2 Violations of good scientific practice

It is in the interest of science that all allegations regarding improper conduct in research are investigated. The Academy’s guidelines are intended for handling alleged violations of good scientific practice in situations where the suspect is a tenured researcher employed by the Academy or working at a university or other research institute with Academy funding. The Academy seeks to incorporate in its international agreements provisions regarding compliance with its ethical guidelines in the context of international cooperation, such as researcher exchange and international mobility of researchers more generally.

2.1 Definitions

For reasons of consistency the Academy's guidelines on research ethics use the same definitions as those issued by the National Advisory Board on Research Ethics. Therefore in the Academy's guidelines, violations of good scientific practice are classified in the same way into two categories:

• misconduct in science: and
• fraud in science.

In keeping with the guidelines of the National Advisory Board on Research Ethics, misconduct in science and fraud in science shall be understood as follows:
"Misconduct and fraud in science may be perpetrated in the research process and in the presentation of results and conclusions. Misconduct and fraud in science not only violate the integrity of science, but those perpetrating them may also be guilty of an unlawful act. Honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data, meanwhile, are part of the scientific debate and do not violate good scientific practice."

Misconduct in science is manifested as

• gross negligence and irresponsibility especially in the conduct of research.

Other examples of misconduct in science include

• understatement of other researchers' contribution to a publication;
• negligence in referring to earlier findings;
• careless and hence misleading reporting of research findings and the methods used;
• negligence in recording and preserving results;
• publication of the same results several times as new; and/or
• misleading the research community about one's own research.

Fraud in science means deceiving the research community and often also decision-makers. It is to give false information or present false results to the research community or to disseminate them for instance in a publication, in a paper presented at a scientific conference, in a manuscript submitted for publication or in a grant application. Different
manifestations of fraud are illustrated below in four categories: fabrication, misrepresentation, plagiarism and misappropriation.

• Fabrication is to present fabricated data to the research community. Fabricated data have not been obtained in the manner or by the methods described in the report. Presenting fabricated results in a research report is also fabrication.
• Misrepresentation (falsification) means intentionally altering or presenting original findings in a way which distorts the result. Misrepresentation means scientifically unjustified alteration or selection of results. It is also misrepresentation to omit results or data pertinent to conclusions.
• Plagiarism is to present someone else's research plan, manuscript, article or text, or parts thereof, as one's own.
• Misappropriation means that a researcher illicitly presents or uses in his/her own name an original research idea, plan or finding disclosed to him/her in confidence."

2.2 The role of different institutions

Researchers in charge of projects funded by the Academy, tenured researchers employed by the Academy and the organisations conducting the research shall apply the procedures set out in these guidelines when there are grounds for suspecting or when notification is received of an instance of misconduct or fraud in science.

In keeping with the guidelines of the National Advisory Board on Research Ethics, the factors most relevant to legal protection in the process are:

• "fairness and impartiality, 
• the hearing of all parties concerned, and 
• a speedy process."

Responsibility for handling alleged violations of good scientific practice rests with the organisation conducting the research. In line with the guidelines of the National Advisory Board on Research Ethics, the procedure entails that every phase of the process is carefully documented and that the right to information of the parties concerned is respected.

The decision on opening an inquiry or investigation proper shall be made by the organisation conducting the research. The organisation shall inform the Academy of its decision in writing.

During the inquiry and the investigation the director of the organisation concerned must safeguard the legal protection of both the complainant and the suspected perpetrator and in general ensure that the matter is handled appropriately. The actual implementation of the inquiry and the investigation proper is also the responsibility of the management of the research organisation.

Steps must be taken to guarantee a flexible process at all stages. If the researcher suspected of misconduct or fraud in science has worked in many different research communities, consideration of the allegation will require cooperation between these research organisations.

2.3 Procedure

As well as following the guidelines issued by the National Advisory Board on Research Ethics, the inquiry procedure must comply with legislation concerning administrative procedures and access to official documents. The procedure must also ensure impartiality and sufficient expertise, and in general pay attention to the legal protection of the parties involved at all stages. Requirements of confidentiality must also be taken into account.

The Academy must be informed in writing of the decision to terminate the investigation. The final report of the investigation complete with justifications must also be made available to the Academy.

If the suspect is a tenured researcher employed by the Academy, the panel conducting the investigation must include a representative appointed by the Academy.