International Guest Speakers at the Shaping Culture of Research Integrity Event

On 3 October, Shaping Culture of Research Integrity, an event organised by the Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences Centre of Vilnius University (VU), took place at the VU Scholarly Communication and Information Centre. This is the second event of this kind organised within the framework of the EU Horizon 2020 project, The Alliance for Life Sciences: From Strategies to Actions in Central and Eastern Europe.

The half-day event focused on research culture, psychological health and well-being in academia, the challenge of supervising research papers, fair and responsible research publication and other topics related to research integrity. Members of the academic community at VU and other universities—scientists, researchers, PhD students and others—had the opportunity to listen to international guest speakers: Prof. Jonathan Craig from the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University in Adelaide (Australia) and former member of the WHO expert review panel, Professor of Psychiatry Ronny Bruffaerts of the Faculty of Medicine at the Université Catholique de Louvain (Belgium), and others.

One of the most pressing issues—wasting scientific potential

At the event’s opening ceremony, the words of welcome were given by the Vice-Rector of Vilnius University, Prof. Edita Sužiedėlienė, and the Vice-Minister of the Lithuanian Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, Justas Nugaras. “Research culture is shaped by the values, actions, expectations and habits of both the academic community as a whole and of each individual member of it. Inappropriate research practices can inhibit creativity and innovation in the scientific environment, discourage interdisciplinary cooperation—something that is crucial to science—and disrupt the psychological well-being of the members of the scholarly community,” said Prof. Sužiedėlienė. According to Nugaras, research culture is a particularly important topic today. “Science funding is no longer the main challenge, but rather that the culture surrounding the research and its integrity remain very sensitive issues. We still have a lot to learn.”

The first speaker, Prof. Jonathan Craig, gave a presentation titled “Culture is #1” in which he discussed the norms and guidelines for research integrity and the current research landscape. He noted that the standard criteria for ensuring integrity in research are typically: integrity, accuracy, transparency, respect, recognition, trust, encouragement, and so on. The professor questioned how members of the scholarly community are managing to comply with these criteria today. The example of the Covid-19 pandemic, he pointed out, serves well to challenge the practices of research culture: during the Covid-19 pandemic, scientific output increased significantly, while on the other hand, the number of fraudulent studies and their citation, even after retractions, also soared. During the presentation, the professor was examining examples of articles that had been retracted from biomedical research, particularly those published in high-impact journals such as “New England,” “The Lancet,” “Science,” and so on. According to the professor, one of the issues with scientific integrity is the wastage of research and its funding. The professor stated, “What is missing in today’s research culture? Research culture should prioritize mastery, integrity, values, an understanding of why you belong to the scientific community: not for yourself or your own career progress, but because society invested in you, believing that science can transform people’s health and well-being.”

Among the priorities—prevention of mental health problems

The second speaker at the event, Professor Ronny Bruffaerts, discussed the mental health of young people pursuing higher education. According to him, the transition to young adulthood (ages 18-30) presents perhaps the most significant challenges in a young person’s life. “This is a very short period of time during which many important roles need to be assumed in both academic and personal life. It is during this age range that the risk of mental health disorders and suicide increases. Recognizing the need for prevention, the focus should primarily be on this age group,” Professor R. Bruffaerts is convinced. Based on the data available to the professor, a significant issue among young students is self-destructive behaviour, including self-harm, alcohol overdose, eating disorders, and so on. “In addition to these mental health disorders, a particularly common issue among doctoral students is burnout syndrome. 60% of doctoral students have already experienced mental health disorders before starting their doctoral studies, and 13% who did not have any developed them during their doctoral studies. Risk factors include high workload, imbalance between personal and professional life, lack of autonomy, perfectionism, language barriers, visa and immigration issues,” added the professor. “Mental health disorders are a societal problem, and prevention should be approached from a community perspective. Are universities ready to change the existing paradigm and take responsibility?” Professor R. Bruffaerts raised the question.

Potential changes in research culture

Presentations were also delivered by a number of other speakers: Prof. Eugenijus Gefenas, Head of the Centre for Health Ethics, Law and History of the Institute of Health Sciences at VU Faculty of Medicine, Dr. Ana Ferreras, Senior Program Officer at the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, researcher, Dr. Nadja Walter from Leipzig University, and Dr. Alexandra Freeman, researcher from the University of Cambridge and former producer at BBC.

In his presentation titled “Promoting Research Integrity Culture: Some Insights from the A4L Project,” Professor E. Gefenas discussed different concepts of research ethics and research integrity. He presented the results of a study conducted within the framework of the A4L project and shared thoughts on what could be improved in current research practices. Professor Gefenas explained that historically in European scientific practice, research ethics and research integrity have always been separate areas: while research ethics, based on the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration, CIOMS, focus on the rights of those conducting scientific research and the ethical principles that research committees should adhere to, research integrity primarily concerns the quality of science itself, the reliability of research results, and the detection of violations of clinical practices. “For example, EUREK (European Network of Research Ethics Committees) and ENRIO (European Network of Research Integrity Offices), despite a few attempts to collaborate, operate as individual organizations,” Professor E. Gefenas noted. Separating research ethics from research integrity, he argued, is not productive. “Collaboration between these two areas is needed because, based on research ethics guidelines, we are talking about the communal value of scientific research, quality, data management and protection, and other issues. Both research ethics and research integrity aim to achieve science that can be beneficial to society and trustworthy.”

Dr. Ana Ferreras, in her presentation “Building a Robust Research and Ecosystem," spoke about research capacity, the factors that influence it, a holistic approach to research output, leadership, quality, and prestige in science. According to her, “in science, ‘good’ is not enough; the goal should be ‘excellence.’ “Research integrity is not a matter of negotiation. Of course, we are talking about ethics—integrity, transparency, respect, etc., but the most important thing is still the quality of science,” said Dr. A. Ferreras. She emphasized that the only way to maintain high research quality is to set and ensure high standards: “Quality increases productivity, enhances prestige, and contributes to the development of an institution’s marketing. Quality also attracts funding and new collaboration opportunities. We should always ask ourselves: are we really doing the best we can, or are there ways to do even better in less time and with fewer resources?" Dr. A. Ferreras also mentioned several publications from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, such as “On Being a Scientist”, and “Reproducibility and Replicability in Science” which many universities use for educating students. “We must continually consider the essential relationship between scientists and society: scientists solve society’s problems, and society trusts scientists. If research integrity is questionable, it affects the image of scientists,” she added.

Dr. Nadja Walter presented a talk titled “From Good Scientific Practice to Lived Culture: Chances and Limits of Mediation in Science.” In her presentation, she used three anonymous cases of individuals who were pursuing doctoral or postdoctoral studies to discuss the potential resolution of conflicts within the scientific community through mediation. According to Dr. Walter, “Good scientific culture is not only about the scientific research itself (analysis, data evaluation, dissemination, etc.) but also about social skills within the scientific community.” She noted that for most young researchers seeking mediation, the main problem was relatively straightforward, such as plagiarism. However, many seeking mediation carried a significant baggage of interpersonal conflicts. Nonetheless, Dr. Walter emphasized that the mediator’s responsibility primarily pertains to issues and conflicts directly related to doctoral or postdoctoral studies, which involve a young researcher’s qualification. “The mediator must understand what is relevant to their work and represent, above all, good practices of scientific integrity. Unfortunately, they cannot assist with everything,” Dr. N. Walter stated. After discussing the cases of three young researchers from the fields of law, biology, and philosophy, the lecturer provided practical advice to help reduce the risk of conflicts with supervisors: organizing agreements, discussing and documenting rights and responsibilities, documenting any changes, arranging regular meetings, providing feedback, reaching agreements on authorship, organizing various learning formats (e.g., workshops), contacting responsible individuals, as well as reaching out to mediators.

The last speaker at the event, Dr. Alexandra Freeman, presented her talk titled “Octopus: the New Primary Research Record.” In it, she introduced a UKRI (UK Research and Innovation) funded project called the “Octopus” scientific research publishing platform. Researchers can publish their scientific research articles for free on this platform, receive high-quality peer reviews from colleagues, and gain recognition for their contribution to the dissemination of science. “We all know how long the process of publishing scientific research can be—it can take weeks, months, or even years. Such practices are harmful not only to researchers but also to those who want to access or use the research,” said Dr. A. Freeman. Another issue, according to her, is the perception of quality: “We constantly talk about the quality of science and scientific research, but what does quality science really mean? If we cannot define what quality is, is it even possible to achieve it?” According to the lecturer, the current scientific research publishing system, focused on readability metrics, attempts to work with the content while informing other researchers about the research simultaneously. This, she said, involves different styles of communicating information or storytelling. Dr. A. Freeman stated that all parts of a scientific research—problem, hypothesis, methodology, analysis, results, interpretation, practical applicability—are equally important, and different researchers may work on each of these research parts. The “Octopus” platform provides the opportunity, especially for young researchers, to specialize in different stages of scientific research, publish their articles autonomously, and promote collaboration among researchers, aiming to contribute to changing the hierarchical culture of scientific research.