The European
Code of Conduct for
Research Integrity
REVISED EDITION

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
Revised Edition
Published in Berlin by
ALLEA - All European Academies
c/o Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Jaegerstr. 22/23
10117 Berlin Germany
secretariat@allea.org
www.allea.org
Layout: Susana Irles
Cover Picture: iStock©ALLEA - All European Academies, Berlin 2017
All rights reserved. Redistribution, including in the form of extracts, is permitted for
educational, scientific and private purposes if the source is quoted (unless otherwise
explicitly indicated by the article in question). Permission must be sought from ALLEA
for commercial use.
ISBN 978-3-00-055767-5

Table of Contents
Preamble3
1. Principles4

2. Good Research Practices

5

3. Violations of Research Integrity

8

Annex 1: Key Resources

10

Annex 2: Revision Process and List of Stakeholders12Annex 3: ALLEA Permanent Working Group on Science and Ethics

14

Preamble•••

R

esearch is the quest forknowledge obtained throughsystematic
study
and
thinking, observation
andexperimentation.
While different
disciplines may use different approaches,
they each share the motivation to increase
our understanding of ourselves and theworld in which we live. Therefore, "TheEuropean Code of Conduct for ResearchIntegrity" applies to research in all
scientific and scholarly fields.
Research is a common enterprise, carriedout in academic, industry and othersettings. It involves collaboration, direct
or indirect, which often transcendssocial, political and cultural boundaries.
It is underpinned by freedom to define
research questions and develop theories,
gather empirical evidence and employ
appropriate
methods.
Therefore,
research draws on the work of thecommunity of researchers and ideallydevelops independently of pressure
from commissioning parties and from
ideological, economic or political interests.

as a framework for self-regulation. It
describes professional, legal and ethicalresponsibilities, and acknowledges theimportance of the institutional settings
in which research is organised. Therefore,
this Code of Conduct is relevant andapplicable to publicly funded and private
research, whilst acknowledging legitimate
constraints in its implementation.
Interpretation of the values and principles
that regulate research may be affectedby social, political or technologicaldevelopments and by changes in the
research environment. An effective Codeof Conduct for the research community is,therefore, a living document that is updated
regularly and that allows for local or
national differences in its implementation.
Researchers, academies, learned societies,
funding agencies, public and private
research
performing
organisations,publishers and other relevant bodies eachhave specific responsibilities to observeand promote these practices and theprinciples that underpin them.

A basic responsibility of the researchcommunity is to formulate the principles
of research, to define the criteria for
proper research behaviour, to maximise
the quality and robustness of research,and to respond adequately to threats to,or violations of, research integrity. The
primary purpose of this Code of Conduct
is to help realise this responsibility
and to serve the research community31. Principles•••

Good research practices are based on
fundamental principles of research
integrity. They guide researchers in theirwork as well as in their engagement withthe practical, ethical and intellectual
challenges inherent in research.
These principles are:• Reliability in ensuring the qualityof research, reflected in the design, themethodology, the analysis and the use ofresources.
• Honesty in developing, undertaking,reviewing, reporting and communicating
research in a transparent, fair, full andunbiased way.
• Respect for colleagues, research
participants, society, ecosystems, cultural
heritage and the environment.
• Accountability for the research from
idea to publication, for its management
and organisation, for training, supervisionand mentoring, and for its wider impacts.

42. Good Research Practices•••

We describe good research practices in thefollowing contexts:• Research Environment• Training, Supervision and Mentoring• Research Procedures• Safeguards• Data Practices and Management• Collaborative Working• Publication and Dissemination• Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing

2.1 Research Environment• Research institutions and organisations
promote awareness and ensure a prevailingculture of research integrity.
• Research institutions and organisations
demonstrate leadership in providing clear
policies and procedures on good research
practice and the transparent and proper
handling of violations.
• Research institutions and organisations
support proper infrastructure for the
management and protection of data
and research materials in all their forms(encompassing qualitative and quantitative
data, protocols, processes, other researchartefacts and associated metadata) that arenecessary for reproducibility, traceability
and accountability.
• Research institutions and organisations
reward open and reproducible practices inhiring and promotion of researchers.

2.2Training, Supervision and Mentoring• Research institutions and organisations
ensure that researchers receive rigoroustraining in research design, methodology
and analysis.
• Research institutions and organisations
develop appropriate and adequate training
in ethics and research integrity to ensure that
all concerned are made aware of the relevant
codes and regulations.
• Researchers across the entire career
path, from junior to the most senior level,
undertake training in ethics and research
integrity.
• Senior researchers, research leaders andsupervisors mentor their team members
and offer specific guidance and training toproperly develop, design and structure theirresearch activity and to foster a culture ofresearch integrity.

2.3 Research Procedures• Researchers take into account the state-ofthe-art in developing research ideas.
• Researchers design, carry out, analyse anddocument research in a careful and wellconsidered manner.

5• Researchers
makeproperconscientious use of research funds.

and• Researchers publish results andinterpretations of research in an open,
honest, transparent and accurate manner,and respect confidentiality of data orfindings when legitimately required to do so.
• Researchers report their results in a waythat is compatible with the standards of thediscipline and, where applicable, can beverified and reproduced.

2.4 Safeguards• Researchers comply with codes andregulations relevant to their discipline.
• Researchers handle research subjects, bethey human, animal, cultural, biological,
environmental or physical, with respect
and care, and in accordance with legal andethical provisions.
• Researchers have due regard for thehealth, safety and welfare of the community,of collaborators and others connected with
their research.
• Research protocols take account of, andare sensitive to, relevant differences in age,gender, culture, religion, ethnic origin andsocial class.
• Researchers recognise and manage
potential harms and risks relating to theirresearch.

and curation of all data and research materials,
including unpublished ones, with secure
preservation for a reasonable period.
• Researchers, research institutions andorganisations ensure access to data is as
open as possible, as closed as necessary,and where appropriate in line with the
FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible,
Interoperable and Re-usable) for data
management.
• Researchers, research institutions andorganisations provide transparency about
how to access or make use of their data andresearch materials.
• Researchers, research institutions andorganisations acknowledge data as legitimate
and citable products of research.
• Researchers, research institutions andorganisations ensure that any contracts oragreements relating to research outputs
include equitable and fair provision for the
management of their use, ownership, and/or
their protection under intellectual property
rights.

2.6 Collaborative Working• All partners in research collaborations
take responsibility for the integrity of theresearch.

2.5 Data Practices and Management• All partners in research collaborations
agree at the outset on the goals of the researchand on the process for communicating theirresearch as transparently and openly as
possible.

• Researchers, research institutions andorganisations ensure appropriate stewardship• All partners formally agree at the startof their collaboration on expectations and6standards concerning research integrity,
on the laws and regulations that will apply,
on protection of the intellectual property
of collaborators, and on procedures forhandling conflicts and possible cases of
misconduct.
• All partners in research collaborations
are properly informed and consulted
about submissions for publication of theresearch results.

2.7 Publication and Dissemination• All authors are fully responsible for thecontent of a publication, unless otherwise
specified.
• All authors agree on the sequenceof authorship, acknowledging that
authorship itself is based on a significant
contribution to the design of the research,relevant data collection, or the analysis orinterpretation of the results.
• Authors ensure that their work is madeavailable to colleagues in a timely, open,transparent, and accurate manner, unlessotherwise agreed, and are honest in theircommunication to the general public andin traditional and social media.
• Authors acknowledge important work
and intellectual contributions of others,
including collaborators, assistants, andfunders, who have influenced the reported
research in appropriate form, and cite
related work correctly.
• All authors disclose any conflicts ofinterest and financial or other typesof support for the research or for the
publication of its results.

• Authors and publishers issue corrections
or retract work if necessary, the processes
for which are clear, the reasons are stated,
and authors are given credit for issuing
prompt corrections post publication.
• Authors and publishers consider
negative results to be as valid as
positive findings for publication anddissemination.
• Researchers adhere to the same criteria
as those detailed above whether they
publish in a subscription journal, an open
access journal or in any other alternative
publication form.

2.8 Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing• Researchers take seriously theircommitment to the research community
by participating in refereeing, reviewing
and evaluation.
• Researchers review and evaluate
submissions for publication, funding,appointment, promotion or reward in atransparent and justifiable manner.
• Reviewers or editors with a conflictof interest withdraw from involvement
in decisions on publication, funding,appointment, promotion or reward.
• Reviewers maintain confidentiality unlessthere is prior approval for disclosure.
• Reviewers and editors respect therights of authors and applicants, and seek
permission to make use of the ideas, data
or interpretations presented.

73. Violations of Research Integrity•••

It is of crucial importance that researchers
master the knowledge, methodologies andethical practices associated with their field.
Failing to follow good research practices violates
professional responsibilities. It damages theresearch processes, degrades relationships
among researchers, undermines trust in and thecredibility of research, wastes resources and may
expose research subjects, users, society or theenvironment to unnecessary harm.

3.1 Research Misconduct andother Unacceptable Practices
Research misconduct is traditionally defined
as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (theso-called FFP categorisation) in proposing,
performing, or reviewing research, or inreporting research results:• Fabrication is making up results andrecording them as if they were real.
• Falsification is manipulating researchmaterials, equipment or processes orchanging, omitting or suppressing data or
results without justification.
• Plagiarism is using other people’s work
and ideas without giving proper credit to theoriginal source, thus violating the rights of theoriginal author(s) to their intellectual outputs.
These three forms of violation are consideredparticularly serious since they distort the8research record. There are further violations ofgood research practice that damage the integrityof the research process or of researchers. In
addition to direct violations of the good research
practices set out in this Code of Conduct,
examples of other unacceptable practices
include, but are not confined to:• Manipulating authorship or denigrating
the role of other researchers in publications.
• Re-publishing substantive parts of
one’s own earlier publications, includingtranslations, without duly acknowledging or
citing the original (‘self-plagiarism’).
• Citing selectively to enhance own findings
or to please editors, reviewers or colleagues.
• Withholding research results.
• Allowing funders/sponsors to jeopardise
independence in the research process orreporting of results so as to introduce or
promulgate bias.
• Expanding unnecessarily the bibliographyof a study.
• Accusing a researcher of misconduct orother violations in a malicious way.
• Misrepresenting research achievements.
• Exaggerating the importance and practicalapplicability of findings.

• Delaying or inappropriately hampering thework of other researchers.
• Misusing seniority to encourage violationsof research integrity.
• Ignoring putative violations of research
integrity by others or covering up
inappropriate responses to misconduct orother violations by institutions.
• Establishing or supporting journals that
undermine the quality control of research(‘predatory journals’).
In their most serious forms, unacceptable
practices are sanctionable, but at the very least
every effort must be made to prevent, discourage
and stop them through training, supervisionand mentoring and through the development ofa positive and supportive research environment.

3.2 Dealing with Violations andAllegations of Misconduct
National or institutional guidelines differ as
to how violations of good research practiceor allegations of misconduct are handled indifferent countries. However, it always is in theinterest of society and the research communitythat violations are handled in a consistent andtransparent fashion. The following principles
need to be incorporated into any investigation
process.
Integrity• Investigations are fair, comprehensive
and conducted expediently, withoutcompromising accuracy, objectivity or
thoroughness.

• The parties involved in the procedure
declare any conflict of interest that may arise
during the investigation.
• Measures are taken to ensure thatinvestigations are carried through to aconclusion.
• Procedures are conducted confidentiallyin order to protect those involved in theinvestigation.
• Institutions protect the rights of ‘whistleblowers’ during investigations and ensure that
their career prospects are not endangered.
• General procedures for dealing withviolations of good research practice are
publicly available and accessible to ensure
their transparency and uniformity.
Fairness• Investigations are carried out with due
process and in fairness to all parties.
• Persons accused of research misconduct
are given full details of the allegation(s) andallowed a fair process for responding toallegations and presenting evidence.
• Action is taken against persons for whom
an allegation of misconduct is upheld, which
is proportionate to the severity of the violation.
• Appropriate restorative action is taken
when researchers are exonerated of anallegation of misconduct.
• Anyone accused of research misconduct ispresumed innocent until proven otherwise.

9Annex 1: Key Resources

All European Academies (2013). "Ethics Education in Science". Statement by the
ALLEA Permanent Working Group on Science and Ethics.
www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Statement_Ethics_Edu_web_
final_2013_10_10.pdf [Accessed 15/01/2017]
AllTrials: Trials Registration and Reporting Platform.
http://www.alltrials.net/find -out-more/ [Accessed 14/03/2017]
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2017). The Brussels
Declaration: Ethics and Principles for Science & Society Policy-Making.
http://www.sci-com.eu/main/docs/Brussels-Declaration.pdf?58b6e4b4 [Accessed
14/03/2017]
Committee on Publication Ethics COPE. Guidelines.
http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines [Accessed 15/01/2017]
Data Citation Synthesis Group, Martone M. (ed.) (2014). Joint Declaration of Data
Citation Principles. San Diego, CA: FORCE11.
https://www.force11.org/group/joint-declaration-data-citation-principles-final[Accessed 15/01/2017]
EQUATOR Network: Reporting Guidelines to enhance the quality and transparency ofhealth research.
https://www.equator-network.org/ [Accessed 13/03/2017]
EURODAT. Collaborative Data Infrastructure: Guidelines on data management.
https://eudat.eu/data-management [Accessed 15/01/2017]
InterAcademy Partnership (2016). "Doing Global Science: A Guide to Responsible
Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise". Princeton University Press.
http://interacademycouncil.net/24026/29429.aspx [Accessed 15/01/2017]
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors andContributors.
http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/definingthe-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html [Accessed 15/01/2017]10

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Global
Science Forum (2007). Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity and Preventing
Misconduct.
https://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/40188303.pdf [Accessed 15/01/2017]
Research Data Alliance RDA (2016). RDA/WDS Publishing Data Workflows WG
Recommendations.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15497/RDA00004 [Accessed 15/01/2017]
Research Data Alliance RDA (2016). Data Description Registry Interoperability WG
Recommendations.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15497/RDA00003 [Accessed 15/01/2017]
UK Academy of Medical Sciences (2015). Perspective on ‘Conflict of Interest’.
https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/41514-572ca1ddd6cca.pdf [Accessed
13/03/2017]
Wilkinson MD et al. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data
management and stewardship, Scientific Data 3:160018 doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201618 [Accessed 15/01/2017]
World Conference on Research Integrity WCRI (2013). Montreal Statement on
Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations.
http://www.researchintegrity.org/Statements/Montreal%20Statement%20English.pdf[Accessed 05/01/2017]
World Conference on Research Integrity WCRI (2010). Singapore Statement on
Research Integrity.
www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html [Accessed 15/01/2017]11

Annex 2: Revision Process and List of Stakeholders

Revision ProcessThis document is based on "The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity"
developed in 2011 by All European Academies (ALLEA) and the European Science
Foundation (ESF). It is a living document that will be reviewed every three tofive years and revised as necessary to take account of evolving concerns, so that it
can continue to serve the research community as a framework for good research
practice.
The current revision is motivated by developments in, among others: the European
research funding and regulatory landscapes; institutional responsibilities; scientificcommunication; review procedures; open access publishing; the use of repositories;
and the use of social media and citizen involvement in research. Initiated by the
ALLEA Permanent Working Group on Science and Ethics, the revision included
extensive consultation among major stakeholders in European research, both public
and private, to ensure a sense of shared ownership.

12

List of stakeholders

Multilateral stakeholders' organisations that provided written feedback* and/or
participated at the stakeholder consultation meeting in Brussels in November 2016+:• BusinessEurope*+• Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)*• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)*+• Conference on European Schools for Advanced Engineering Education andResearch (CESAER)*+• DIGITALEUROPE*+• EU-LIFE*+• European Association of the Molecular and Chemical Sciences (EUCHEMS)*+• European Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO)*+• European Citizen Science Association (ECSA)*• European Commission*+• European Network of Research Integrity Offices (ENRIO)*+• European University Association (EUA)*+• Euroscience*+• FoodDrinkEurope*+• Global Young Academy (GYA)*+• League of European Research Universities (LERU)*+• Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe (OpenAIRE)*+• Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)+• Sense about Science*• Science Europe*+• Young European Associated Researchers (YEAR)*+• Young European Research Universities Network (YERUN)*+13

Annex 3: ALLEA Permanent Working Group on Scienceand Ethics

The ALLEA Permanent Working Group on Science and Ethics (PWGSE) is concernedwith a wide range of issues, both ‘internal’ (within the scientific community) and‘external’ (relations between science and society). Since ethical considerations havebeen an essential component in the consolidation of a united Europe, and also inthe creation of ALLEA, the PWGSE was established to bring together experts fromacademies across Europe and provide them with a platform for continuous debate
on research ethics and research integrity.
The PWGSE has been extending its capacities and activities during recent years,
in order to adequately fulfil its mission of collective deliberation on topics suchas research integrity, ethics education in science and research training, ethics ofscientific policy advice, trust in science, scientific misconduct, and plagiarism,
among others.
Further issues recently addressed include dual use of research outcomes, ethicalaspects of risks, science and human rights, support for higher education and researchin Palestine, research on human embryos, synthetic biology, nanotechnologies etc.
Additionally, the group provides expertise for the Horizon 2020 funded ENERI
project (European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity), whichaims to train experts in ethics related issues and to harmonise research integrity
infrastructures across Europe.
The PWGSE meets regularly and has also convened thematic meetings in wider
settings, typically in partnerships with other relevant organisations such as theEuropean Commission, the European Science Foundation (ESF), the International
Council for Science (ICSU), and UNESCO, among many others. The members of the
PWGSE drew on its extensive network of experts and institutions for the successful
execution of the revision process of "The European Code of Conduct for ResearchIntegrity".

14

Members of the ALLEA Permanent Working Group on Science and Ethics
Göran Hermerén (Chair) – Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities
Maura Hiney – Royal Irish Academy, Chair of Drafting Group
László Fésüs – Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Drafting Group
Roger Pfister – Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences, Drafting GroupEls Van Damme – Royal Academy of Sciences, Letters and Arts of Belgium, Drafting GroupMartin van Hees – Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Drafting Group
Krista Varantola – Council of Finnish Academies, Drafting GroupAnna Benaki – Academy of Athens (Greece)
Anne Fagot-Largeault – Académie des Sciences (France)
Ludger Honnefelder – Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
Bertil Emrah Oder – Bilim Akademisi (The Science Academy, Turkey)
Martyn Pickersgill – Royal Society of Edinburgh (United Kingdom)
Pere Puigdomenech – Royal Academy of Sciences and Arts of Barcelona / Institute for
Catalan Studies (Spain)
Kirsti Strøm Bull – Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Zbigniew Szawarski – Polish Academy of Sciences
Raivo Uibo – Estonian Academy of Sciences
Support to PWGSE and Drafting Group: Robert Vogt (ALLEA secretariat)

15

ALLEAALL European
A c a d e m i e s

ALLEA, the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, wasfounded in 1994 and currently brings together 59 Academies in more than 40
countries from the Council of Europe region. Member Academies operate as learned
societies, think tanks and research performing organisations. They are self-governing
communities of leaders of scholarly enquiry across all fields of the natural sciences,
the social sciences and the humanities. ALLEA therefore provides access to an
unparalleled human resource of intellectual excellence, experience and expertise.
Independent from political, commercial and ideological interests, ALLEA’s policy work
seeks to contribute to improving the framework conditions under which science andscholarship can excel. Jointly with its Member Academies, ALLEA is in a position toaddress the full range of structural and policy issues facing Europe in science, research andinnovation. In doing so, it is guided by a common understanding of Europe bound together
by historical, social and political factors as well as for scientific and economic reasons.
www.allea.org

Member Academies
Albania: Akademia E Shkencave E Shqipërisë; Armenia: գիտությունների ազգային
ակադեմիա; Austria: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften; Belarus: Нацыянальная
акадэмiя навук Беларусі; Belgium: Academie Royale des Sciences des Lettres et des Beaux-Artsde Belgique; Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten;
Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde; Academie Royale de langue et deliterature francaises de Belgique; Bosnia and Herzegovina: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti
Bosne i Hercegovine; Bulgaria: Българска академия на науките; Croatia: Hrvatska Akademija
Znanosti i Umjetnosti; Czech Republic: Akademie věd České republiky; Učená společnost České
republiky; Denmark: Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab; Estonia: Eesti Teaduste
Akadeemia; Finland: Tiedeakatemiain neuvottelukunta; France: Académie des Sciences - Institut
de France; Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres; Georgia: საქართველოს მეცნიერებათა
ეროვნული აკადემია; Germany: Leopoldina - Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften; Union
der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften; Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen,
Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Hamburg, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie derWissenschaften und der Künste, Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig (Associate
Members); Greece: Ακαδημία Αθηνών; Hungary: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia; Ireland: The
Royal Irish Academy - Acadamh Ríoga na hÉireann; Israel: ‫;האקדמיה הלאומית הישראלית למדעים‬Italy: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei; Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti; Accademia delle
Scienze di Torino; Kosovo: Akademia e Shkencave dhe e Arteve e Kosovës; Latvia: Latvijas
Zinātņu akadēmija; Lithuania: Lietuvos mokslų akademijos; Macedonia: Македонска
Академија на Науките и Уметностите; Moldova: Academia de Ştiinţe a Moldovei; Montenegro:
Crnogorska akademija nauka i umjetnosti; Netherlands: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie
van Wetenschappen; Norway: Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi; Det Kongelige Norske
Videnskabers Selskab; Poland: Polska Akademia Umiejętności; Polska Akademia Nauk;
Portugal: Academia das Ciências de Lisboa; Romania: Academia Română; Russia: Российская
академия наук (Associate Member); Serbia: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti; Slovakia:
Slovenská Akadémia Vied; Slovenia: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti; Spain: Real
Academia de Ciencias Morales y Políticas; Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales(Associate Member); Reial Acadèmia de Ciències i Arts de Barcelona; Institut d’Estudis Catalans;
Sweden: Kungl. Vetenskapsakademien; Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien;
Switzerland: Akademien der Wissenschaften Schweiz; Turkey: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi;
Bilim Akademisi (Associate Member); Ukraine: Національна академія наук України; United
Kingdom: The British Academy; The Learned Society of Wales; The Royal Society; The Royal
Society of Edinburgh

ISBN 978-3-00-055767-5