Prevention of research misconduct in open science

Learning Objectives

  • Discuss the potential types of research misconduct in the context of open science.
  • Understand the causes of violations of research ethics and integrity in open science and explore ways to prevent them.

Introduction

While open science offers numerous benefits, it also introduces certain risks and challenges that can potentially lead to research misconduct. For example, the open sharing of research data can create a risk of 'scooping,' a slang term used in the scientific community to describe "having someone else claim priority, usually through publishing, to a research idea or result you yourself have been working on" (Laine, 2017). This can lead to researchers feeling that their work is overshadowed, potentially impacting their ability to publish or receive credit for their contributions. In other cases, open access publishing can be misused, leading to an increase in predatory journals that may exploit the open science movement to publish low-quality research for financial gain. As discussed in the section on the protection of research participants in the context of open science, open sharing of data may raise privacy concerns, especially with sensitive data. Additionally, increased visibility through open science may expose researchers to public scrutiny and criticism, e.g., on social media, potentially leading to reputational damage.

To address these risks, a combination of clear policies, ethical guidelines, and education is essential. Open science should be practiced responsibly to ensure adherence to research ethics and integrity standards.

References

  1. Laine, H. (2017). Afraid of scooping: Case study on researcher strategies against fear of scooping in the context of open science. Data Science Journal. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-029

While open science approaches aim to foster transparency and collaboration, they can, in some cases, create opportunities for research misconduct, such as the misuse of research outputs shared in open access. Preventing misconduct in the context of open science involves implementing certain practices and principles. An essential step is fostering a culture of integrity and mutual learning within the scientific community. Researchers should actively listen to the perspectives of others, acknowledging the value of different forms of expertise. This involves creating spaces for open dialogue, where researchers feel comfortable expressing their viewpoints. 

Kohr et al. outline eleven strategies to make training in open science, including training on research integrity, more common at research institutions. The ultimate aim of such training is to create a broad coalition and change the research culture and practice. 

Eleven strategies for making reproducible research & open science training the norm at research institutions

Eleven strategies for making reproducible research & open science training the norm at research institutions. Source: Kohrs F.E. et al. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.89736, CC BY 4.0

Another important approach to prevent research misconduct in the context of open science is to work towards epistemic justice. Epistemic injustice, a concept introduced by philosopher Miranda Fricker, refers to unfairness in the distribution of epistemic (knowledge-related) goods, where individuals or groups are wronged in their capacity as knowers. Epistemic injustice occurs when knowledge claims are unfairly rejected, or when the knowledge possessed by certain types of knowers is excluded or not taken seriously because of prejudices about the knower, violating the principles of responsibility, respect, and accountability (Fricker, 2007). In science, research results from well-known groups at prestigious universities or from researchers in the 'centers' are often evaluated as ‘better’ than those from less well-known groups. This bias contradicts the principle of equality of opportunities. In the open science context, these epistemic reception biases leading to epistemic injustice are likely to persist, possibly extending to open data. Thus, the envisioned advantage of open science in terms of quality and integrity and, consequently, more efficient knowledge production for the benefit of all, regardless of their current privilege or wealth status, might not materialize. Instead, the already existing advantages of the privileged could become even more entrenched. 

These issues of epistemic injustice and bias can turn into issues of distributive injustice if research and funding institutions do not consider them when recognizing or making decisions based on the evaluation of research contributions. Promoting transparency in research practices is crucial for preventing epistemic injustice. Researchers should openly share their data, methodologies, and results, allowing for validation by the wider scientific community. This not only enhances the reliability of research but also provides opportunities for different voices and viewpoints to be heard.

Before proceeding to the next task, please, read the paper by Haven, T. et al. (2022). Promoting trust in research and researchers: How open science and research integrity are intertwined. BMC Research Notes, 15(1), 302. 

References

  1. Fricker, M (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Kohrs, F. E., et al. (2023). Eleven strategies for making reproducible research and open science training the norm at research institutions. Elife, 12, e89736. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.89736 
  1. Düwell, M. (2019). Open science and ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 22(5), 1051-1053.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10053-3 
  2. Haven, T., Gopalakrishna, G., Tijdink, J., van der Schot, D., & Bouter, L. (2022). Promoting trust in research and researchers: How open science and research integrity are intertwined. BMC Research Notes, 15(1), 302. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06169-y