Mapping research integrity onto the diversity of scientific practices
Whereas most research integrity charters assume that practices are homogeneous, specifically with respect to the management of evidence, historians, sociologists, and philosophers of science have shown that on the contrary, scientific practices are not only diverse, but also subject to quick evolution. The aim of Task 1 is to explore how research integrity recommandations are to adapt to this diversity.
➔ Subtask 1.1
Identifying relevant differences to better address RI challenges
First, we will try to identify relevant differences among fields of research with respect to research integrity challenges. Are the traditional distinctions between basic science and applied science, or between disciplines, well-suited? Critical assessment of underlying assumptions concerning in particular competitiveness both among individual scientists and among teams of researchers and the management of evidence is in order. Our main working hypothesis will be that a key factor as regards proneness to RI issues is the nature of the relationship between data and theories or hypotheses.
➔ Subtask 1.2
RI challenges raised by Open Science
We will address the question, How do current institutional actions in favour of open data impact research integrity? We will investigate potential positive and negative impacts (e.g. slowdown of research) of open data policies on scientific integrity. We will in particular address questions raised by the FAIR principles as well as questions raised by the development of citizen science.
➔ Subtask 1.3
Image and data processing and practices of authorship
Image and data processing on the one hand, practices of authorship on the other, are often mentioned as hot RI topics. Most Post-Publication Peer Review (PPPR) and retractions target images, and RIOs spend a lot of time trying to have the right authors in the right orders. As a consequence, we select these two fields to have a detailed look at current practices and their domain sensitivity. Our goal is to explore the question whether RI recommendations about these two sets of practices are efficient even when they target large fields like, e.g., the bio-medical sciences in general, or whether the practices so much differ from one micro- domain to the next one that general-purpose recommendations are doomed to be received as pointless.
