Research ethics and Integrity

According to the Norwegian Research Ethics Act from 2017 (Forskningsetikkloven), both research institutions and individual researchers are responsible for ensuring that research is conducted in accordance with ethical norms for research (see also Introduction to research ethics ). However, what research ethics and integrity entail is not always so clear. Concepts such as “research integrity,” “academic integrity,” “academic ethics” or “scientific ethics” are used interchangeably. In addition, interpretations of what these concepts mean vary greatly between disciplines and professional environments (Steneck, 2006; Horbach & Halffman, 2017). In international literature, research integrity is often seen as a broader notion that encompass research ethics – which is more limited to the protection of research participants (Shaw, 2018). According to the National Norwegian Research Ethics Committees, by contrast, research ethics encompass research integrity. To avoid too much confusion and discussion on this page, we stick to the broad understanding of research ethics that is promoted by the Norwegian Research Ethics Committees (2020):

Research ethics encompasses norms, principles and values that contribute to the regulation of scientific activities. The norms have been developed over time and are rooted in the international research community.

Here, “scientific activities” should be understood broadly, and activities vary with different disciplines. Further, the definition refers to norms, values, and principles, but what they should entail can be interpreted differently. Some prefer to highlight the truth norm as the most important, while others prefer to list values or principles such as honesty, accountability, and respect.

The most famous attempt to describe the fundamental principles for academic conduct is Merton’s CUDOs norms of 1942:

• Communalism – that scientific findings should be shared and are not the property of the scientist;
• Universalism – that all scientific claims should be scrutinized according to criteria that apply universally;
• Disinterestedness – that scientists work only for the benefit of science;
• Organized skepticism – that the acceptance of all scientific work should be based on assessments of its scientific contribution, objectivity and rigor.

To what degree scientists consistently adhere to these norms in light of the academic context of competition and prestige, is an ongoing discussion (Anderson et al., 2010; Macfarlane, 2024). However, it is also evident that norms are inherently vague. They resemble a compass pointing to a direction but without describing precisely how to get to your destination. Therefore, ethical conduct requires moving beyond procedural compliances (such as being granted ethical approvals), it requires reflection and reflexivity around ethical dilemmas and a critical approach to research (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004).

Research on research integrity training finds that research ethics cannot be learned only though familiarizing oneself with guidelines. Rather, integrity is first and foremost internalised implicitly through dialogues and reflexive practises within research environments (Resnik, 2012; Hyytinen & Löfström, 2017). Researchers must be aware of relevant guidelines as they both underline essential norms and can be useful tools when encountering ethical dilemmas, but guidelines should not be treated as mere checklists that as such solve questions of ethics and integrity.

In the last decades, it has become evident that research ethics cannot rely on informal norms and values only, and more formalized rules and guidelines have therefore emerged. The main drivers for such formalizations have been historical events. The most evident is the The Nuremberg Code, established in response to the medical experiments in concentration camps, but also events like the invention of the atomic bomb and more generally various ethical scandals has given rise to more formalized rules and guidelines in order to protect society and environment from potentially harmful research (Ruyter 2003; NREC, 2015).

Today, several guidelines or sets of guidelines exist, but they often have a common reference to overarching principles such as reliability, honesty, respect, good consequences, fairness and accountability, followed by more detailed guidelines on more narrow topics. These sets of guidelines often build on and reference each other. Furthermore, some guidelines are organized according to overall categories; for instance, the Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology distinguish between:

1. Norms constituting good scientific practice, related to the quest for secure, adequate, and relevant knowledge, and to the relationship between researchers;
2. Norms regulating relationships to humans and animals participating in or are directly affected by the research;
3. Norms regarding the overall social responsibility of research, including the implications of research for society and nature, user interests and the academic responsibility to maintain a well-functioning public discourse.

Academic institutions depend on credibility and public trust. Upholding research ethics and integrity increases the trustworthiness and quality of research. From the perspective of society at large, researchers are in relatively privileged and powerful positions, and are therefore particularly expected to uphold ethical standards, be transparent and consider the potential risks and impacts of their research. Research ethical scandals revealed in public media, in addition to the increase in low quality publications, are major risks to science credibility (Teixeira da Silva, 2023).

In the literature on research integrity, there are two major categories of breaches of research ethics or integrity: Misconduct, which includes Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism (the “FFPs”), and the large range of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs). The threat to research and knowledge represented by FFPs should be obvious to anyone, though the consequences of plagiarism may not be as serious as those of fabrication and falsification (see e.g. Shaw, 2019, p. 1090). QRPs, on the other hand, make up a much larger and unspecified range of practises. National and international surveys have detected relatively high numbers of QRPs in research, and argue that even if fabrication and falsification are the worst sins, QRPs may in the long run have a larger impact on the quality of research and on the public’s trust in science (Martinson et al., 2005; Fanelli, 2009; Kaiser et al., 2022; Xie et al., 2021). It must be noted that most of these studies are based on voluntarily participation in surveys of self-reported practices, and the actual number of QRPs may be even higher.

Since the range of possible QRPs is undefined, it is useful to think in terms of overarching categories of QRPs. Ravn and Sørensen (2021) operate with five main types of QRPs that correspond to five different research stages:

1. Idea generation, where QRPs include insufficient preparation and reading, disregard of other traditions, unoriginality (lack of relevance or new insights);
2. Research design: Inadequate use of methods when designing the study, in particular the avoidance of resource-intensive methods, lack of clear research questions, politicized partisan agendas;
3. Data collection: Cherry-picking of data, non-representative sampling;
4. Data analysis: Disregard of other approaches (dogmatic data interpretation), assessment of data‐driven hypotheses without disclosure ("HARKing"), P-hacking, ignoring of negative results;
5. Scientific publication and reporting: Concealing results that contradict findings or convictions, overgeneralising of results, non-disclosure of a conflict of interest, unfair assignment of authorship.

The frequency of QRPs varies between disciplines, not only because of differences in research methods (e.g. for quantitative methods there are many specific questionable practices around data analysis and reporting), but also because of differences in disciplinary or institutional cultures (Haven et al., 2019).

As the prevalence of misconduct is difficult to measure, so are the causes. Explanations of why scientists commit misconduct focus on personality traits, work environment or systemic factors (Davies, 2019; Roje et al., 2023). While systemic factors are not something that a single researcher can do much about on their own, every employee can support and encourage more ethical reflexivity in their work environment.

What to do if you encounter or suspect misconduct?

The Research Ethics Act states that research institutions are responsible for dealing with cases of possible breaches of recognized research ethics norms. Cases should be processed as early as possible at as low a level as possible. 

If you suspect misconduct: 

1. Consider discussing it with the person you suspect or her/his closest colleagues (depends also on what kind of misconduct)
2. Contact your center/institute or faculty leader
3. If you cannot go through your leader, contact your faculty or institutional committee directly
4. If faculty cannot solve the case, they will send it the Universities Research ethics Committee
5. If the case is serious, the research ethics committee can send it to The National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct 

See also advice from FEK. 

Even if ethical guidelines for research are comprehensive, they do not always give a clear idea of what to do. Qualitative research underlines that everyday scientific practises and dilemmas are complex and nuanced and that general recommendations provided in guidelines can be interpreted differently (De Vries et al., 2006; Johnson & Ecklund, 2016). An example is co-authorship, where the Vancouver guidelines are widely recommended but still vague and hard to navigate (Ramberg et al., 2019). For instance, what a "substantive contribution" (cf. the Vancouver guidelines) entails, may be interpreted differently in different disciplines. Another example is the formulation "freely given informed consent,” where it might be challenging to assess how “freely” or “informed” the consent actually was (Consent | Forskningsetikk). On the other hand, it is important to understand that there are legitimate reasons to disagree about how ethical norms for research should be understood (Strand, 2022). As noted above, ethical conduct requires reflection and reflexivity, not merely a reliance on formalized rules.

Especially in interdisciplinary and international collaborative projects, different interpretations of norms and guidelines may create conflicts and disagreements. Thus, it is critical to ensure a working environment where dilemmas and ambiguities can be discussed.

What to do if you encounter ethical dilemmas?

• Check guidelines and resources
• Discuss with colleagues or fellow PhDs
• Approach a ‘Vitenskapsombud’ or a designated ethics person at your centre/institute/faculty.
• For questions on data protection (and e.g. informed consent), SIKT or the institution's ‘personvernombud’ can also give advice  

• Norwegian Research ethical committees resources
• A Wiki site for research ethics: The Embassy of Good Science
• Retraction watch
• Ethical dilemma game
• Ethical dilemmas NTNU
• Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE)
• Handbook of Academic Integrity
• The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics
• The Handbook of Ethical Research with Ethnocultural Populations and Communities
• Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity
• Movies | Forskningsetikk

Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., Vries, R. D., & Martinson, B. C. (2010). Extending the Mertonian norms: Scientists' subscription to norms of research. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(3), 366–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2010.11779057 

Davies, S. R. (2019). An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists about Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 25(4), 1235–1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0064-y 

De Vries, R., Anderson, M.S., & Martinson, B.C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 1(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43 

Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one, 4(5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 

Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360 

Haven, T. L., Tijdink, J. K., Martinson, B. C., & Bouter, L. M. (2019). Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. PLoS One, 14(1), e0210599. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210599 

Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2017). Promoting virtue or punishing fraud: Mapping contrasts in the language of “scientific integrity.” Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(6), 1461–1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9858-y  

Hyytinen, H., & Löfström, E. (2017). Reactively, proactively, implicitly, explicitly? Academics’ pedagogical conceptions of how to promote research ethics and integrity. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-016-9271-9  

Johnson, D. R., & Ecklund, E. H. (2016). Ethical ambiguity in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(4), 989–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9682-9 

Kaiser, M., Drivdal, L., Hjellbrekke, J., Ingierd, H., & Rekdal, O. B. (2022). Questionable research practices and misconduct among Norwegian researchers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 28(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00351-4 

Macfarlane, B. (2024). The DECAY of Merton’s scientific norms and the new academic ethos. Oxford Review of Education, 50(4), 468–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2243814 

Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a 

Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.

NREC. (2020). Introduction to research ethics. National Research Ethics Committees https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/about-us/introduction-to-research-ethics/ 

NREC. (2015). Forskingsetikkens historie. De nasjonale forskingsetiske komiteene. https://www.forskningsetikk.no/ressurser/fbib/forskningsetikkens-historie/.  

Ramberg, B. T., Halvorsen, M., Førde, R., Ambur, O. H., & Borge, A. I. H. (2019). Co-authorship – a bone of contention. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening, 139. https://doi.org/10.4045/tidsskr.19.0145 

Resnik, D. B. (2012). Ethical Virtues in Scientific Research. Accountability in Research, 19(6), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2012.728908 

Roje, R., Elizondo, A. R., Kaltenbrunner, W., Buljan, I., & Marušić, A. (2023). Factors influencing the promotion and implementation of research integrity in research performing and research funding organizations: A scoping review. Accountability in Research, 30(8), 633–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2073819 

Ruyter, K. W. (2003). Forskningsetikk: beskyttelse av enkeltpersoner og samfunn. Gyldendal akademisk.

Shaw, D. (2019). The quest for clarity in research integrity: A conceptual schema. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25, 1085–1093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0052-2 

Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022268 

Strand, R. (2022). What is research ethics? Narrow and broad understandings. NREC. https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/resources/the-research-ethics-library/the-researchsocietal-relationship/the-politics-of-research-ethics/ 

Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2023). Junk Science, Junk Journals, and Junk Publishing Management: Risk to Science’s Credibility. Philosophia, 51(3), 1701–1704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-022-00590-0 

Xie, Y., Wang, K., & Kong, Y. (2021). Prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(4), 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9