Critical evaluation of the guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity and of their application.

Liisa Räsänen,Erja Moore

doi:10.1186/s41073-016-0020-9

Abstract

We have national guidelines for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. The guidelines have been formulated and updated by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK). In this article, we introduce and evaluate the national RCR guidelines. We also present statistics of alleged and proven RCR violation cases and frequency of appeals to TENK on the decisions or procedures of the primary institutions. In addition, we analyze the available data on seven investigated cases in more detail. Positive aspects in the Finnish system are a fairly good infrastructure to investigate suspected RCR violations and a wide concept of RCR violations, which consists of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, misappropriation, and other misbehaviors. However, the guidelines contain poorly elaborated definitions, do not treat the complainant and the suspect in an equal way, and need to be revised. Confusion about the concepts and criteria of the RCR violations seems to be common in primary institutions and among the complainants. Even if research institutions and universities have officially adhered to the national RCR guidelines, slipping from the guidelines occurs quite commonly. All these factors lead to frequent dissatisfaction with the decisions or procedures applied, high rate of appeals to TENK, and far from optimal functionality of the system.

Highlights

Research misconduct in the form of fabrication and falsification is thought to be rare, though it is difficult to obtain a reliable estimate of the actual rate [1,2,3,4]
Definitions of research misconduct and procedures to handle alleged violations of the responsible conduct of research (RCR) vary between different countries, and various practices may be in use even within the same country [9–13]
According to Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK)’s statement from 2011, the institutions had mismanaged the case in several ways: no proper preliminary inquiry led by the rector or director had been done, no investigation committee had been set up, A had not been heard during the investigation, no contra-accusation against A should have been presented in the decision, and TENK had not been notified of the investigation

Summary

Background

Research misconduct in the form of fabrication and falsification is thought to be rare, though it is difficult to obtain a reliable estimate of the actual rate [1,2,3,4]. According to TENK, B was guilty of disregard for the RCR but not of misappropriation, because he had not presented the research plan as his own but mentioned the other researchers as collaborators We regard this decision from 2009 as wrong, and in our opinion, the deed clearly fulfills the criteria of fabrication. According to TENK’s statement from 2011, the institutions had mismanaged the case in several ways: no proper preliminary inquiry led by the rector or director had been done, no investigation committee had been set up, A had not been heard during the investigation, no contra-accusation against A should have been presented in the decision, and TENK had not been notified of the investigation. The investigation team ruled in 2012 that A had belittled B’s work, B was entitled to authorship, and A was guilty of disregard for the RCR It seems that none of the parties later requested TENK’s statement on the case.

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion