Erika Löfström

This article presents the BEYOND Guidelines for Preventing and Addressing Research Misconduct. The Guidelines are grounded in the BEYOND project’s evidence-based, behavioural, and complexity-informed approach to research misconduct (RM), viewing the latter not through the simplistic and plainly individualistic “bad apples” approach but from a research ecosystem perspective. In this manner, the project and the Guidelines view research behaviour as shaped by the interaction of individual factors with organisational structures, incentives, norms, cultures, and wider social and institutional conditions. Based on these considerations, the Guidelines promote a multi-stakeholder and shared-responsibility approach to preventing and addressing RM, involving researchers, research performing organisations (RPOs), research funding organisations (RFOs), research ethics and research integrity (RE/RI) bodies, publishers, policymakers, citizen scientists, and other actors across the research ecosystem. They also emphasise prevention and effective responses to RM while addressing the socio-economic consequences of RM, and promoting researcher health and well-being, public trust, supportive research cultures, and the need for clear, accessible, and context-sensitive RE/RI policies. The Guidelines provide principles for the fair, independent, timely, and proportionate handling of RM allegations; safeguards for whistleblowers and others involved in proceedings; institutional learning from RM cases; and measures to address politically sensitive allegations and prevent misuse of investigative processes. They also acknowledge rehabilitation and reintegration as potentially appropriate responses following RM, subject to considerations of proportionality and appropriateness in light of the circumstances of the case, and emphasise institutional support, mentoring, training, and opportunities to rebuild trust. Finally, the Guidelines highlight preventive behavioural and educational approaches, including ethically designed nudges and RE/RI training that is reflective, participatory, context-sensitive, and subject to meaningful evaluation. Taken together, the Guidelines propose a prevention-to-reintegration approach to RM that combines individual and institutional responsibility and seeks to foster more supportive, fair, trustworthy, and resilient research environments across diverse European research contexts.

In this research, we investigated learning during online in-service training for teachers of mathematics. It is recognised that the need to develop professional knowledge and skills continues throughout one’s career, and this is highly applicable to the teaching profession. In the study, we applied the Meaningful Learning model as a theoretical lens. Data were collected through questionnaires completed three times (first time measuring expectations, after that experiences) during the in-service training course. A total of 589 responses from teachers teaching at several levels of education were received. Data were analysed with exploratory factor analysis, t -test, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and hierarchical cluster analysis. Based on the results, the meaningfulness of learning is mainly experienced as satisfaction with learning and professional and goal orientation in learning. There was a drop in both after the initial measurement point targeting expectations. Teachers’ satisfaction with learning decreased over the measurement points. Their experiences of professional and goal orientation in learning stayed relatively stable during the second and third measurement point. It is possible that the participants experienced challenges with the interaction online, but nevertheless experienced it as supporting them professionally. Understanding learning expectations and experiences may support the development of online in-service training to better align with needs of mathematics teachers. In further development of the theoretical model, we propose satisfaction and professional and goal orientation in learning as two overarching denotations of meaningful learning in the context of in-service teacher training.

Background This article provides an analysis of the pedagogical underpinnings that characterise the research integrity (RI) training approaches and materials developed by four European Union - funded projects. The approaches taken by these projects include a dialogical approach, an empowerment approach, a virtue ethics approach, and a constructivist case-based approach. We analysed the materials/trainings created in the projects. In doing so, we propose how to make use of a structured way of working with learning objectives, in order to ensure that research integrity training meets the needs of its target groups. Methods We applied qualitative, deductive content analysis in which we analysed the learning objectives stated in the training schemes of the four projects. A total of 46 learning objectives were analysed using three learning taxonomies, namely the revised Bloom's Taxonomy, the SOLO Taxonomy, and the Taxonomy of Significant Learning. Results The results show that the four RI trainings make use of either a constructivist or a socio-constructivist understanding of learning, implement activating and engaging learning activities, and emphasise high-order learning objectives. Conclusions The analysis suggests that taxonomies are applicable to various pedagogical underpinnings and can help trainers to communicate the objectives of training and learners to relate their expectations to the objectives. We identify implications for training design and suggest recommendations for training developers. It is advisable to pay attention to learning objectives dedicated to foster the higher levels of learning and understanding. Less commonly applied taxonomies in the context of integrity training, such as the Taxonomy of Significant Learning can help to identify relevant learning objectives both for trainers as well as learners. Research cultures and disciplinary differences are generally not spelled out at the level of learning objectives highlighting the need to consider these explicitly in training implementation.

This paper investigates the differences and similarities between European regulatory research integrity systems. The data collection process involved gathering information from public sources. A total of 27 European countries were included in the comprehensive dataset. Three determinants were examined: the legal structure of national research integrity regulation, the presence of national research integrity guidelines, and the provision of research integrity training by national research integrity offices. Qualitative content analysis was employed to identify relevant differences in national research integrity systems and the work of national research integrity offices. The findings suggest that the functions and powers of research integrity offices in Europe vary significantly, and there is extensive variation in the legal status and functions of national research integrity systems. We identify the major implications arising from these differences and explore what the challenges for harmonization of the European research integrity systems are. Our findings highlight the need for promoting dialogue between actors on an international level.

This research focuses on how research ethics committee and integrity board members discuss and decide on solutions to case scenarios that involve a dimension of research ethics or integrity in collaborative settings. The cases involved issues around authorship, conflict of interest, disregard of good scientific practice and ethics review, and research with vulnerable populations (children and neonates). The cases were set in a university, a hospital, or a research institute. In the research, we used a deductive qualitative approach with thematic analysis. Twenty-seven research ethics committee and research integrity board members from 16 European countries and one country outside Europe participated. Participants represented natural and life sciences, social sciences, and humanities. They worked on cases involving ethical/integrity issues in six different constellations. Results show that experts apply key elements of ethical decision making, namely identification of ethical issues, stakeholders, guidelines, solutions, and own positionality, in dealing collaboratively with ethics/ integrity problems, and the nature of the application depends on the complexity of the case. Understanding how individuals knowledgeable in research ethics and integrity, in this case, individuals serving on research ethics committees and integrity boards, approach ethical/ moral issues can help to identify strategies that may be useful in the development of research ethics and integrity training for junior researchers who may benefit from learning professional strategies.

Due to the variety of research ethics and integrity training formats it may be challenging to use a common instrument to monitor and evaluate the development of competencies and learning progress as well as determine the effectiveness of the training. The present study scrutinises the use of learning diaries as one possible measure to evaluate the development of ethics competencies. The aim of the study was to increase understanding about how learning diaries capture development of research ethics and integrity competencies of participants and explore the use of diaries as a measure of training effectiveness. In the evaluative case study, a micro-credential programme was used as the context of the study and data was analysed using deductive content analysis. As a result, we outline criteria for analysis to be used in ethics training programmes for learning diaries. Results indicated that learning diaries submitted in the forum format (compared to individual submissions) provide peer support, so learners display more content knowledge on high levels of reflection and understanding. Submitting learning diaries over a longer period and making submissions repeatedly can improve writing and reflection competencies. The quality of learning diary entries may also depend on learner characteristics, such as commitment and motivation. Keeping a learning diary can help retain obtained competencies over a longer period. The article ends with a set of recommendations for implementing learning diaries as one measure of evaluation.