European science conversations
by the community, for the community
Technological advancements shape our daily life, from the way we communicate to how we function. This also applies within the laboratory. Scientists’ interactions with technology are shaping the ways in which research is conducted, for the better.
Beyond a researcher’s personal responsibility, the entire research system is not currently adequate to support greater level of research integrity.
Is social sciences and humanity (SSH) research, by nature, the domain of blatant misconduct? Drawing the line between acceptable and contemptible behaviour is a much more complicated matter in the SSH than in the other sciences. It may require a revision of the principles governing research to provide a solid basis for enforcing good practices. In this opinion piece, Ioana Galleron, who is chair of the European Network for Research Evaluation in Social Sciences and Humanities (ENRESSH), an European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action, shares her perspective on research integrity.
The ultimate responsibility for good research practice lies with individual researchers. However, such practice can only flourish in a favourable research and funding environment. According to the findings of the latest report from Science Europe, who surveyed its members on research integrity policies and practice, there are still a number of measures that research organisations and funding agencies can take to guarantee a higher level of research integrity. Read on to learn about the Science Europe working group findings and recommendations.
Bad behaviour is omnipresent in science. It encompasses everything from outright scientific fraud, such as falsifying data, to other misconducts like cherry-picking data, favourable-looking images and graphs, and drawing conclusions that are not backed up by the actual facts. Overall, it matters more serious than keeping a sloppy lab notebook that no-one else can follow. This raises the deeper question: what drives scientists to behave in such a way?
This article evidences results from ESOF 2020, by having travel grantees telling their personal experiences as early-career researchers.
The Center for Innovation and Technology Transfer conducted a survey on the perception of ethical behaviour in different situations within public research organisations from researchers’ personal and institutional point of view.
Huge issues are facing our societies; climate change, antimicrobial resistance, feeding a growing population, resource shortages and pollution to name a few. Humanity is going to need the best people doing the best research in order for us to find ways to meet these challenges.
A commentary on Carlos Moedas article ‘Rekindling the love affair’ in ‘nature’ on May 23rd, 2019
Since the vote of the UK public to leave the EU in June 2016, there has been extensive discussion about the negotiations surrounding Brexit. This article assesses the impact of Brexit on European research. The UK is home to many excellent research institutions Read more […]
Academic and research integrity cannot be a side project or an afterthought. Integrity and ethics must be central to everything we do and every decision we make. We must work to ensure that we are putting integrity at the forefront of our mission and operations. To achieve objectives mentioned it requests to respect the framework of integrity policies, processes and procedures at all institutional levels. Integrity policies, processes and procedures are an inseparable and significant part of the whole set of functions/activities within an institution that work together for the aim of the institution.
Scientific integrity has become a major issue in scientific research. The debate about scientific fraud, plagiarism, and other forms of scientific misconduct has its origin in some highly publicised cases of eminent scientists accused of publishing fake data. These observations raise many questions. One of the known misconducts is the deliberate dropping of data points, acknowledged by 15% of scientists surveyed in recently published integrity studies asking them about their behaviour in the previous three years. This misconduct originates in a wrong understanding of what scientific knowledge is, and how it is progressively constructed, argues Michel Morange, director of the Centre Cavaillès for History and Philosophy of Sciences at the Ecole normale supérieure, Paris, France.
EuroScientist journal 
