesonGovernanceofGoodResearchConductforeseethat‘[t]he person against whom allegations aremade’ is given details of the allegations inwriting,includingthenatureoftheevidenceagainstthem,andthat‘individualsmustbegivenreasonabletimeandopportunitytorespond’.139Additionally,theyestablishthatinthecaseswhere‘seriousconsequencesmightresultfromanyprovencharge(includingforexamplethepossibilitiesofdismissal,demotion,removalofrightsasaresearcherorpublicpronouncementontheirprofessionalfailings)theindividualhastherighttoprofessionalrepresentationand/orassistance,includinglegalrepresentation’.140

135TheEuropeanCommission’sProposalonwhistleblowerprotectionclarifies that thoseconcernedbyreportsshallfullyenjoytheirrightsundertheEUCharterofFundamentalRights,‘includingthepresumptionofinnocence,therighttoaneffectiveremedyandtoafairtrial,andtherightsofthedefence’(COM(2018)218final,12).136GlobalScienceForumoftheOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD),‘BestPracticesforEnsuringScientificIntegrityandPreventingMisconduct’,10.137DanishCodeofConduct,22.138Ibid.,23.139RCUKPolicyandGuidelines,9.140Idem.



The VSNU National Template for the Complaints Procedure only foreseescommunicationtothecomplainantandtheaccusedoncetheExecutiveBoard,withdueobservanceoftherecommendationoftheAcademicIntegrityCommittee,hasadoptedaninitialopinion.

3.12 Protection of the accuser

Inpractice,itappearsasespeciallyimportanttoprotecttheindividualwhohasbroughtforwardtheallegationsofmisconduct.ThisisparticularlyvisibleinthecaselawoftheECtHR, which stresses the need to protect those who file accusations of scientificmisconductagainstdefamationcomplaints,141aswellasspecificallytheneedtoprotectindividuals when they criticise the institution in which they work,142 the concept ofacademic autonomy notably encompassing the academics’ freedom to express theiropinionabouttheinstitutionorsysteminwhichtheywork.143TheStrasbourgCourthas,asamatterof fact, stressed that individualsworking inan institution canbe the bestplaced toact in thepublic interestbyalerting their employerabout illegal conductorwrongdoing,144whichservesasareminderofthefactthatbyprotectingtheindividualwhobringsforwardallegationsisalsoprotectedinthepublicinterestinhavingsuspectedmisconductinvestigated.

The Recommendations of the Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrityrecommendthat‘personsbringingforwardsuspicionsingoodfaith(‘whistle-blowers’)areprotectedfromreprisals’.145

TheUKPolicyandGuidelinesonGovernanceofGoodResearchConductconstruesreprisalsagainstwhistleblowersas‘improperdealingwithallegationsofmisconduct’,tobetreatedasunacceptableconduct.146

3.13 Nature of the investigating and deciding bodies

The configuration of the bodies investigating and/or deciding on allegations ofmisconductcanbeveryvaried,dependingforinstanceonwhethertheyareinternaltoa

141See,inthissense:JudgmentoftheCourt(ThirdSection)of23February2007,CaseofBoldeav.Romania,ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0215JUD001999702.142See, inthissense:JudgmentoftheCourt(SecondSection)of23June2009,CaseofSorguçv.Turkey,ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0623JUD001708903.143See,inthissense:JudgmentoftheCourt(FirstSection)of8October2015,CaseofKharlamovv.Russia,ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1008JUD002744707.144See,inthissense:JudgmentoftheCourt(FourthSection)of19January2016,CaseofAurelianOpreav.Romania,ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0119JUD001213808.145DanishCodeofConduct,23.146Idem.



researchorganisation,or‘external’.Theycouldforinstancebestableorad-hocbodies,andbecomposedofonlyinternalorexternalstaff,oramixofboth.Thereareaseriesofcharacteristicsthataremostoftenputforward:theneedformemberstohaveacertaindegreeofknowledgeontheacademicdisciplineinwhichthemisconductissupposedtohavetakenplace,theneedtohaveacertaindegreeofknowledgeonresearchintegrityand scientific misconduct (including, sometimes, of procedures themselves), and theindependenceandimpartialityofthebodies.

3.13.1 Scientific expertise and expertise in misconduct

TheUKConcordat affirms that it is ‘the responsibilityof employers to ensure thatanyperson involved in investigating such allegations has the appropriate knowledge, skills,experienceandauthoritytodoso’.147

TheRecommendationsof theDanishCodeofConduct forResearch Integrity stressthat‘[t]heinvestigatorsshouldpossessprofessionalcompetenceswithinthespecificfieldsofresearch and thorough knowledge of responsible conduct of research. Preferably, one ormoreinvestigatorsshouldhavepriorexperiencewithcasesconcerningresearchmisconductand/orbreachesofresponsibleconductofresearch’.148

Thepersonsinvolvedininvestigatingallegationsmightbeindividualscontactedonanad-hocbasisfortheinvestigationofaspecificcase.

TheERCScientificMisconductStrategyoftheEuropeanResearchsetsoutthattheCoIMEmay,ifnecessary,‘consultothermembersoftheERCScientificCouncilandERCEAstaffand/ornominateexternalexpertsforappointmentbytheERCEADirectorwhowouldactasadvisorstotheERCindealingwithspecificcasesofscientificmisconduct’.149

TheVSNUNationalTemplatefortheComplaintsProcedureestablishesthatwheneveranAcademicIntegrityCommitteeissetupitshouldprovideabalancedrepresentationofthedifferentacademicareasof theuniversity, and thatpreferablyoneof itsmembersshouldbeajurist.150TheTemplatealsoforeseesitispossibletoexpandtemporallytheCommitteewithexperts,whetheraffiliatedornottotheinstitution,anditisalsopossiblebutnot compulsory for theCommittee to request furtheradviceof still otherexperts,againwhetheraffiliatedornottotheinstitution.151

147UKConcordat,18.148DanishCodeofConduct,23.149ERC,2.150Landelijkmodelklachtenregeling,Art.4(a).Additionally,theCommitteeshallbeformallysupportedbyajurist.151Landelijkmodelklachtenregeling,Art.4(a)andArt.4(c).



3.13.2 Independence and impartiality

IndependenceandimpartialityarerequirementsthatapplytotribunalsinthesituationsfallingunderArticle6oftheECHR.

The OECD Global Science Forum’s Practical Guide for Investigating ResearchMisconductAllegationsinInternationalCollaborativeResearchProjectsspellsoutasoneof thestructuralrequirements for investigationproceduresthat theyshouldbestructuredastoensuretheindependenceoftheinvestigation.152

TheRecommendationsof theDanishCodeofConduct forResearch Integrity stressthat ‘[t]he persons involved in addressing the suspicion and handling the investigationshouldbeimpartial’.153

Inprinciple,thefactthataninvestigationiscarriedoutbyan‘external’(central)body,outside of a research organisation, could be beneficial for the independence andimpartiality.Inpractice,however,itneedstobetakenintoaccountthatsuchbodiesandagenciesmightnotbe structurally fully independent fromresearchorganisations, andthat theymust inanycaserelyontheexpertiseofacademics fromsuchorganisations.Therefore,additionalsafeguardsmightneedtobeputinplace.

InAustria,theAustrianAgencyforResearchIntegrityassignsaseriesoffunctionstotheCommissionforResearchIntegrity,anindependentbodyconsistingofnon-Austrianscholars.154

In line with the Responsible Conduct of Research and Procedures for HandlingAllegationsofMisconductinFinland,155forinstitutional-levelinvestigationstherectorshallestablishaninvestigationcommitteewith‘thenecessaryexpertiseintheacademicdiscipline inquestion,aswell as the legalorother expertise required’,withat least twomembersexternaltotheorganisationconductingtheinvestigation.156

3.14 Publicity and confidentiality of the procedure

152OECDPracticalGuideforInternationalCollaborativeResearch,8.153DanishCodeofConduct,23.154DorisWolfslehnerandErichGriessler,‘EthicsAssessmentinDifferentCountries:Austria’(StakeholdersActingTogetherontheEthicalImpactAssessmentofResearchandInnovation(SATORI),June2015),12.155ResponsibleConductofResearchandProcedures forHandlingAllegationsofMisconduct inFinland,GuidelinesoftheFinnishAdvisoryBoardonResearchIntegrity2012[hereafter,‘FinnishRCRGuidelines’].156FinnishRCRGuidelines,37.



Codes and legislation on research integrity advocate for both the publicity and theconfidentialityofproceduresforthefollow-upofallegationsofmisconduct,imposingorrecommendingdifferenttypesofsolutionsfortheirarticulation.

According to the Recommendations of the Danish Code of Conduct for ResearchIntegrity ‘[i]nvestigation procedures should be made public’.157 The sameRecommendations, however, also suggest that ‘the identities of the parties are keptconfidentialtotheextentpossible’.158

Obligations and guidance on these issues sometimes takes into account the differentstagesofprocedures.Typicallyconfidentialitywillbedeemedparticularlyimportantuntiltheprocedurehasreachedaconclusionontheexistenceorinexistenceofmisconduct,amomentinwhichpublicityobjectivesmightbecomeprevalent.

3.14.1 Confidentiality before the procedure?

TheLOWIhashighlightedas‘adilemmainenforcingconfidentiality’thequestionofwhatto do with allegations of misconductmade public by somebody (for instance via themedia,orthroughtheInternet)beforeanyformalfilingofacomplainthastakenplace.159Strictly speaking, there is no breach of confidentiality under any procedure until theprocedurehasstarted.Nevertheless,eveniftechnicallyitcannotbeconcludedthattherehas been a failure to respect confidentiality, the LOWI does consider that ‘[g]iven thepurposeofconfidentiality,thiscourseofactionbytheapplicantisnotappropriate,becausethis actionhas the exact same effect as breaching the duty of confidentiality, namely totarnishthegoodnameofanother’.160

3.14.2 During the procedure

The OECD Global Science Forum’s Practical Guide for Investigating ResearchMisconductAllegationsinInternationalCollaborativeResearchProjectshighlightsas an ‘overarching principle’ for investigating research misconduct the principle of‘confidentiality’.161 This does not imply, however, that such confidentiality will beabsolute.Asamatteroffact,theGuidedetailstheprincipleasmerelyentailingthattheprocedure‘shouldbeconductedasconfidentiallyaspossible’,andthatdisclosurestothird

157DanishCodeofConduct,23.158Idem.159TheNetherlandsBoardonResearchIntegrity(LOWI),‘AnnualReport2016’,4.160Idem.161OECDPracticalGuideforInternationalCollaborativeResearch,6.



parties, even if possible, should be made ‘on a confidential basis’.162 The Guide alsostipulatesconfidentialityshouldbemaintainedonlyprovideditdoesnotcompromisetheinvestigationoftheallegation,healthandsafety,orthesafetyofparticipantsinresearch,andthatiftheinvestigatingorganisationand/orthestaffhavelegalobligationstoinformthirdpartiesofresearchmisconductallegations,thoseobligationsmustbefulfilled.163

3.14.3 After the conclusion of the procedure

Onceprocedureshaveconcluded,theremightberequirementsimposingthedecisionstobe made public. The rationale underlying such publicity might relate to differentpriorities, including the objective of facilitating wider awareness of what is deemedmisconduct, thus facilitating learning by other actors. This objective can be pursuedthroughthepublicationofanonymiseddecisions.

Anotherpossibleobjectivepursuedbythepublicityofdecisions,however,mightbetoensure that proven cases are publicly known,whichwould be potentially particularlyuseful when researchers move from one system to another, to contribute to widerawarenessofforinstancefuturefundersoremployers.164

AnotherelementtobetakenintoaccountistherightforpublicjudgmentsunderArticle6oftheECHR.

IntheNetherlands,theLOWIpublishesonlineitsanonymisedopinions.Nevertheless,itclaimsit‘hasnotandwillnotcomment,eithertothepressortootherparties,onwhetherithas reviewed or is reviewing a particular matter’, and this despite being contactedregularlybythepress.165

LOWI’s anonymisation of decisions includes the fact that references to persons andinstitutionsinvolvedareomitted,butgoesbeyondthattopreventindirectidentification.Theanonymityrequirementisregardedasparticularlyimportantasitsopinionsactuallyconstitute advice provided to institutions which will decide on the allegations ofmisconduct, and thus they could be dealingwithmere possible violations of researchintegritythat,inretrospect,couldnotberecognisedascorrectorjustified.166TheLOWIhas stressed,nevertheless, that topreserve theanonymityof theparties involved it isnecessarythatpartiesdonottakeactionsthatwouldallowforidentification.Inthissense,institutionsareadvisednottoprovidethroughtheirwebsitesdirectlinkstoanonymisedLOWIopinionsinwhichtheirinstitution’snamewaspurposefullyomitted.167

162Idem.163Idem.164 In this sense: Science Europe, ‘Advancing Research Integrity Practices and Policies: FromRecommendationtoImplementation(WorkshopReport:Brussels,22February2017)’,9.165TheNetherlandsBoardonResearchIntegrity(LOWI),‘AnnualReport2014’(Amsterdam,June2015),7.166TheNetherlandsBoardonResearchIntegrity(LOWI),‘AnnualReport2016’,5.167Idem.



TheVSNUNationalTemplatefortheComplaintsProcedureestablishesthatwithinsixweeksoftheadoptionoffinaldecisionscaseswillbepublishedanonymouslyontheVSNUwebsite,unlesstheverdictisthatthecaseisinadmissible.

InDemark,thedecisionsoftheDanishCommitteeonResearchMisconductarealsomadeavailableinanonymousformonawebpage.168

Whendecisionsaretobemadepublic,itisparticularlyimportantthatallpartiesinvolvedareawarebeforehandoftheextentofsuchpublicity.

ThetemplatefacilitatedbytheNorwegianNationalCommissionfortheInvestigationof ResearchMisconduct to report suspicions of researchmisconduct169 includes thefollowingstatement:

‘The undersigned is also in agreement that all documents relating to the case that come into the possession of the Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct will be publicly available (except where confidentiality applies) by the time the Commission has completed its consideration of the case, pursuant to the acts and regulations which apply to the Commission’.170

In its accompanying ‘Informationonprocedureandpublicationof cases reported to theNationalCommissionfortheInvestigationofResearchMisconduct’,itisnotedthat:

‘[w]hen the report form is received by the Commission’s secretariat, it will be a public document subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act confidentiality and the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act regarding availability. The Commission will, as a rule, exclude the case from public access until it has completed its deliberations, but the Commission may also decide during the process to make it public’.171

InFrance,areportbasedonareviewofexistingpracticessurroundingresearchintegrityfoundthatamajorityofinstitutionspreferrednottobeobligedtomakepublictheresultsof their investigations, or any adopted sanctions.172 This was perceived as the best

168 https://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/councils-and-commissions/The-Danish-Committee-on-Research-Misconduct/decisions/decisions.169 Available at: https://www.etikkom.no/en/our-work/about-us/the-national-commission-for-the-investigation-of-research-misconduct/report-suspicion-of-research-misconduct/ [last accessed March2018].170 See p. 1 of the mentioned template. 171 Ibid., 4. 172PierreCorvol,‘BilanetpropositionsdemiseenœuvredelaChartenationaled’intéritéscientifique’,juin2016,19.



solutiontoreachasalutaryappeasementofthescientificcommunitiesattheendoftheprocedures.173

In some systems, the publication of individual decisions is not encouraged, while thesharingofinformationondecisionsthroughothermeansispromoted.

TheERCstrategyonscientificmisconductprovidesforrecordkeepingandreportingofcases in the ERCEA annual activity report, and in the ERC Scientific Council AnnualReport.174

In theUK, theConcordat to SupportResearch Integrityestablishes that funders ofresearch, employers and other organisations adhering to the document should worktogether to produce annual narrative statement on research integrity, based on inputfromallsignatories.Inthiscontext,someofthemmaketheirinputpubliclyavailable.175

Moregenerally,shouldbealsoconsideredthepossibility forlateraccesstorecordsofcasesandtheinformationcontainedinfiles.

TheOECDGlobalScienceForumsuggestsconsideringaseriesofquestionsinrelationmainlytothepossibilityforinformationtobepublishedinthemedia:

What are the conditions of access by journalists and the public to the outcomes and records of investigations? When are names named (those of the accuser and accused, and/or other persons involved in the investigation)? If no finding of misconduct is made, can the exonerated scientist require that a formal exoneration be published? How do requests for information relate to “sunshine” or freedom-of-information-type laws? Is it feasible to institute restrictions on speaking to journalists (a “gag order”) during the investigation?176

3.15 The determination of misconduct

Thecrucialissuewhichprocedureshavetoelucidateinpracticeiswhetherthecontestedconduct constitutes or does not constitutemisconduct, orwhichever other applicablenotionasdefinedintherelevantprocedures.

173IntheoriginalFrench,‘unsalutaireapaisementdescommunautésscientifiques’(idem).174 EuropeanResearchCouncil (ERC), ‘AnnualReport on theERCActivities andAchievements in 2015,PreparedundertheAuthorityoftheERCScientificCouncil’,2016,63.175 See, for instance: European Research Council (ERC), ‘Annual Report on the ERC Activities andAchievementsin2015,PreparedundertheAuthorityoftheERCScientificCouncil’,2016,63.176GlobalScienceForumoftheOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD),‘BestPracticesforEnsuringScientificIntegrityandPreventingMisconduct’,10.



3.15.1 Applying a broad or a narrow interpretation

Beyondtheletterofanypossibledefinitionofmisconduct,mustbetakenintoaccountalsothe way in which such definition is - or could be - interpreted in the context of aninvestigation. In this sense, for instance, the European Data Protection Supervisory(EDPS)advocatedinanassessmentoftheprocedureonhowtodealwithinformationonscientificmisconductattheERCEAthatthenotionshallbeinterpretedinabroadsense,and‘beapplicablewheneversuchabehaviourmayjeopardisethevalueofscienceandinparticularthereputationofscientistsinthescientificcommunity,aswellasofthebodiesfunding or hosting these scientists’.177 The EDPS noted there is no commonly agreeddefinitionof scientificmisconduct inEULaw,butarguednevertheless that it ‘coversalargevarietyofpossiblecasesoffraudandmore’.178

Ontheotherhand,however,itcanbearguedthatadeterminationofmisconductmightpotentiallyconstitutearestrictiononthefreedomofacademicstocarryoutresearchandto publish their findings,whichmust imperatively be submitted to careful scrutiny inaccordancewiththecaselawoftheECtHR.179

Moreover,inlightofArticle7oftheECHR,onfreedomfromretroactivecriminaloffencesandpunishment,andgeneralconstitutionalprinciplesofcriminallaw,punishmentsandsanctions can only be meted out for clearly circumscribed deeds, in line with strictinterpretationrules.Vagueincriminationsbearthedangerofarbitrarity.

3.15.2 Establishing the subjective element of misconduct

In some European countries, the most commonly applied definition of misconductincludesasubjectiverequirement,implyingtheneedfortheperpetratortohaveengagedinmisconductintentionally,orwithgrossnegligenceornegligence.180Inasimilarvein,somedefinitionsexplicitlyexcludehonesterrorsor‘meremistakes’.181Inthenormativeframeworks inwhichsuchasubjectivedimension isrequired for thedeterminationofresearchmisconductand/orsanctionablepractices,itiscrucialtoassesstheexistenceof

177EuropeanDataProtectionSupervisor(EDPS), ‘OpiniononaNotificationforPriorCheckingReceivedfrom the Data Protection Officer of the European Research Council Executive Agency Regarding the“ProcedureonHowtoDealwithInformationonScientificMisconduct”’(Brussels,9July2014),1.178EuropeanDataProtectionSupervisor(EDPS),1.179 See, in this sense: Judgment of the Court of 15 March 2012, Case of Aksu v. Turkey,ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0315JUD000414904.180Mostnotably,Scandinaviancountries;referringtoAustria,Sweden,Switzerland,Norway,DenmarkandtosomeextentLuxembourg:TheDanishAgencyforScience,TechnologyandInnovation,‘NationalSystemsforHandlingCasesofResearchMisconduct:ReportBasedonaSurveyConductedintheFallof2012with15RespondentsfromVariousCountries’,6.181Idem.



culpabilityrequirements,notablybyseparating‘meremistakes’fromdishonesty–andtodosoonthebasisofevidence.Thisappearstobeparticularlyproblematicinpractice.

The OECD Global Science Forum has emphasised that ‘determining whether aninappropriateactionwasdeliberate,i.e.,ofestablishingintent’182isoneofthemainfactorscomplicatinginpractice‘theestablishmentofanoptimalmappingbetweentheoffenceandthe method/venue for dealing with it’.183 In this light, it advises that the design ofmisconduct procedures should identifywhat the applicable standard of proof, and, incases‘whereintentionalmisconductishardtodistinguishfromunintentionalcarelessnessincarryingoutresearch’,clarifyhowinvestigatorsshallestablishintent.184

The OECD Global Science Forum’s Practical Guide for Investigating ResearchMisconductAllegationsinInternationalCollaborativeResearchProjectsestablishesthatprocedures‘shouldidentifytheminimumlevelofintentrequiredforacaseofresearchmisconduct’,aswellas ‘theminimumburdenofproof the investigationmustmeetwhenassessingtheactandtheintentwithwhichitwascommittedforreachingaconclusionofresearchmisconduct’.185

Ina2015case,forinstance,theDanishCommitteeonResearchMisconductfoundthedefendant not guilty of scientific dishonesty in relation to the misrepresentation ofinformationinascientificarticleaboutthespeciesandnumberofanimalsusedandtheconstructionofdataillustratedinafigure,despitealackofsourcedataforzerovalues,whichshouldhavebeenlisted,butthatthiscouldnotbyitselfjustifysuspicionofscientificmisconduct.186

TheNationalPolicyStatementonEnsuringResearchIntegrityinIrelandstatesthat‘as a rule’ it must be demonstrated that misconduct was committed ‘intentionally,knowingly or recklessly’, and that proof must be based on the preponderance ofevidence.187

TheNorwegianNationalCommissionfortheInvestigationofResearchMisconductdealtwithaninterestingcasefromabusinessschool,wherewasatstakewhethertherewas plagiarism in a doctoral thesis approved following its presentation in 2004. TheNationalCommissionunanimousconcludedthattherewasplagiarisminthethesis,butwassplitontheissueofwhethertheproceduresemployedbythedefendantinthethesiswere grossly negligent, and that scientificmisconductwas thus present: themajoritythoughtthatwasso,butaminoritybelievedthattherewasnobasisforcallingtheconductgrosslynegligent.Aftertheopinionwasannounced,in2012,thecasewasappealedtotheMinistry of Education and Research. An external ad-hoc appeals committee was 182GlobalScienceForumoftheOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD),‘BestPracticesforEnsuringScientificIntegrityandPreventingMisconduct’,4.183Idem.184Ibid.10.185OECDPracticalGuideforInternationalCollaborativeResearch,10.186DanishCommitteeonResearchMisconduct,Decisionof26June2015ontheconstructionofdata,etc.inascientificarticle.187IrishPolicyStatement,18.



appointedtoheartheappeal.JoiningtheCommission'sminority,thisad-hoccommitteeconcludedin2013thattheresearchercouldbeblamedforhisacts,butnottothedegreerequiredbythelegalnorm,andthathehadnotbeenscientificallydishonest,arguingthatalowerduediligencerequirementwasinplaceatthetimeinquestion,thattheresearcherhad cited sources in accordance with normal practice at his school, and that he wasmistakenaboutresearchethicsstandards.188

Itisimportanttounderlinethatnotallcodesandlegislationattributeexplicitlyrelevanceto the existence of intent. In some cases, attention can be given to somehow relatednotionssuchasadeterminationofthe‘honesty’or‘lackofhonesty’oftheresearcher.189

IntheNetherlands,theLOWIhasmadeclearthatthereisnoneedtoproveanyintentiontocommitplagiarisminordertocharacteriseaconductasplagiarism.Inthissense,ithasexplained that ‘[i]ntention is merely an additional factor that can help to identifyplagiarism,notruleitout’.190TheLOWIhasalsopointedoutthatsuchanadditionalfactormightbediscerned implicitly fromeitherthescaleof theplagiarism,or thecopyingofsectionsoftextsthatincludethesamereferencestosecondarysources.191

3.16 Sanctions

Codesandlegislationonresearchintegrityandresearchmisconductseldomidentifyoreven describe possible sanctions in detail; often, theymight provide some illustrativepossiblesanctionsbutleavethedooropenforotherpossiblesanctions.Insomecases,theyimposeorrecommendsanctionsforsometypesofmisconduct,whilediscouragingthesanctioningofcertainpotentiallycontestedpractices.

Generally speaking, research institutions may impose sanctions such as remediation,warning/reprimand, supervision, suspension from research related work, retraction,withdrawaloftitle,orwithdrawalofinternalfundingsupport;fundingagenciessuchaswithdrawal of funding, supervision attached to future funding, or a prohibition fromsubmittingapplications;nationalcommitteesorrelatedbodiesmightalsoimposesimilarsanctions.192Thismightoccursolelyonthebasisofspecificmisconductprocedures,orincombinationwithotherproceduressuchasdisciplinaryprocedures.

188NorwegianMinistryofEducationandResearch,‘ConsultationPaper–ResearchEthicsinNorway’,22.189See,inthissense(suggestingalsoarelevantdistinctionbetweenthecaseswhere‘theresearcherishonestbutdoesnotmaintaingoodresearchpractices’,andthosewhere‘theresearchissoirresponsiblyconductedthat the researcher’s integrity is at risk’: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW),CommitteeonScientificResearchData, ‘ResponsibleResearchDataManagementand thePreventionofScientificMisconduct(AdvisoryReport)’(Amsterdam,2013),13.190TheNetherlandsBoardonResearchIntegrity(LOWI),‘AnnualReport2015’,4.191Idem.192TheDanishAgencyforScience,Technologyand Innovation, ‘NationalSystems forHandlingCasesofResearchMisconduct:ReportBasedonaSurveyConductedintheFallof2012with15RespondentsfromVariousCountries’,17.



From a procedural perspective, it is important to note that sanctions are not alwaysdeterminedbythebodyresponsibleforinvestigatingallegationsofmisconduct.TheUKPolicyandGuidelinesonGovernanceofGoodResearchConductrefertoaseriesofsanctions that can be adopted by UK research councils on the basis of a finding ofmisconductresultingfrom‘anyinternalinvestigation(s)carriedoutbyaninstitution,courtproceedings, disciplinary proceedings, or other proceedings heard by a competenttribunal’.193

The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity does not impose on researchinstitutions theobligation to sanction researchmisconduct, simplynoting instead that‘[w]hen misconduct or other irresponsible research practice is confirmed, appropriateactionsshouldbetakenpromptly,includingcorrectingtheresearchrecord’.194

TheUK Concordat asserts that employers of researchers are responsible for takingappropriate steps to remedy any situations arising from an investigation on researchmisconduct, which ‘can include imposing sanctions, correcting the research record andreportinganyactiontoregulatoryandstatutorybodies,researchparticipants,fundersorother professional bodies as circumstances, contractual obligations and statutoryrequirementsdictate’.195Thedocumentalsopointsoutthatemployersshouldhoweverbemindfulthat‘minorinfractions,wherethereisnoevidentintentiontodeceive,mayoftenbeaddressedinformallythroughmentoring,educationandguidance’.196

TheRecommendationsoftheDanishCodeofConductforResearchIntegritystatethat:‘Iftheinstitutionalinvestigationconcludesthatabreachofresponsibleconductofresearchhas takenplace, it is the responsibilityof the institution(s)where the researchhasbeencarriedoutand/orwheretheresearcherisemployedtoimposerelevantsanctions’.197

Whensanctionsareimposed,theseshouldinprinciplebeproportionate,consistent,andpredictable–thereisatleastgeneralagreementonthisincodesandlegislation.

TheOECDGlobal Science Forum suggests considering,when designing or revising amisconductprocedure,questionsrelatedtowhetherdisciplinarymeasurescanbeputinplaceduringtheinvestigation(e.g.,suspensionoftheresearch,orwithholdingofagrant),theexistenceofa‘reasonableandconsistentlyappliedrelationshipbetweentheseriousnessof the misconduct and the severity of the imposed punishment’,198 the possibility torecommendmeasures‘toprotectscienceandthepublicinterest’suchastheretractionoftaintedpublications,andothermeasures,199andwhetheractioncanbetakenwithregard

193RCUKPolicyandGuidelines,10.194Responsibility§12oftheSingaporeStatementonResearchIntegrity.195UKConcordat,18.196Idem.197DanishCodeofConduct,23.198GlobalScienceForumoftheOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD),‘BestPracticesforEnsuringScientificIntegrityandPreventingMisconduct’,10.199Idem.



topersonswhoshouldhaveexercisedbettersupervision, ‘eveniftheyhavenotactivelycommittedmisconduct’200.201

ESF has argued ‘[t]here needs to be a statement on the types of sanctions that can beimposed,ensuringthattheyareappropriate’,andthat‘[t]herealsoneedstobeagreementnotonlyontypesofsanctions,butonwhocanrecommendthemandwhohasresponsibilityfor enforcing them’.202 This implies that there are thus requirements of clarity andpredictabilitythatapplyalsoforsanctionsandtheirenforcement.

The Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity establishes that ‘If breaches,includingmalevolentaccusations,arediscovered,theresearchinstitutionappliessanctionsagreed upon in relation to the person who breaches research integrity or presents amalevolentaccusation’.203

TheCodeofEthicsoftheResearchersoftheCzechAcademyofSciencesestablishesthatwhen an investigation determines a ‘violation of the ethics of scientific conduct’areportontheresolutionofthedisputeshallbecirculatedtoallparticipants,and‘includemeasuresleadingtorectifyingtheproblem’.204TheCodeaddsthatinjustifiablecasesotherinstrumentssuchastheregulationofthelabourcodemaybeemployed.205

InlinewiththeGuidelinesforResponsibleConductofResearchandProceduresforHandling Allegations of Misconduct in Finland,206 when an institutional-levelinvestigation finds that themisconduct constitutes a violation against the responsibleconductofresearch,measuresmustbetakentopublishthefindingsofthefinalreport‘ina manner deemed appropriate by the committee’ and ‘when possible, at least in thepublicationchannelwherethefraudulentresearchfindingsorresultsbasedonfraudulentmeanshavealreadybeenpublished’.207Additionally,violationscanleadtoother(alwaysproportionate)sanctionsthattherectoris‘justifiedorobligatedtoimposeonthebasisof,forinstance,legislationpertainingtoadministrative,criminal,labourorcontractlaw’.208

Astheseexamplesillustrate,sanctionsarepresentedinvariedways:sometimesemphasisisplacedonthepersonwhomustbesanctioned,whileothersfocusonrectifyingaspecificproblem, or even still on generally protecting science and the public interest. Theunderlyingrationalesforsanctions,ortheirabsence,arehoweverrarelydiscussed.

200Idem.201Itmustbenotedthatthislatterpossibilitywouldrequiretakingintoaccountsincethebeginningoftheprocedureitsfairnessinrelationtothesepersons.202 European Science Foundation (ESF) Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity, ‘FosteringResearchIntegrityinEurope’,25.203EstonianCodeofConduct,18.204CzechCode,VII(c).205Idem.206ResponsibleConductofResearchandProcedures forHandlingAllegationsofMisconduct inFinland,GuidelinesoftheFinnishAdvisoryBoardonResearchIntegrity2012[hereafter,‘FinnishRCRGuidelines’].207FinnishRCRGuidelines,39.208Idem.



Inpractice,itisnoteasytoobtaininformationonsanctionsactuallyimposed,assomeinvestigatingbodieswithpubliclyreportingdutiesarenotthebodiesactuallyimposing(ordecidingnottoimpose)sanctions.

Reviewing casesdealtwithby theERC, it ispossible to findasexamplesofmeasuresadoptedincasesofplagiarismmeasuressuchasthesendingofaletterwarningtheauthorofaproposal‘abouttheinappropriatenessofextensiverephrasingfromotherauthors’,209or the sending of another letter letting another applicant know ‘that properacknowledgementof sourceswas expected’.210A letterof reprimandwasalso sent to areviewerwho had evaluated a proposal and subsequently provided to the proposal’sauthorsomeinsideinformationonthediscussionsheldduringtheevaluation,whichwasjudgedaspossibly‘inbreachofthecontractforindependentexperts’.211InanothercasereportedbytheERC,noactionwastakenbecause,inspiteofhavingconcludedafterdueconsiderationthataspecificbehaviourdetectedinanapplicationregardingadiscrepancyintheorderofauthorship‘wastobeconsideredethicallyincorrect’,theevaluationoftheproposalwasnegative.212

Expertshavevoicedthatmore‘guidelinesonwhatsanctionsmightbeappliedaccordingtodifferentdegreesofseveritymightbehelpful’,andalsothat‘dependingontheseverityofthemisconduct’213itmightbeadvisabletoforeseeforguiltypersonstobe‘rehabilitated’afteracertainperiod,whichthuswouldprecludeimposingsanctionsthatwouldbeanobstacletosuchrehabilitation.

3.17 Possibility of appeal

Thepossibilitiesforappealfollowingadecisionmadeinthecontextofthefollow-upofanallegationofmisconductcanbelinkedtotherightofaccesstoacourtprotectedunderArticle6oftheECHR.

Thesystemsforappealincasesofresearchmisconductarevaried,althoughingeneralthreedifferentpossibilitiescanbeidentified:appealattheinstitutionallevel(throughthe

209 EuropeanResearchCouncil (ERC), ‘AnnualReport on theERCActivities andAchievements in 2015,PreparedundertheAuthorityoftheERCScientificCouncil’,63.210Ibid.,64.211 EuropeanResearchCouncil (ERC), ‘AnnualReport on theERCActivities andAchievements in 2016,PreparedundertheAuthorityoftheERCScientificCouncil’,2017,68.Allegedly,thiscouldhavealsobeenaddressedasabreachofacontractualdutyofconfidentiality.212 EuropeanResearchCouncil (ERC), ‘AnnualReport on theERCActivities andAchievements in 2015,PreparedundertheAuthorityoftheERCScientificCouncil’,64.213 Science Europe, ‘Advancing Research Integrity Practices and Policies: From Recommendation toImplementation(WorkshopReport:Brussels,22February2017)’,9.



mechanismsoftheresearchinstitutioninquestion),appealtoanexternalbody,andlackofformalappealsystem.214

In2010,ESFproclaimedthat‘[a]sinalllegalandquasi-legalproceedings,thereshouldbeaninstanceofappeal’,addingthatthepermissibilityofappeals,thetypesofappeal,andtheprocessesforappealshouldbeclearlystatedinanyprocedures.215

The decisions of the Norwegian National Commission for the Investigation ofResearch Misconduct, for instance, might be appealed against to the Ministry ofEducationandResearch.216

Inanycase,anddependingonthequalificationsandfacts(civil,labour,competitionoradministrative law) judicial recourse against decisions by research institutions are inprincipleopen,evenifthesedecisonsweremadeorinformedbyspecialisedbodies.

3.18 Efficient conclusion

The requirement of efficient conclusion can be regarded as subsumed in generalprinciples of good administration, and as encompassing the requirement for theproceduretocometoanend,butalsotocometoanendwithinareasonableamountoftime.

TheLOWIhas inanumberofoccasionsemphasisedthe importance forprocedurestoreachdefinitiveconclusions.Inthissense,ithasmaintainedthat ‘complaintproceduresmustatacertainpointreachadefinitiveend,inpartintheinterestsoflegalcertainty’.217This implies thatdecisionsmustat somepointbe regardedhashavinggained ‘formalforceoflaw,asitwere’,218andthatitisnotpossibletosubmitrepeatcomplaints,thatis,complaintsonanalreadyinvestigatedmatter,unlesstherearenova,anotiontobestrictlyinterpreted219 (the advancing of new arguments not being regarded as producingnova).220

3.19 Reaching out to other authorities or institutions

214TheDanishAgencyforScience,Technologyand Innovation, ‘NationalSystems forHandlingCasesofResearchMisconduct:ReportBasedonaSurveyConductedintheFallof2012with15RespondentsfromVariousCountries’,16.215 European Science Foundation (ESF) Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity, ‘FosteringResearchIntegrityinEurope’,25.216§29oftheNorwegianPublicAdministrationAct.217SummaryofLOWIOpinion2015-06.218Idem.219SummaryofLOWIOpinion2015-05.220SummaryofLOWIOpinion2015-06.



Inthecontextofproceduresforthefollow-upofscientificmisconduct,itmightbepossible–orevencompulsory-fortheconcernedinstitutiontoreferthecasetootherauthorities,orthecourts.221

This obligation or possibility can be explictly foreseen either at some stage of theunfoldingoftheprocedure,orafteritsconclusion.222

InlinewiththeGuidelinesforResponsibleConductofResearchandProceduresforHandling Allegations of Misconduct in Finland,223 when an institutional-levelinvestigationfindssomebodyresponsibleofaviolationagainsttheresponsibleconductofresearch,ifthepersonworksinaresearchorganisationotherthantheoneinwhichtheallegationhasbeenhandledorreceivesexternalresearchfunding,theemployerorthefundingorganisationmustbenotifiedofthedecision.224

ParticipantstoaWorkshoporganisedbyScienceEuropeagreedontheideathat‘onceacaseisproven,funders,publishers,andinstitutionswouldbenefitfrombeinginformedsothattheymayimplementtheirownprocesses’.225

TheNationalPolicyStatementonEnsuringResearchIntegrityinIrelandestablishesthatinstitutionsadheringtothestatementcommitto‘reportingthefindingsofanyprovencases of researchmisconduct arising from a formal disciplinary process to the relevantauthoritiesincluding,forexample,fundingbodiesandpublishers’.226ThePolicyStatementalsonotesthat‘iftheallegationisofaparticularlyseriousnatureandmateriallyaffectstherunning of a programme of research, itmay be a contractual stipulation, or consideredprudentinthecircumstances,thattheresearchperformingorganisationshouldadvisethefunderofthesituationatanearlierstage’,227withoutclarifyingwhenorhowthefundershallbeinformedincasenomisconductcouldbeproven.

3.20 Restoring reputations

221InthecaseoftheAustralianresearchersMurdochandBarwood,forinstance,theyendedbeingcriminallyconvictedbecauseafteran initial internal investigation theirUniversity, fromwhich theyhadresigned,referredthemattertoacompetentauthoritydealingwithcrimeandcorruption;see,forinstance:MarilynMacMahon, ‘TougherActionNeededintheFightagainstScientificFraud’,TheConversation,8November2016,https://theconversation.com/tougher-action-needed-in-the-fight-against-scientific-fraud-68076.222Additionally,thefactthepossibilitymightnotbeexplicitlyforeseendoesnotmeanitisexcluded–onthecontrary,itisalwaysgenerallyapossibilitytotaketheissuetocourts(forinstancethroughliabilityprocedures).223ResponsibleConductofResearchandProcedures forHandlingAllegationsofMisconduct inFinland,GuidelinesoftheFinnishAdvisoryBoardonResearchIntegrity2012[hereafter,‘FinnishRCRGuidelines’].224FinnishRCRGuidelines,39.225 Science Europe, ‘Advancing Research Integrity Practices and Policies: From Recommendation toImplementation(WorkshopReport:Brussels,22February2017)’,5.226IrishPolicyStatement,19.227Idem.



It is commonly perceived that, in spite of any relevant fairness requirements, and inparticularinspiteofanyrelevantconfidentialityobligations,inpracticethereputationofthose accused of misconduct might be negatively affected by the mere fact that aninvestigationtookplace.

The OECD Global Science Forum has maintained that an important question is toconsiderthespecificstepsthatmightbetakentorestoreadamagedreputation,aswellas ‘a project that may have been delayed or disrupted during an investigation’.228Additionally,ithassuggestedgivingattentiontothepossibleexistenceofprovisionsforprotecting ‘innocent bystanders’, ‘such as graduate students whose projects may beterminated even if theirwork had nothing to dowith themisconduct committed by theprincipalinvestigator’.229

TheUKPolicyandGuidelinesonGovernanceofGoodResearchConductnotethatif,following any investigations, an individual is found not to have committed an act ofresearchmisconduct, or the allegation iswithdrawn, the institutionmust protect theinterestsof the individual, and ‘make theoutcomeclear toallwhohavebeen involved’,whichnotablymeansthatiftheallegationwasmadepublicly,‘theinstitutionmustmakepublictheoutcomeoftheinvestigation’.230

4. Concluding remarks

Thisreporthasreviewedrequirementsrelatedtothe‘fairness’ofproceduresapplicabletothefollow-upofallegationsofscientificmisconduct.Exploringgeneralrequirementsapplicable to the fairness of procedures, aswell as codes and legislation on researchintegrityandresearchmisconduct,wehavehighlightedaseriesofcommonconcerns,aswellassomemoredisputedissues.Wehavealsostressedthatinpracticethevarietyofstructures for the follow-up of allegations have an impact on the concrete design ofprocedures,thusalsocontributingtoexplaintheco-existenceofdifferentapproachestohowtooperationalise‘fairness’.

Defining clearly the scope of scientific misconduct and its determination (and/or ofresearchintegrity,ifscientificmisconductistobeconstruedasincludingatleastpartially‘violations’or‘breaches’ofresearchintegrity)emergesonceagainasakeyissue.Theneedandlegalconstrainttodelimitwhatlieswithinthescopeoftheseconceptshasalreadybeenrepeatedlyhighlighted.231ItisimportantheretostressthatsuchdelimitationwouldnotonlybenefitthecompatibilityofEuropeanapproaches,andtheconsistentapplication

228GlobalScienceForumoftheOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD),‘BestPracticesforEnsuringScientificIntegrityandPreventingMisconduct’,10.229GlobalScienceForumoftheOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD),10.230RCUKPolicyandGuidelines,10.231 See, for instance: European Science Foundation (ESF) Member Organisation Forum on ResearchIntegrity,‘FosteringResearchIntegrityinEurope’,23.



ofEuropeanstandards,232butalsocontributetothefairnessofproceduresbysupportingtransparencyandpredictability.

Inthisconcludingsection,wewouldliketoemphasisetwoimportantpointstobetakenintoaccount,mostnotably,fromtheperspectiveofassessingpossiblepolicyactioninthearea: first, the fact that ‘fairness’ requirements shallnotbeenvisagedas separateandindependentfeaturesofprocedures,butenvisionedfromamoreglobalperspective,and,second,theideathatsomeproceduralrequirementscanencourageacertainreflexivitythat would, eventually, be beneficial also in terms of ‘fairness’. Additionally, a finalreflectioninvitestoconsidertheapproachestowhistleblowerprotectionintheanalysedinstruments.

Thefirstissueconcernstheneedtounderstandfairnessasageneralqualityofproceduresthatisnotdeterminedsolelybysomespecificfeatures,butrathertheircombinationandinterplay. This implies that theremight be some possible different combinations thatwouldallmeetinsomewaythefairnessrequirements,andthatthedifferentaspectsof‘fair procedures’ reviewed shall not be thought of in isolation, as they can affect eachother.Inthissense,forinstance,establishingageneraldutytoreportmisconductmightrequire the possibility to accept anonymous reporting, to avoid generating difficultsituationsforresearchers.

The second point relates to the possibilities for procedures to generate, by theirfunctioning, knowledge that would improve their ‘fairness’. This is most notablyachievablebysupportingtheincreasedtransparencyoftheprocedures,includingclarityon their scope, notably by including obligations in terms of openness about theproceduresandtheiroutcomes.

Fromalegalperspective,theabsenceofacleardefinitionofmisconduct(orequivalentnotions)inapplicablelawcouldbemitigatedbytheexistenceof‘caselaw’oratleastacorpusof decisionswhich progressivelydefine its contours, thus contributing to legalcertainty.233Inpractice,itappearsthatsuchinterpretativeworkishowevernottakingplaceinallEuropeannormativeframeworks,ornottakingplacewithenoughregularityandvisibilityastoallowreachingasignificantlyimprovedunderstandingofwhatistocount as a violation of research integrity and/or scientific misconduct. There is,additionally,onlylimitedcaselawfromcourtsonthesematters.

InNorway,similarconcernswereechoedduringtheconsultationprocessthatledtoanewlegalinstrumentin2017.TheNorwegianMinistryofEducationandResearchpointedoutindeedthat,despitetheexistenceofaNationalCommissionfortheInvestigationofResearchMisconduct,suchCommissionhadonlyinvestigated‘ahandfulofcases’,linkingthis fact to the persistence of ‘considerable doubt about the interpretation of the (…)

232 In 2015, in its Conclusions on Research Integrity the Council of the EU called for ‘the consistentapplicationoftheCodeinEU-fundedresearch’:CouncilConclusionsonResearchIntegrity,para.9.233ThereferencetoapplicablelawshallbeunderstoodherewithoutprejudicetothedivergencesbetweentheAnglo-SaxonandContinental-Europeanlegalsystems.



definitionofscientificmisconductsevenyearsaftertheCommissionwasestablished’.234IntheNetherlands,theLOWIusesitsobligationtoshareannualreportsonitsactivitiestodistil some of the lessons on the scope of misconduct that can be derived from itsopinions,235itcouldbedescribedasareflectiveexerciseusefulforitsownlearning,butalsoforlearningbyotheractors.

Finally, some thought shall be given to the relation between the analysed ‘fairness’requirements and the question of whistleblower protection. As epytomised by theProposal published by the European Commission in April 2018, strengtheningwhistleblower protection can be perceived as ultimately pursuing the prevention ofbreachesoflaw,andthustheprotectionofthepublicinterest.WhereastheECtHRhas,inthis line, regularlyemphasised theneed toprotect academicsand scientists especiallywhentheyvoiceoutorputforwardcasesofmisconductormalpractice,instrumentsonresearch integrity and scientific misconduct appear to almost systematically distrustindividualsbringingforwardallegationsofmisconduct,oratleasttothrowshadowsofsuspiciononthepossiblegoodfaithoftheiraccusations,offeringthemlimitedavenuesfor support.While it is true that allegations (foundedor unfounded) candramaticallyimpactthelifeandcareeroftheaccused,practiceappearstoshowthatbringingforwardallegationscanalsohaveseriousconsequencestotheindividualwhodecidedtotakesuchstep, independently of concrete retaliating measures. Taking into account that somesystems imposeonscientists andacademicsaduty toreport suspectedmisconduct, itcould seemmoreappropriate forproceduresnot todistrustbydefault thosewhousethem,unless,asamatteroffact,theywouldmistrustthemselvesandtheirowncapacitytodeliverreal‘fairness’.

234NorwegianMinistryofEducationandResearch,‘ConsultationPaper–ResearchEthicsinNorway’,29.TheConsultationPaperhighlightedalsoasaparticularlyseriousproblemtheapparentconflationofthequalificationofplagiarisminaresearchethicscontextwithintellectualpropertyrules;NorwegianMinistryofEducationandResearch,32.235See,forinstance,onplagiarism:TheNetherlandsBoardonResearchIntegrity(LOWI),3.



References

‘“Brazen” UQ Research Fraudster Caroline Barwood given Suspended Sentence’. ABCNews, 25 October 2016. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-25/uq-dr-caroline-barwood-avoids-jail-on-fraud-charges/7963178.

Collste, Göran. ‘Principles and Approaches in Ethics Assessment: Research Integrity’.StakeholdersActingTogetherontheEthicalImpactAssessmentofResearchandInnovation(SATORI),June2015.

Corvol,Pierre,‘BilanetpropositionsdemiseenœuvredelaChartenationaled’intéritéscientifique’,juin2016.

Dauenhauer,NenadJariç.‘PlagiarismProbeOpenedintoCroatia’sNewScienceMinister’.Chemistry World, 3 November 2016.https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/plagiarism-probe-opened-into-croatias-new-science-minister/1017637.article.

European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). ‘Opinion on a Notification for PriorChecking Received from the Data Protection Officer of the European ResearchCouncil Executive Agency Regarding the “Procedure on How to Deal withInformationonScientificMisconduct”’.Brussels,9July2014.

European Research Council (ERC). ‘Annual Report on the ERC Activities andAchievementsin2015,PreparedundertheAuthorityoftheERCScientificCouncil’,2016.

———.‘AnnualReportontheERCActivitiesandAchievementsin2016,PreparedundertheAuthorityoftheERCScientificCouncil’,2017.

EuropeanScienceFoundation(ESF)MemberOrganisationForumonResearchIntegrity.‘FosteringResearchIntegrityinEurope’.Strasbourg:2010,n.d.

‘FormerUniversityofQueenslandProfessorBruceMurdochChargedoverAllegedFakeParkinson’s Research’. ABC News, 30 June 2015.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/university-of-queensland-professor-on-fraud-charges/5964476.

GlobalScienceForumoftheOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD). ‘Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity and PreventingMisconduct’,2007.

Harris, David, Michael O’Boyle, Ed Bates, and Carla Buckley. Law of the EuropeanConventiononHumanRights.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2014.

Heilbron, Johan. ‘Scientific Research: Dilemmas and Temptations (Second Edition)’.Amsterdam:RoyalNetherlandsAcademyofArtsandSciences,2005.



MacMahon,Marilyn. ‘TougherActionNeeded intheFightagainstScientificFraud’.TheConversation, 8 November 2016. https://theconversation.com/tougher-action-needed-in-the-fight-against-scientific-fraud-68076.

NorwegianMinistryofEducationandResearch.‘ConsultationPaper–ResearchEthicsinNorway’,2015.

ResearchCouncilsUK(RCUK).‘ConcordattoSupportResearchIntegrity-“Commitment5”RCUKAnnualNarrativeStatementonResearchIntegrity’,2016.

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Committee on ScientificResearch Data. ‘Responsible Research DataManagement and the Prevention ofScientificMisconduct(AdvisoryReport)’.Amsterdam,2013.

Science Europe. ‘Advancing Research Integrity Practices and Policies: FromRecommendation to Implementation (Workshop Report: Brussels, 22 February2017)’.Brussels:ScienceEurope,May2017.

———. ‘Research Integrity in theEuropeanPolicyLandscape:OpenLetter byScienceEuropeGoverningBoard’,15December2016.

ScienceEuropeWorkingGrouponResearchIntegrity-TaskGroupKnowledgeGrowth.‘SevenReasonstoCareaboutIntegrityinResearch’.Brussels:ScienceEurope,June2015.

The Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation. ‘National Systems forHandlingCasesofResearchMisconduct:ReportBasedonaSurveyConductedintheFallof2012with15RespondentsfromVariousCountries’,January2013.

TheNetherlandsBoardonResearchIntegrity(LOWI).‘AnnualReport2014’.Amsterdam,June2015.

———.‘AnnualReport2015’.Amsterdam,February2016.

———.‘AnnualReport2016’.Amsterdam,February2017.

Universities UK. ‘The Concordat to Support Research Integrity: A Progress Report’.London,November2016.

Wolfslehner, Doris, and Erich Griessler. ‘Ethics Assessment in Different Countries:Austria’. Stakeholders Acting Together on the Ethical Impact Assessment ofResearchandInnovation(SATORI),June2015.

promoting integrity as an integral dimension of excellence in … · 2018. 5. 3. · the case was...

Documents