Critical evaluation of the guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity and of their application | Research Integrity and Peer Review | Full Text

Critical evaluation of the guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity and of their application | Research Integrity and Peer Review | Full Text

Critical evaluation of the guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity and of their application
Liisa RäsänenEmail author and Erja Moore
Research Integrity and Peer Review20161:15
DOI: 10.1186/s41073-016-0020-9© The Author(s) 2016
Received: 16 June 2016Accepted: 23 September 2016Published: 17 October 2016
Open Peer Review reports
Abstract

We have national guidelines for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. The guidelines have been formulated and updated by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK). In this article, we introduce and evaluate the national RCR guidelines. We also present statistics of alleged and proven RCR violation cases and frequency of appeals to TENK on the decisions or procedures of the primary institutions. In addition, we analyze the available data on seven investigated cases in more detail. Positive aspects in the Finnish system are a fairly good infrastructure to investigate suspected RCR violations and a wide concept of RCR violations, which consists of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, misappropriation, and other misbehaviors. However, the guidelines contain poorly elaborated definitions, do not treat the complainant and the suspect in an equal way, and need to be revised. Confusion about the concepts and criteria of the RCR violations seems to be common in primary institutions and among the complainants. Even if research institutions and universities have officially adhered to the national RCR guidelines, slipping from the guidelines occurs quite commonly. All these factors lead to frequent dissatisfaction with the decisions or procedures applied, high rate of appeals to TENK, and far from optimal functionality of the system.

Keywords

Research misconduct Guidelines on research integrity Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity TENK