Presentation given at the 2015 Academic Mindtrek Conference at the workshop "Beyond Open Access: The changing culture of producing and disseminating scientific knowledge". Workshop was organised by the Open Knowledge Foundation Finland Open Science Working Group.

1. Open Science and Research
Integrity
Beyond Open Access: The Changing Culture of Producing
and Disseminating Scientific Knowledge
Heidi Laine
Academic Mindtrek 2015

2. About me
Doctoral candidate at the University of Helsinki
Background in Social Science History (Economic and Social History)
Previously worked f.e. at Council of Finnish Academies, Finnish Advisory Board
on Research Integrity and Centre for Scientific Computing - CSC
Open Knowledge Finland Open Science Working Group core person

3. Open
Science
Science in Society
Citizen Science
Open Data
Open Access
Open Methods
Open Notebook Science
Science Journalism
Open Collaboration
Digital Humanities
Computational Social
Science
MOOCs
Open SourceOPEN EDUCATION
Fact checking
Popular Science
Multidisciplinarity
Open GLAM
Science Diplomacy
Evidence based decision making

4. “In general terms, responsible conduct in
research is simply good citizenship
applied to professional life.”
The ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research
https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/rcrintro.pdf

5. Falsification
Fabrication
Plagiarism

6. The grey area
“In addition to fabrication, falsification and plagiarism many other forms of objectionable practices in
scientific research deserve attention. Some of them have serious moral or legal consequences, others
may create nuisance, discontent or procedural dissension. Many of them may undermine public trust
in science same as basic infringements of scientific integrity, and should therefore be taken seriously
by the scientific community.
[...] the dividing line between acceptable and not acceptable practices is somewhat vague, and may
vary over nations, regions or disciplines. But there is also a thin borderline between some violations of
these practices and the serious types of misconduct, as discussed in section 2.2.4. Unjustified claimed
authorship and ghost authorship are forms of falsification, purloining ideas as an editor or reviewer is
plagiarism, causing pain or stress to research participants or to expose them to hazards without
informed consent is certainly ethically unacceptable behaviour.”
- The European Code for Research Integrity
http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/Code_Conduct_ResearchIntegrity.pdf

7. 1 in 50
The number of researchers that have admitted to having fabricated, falsified or
modified data or results at least once.
Link to the article by Daniele Fanelli (2009):
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

8. Impact Factor
The impact factor (IF) of an
academic journal is a measure
reflecting the average number of
citations to recent articles
published in that journal. It is
frequently used as a proxy for
the relative importance of a
journal within its field, with
journals with higher impact
factors deemed to be more
important than those with lower
ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impa
ct_factor
“
“I am a scientist. Mine is a professional world that achieves great
things for humanity. But it is disfigured by inappropriate incentives.
The prevailing structures of personal reputation and career
advancement mean the biggest rewards often follow the flashiest
work, not the best. Those of us who follow these incentives are
being entirely rational – I have followed them myself – but we do
not always best serve our profession's interests, let alone those of
humanity and society.
We all know what distorting incentives have done to finance and
banking. The incentives my colleagues face are not huge bonuses,
but the professional rewards that accompany publication in
prestigious journals.” - Randy Schekman
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-
nature-science-cell-damage-science

9. “Stapel did not deny that his deceit was driven by ambition. But it was
more complicated than that, he told me. He insisted that he loved social
psychology but had been frustrated by the messiness of experimental
data, which rarely led to clear conclusions. His lifelong obsession with
elegance and order, he said, led him to concoct sexy results that journals
found attractive. “It was a quest for aesthetics, for beauty — instead of
the truth,” he said. He described his behavior as an addiction that drove
him to carry out acts of increasingly daring fraud, like a junkie seeking a
bigger and better high.”
From the New York Times story “The Mind of a Con Man” by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-
fraud.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

10. “Maximum access to data supports pre-eminently
scientific methods in which researchers check one
another's findings and build critically on one
another's work. In recent years, advances in
information and communication technology (ICT)
have been a major contributing factor in the free
movement of data and results.”
https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/responsible-research-data-management-and-the-prevention-of-scientific-
misconduct

11. 5. Research Findings: Researchers should share data and findings openly and
promptly, as soon as they have had an opportunity to establish priority and
ownership claims.
http://www.singaporestatement.org/
Singapore Statement

12. Objectivity requires facts capable of proof, and transparency in the handling of data. Researchers
should be independent and impartial and communication with other researchers and with the public
should be open and honest. [...]
1. Data: All primary and secondary data should be stored in secure and accessible form,
documented and archived for a substantial period. It should be placed at the disposal of
colleagues. The freedom of researchers to work with and talk to others should be guaranteed.
http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/Code_Conduct_ResearchIntegrity.pdf
European Code of Conduct for Research
Integrity

13. 2. The methods applied for data acquisition as well as for research and evaluation, conform to
scientific criteria and are ethically sustainable. When publishing the research results, the results are
communicated in an open and responsible fashion that is intrinsic to the dissemination of scientific
knowledge. [...]
4. The researcher complies with the standards set for scientific knowledge in planning and
conducting the research, in reporting the research results and in recording the data obtained during
the research.” In addition there is the following mention under the headline “Disregard for the
responsible conduct of research”: “inadequate record-keeping and storage of results and research
data”. http://www.tenk.fi/en/resposible-conduct-research-guidelines
Responsible conduct of research and
procedures for handling allegations of
misconduct in Finland

14. Defining Responsible Conduct of Research: the Finnish RCR Guideline in the
Changing Landscape of Research
Three different perspectives to the Finnish RCR guideline:
1) the defining and negotiating of the content,
2) the practical application of the values and the handling process described in
the guideline and
3) the standing against changing trends of research practices.
My research

15. Open Science has the
potential to reduce
research misconduct
through added
transparency.

16. Open Science is in
line with existing RCR
principles.

17. Open Science is
responsible science.

18. Thank you
Contact:
heidi.k.laine @ gmail.com
@ heidiklaine
thehonestbrokerblog.org