Implementation of new codes of conduct and policies for research integrity (SY1)

A multitude of codes of conduct and policies for research integrity have been formulated for continents, countries, institutions and disciplines. Many similarities and differences exist between these codes or policies and between revised and former versions of the same document. Typically, only a minority of the researchers and other functionaries to whom a code or policy applies have heard about its existence and very few have studied and internalized its content. So obviously dissemination and implementation of new and revised codes or policies is essential.

This symposium focusses on the recently issued (revised) codes for Australia and the Netherlands and the new policy for China. After a conceptual analyses of the similarities and differences the symposium will focus on the implementation strategies of each document, including the emerging evidence of its success in reaching the target population.

These are the documents that will be discussed during the symposium:


  • Lex Bouter, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam


  • René van Woudenberg, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • Jillian Barr, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
  • Ton Hol, Utrecht University; and League of European Research Universities
  • Yu Shi, The Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China

Responsible authorship (SY2)

Of all the diverse issues in publication ethics that are brought to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) by its members for discussion and advice, those related to authorship remain consistently high. Why does good authorship practice matter? What symptoms identify poor practice? And how do we manage problems when they arise?

While COPE has created many dedicated resources to help its members (primarily editors and publishers), there is a vital need to involve researchers and institutions in the discussion. COPE is currently piloting an initiative involving institutions as Members, which is informing the development of some of our resources.

Although authorship and contributorship roles vary widely across the humanities, social sciences and biomedical sciences, the need for institutions and journals to have clear policies and training in place is paramount. Recent initiatives may also play a role, for example ORCID and CRediT, to ensure transparency and accountability. This session will explore steps that can be taken by all involved in the publishing landscape, from researchers, institutions and publishers to promote responsible authorship in research.


  • Charon Pierson, COPE


  • Tracey Bretag, COPE; and University South Australia
  • Siu-wai Leung, University of Macau
  • Trevor Lane, COPE; and Edanz Group

Preprints: Beneficial or harmful for research integrity and publication ethics? A debate (SY3)

Preprints are now more and more common, and -- while small in overall numbers compared with journal articles – they are growing at a staggering rate. Preprint servers are also proliferating across research disciplines, and at the time of writing this abstract new preprint serves for medical and health sciences are about to be launched. It is unknown whether open discussions on early research is beneficial in terms of critiquing and improving ongoing research or whether there is potential harm in publishing unsubstantiated and non-peer-reviewed findings, especially in the health and medical fields. However, the arguments for speed and for putting control in the hands of research authors are compelling. This session will lay the groundwork about preprints for people who are less familiar with preprints, present COPE’s work on ethical standards for preprints, and then launch a pro-con debate to explore and discuss the integrity and ethics issues.


  • Chris Graf, COPE; and Wiley


  • John Inglis, bioRxiv; and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
  • Heather Tierney, COPE; and American Chemical Society
  • Debbie Sweet, Cell Press, Elsevier
  • Howard Browman, Austevoll Research Station

Researcher and institutional roles in resolving (and accepting) diverse views of responsible conduct of research (SY4)

The environment in which researchers carry out their work is rapidly changing. Newer ideas about the best ways to design, conduct and report research that were previously somewhat amorphous (for example, Open Science, Responsible Research and Innovation, transparency) are becoming reified now in the policies of funders, publishers, and governments. Mechanisms of research assessment are coming under very close scrutiny; this is already resulting in changes in how hiring and promotion committees approach their work. Broadly, these new and modified policies have special importance for researchers and research institutions, who are primarily responsible for implementing them.

In this session, speakers will address specific activities that they have undertaken at the intersection of the work of researchers and the roles of research institutions. The speakers will focus on successful implementation of policies that reflect openness and transparency, and will also discuss areas where institutional structures or political or policy decisions resulted in problems in implementation. Along with the audience in discussion, the speakers will describe their understandings of the current situation and hopes for the future with respect to roles of researchers and of research institutes in assuring research integrity and responsible conduct of research more generally.


  • Michele Garfinkel, EMBO


  • Michele Garfinkel, EMBO
  • Michael Imperiale, University of Michigan
  • Jianquan Guo, National Natural Science Foundation of China

Misdirected allegations of breaches of research integrity (SY5)

With the maturation of research integrity codes and the formation of professional research integrity committees the number of misdirected claims may increase, as the result of labour or personal conflicts, scientific disagreements or conspirational beliefs. This implies that committees need to carefully restrict their investigations to allegations that truly deal with research integrity. At the side of the least detrimental effects, committees will spend inordinate amounts of time on such allegations, while true damage may follow from considering misdirected or even mala fide allegations as admissible and investigating them. This problem is enhanced by different opinions about the scope of research integrity and codes of conduct that tend to become wider and wider, thereby shifting from ‘research integrity’ to other types of integrity and matters that belong to the regular academic debate. The risk of an expanding domain of research integrity committees is that they become torch-bearers of political correctness, and hamper free scientific debate.

In the symposium these concerns will be discussed, with examples of misdirected complaints and mala fide allegations, and how they can be handled, to frank misuse of committees of scientific integrity, as well as the scope of various codes.


  • Frits Rosendaal, Leiden University Medical Center


  • Frits Rosendaal, Leiden University Medical Center
  • Yvonne Erkens, Leiden University
  • Ivan Oransky, Retraction Watch

Institutional challenges in integrity education (SY6)

This symposium addresses the importance of embedding education on responsible conduct of research into institutions by presenting experiences and results of European H2020 projects and putting these in a wider international perspective. Education not only empowers individual students, researchers and teachers to address integrity challenges, but may also become a driver of institutional learning and change. In order to be effective, education has to address institutional issues and foster institutional learning processes. In this symposium, representatives of European H2020 consortia covering many countries and cultures present and discuss the experiences and results of their efforts to develop engaging, innovative education which allows us to address institutional challenges and research cultures via mutual, trans-generational and lifelong learning rather than solely on individual responsibility (‘blaming deviant individuals’).

Our session presents: (a) evidence-based insights on the needs and opportunities for institutional learning; (b) experiences with innovative, engaging and evaluated tools developed in Europe that aim to foster reflection on work-floor experiences and realistic dilemmas emerging in the contemporary research arena (e.g. aspects such as increase of pace, scale and competitiveness, globalisation, transdisciplinary collaboration, stakeholder engagement, etc.). Special attention is given to the role of dialogue (on-line and face-to-face) and imagination (theatre, cinema, novels, visualisation); and (c) the relevance of these approaches for other contexts and globally.


  • Hub Zwart, Erasmus University Rotterdam
  • Guy Widdershoven, Amsterdam University Medical centers, EnTIRE and VIRT2UE, The Embassy of Good Science


  • Isidoros Karatzas, European Commission
  • Caroline Gans Combe, INSEEC; and DEFORM
  • So Yoon Kim, Yonsei University
  • Hub Zwart, Erasmus University Rotterdam
  • Guy Widdershoven, Amsterdam University Medical centers, EnTIRE and VIRT2UE, The Embassy of Good Science

Transparency 2025 - a panel discussion on new ideas to promote transparency in research (SY7)

This panel discussion brings together experts from around the world (Australia, Ireland, England, The Netherlands, Mexico) to explore new ideas and ways to promote transparency in research, now and into the future. The panel will begin with each speaker providing a short, five-minute presentation on the changes they would like to see in relation to transparency in research by 2025, based on experience in their particular contexts. The Panel Chair will post key questions relating to open access, open science, research-informed policy, and the resources and training needed to facilitate transparency in research. Time will be allocated to ensure audience participation to a structured question and answer format during the last 30 minutes of the session.


  • Tracey Bretag, COPE; and University of South Australia


  • Maura Hiney, Health Research Board, Ireland
  • Ginny Barbour, Australasian Open Access Strategy Group
  • Frederick Leung, The University of Hong Kong

Essential areas for better peer review: Equipping research journals for change - “integrity first, then impact” (SY8)

Research practices are changing fast. Research publication needs to change too. Key questions for us all to consider are whether we want research journals to filter research, and to present the best, highest impact research back to researchers, so they know where to devote their (precious and limited) time and attention; or whether we want journals to help researchers communicate all good quality research in its best possible form, and to the most relevant and widest possible audience.

This symposium will build on our work (preprint at exploring five essential areas to improve practice in research peer review: integrity, ethics, fairness, usefulness and timeliness. We will draw on observations from our literature review and 40 case studies from diverse research disciplines and across the globe. The session will be facilitated by a panel of journal editors and staff involved closely with the peer review process, and will allow opportunity for interaction with and feedback from attendees. We will define essential areas for focus and change, offer an opportunity to discuss and feedback on those areas, and explore practical measures that can be implemented to provide a high standard of peer review for researchers and research communities, and which put integrity first, ahead of assessment of impact.


  • Michael Willis, Peer Review, John Wiley & Sons


  • Elizabeth Moylan, John Wiley & Sons
  • Zijian Zheng, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
  • Shayuti Mohamed Adnan, University Malaysia Terengganu
  • Graeme Smith, Edinburgh Napier University

Fostering research integrity and social relevance of research findings: A global perspective through intercultural dialogue (SY9)

Cultural diversity is a dominant trait of modern societies. Science is not excluded from this cultural melting pot; research has become a global endeavor and attracts much warranted attention. Nevertheless, high profile cases of research misconduct raise serious ethical issues and erode public trust.

Four experts, from four different continents with rich and varied cultural traditions, will reflect on the similarities and differences between the various ways on fostering Research Integrity (RI). In this era of open science, but also fake news, they will discuss culturally informed methods to reinforce public trust in the research findings. The main objective of this symposium is to emphasize the value of discussing and accepting different value systems and how these shape aspects of research culture and governance.

Concrete output:

Based on the core principles of intercultural dialogue, including the development of a deeper understanding of diverse perspectives and practices, participation and the freedom and ability to make choices, equality and fairness and the support to the creative processes, the Symposium will wrap up by proposing the main principles for inter-cultural dialogue in RI.


  • Costas Charitidis, National Technical University of Athens


  • Kwanchanok Yimtae, Khon Kaen University
  • Peta Ashworth, University of Queensland
  • Francis Kombe, African Research Integrity Network (ARIN); and University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN)
  • Isidoros Karatzas, European Commission
  • Panagiotis Kavouras, National Technical University of Athens

Data sharing and responsible conduct of research: Sharing industry experiences as part of the research transparency environment (SY10)

Transparency drives scientific development and promotes trust while providing a necessary element underlying and promoting research integrity. Research enterprises and consortia are increasingly making their data available for the purposes of verification and the support of future research. Making data available is both resource intensive and challenging in an environment where patient privacy is of the utmost importance and Intellectual Property (IP) is considered essential by both industry and academia. Ensuring the fullness and integrity of the data, alongside its utility in a world of privacy and proprietary claims, requires deep commitment to research integrity at the organisation and personal levels.

In this symposium you will hear experiences on data sharing and research integrity from key players in industry, academia, and public institutions. There will be reports from industry and academic researchers, an independent data custodian, a policy maker, a journal editor, and a publisher, as well as a representative from patient initiatives. They will offer insights into developing pathways to responsible data disclosure, and attempt to answer the questions:

  1. What are the challenges and pathways to the disclosure of scientific data?
  2. What are the ethical requirements and the scientific utility of sharing research data?
  3. Who is served by sharing research data?
  4. What are the responsibilities of researchers and their institutions when disclosing and sharing research data?
  5. In what ways does sharing research data promote research integrity?


  • Tatjana Poplazarova, GSK Vaccines
  • Francis Crawley, Good Clinical Practice Alliance - Europe; and Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review


  • Rebecca Li, Vivli
  • Priya Pavithran, GSK Vaccines
  • Slavka Baronikova, Takeda
  • Karen Woolley, Envision Pharma Group; and Research Integrity and Peer Review
  • Suzanne Farley, Springer Data Publishing
  • Haihong Zhang, Peking University
  • Dorota Goble, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

Click here to View the speakers' biographies


We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.