Open science and codes of conduct on research integrity

Abstrakti

The purpose of this article is to examine the conceptual alignment between the ethical principles of research integrity and open science. Research integrity is represented in this study by four general codes of conduct on responsible conduct of research (RCR), three of them international in scope, and one national. A representative list of ethical principles associated with open science is compiled in order to create categories for assessing the content of the codes. According to the analysis, the current understanding of RCR is too focused on traditional publications and the so called FFP definition of research misconduct to fully support open science. The main gaps include recognising citizen science and societal outreach and supporting open collaboration both among the research community and beyond its traditional borders. Updates for both the content of CoCs as well as the processes of creating such guidelines are suggested.

Lähdeviitteet

Ahvenniemi, E., Akbashev, A. R., Ali, S., Bechelany, M., Berdova, M., Boyadjiev, S., ... Yurkevich, O. (2016). Review article: recommended reading list of early publications on atomic layer deposition—outcome of the “Virtual Project on the History of ALD”. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.1116/1.4971389
Ala-Kyyny, J., Korhonen, T., & Roinila, M. (2017). Tutkimusdatan avaamisen esteet: Haastattelututkimus helsingin yliopistossa. Signum, 49(4), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.25033/sig.69198
Aleksic, J., Alexa, A., Attwood, T. K., Chue Hong, N., Dahlö, M., Davey, R., ... Vieira, B. M. (2015). An open science peer review oath. F1000Research, 3, 271. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.5686.2
Ali-Khan, S. E., Harris, L. W., & Gold, E. R. (2017). Point of view: Motivating participation in open science by examining researcher incentives. eLife, 6, e29319. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.29319
All European Academies ALLEA, E. S. F. E. &. (2011). The european code of conduct for research integrity. https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Code_Conduct_ResearchIntegrity.pdf
Baden, T., Chagas, A. M., Gage, G., Marzullo, T., Prieto-Godino, L. L., & Euler, T. (2015). Open labware: 3-d printing your own lab equipment. PLOS Biology, 13(3), e1002086. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002086
Bartling, S., & Friesike, S. (eds.). (2014a). Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. Heidelberg: Springer Open. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8
Bartling, S., & Friesike, S. (2014b). Towards another scientific revolution. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing (pp. 3–15). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_1
Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013). Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 12(1), E6–E10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852879/
Bullock, M., & Panicker, S. (2003). Ethics for all: Differences across scientific society codes. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-003-0003-3
Crosas, M. (2013). Joint declaration of data citation principles. FORCE11. https://www.force11.org/datacitationprinciples
David, P. A. (2013). The historical origins of ’open science’: An essay on patronage, reputation and common agency contracting in the scientific revolution. Capitalism and Society, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.2202/1932-0213.1040
Dobbs, D. (2012). Is the open science revolution for real? Wired. https://www.wired.com/2012/02/is-the-open-science-revolution-for-real/
DORA – san francisco declaration on research assessment. (2012). https://sfdora.org/
Draft European open science agenda. (2016). https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/draft_european_open_science_agenda.pdf
Drenth, P. J. D. (2006). Responsible conduct in research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 13–21. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/PL00022265
Eisfeld-Reschke, J., Herb, U., & Wenzlaff, K. (2014). Research funding in open science. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing (pp. 237–253). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_16
Elliott, K. C. (2017). An introduction to values in science. In A tapestry of values: An introduction to values in science (pp. 1–18). New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190260804.003.0001
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008).The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
European Commission. (2016). H2020 Programme Guidelines on FAIR Data Management in Horizon 2020. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf
European Commission. (n.d.). Trends for open access to publications. European Commission - European Commission. Text. https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/goals-research-and-innovation-policy/open-science/open-science-monitor/trends-open-access-publications_en
Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing (pp. 17–47). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
Finland, O. K. (2016). Open citizen science. https://fi.okfn.org/projects/open-citizen-science/
Finnish Committee for Research Data. (2018). Tracing data: Data citation roadmap for finland. Finnish Committee for Research Data. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe201804106446
Funk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society | pew research center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
Giorgini, V., Mecca, J. T., Gibson, C., Medeiros, K., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2015). Researcher perceptions of ethical guidelines and codes of conduct. Accountability in Research, 22(3), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.955607
Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013). Guidance on research integrity: No union in europe. The Lancet, 381(9872), 1097–1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60759-X
Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2014). Heterogeneity in european research integrity guidance: Relying on values or norms? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(3), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614540594
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science : A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.
Kaiser, M. (1999). Development of international guidelines for research ethics: A commentary on ”scientific misconduct: Present problems and future trends”(b. Mishkin). Science and Engineering Ethics, 5(2), 293–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0021-x
Karjalainen, S., Launis, V., Pelkonen, R., & Pietarinen, J. (eds.). (2002). Tutkijan eettiset valinnat. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
Kuhn, T. S. (1964). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Laine, H. (2017). Afraid of scooping – case study on researcher strategies against fear of scooping in the context of open science. Data Science Journal, 16(0), 29. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-029
Laine, H. (2018). Open co-authorship of scientific articles. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1302235
Lategan, L. O. K. (2015). Software for academic integrity: The role of research codes, statements and declarations in research ethics and integrity. In Integrity in the global research arena (1st ed., pp. 165–176). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814632393_0021
Löfström, E. (2012). Students’ ethical awareness and conceptions of research ethics. Ethics & Behavior, 22(5), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2012.679136
Löppönen, P., Mäkelä, P. H., & Paunio, K. (eds.). (1991). Tiede ja etiikka. Porvoo: W. Söderström.
Löppönen, P., & Vuorio, E. (2013). Tutkimusetiikka suomessa 1980-luvulta tähän päivään. Tieteessä Tapahtuu, 31(1), 3.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science : Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation. (2018). Le plan national pour la science ouverte. Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation. m.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid132529/le-plan-national-pour-la-science-ouverte-les-resultats-de-la-recherche-scientifique-ouverts-a-tous-sans-entrave-sans-delai-sans-paiement.html
Mwaka, E. S. (2017). Responsible conduct of research: Enhancing local opportunities. African Health Sciences, 17(2), 584–590–590. https://doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v17i2.36
Nieminen, R., Bargum, K., Karvonen, E., Väliverronen, E., & Ruuska, M. (2018). Bold communication, responsible influence. Science communication recommendations. The Committee for Public Information. https://www.tjnk.fi/sites/tjnk.fi/files/recom_scicommunication_2018.pdf
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., ... Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374
O’Carroll, C., Rentier, B., Cabello Valdes, C., Esposito, F., Kaunismaa, E., Maas, K., ... Vandelvelde, K. (2017). Evaluation of research careers fully acknowledging open science practices rewards, incentives and/or recognition for researchers practicing open science. European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/os_rewards_wgreport_final.pdf
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Palacin-Silva, M., Seffah, A., Heikkinen, K., Porras, J., Pyhälahti, T., Sucksdorff, Y., ... Junttila, S. (2016). State-of-the art study in citizen observatories: Technological trends, development challenges and research avenues. Finnish Environment Institute. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/164810
Pontika, N., Knoth, P., Cancellieri, M., & Pearce, S. (2015). Fostering open science to research using a taxonomy and an eLearning portal. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on knowledge technologies and data-driven business(pp. 11:1–11:8). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2809563.2809571
Powell, A. (2012). Democratizing production through open source knowledge: From open software to open hardware. Media, Culture & Society, 34(6), 691–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443712449497
Rappert, B. (2007). Codes of conduct and biological weapons: An in-process assessment. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 5(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1089/bsp.2007.0003
Räsänen, L., & Moore, E. (2016). Critical evaluation of the guidelines of the finnish advisory board on research integrity and of their application. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0020-9
Research Integrity, W. C. on. (2011). Singapore statement on research integrity. https://wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement
Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science : An introduction. Routledge.
Resnik, D. B., Rasmussen, L. M., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). An international study of research misconduct policies. Accountability in Research, 22(5), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.958218
Rossouw, T. M., Zyl, C. van, & Pope, A. (2014). Responsible conduct of research: Global trends, local opportunities. South African Journal of Science, 110(1/2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1590/sajs.2014/20130103
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2013). Responsible research data management and the prevention of scientific misconduct: Advisory report. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. https://www.knaw.nl/en/actueel/publicaties/responsible-research-data-management-and-the-prevention-of-scientific-misconduct/@@download/pdf_file/20131009.pdf
Salmi, J. (n.d.). Study on open science: Impact, implications and policy options (vol. 2015). European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate RTD. https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/expert-groups/rise/study_on_open_science-impact_implications_and_policy_options-salmi_072015.pdf
Schuurbiers, D., Osseweijer, P., & Kinderlerer, J. (2009). Implementing the netherlands code of conduct for scientific practice—a case study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9114-9
Sieber, J. E. (1994). Scientists’ responses to ethical issues in research. In W. R. Shadish & S. Fuller (eds.), The social psychology of science. New York: Guilford Press.
Smith, E., Gunashekar, S., Parks, S., Lichten, C., Lepetit, L., Morgan Jones, M., & Van Der Peijl, S. (n.d.). Open science monitoring: Impact case study – polymath. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/monitor/polymath_case_study.pdf
Steneck, N., Anderson, M., Kleinert, S., & Mayer, T. (eds.). (2015). Integrity in the global research arena. WORLD SCIENTIFIC. https://doi.org/10.1142/9369
Stevens, M., Vitos, M., Altenbuchner, J., Conquest, G., Lewis, J., & Haklay, M. (2014). Taking participatory citizen science to extremes. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 13(2), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2014.37
Stroebe, W., & Strack, F. (2014).The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514450
Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
UNIFI. (2018). Avoin tiede ja data. Toimenpideohjelma suomalaiselle tiedeyhteisölle. Universities Finland UNIFI. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2018052424593
van Wezenbeek, W. J. S. M., Touwen, H. J. J., Versteeg, A. M. C., & van Wesenbeeck, A. (2017). Nationaal plan open science. https://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:9e9fa82e-06c1-4d0d-9e20-5620259a6c65
Vasconcelos, S. M. R., Sorenson, M. M., Watanabe, E. H., Foguel, D., Palácios, M., Vasconcelos, S. M. R., ... Palácios, M. (2015). Brazilian science and research integrity: Where are we? What next? Anais Da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 87(2), 1259–1269. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201520150165
Vicente-Saez, R., & Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research, 88, 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043
Whyte, A., & Pryor, G. (2011). Open science in practice: Researcher perspectives and participation | international journal of digital curation. International Journal of Digital Curation, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v6i1.182
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A.,... Mons, B. (2016). The fair guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
Williams, S. (2002). Free as in freedom: Richard Stallman’s crusade for free software. O’Reilly Media.
Julkaistu
2018-12-30
Viittaaminen
Laine, H. (2018). Open science and codes of conduct on research integrity. Informaatiotutkimus, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.23978/inf.77414
Osasto
Artikkelit