The integrity of research is much more than a misconduct

Start a conversation about the integrity of research and many researchers will assume that you are talking about misconduct. Too often, they are wrong.

Misconduct in research includes fraud, manufacturing and plagiarism. It is essential to treat this dishonesty thoroughly and fairly, but a tear must be repaired once the damage has been done. The integrity of the research includes such investigations, but that's a lot more. It is about creating systems that improve the quality, relevance and reliability of all searches.

The distinction is clear at the 6th Global Conference on Research Integrity, which is being held this week in Hong Kong. Yes, there are sessions on misconduct – but there are many others about improving science in general. The greatest impact on the integrity of research is achieved through sustainable improvements in daily research practices – better record keeping, verification of experimental designs, bias reduction techniques, rewards for work rigorous and incentive to share data, codes and protocols – rather than close efforts to find and punish some bad actors. (Both are important, of course, and sometimes the same policies can solve both problems.)

The confusion between integrity and misconduct is problematic as it prevents researchers from discussing ways to improve their work. Quality assurance experts or rigorous protocols sometimes avoid using terms such as "rigor" and "integrity" for fear of alienating colleagues by suggesting that their work lacks these qualities. A program put in place to encourage practices such as randomization and blindness in animal experiments has been invited to change the name from "research improvement project" to "project". optimization of research ". It's ridiculous. Nobody should be arrogant enough to think that his research can not be improved.

Conducting research with integrity, honesty and accuracy is a goal that every scientist should aspire with pride. And the integrity of the research is not a present or absent virtue: it is an ability that can be improved. This requires ongoing training for both early-stage researchers and the most experienced faculty members, as well as the re-engineering of perverse incentives and the rewards of researchers for their important but unconventional contributions. Every conversation or course on research integrity is an opportunity to grow. Expectations, skills, and standards need to be constantly updated, especially as new areas such as metaresearch learn more about practices that strengthen science.

The story confirms it. The idea of ​​informed consent is less than 100 years old. In the Nature research journals, blindness and randomization checks are barely more than six. Expectations that data and code will be fully open are becoming more commonplace. These are all examples of improving the integrity of the research. We should recognize them and look for more.