Science is based on trust. Without confidence in the integrity of their peers, scientists would lack a foundation on which to build new work. The scientific community must also meet the expectations of stakeholders outside its community (e.g. funding agencies, the general public, regulatory agencies, etc.) of the most stringent standards of integrity.
Ospedale San Raffaele values the honesty and integrity of its research community in accordance with its mission of conducting innovative fundamental and clinical research. Ospedale San Raffaele is committed to ensuring the quality, trustworthiness and reproducibility of the research conducted by its investigators by upholding high standards of integrity. OSR also works to foster an environment in which the responsible conduct of research is explicitly discussed and encouraged.
Responsible conduct of research (RCR) at Ospedale San Raffaele is defined by the core principles of research integrity as outlined in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity:
Reliability in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, the methodology, the analysis and the use of resources.
Honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full and unbiased way.
Respect for colleagues, research participants, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the environment.
Accountability for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision and mentoring, and for its wider impacts.
These principles are fully reflected in Ospedale San Raffaele’s Research Integrity Guidelines covering the following issues:
- Research Data Management
- Image presentation
- Conflicts of Interest
- Mentorship and Supervision
- Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices
The failure to abide by these guidelines and thus to follow good research practices violates professional responsibilities. It damages the research process, degrades relationships among researchers, undermines public and funder trust in, and the credibility of research, wastes resources and may expose research subjects, users, society or the environment to unnecessary harm.
Research misconduct is a breach of Ospedale San Raffaele standards and of those expected from its funders and sponsors, a betrayal of the trust placed in Ospedale San Raffaele by the public, and the failure to comply with the high expectations of the scholarly community for research integrity and accurate and experimentally-supported communication. In essence, any activity that seriously violates the core principles of research integrity is considered to be reseach misconduct.
The Ospedale San Raffaele Research Integrity Office commits to vigorously investigating, and if warranted pursuing any credible allegation of research misconduct, while also protecting its community from unsubstantiated allegations of research misconduct.
As a foreign institution receiving US federal research funds, OSR has incorporated into its procedures a specific policy for dealing with and reporting possible research misconduct when United States Public Health Service (USPHS) funds are involved, consistent with U.S. federal regulation 42 CFR parts 50 and 93.
Research integrity guidelines
IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele fosters a culture of honesty and integrity through RI training and education programmes and provision of clear and applicable guidelines and regulations governing RCR.
The OSR research integrity guidelines can be downloadedhere
Research integrity office
The Ospedale San Raffaele Research Integrity Office upholds the principles of RCR by fostering a culture of honesty through research integrity training and education programmes and provision of clear and applicable regulations governing RCR, to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the research conducted by our research community.
ALLEA. (2017). The European Code of conduct for Research integrity
Anderson, M. S. (1996). Collaboration, the doctoral experience, and the departmental environment.The Review of Higher Education 19, 305.
Biagioli, M. (2012). Recycling texts or stealing time? Plagiarism, authorship, and credit in science. International Journal of Cultural Property 19, 453-476
Bouter, L. M., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N., Martinson, B. C. and ter Riet, G. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: Results from a survey among participants of four world conferences on research integrity. Research integrity and peer review 1, 17
Clarke, M. (2009). Clarifying authors’ duties and making “contributions statements” mandatory
COPE. (2017). Core practices for journal publishers
Editorial (2012). How to stop plagiarism. Nature 481, 21
Editorial (2018). Nature journals tighten rules on non-financial conflicts. Nature 554, 6
European Commission (2017). Responsible research & innovation
European IPR Helpdesk (2013). Fact sheet: Inventorship, authorship and ownership
James, A. and Horton, R. (2018). The Lancet's Policy on Conflicts of Interest. The Lancet 361, 8-9
Kolata, G. (2017). Many academics are eager to publish in worthless journals
Lee, A., Dennis, C. and Campbell, P. (2017). Nature's guide for mentors
Marcovitch, H., Barbour, V., Borrell, C., Bosch, F., Fernandez, E., Macdonald, H., Marusic, A., Nylenna, M. and Esteve Foundation Discussion Group (2010). Conflict of interest in science communication: More than a financial issue. report from esteve foundation discussion group april 2009. Croat. Med. J. 51, 7-15.
McNutt, M., Bradford, M., Drazen, J., Hanson, R. B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K. H., Kiermer, V., Magoulias, M., Marcus, E., Pope, B. K. et al. (2017). Transparency in authors' contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201715374.
Mudrak, B. (2017). Self-plagiarism: How to define it and why you should avoid it
ORCID (2017). Connecting research and researchers
ORI (1994). ORI policy on plagiarism
Pain, E (2012). Mentoring advice
Panter, M (2017). Defining plagiarism
PLoS Medicine Editors (2008). Making sense of non-financial competing interests PLoS Med. 5, e199.
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., Clark, J., Galipeau, J., Roberts, J. and Shea, B. J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 15, 28.
Tattersall, A. (2018). New research must be better reported, the future of society depends on it
UCSD (2016). Conflicts of interest
Vines, T., Albert, A. K., Andrew, R., Débarre, F., Bock, D., Franklin, M., Gilbert, K., Moore, J., Renaut, S. and Rennison, D. J. (2018). The availability of research data declines rapidly with article age. Current Biology 24, 94-97.