The Finnish Guidelines on Responsible Conduct of Research Markku Helin.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Role of the IRB An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a review committee established to help protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects.
Advertisements

ERASMUS STAFF PLACEMENTS First year experiences at UCY ERACON Conference 8 th -11 th, May 2008, Lisbon.
Auditing, Assurance and Governance in Local Government
What’s coming down the road? (or: “You’ll never know what hit you”)
Procedures for Dealing with Student Discipline and Misconduct Presented by: Linda Bird – Academic Registrar Adriana Jumelet – Secretary, Disciplinary Board.
Student Integrity and Misconduct Training and support for decision makers and Academic Integrity Officers.
Plagiarism New academic staff training S.Donegan 30 th Nov
Administrative Procedures for Allegations of Research Misconduct Executive Summary (see WSU Policy 2101 for Details)
Michael Scian, MBA, JD Assistant Director of Compliance University of Florida.
The Adjudication Process Virginia Department of Health Professions New Board Member Training October 2008.
Fundamentals of IRB Review. Regulatory Role of the IRB Authority to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove all research.
The Legal Series: Employment Law I. Objectives Upon the completion of training, you will be able to: Understand the implications of Title VI Know what.
The Division of Student Affairs University of North Carolina Wilmington.
Research Ethics The American Psychological Association Guidelines
School Development Planning Initiative
Process for Policy Development and Mechanism for Policy Concerns.
Tutkimuseettinen neuvottelukunta | Forskningsetiska delegationen | Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity Responsible conduct of research and procedures.
WU Research Integrity Policy 2010 Revision Presentation for the Committee on Research Integrity for the School of Medicine December 1, 2010 Attachment.
The Responsible Conduct of Research at UTAS Office of Research Services.
Running Your Club Corporate Governance Presentation.
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS ETHICS: Rules of conduct recognized in respect to the actions of persons in the profession CODE OF ETHICS: Governs the behavior of.
Tutkimuseettinen neuvottelukunta | Forskningsetiska delegationen | Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity FINNISH ADVISORY BOARD ON RESEARCH INTEGRITY.
Chapter 11: Follow-up Reviews and Audit Evaluation ACCT620 Internal Auditing Otto Chang Professor of Accounting.
Internal Auditing and Outsourcing
APPRAISAL OF THE HEADTEACHER GOVERNORS’ BRIEFING
Scientific Misconduct. Scientific Misconduct Definition "Misconduct in Research" means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that.
A Review of Board of Health Liability James A. LeNoury LeNoury Law Counsel to alPHa February 5th, 2015.
Responsible Conduct of Research Training Research Misconduct Source: Office of Research and Grants (ORG)
John Oates Andrew Rawnsley Birgit Whitman. Plan The background to the Framework The structure of the Framework How the Framework might be implemented.
University of Warsaw The Office for Quality of Education 11th of December th of December 2008.
PERIODIC ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMS AT UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL Office of the Provost Hélène David, associate vice-rector academic affairs Claude Mailhot, Professor.
Research Integrity The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research Dr Peter Wigley Manager, Research Ethics and Integrity Flinders University.
A EUROPEAN WORKS COUNCIL WHAT IS IT FOR ? the legal framework.
Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice in Germany Prof. Ulrike Beisiegel Chair of the DFG Ombudsman DFG Ombudsman Germany Director of the Institute of Molecular.
1 Investigating Fraud & Abuse Violations in Medical Research Janet Rehnquist, Esq. Venable LLP th Street, NW Washington, DC
Research Integrity & Misconduct Research Ethics, Education, and Policy Office of Research Administration.
TRUELL HYDE VICE PROVOST FOR RESEARCH SINDA VANDERPOOL ASSISTANT VICE PROVOST FOR ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT LINDA CATES DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF ACADEMIC.
1 General Structure of a System Dealing with Research Misconduct - General Remarks on its diversity - Makoto Misono National Institute of Technology and.
LISTINGS BY TALIBAN AND AL-QAIDA SANCTIONS COMMITTEE Briefing to the Select Committee on Security and Justice 12 Augustus
Procedure for the resolution of grievances in the ILO.
APPRAISAL OF THE HEADTEACHER GOVERNORS’ BRIEFING.
Local Assessment of Code of Conduct Complaints. Background  On 08 May 2008 – the local assessment of Code of Conduct complaints was implemented due to.
Tax Administration Diagnostic Assessment Tool MODULE 11 “POA 9: ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY”
Audits Allegations Secret Shops Corrective Actions.
Capitolina Díaz Martínez General Director for Equality in Employment Ministry of Equality May 2009, Aarhus University "The Spanish path to fix science.
DEVELOPMENT OF A WHITE PAPER ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Ministry of Correctional Services.
Briefing to the Portfolio Committee on Police 21 August
University of Warsaw. The quality of education assurance and enhancement system at the University of Warsaw.
Squash Australia Limited High Performance Re view Progress Report National Workshop, Brisbane, 21 st March 2015.
Regional Accreditation Workshop For Asia and Eastern Europe Manila, Philippines th March, 2012.
Challenges in Promoting RCR: Reflections from a Public Funder´s Perspective Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research [Canadian Institutes of Health.
For learning and competence The Finnish approach to NQF/EQF Dr. Carita Blomqvist, Head of Unit, Counsellor of Education Finnish National Board of Education.
TAIEX-REGIO Workshop on Applying the Partnership Principle in the European Structural and Investment Funds Bratislava, 20/05/2016 Involvement of Partners.
MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF BANDS
Quality Assurance in Egypt and the European Standards and Guidelines
Portfolio Committee on Police DNA National Forensics Oversight and Ethics Board 23 November 2016.
Auditor Training Module 1 – Audit Concepts and Definitions
Principles of Administrative Law <Instructor Name>
Research Misconduct Michael Scian, MBA, JD Assistant Director of Compliance University of Florida.
Research Integrity & RMIT
Responsibilities and Duties of Members and Staff
WORKSHOP DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS IN UKRAINE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE: PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF JUDICIAL MISCOONDUCT.
DFG Ombudsman Germany Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice Recommendation of the Germany Research Foundation Prof. Ulrike Beisiegel Chair of the DFG Ombudsman.
Committees dealing with Taliban and Al-Qaida
Managing Cases of Research Misconduct
Portfolio Committee on Police DNA National Forensics Oversight and Ethics Board 23 November 2016.
Penn State University Change Initiatives Presented By: Matthew Bell Anjaih Clemons Obie Evans Bruce Kastner.
SRO APPROACH TO REGULATION
Georgiana Iorgulescu Executive Director Center for Legal Resources
Minnesota House of Representatives Policy Against Harassment and Discrimination overview of the Policy.
Presentation transcript:

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