Complaints about integrity are often about something entirely different.

The current law on scientific integrity is often “abused” by “malicious complainants” who follow the rules of “hunting for leads” to file a complaint “at any cost.” To prevent this, integrity committees should tighten their rules on accepting complaints.

This was determined by an independent panel of ten scientists in an evaluation of the Dutch Code of Conduct for Scientific Integrity (NGWI). The code was requested by its authors: universities, colleges and research institutes. The evaluation is Posted on the website From the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, one of the authors.

The Committee believes that the Act, which was last revised in 2018, needs to be partially revised. In particular, its “educational” function could be better used to explain and discuss integrity issues. This would foster a “healthy research culture” in which in-depth discussions on integrity could take place.

“Ideally, the code has a preventive effect,” says committee chair Ineke Slaughter. “We want to strengthen this function of the code. The aim is for the profession to educate itself and take sanctions where necessary.”

Other types of conflicts

The practice of complaints continues to reveal uncertainty about the content and limits of integrity. The Committee is concerned by the suggestion that the “vast majority” of complaints to university integrity committees and the National Authority for Scientific Integrity (LOWI) do not concern integrity but “other types of conflict”. These relate to “issues relating to hierarchy, power relations, competition or substantive disagreements”. The Committee wrote that this point “came up repeatedly during the consultations”.

The goal is for the profession to educate itself.

To prevent such improper use, the Committee recommends that stricter conditions be imposed on the admissibility of complaints. Problems that fall outside the scope of the law should be considered inadmissible. It should be shown that an admissible complaint that does not reveal a breach of integrity but rather a “less serious defect” would have no consequences for the defendant’s legal status.

Slaughter: “You have to formulate the criteria for good research in a positive way, so that researchers can think: This is how it should be done. In addition, you have to make it clear that there is a spectrum in integrity issues, that it is not always black and white, and that a minimum threshold should be indicated. The code can then serve as a basis for a ‘comprehensive discussion.’”

Legislation

The Commission also warns against further “legalization” of the complaints procedure. Often, complainants and defendants bring lawyers with them, and disputes are “fought to the extremes of the law.” Slater: “This is one problem. Another undesirable form of legislation is to make scientific integrity a subject of legislation, as is the case in some other countries. This could hamper the preventive and educational function of the Code. It should continue to be self-regulatory.”

Training is important. Institutions should “regularly and systematically” train all research participants on integrity issues “regardless of seniority.” The Committee noted that such training is rarely provided to senior researchers, “while greater awareness of it could be encouraged among this group.”

The Code, which also applies to practice-oriented research in higher vocational education, sets standards for good scientific research based on five principles: honesty, care, transparency, independence and responsibility for ethical practice. It is a “dynamic” document that must be able to adapt to new developments in science and society. This includes transparency requirements, rules on artificial intelligence, concern for knowledge security, and discussions on academic freedom and diversity.

Additional Function Criteria

The Committee notes that the Code is highly valued in this area. But its “positive” value should be emphasized more. This could be done, among other things, by clarifying criteria for additional positions, formulating rules for scientists’ participation in public debate, or explaining the difference between academic freedom and freedom of expression. Publications found to be inappropriate should also be withdrawn quickly and clearly, in consultation between institutions.

New key topics such as knowledge security, Open Science Diversity, for which there are already separate guidelines, should be mentioned in the Code, the Committee believes, but it has not been elaborated on. Preventing loss of focus. Slaughter: “Otherwise the end will be lost.” The advice is that the writing committee should start updating the code this fall.