6.2 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientific integrity | 5/7 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T03:45:42.549163+00:00 | kb-cron |
In 2018, Heidi Laine attempted to establish a nearly-exhaustive list of "ethical principles associated with open science":
This categorization has to contend with the diversity of approaches and values associated with the open science movement and their ongoing evolutions, as the "term will likely remain as fluid as any other attempt to coin a complex system of practices, values and ideologies in one term". Laine identified a significant variation in the way open science principles have been embedded in four major codes of conduct and statements on research integrity: the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010), the Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations (2013), the Responsible Conduct of Research and Procedures for Handling Allegations of Misconduct in Finland (2012) and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017). Access to research publications is recommended in all four codes. Integrations of data sharing and reproducibility practices are less obvious, and vary from a tacit approval to detailed support, in the case of the later European Code of Conduct: "The European code pays data management almost an equal amount of attention as publishing and is also in this sense the most advanced of the four CoCs." Yet, important areas of open science, are consistently ignored, especially regarding the development of open science infrastructure, increased transparency of evaluation or support for citizen science and wider social impact. Overall, Laine found "none of the evaluated CoCs to be in blatant contradiction with the ethical principles of open science, but only the European code of conduct can be said to actively support and give guidance on open science." After 2020, new forms of open science code of conduct have explicitly claimed to "foster the ethos of open scientific practices". First adopted in July 2020, the Hong Kong principles for assessing researchers acknowledge open science as one of the five pillars of scientific integrity: "It seems clear that the various modalities of open science need to be rewarded in the assessment of researchers because these behaviors strongly increase transparency, which is a core principle of research integrity."
=== Research integrity and society === While there is still a continuum between the procedural norms of the codes of conduct and the range of values encompassed by open science, open science has significantly altered the setting and the context of the ethical debate. Open scientific productions can be universally shared in theory: their dissemination is not constrained to the classic membership model of the "knowledge club". Implications are wider as well, as potential misuses of scientific publications is no longer limited to professional scientists. The discrepancy was already visible in the late 2000s, although it was framed under "different buzzwords": in a case study on the implementation of the Dutch code of conduct, Schuubiers, Osseweijer and Kinderlerer already identified a "shift in practices" that "goes by many names like Mode 2 science, post-normal science, or post-academic science" that a diverse array of transfrom such as technological evolution in the management of research, increased involvement of private actors, open innovation or open access. These structural trends were not well covered by the existing codes of conduct. In the 1990s and the 2000s, discussions about research integrity have become increasingly professionalized and detached from the public domain. The shift toward open science may potentially contradict this trend, as the range of interesting parties and potential reusers of scientific production has expanded well beyond professional academic circles. In 2018, Heidi Laine underlines that established codes of conduct have not yet taken this decisive step: "The one aspect where even the European code falls short of a full recognition of open science is in crossing the traditional professional borders of the research community, i.e. citizen science, open collaboration and science communication." By not taking into account this new framework, existing codes of conduct risk becoming increasingly out of touch with the reality of scientific practices:
If the ethical aspects of open science continue to be left out of RCR (Responsible Code of Research) guidance and ponderings, the research community risks losses on both fronts: open science as well as RI (Research integrity). Open science is just as much about values and ethics as it is about technology. Most of all it is about the role of science in society. It is perhaps the most all-encompassing value discussion that the research community has ever known, and the research integrity angle and community of experts risks being side-lined. The broadened discussion about scientific integrity led to an increased involvement of political institutions and representatives, beyond specialized scientific committee and funders. In 2021, the French government passed a decree on scientific integrity, which called for generalization of open science practices.
== Initiatives == In 2007 the OECD published a report on best practices for promoting scientific integrity and preventing misconduct in science (Global Science Forum). Main international texts in this field:
European Charter for Researchers (2005) the Singapore statement on research integrity (2010) European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity of All European Academies (ALLEA) and the European Science Foundation (ESF) (2011 revised in 2017).
=== In Europe === The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, published in 2011 and revised in 2017, develops the concept of scientific integrity along four main lines :
Reliability: concerns the quality and reproducibility of research. Honesty: concerns the transparency and objectivity of research. Respect: for the human, cultural, and ecological environment of research. Accountability: concerns the implications of publishing the research.
=== In the USA ===
==== US Department of Health and Human Services ====