The Finnish Guidelines on Responsible Conduct of Research Markku Helin

Promotion of Research Integrity in Finland Two basic pillars : – The Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK); – The work done at the local level in universities and other research institutions Proper dialogue and good cooperation between the pillars is a precondition for good results.

The main objectives of TENK Promotion of responsible conduct in research. Promotion of discussion and spreading information on research integrity. Monitoring international developments in the area. Preventing research misconduct. (Decree 1347/1991)

Composition of TENK Chair, vice-chair and 8 members. Appointed by the Ministry of Culture and Education among the persons proposed by the research community. All members, including the chair and vice-chair represent the research community in their personal capacity. The present TENK: 1 university chancellor, 4 university professors, 1 university lector, 1 lector of the university of applied sciences, 1 director of a research institute, 2 representatives of major research funding organizations. The permanent staff: 1 general secretary, 1 – 2 assisting persons.

The working methods of TENK in practice Organizing seminars on research integrity (RI) and participation on them at home and abroad; Giving opinions on planned reforms having relevance with regard to RI; Giving lections and providing universities with teaching materials concerning RI; Arranging negotiations between TENK and universities in order to collect information of their specific situations and problems. Giving the second (and final) opinion on alleged violations against responsible conduct of research.

Guidelines on Responsible Conduct of Research The basic document, a corner stone for the promotion of RI in Finland. First Guidelines in 1994; minor revisions in 1998 and 2002, updating in The Guidelines cover all branches of research. Represents the self-regulation of the research community. The Guidelines has been established by TENK itself after having consulted different organizationas of the research community. The effectiveness of the Guidelines is based on a voluntary commitment by the research community to adhere to them.

Commitment to Guidelines A research organisation may commit itself to following the Guidelines by signing the committing form and submitting it to TENK. By signing the document a research organisation undertakes to follow the Guidelines in their activities arrange training on RI to its staff integrate teaching of RI into their graduate and postgraduate programs Investigate alleged violations of responsible conduct of research following the procedure set out in the guidelines notify TENK initiated procedures and findings made in them.

The contents of the Guidelines The Guidelines are divided into three parts: 1) Description of responsible conduct of research (RCR) 2) Characterisation of violations against RCR 3) Guidelines for handling of alleged violations

Violations against responsible conduct of research (RCR violations) Research misconduct Disregard for the RCR (Other irresponsible practices, that may in their most serious forms constitute an RCR violation).

Research misconduct Fabrication (e.g. reporting of a test that has never been made) Falsification (e.g. modifying the results by striking out results that does not fit the hypothesis) Plagiarism Misappropriation (”stealing” another researcher’s idea, research plan or observation)

Disregard for RCR Manifests itself as gross negligence and carelesness during the research process. Examples: Underestimation of the role of other researchers in publications Reporting results and methods in a careless manner Inadequate record-keeping and storage of research data. Publishing the same results multiple times as novel ones (”self- plagiarism). Misleading the research community in other ways.

Other irresponsible practices Examples: – Manipulating authorship (”honorary authors”, ”ghost authors”) – Exaggerating one’s own achievements in CV, in a list of publications or one’s homepage – Delaying the work of another researcher e.g. in the context of peer review. – Manipulating citation index by expanding the bibliography of a study in an artificial way. – Maliciously accusing other researcher of RCR violations.

Handling of alleged RCR violations The proceedings take place in the organisation, where the suspect research has mainly been done. The chancellor/rector of the university and the general director of other research organisation are responsible for carrying out the investigation. No specific prescription time, but no duty to initiate proceedings, if the case is so old that neither the integrity of research nor the protection of other researchers require investigation. Leading principles: fairness of the proceedings, impartiality, hearing of all parties involved, expediency.

Steps in the proceedings A written notification of the whistleblower or the rector’s decision to institute the investigation on its own motion. A preliminary inquiry The investigation proper and the appointment of an ad hoc investigation committee for that purpose. Preparation of the report of the case that includes a reasoned assesment on, whether research misconduct or disregard of RCR was found. Submitting the report to the rector/chancellor that takes the decision on the basis of it.

The role of TENK in handling RCR violations A party that is dissatisfied with the rector’s (chancellor’s) decision can request a stament of TENK within 6 months of the decision. The opinion of TENK may be asked concerning The appropriateness of the proceedings in the university or The conclusions of the rector (chancellor) as regards the findings concerning, whether there was an RCR violation or not. TENK may: Send the case back to the university, if it finds severe erros in procedures or collection of evidence was insufficient. Confirm the decision of the rector or change it as it finds appropriate.

Sanctions A statement that RCR violation was found in a reprimand of the research community to the researcher. The only sanction in RCR –proceedings is publicity. The documents submitted to TENK are in principle available to public. TENK may recommend that its finding are published in a proper way The rector may have other sanctions at disposal (suspending the researcher, cancellation of degree etc.). But these measures derive from legislation and are outside the scope of research integrity.

Statistics RCR-cases in universities (and research institutions) Notifications to TENK on instituted RCR-proceedings 8 19 Misconduct or disregard found 5 4 Misconduct or disregard not found 5 10 Cases pending 2 10

Statistics (continued) Number of Statements of TENK in RCR-cases Request of statements received by TENK 8 5 Number of statements given By TENK 5 5

The website of TENK