NOTES Gender: female Interview year: 2020 Interview mode: remote Full interview length: 00 h 54 min 25 sec; 8168 words Transcript validation: two-researchers Anonymised transcript validation: two-researchers & interviewee Interview language: English ABBREVIATIONS I - interviewer R - interviewee's response [text] - anonymised excerpt <...> - excerpt omitted for anonymisation purposes (e.g., personal, or other-specific data) - technical remarks (e.g., pause, smiling, rebuking) {...} - excerpt omitted to enhance coherent reading {text} - clarification inserted to enhance coherent reading [1] The term of an ombudsperson is used in general sense about those who handle allegations, resolve conflict and/or promote research integrity in other ways. [2] The Ombudsperson body denominates commission, committee or other organisational structure related to handling of allegations, resolution of conflicts and/or other ways of research integrity promotion that is established within the Ombudsperson’s office. [3] The term of consultant is used to refer to delegates (trained and/or recognised by Ombudsperson's office) from academia who provide research integrity training, advising and/or consultancy within their institutions. Depending on a country system they may bear different names (e.g., advisors, trainers, coachers, local ombudspersons). I: Um. So, let us start with the question... Um, could you shortly tell about your path to your current role as uh [an Ombudsperson [1]]? R: M... May... It is probably a little bit different from yours {...} So I, I worked as a researcher for quite long time. So, it's eh... it was kind of lab research, so I worked with a lot of international researchers. And, of course, different cultures and so on. Uhm... I think there were also several things that happened around me and where I thought this is not OK probably, but I was not so much aware about this. So, this was like, eh, now almost I think [number of] years ago. And so, when I was doing this kind of research. Uhm... I had some problems to find a permanent position as many other colleagues at that time. And uh... m... also did not have the kindest mentor also, so I did not have a lot of support, so I was on my own more or less. And uhm... just one day I had this idea: "OK, this is... this is no fun for me anymore so I, I want to continue with uh science or research, but uh maybe in a little bit different way <...>. <...>. And then I just by chance found this job offer and I have to say at that time I, I didn't know the term 'research integrity'. As many of my colleagues also did not know. So, I checked it a little bit and I thought: "This is quite interesting topic and I think I know what it is because I saw a lot of problems". But I also realised that just by chance, some of my supervisors I had in the past explained me in the right way how to do data documentation and and these kind of things, how to write publication and so on. Uh but this was not, you know, maybe not so much on purpose, it was just on learning by doing and watching others how they do it right. But it could have been the other way so that there would be, you know, people who, who don't do it the good way and then maybe I would have learned it also the wrong way . I: And and how much time ago you started in this position? R: This is like [number of] years ago now. Almost exactly, like [name of a month] . I: OK. Uhm... Do you consider yourself a promoter of research integrity? R: Absolutely , that's an easy question. I: Could you elaborate on it? Why and how {do} you consider it and do it? I: Yeah. I also have to say when, when this organisation was founded, um the idea was more about investigating cases of research misconduct. But I, uh... I had completely all freedom actually to organise this em... established this organisation as I thought it should be and my idea was from the very beginning uh... that we cannot only, you know, complain, but we should also train people how to do it or advise people how to do it. So that was my idea from there... from the very beginning actually. And so, I started to establish some presentations, research integrity trainings, workshops for PhD students but also uh tried to have a little bit different version of this for a senior researcher and so on. And I thought the, the idea should be not to be, you know, the professor talking from above (and I'm not a professor), so I thought it it's much better to say: "I also worked as a researcher. I know the problems. I think we can discuss it on on an equal level". {...} This is how I started actually. This uh this kind of things on [number of] years ago where there was nothing about, you know, training materials and so on. Not in [my country]. So, I had to learn also from others, from international corporations. I: But but when you started [number of] years ago, just to clarify, so so the [Ombudsperson's office] was already working? Or you were... with the very beginning establishing it? R: It was kind of working, but there was no staff member at that time. So, when I came in, actually nobody worked for the [Ombudsperson's office]. And uh a little bit before there was a person but [s/he]... [s/he] worked [part-time for the Ombudsperson's office] <...>. So, [s/he] was not really, you know... [s/he] tried to cooperate, for example, with [Ombudsperson's body [2]], but there was no so much time to think about aims and future strategy and so on. So, more or less, I was the first person who was really only responsible for for the [Ombudsperson's office]. I: And and could you could you a little bit describe so how your position relates to promoting of research integrity? R: Mh. Um... I mean, I said before, uh, I thought investigation is one part of this story, uh but uh training, promoting, raising awareness, advising, all these kind of things are probably much more important. Uh... but of, of course, the people didn't know the organisation at that time, so we had to promote ourselves, too. And eh, you know, I started with uh maybe some lectures and presentations. I think my first one was at the [field-specific] university, which was a quite tough , tough one. As you might know, medical researchers are quite tough, and they have their ideas how... uh... how you should maybe sometimes not follow these rules because you have your own career, and you have to see how to do this. Also, like honorary authorship or these kind of things, it's not easily be discussed with medical researchers. So, I... when I started it was quite tough, I have to say . Uh but then I had the first workshops with PhD students who came from [field-specific] sciences and so on. And there I knew how they work and and how I could help them. And then it was just like that uh... like promotion, I don't know how to say this in in English, you know, so that people would say to other organisations: "Hey we, we had her as a trainer. {...} Maybe you also want to have her and and invite hands-on". So, from the beginning it was, you know, just... maybe a few workshops or presentations but uh over the years it it's uh got more and more and more. What I found out is um that most of the people are not mean, you know, they don't want to... it's not like that they don't want to follow the rules or so. I mean, quite almost all the time they don't know the rules. They don't know that... where they could find them. The internal ones or national ones, whatever. Um... And they are very glad that someone is there to answer questions. Of course, I cannot answer all the questions across all disciplines, but also you can find some patterns so you can work with the researcher and find common solutions. And that's what they really like. And it's not only the PhD students who have all these questions, it's also senior researchers. Uh they have the experience, but also, they want to do it the best way and so sometimes they just need a few hints uh to understand how they can do it better. So, it's not that... all people are mean, but there are a lot of uncertainties. And I think it's it's easy uh to help them when discussing the issues because most of the time they know the solutions by themselves. I: Mh. And and what about this uh investigative part? R: Mh. The investigative part is is also important for me as a trainer because I can see the problems. I can see, you know, lot of things happening, like authorship conflicts and so on, and then very often in these cases it's like... people did not communicate with each other at the right time. So, you know, like uh they didn't have collaboration agreements in the beginning, but then later on, when there is a personal conflict, and then they cannot communicate with each other anymore, then it's not easy to find solutions. And of course, it's much better to discuss it at the very beginning so it's clear what the expectations are, what the duties are. And uh... yeah. That's what I learned from from investigations and I'm still learning from it. Uh... you can also see that in some fields you need to put your focus in workshops uh on specific issues, like for example medical researchers' authorship is a big issue, like honorary authorship, so like that the head of the institution is always an author. And you can see from from the younger researchers that they don't accept this anymore. And uh so here it's important not to... I mean, that's also a problem of training. Sometimes when you told them how to do it right, what the rules say, then you sometimes put them in a very awkward situation. Because then they realise all, like, how it's done it's not right. And so, what can they do? Because they're, you know, the... on the very lowest level of hierarchies and so on. So that's that's that's an issue when you do training, yeah. I: Um. Uh what would you say are the most important goals that you strive to achieve in promoting research integrity? R: I think um... So, I'm not so much about teaching rules. The rules are there, and they can help you. You can read and check if there is something about the issue you have. But I think it's more about um... reflection on on your own research work. So, I think that's the most important thing. And I think most of you can find uh the good solutions how to follow then also the rules uh if you reflect some of your... steps of procedures. And I think most importantly would be to have role models, you know, to have maybe a supervisor who is just doing it right and you can learn from from him, but you can also openly discuss with him or her. Um, like "I think I did it wrong" or maybe "This was a mistake what I did" and then just find common solutions. If you're scared to talk about mistakes, then probably you try to hide them and then you make uh much... you might may make it... worse. Actually like, for example, hiding and then fabricating or or something... like this. So, so I think this is this is how I think my role should be. Not to explain everyone, like, "yeah, you have to do this, and you should not do this" but to find common solutions how they can do their research in the best way. And as I said before, I think mostly they know how to do it, but sometimes you just need a little hint or something to understand how to do it better. And also, what I learned from trainings, especially from multidisciplinary courses, that those people can learn a lot from each other. So how it's done in a different discipline. But also, because they have to cooperate quite often, you know, from different disciplines, and I think this is getting more and more. So, it's also important to understand each other, but also to find uh common procedures or protocols or methods and, also to know how to work with each other. I: Mh. And what what areas you find the most meaningful to focus on in promoting research integrity? R: I think it's the multidisciplinary research. I mean it's the the biggest challenge probably, uh but this is how research is done today. I mean, not only multidisciplinary, but also cross boarder, cross discipline, uh cross sector, for example. That's that's all quite um challenging and mostly we see that people do not think so much about the research process in the beginning. So, they start the cooperation. But then, sometimes when when there are issues coming up, uh then it's quite difficult to to solve them at that point. Like for example, you would have IT specialists working with economists and maybe medical researchers and so on; these are completely different cultures. Uh but it's very uh important to find out how are publications written, for example, are there common joint authorship rules, how is data documentation done. And... yeah, all these kind of things. So, there are a lot of things and that's very important. I: And and and so how how do you find your input in in in this? R: It's like maybe like a mediator. You know, they try to find out how are you doing this in your discipline? How are you doing this in your discipline, and what do you think what could be a joint solution? So that's that's quite interesting also for the researchers, because, you know, they are mostly interested in their own research, of course. But now they have to find that they have to go, or they have to come closer to another discipline and try to find common solutions. But I like it a lot actually. They're mostly clever people, so of course they know how to do it in the best way. I: Mh. But this happens more during trainings or also somewhere in the process? When you investigate something or...? R: Yes. And the third part which we have not touched by now is advising. {...} So we also have a lot of um... inquiries coming to our office where where people want to have uh... advice. Um, that could happen when there is already a conflict, but that could also happen when they really want to know how to do it the best way. So... Sometimes we have some, you know, authorship conflicts, for example. Uh... Also, here, sometimes it's about hierarchies, but also quite often it's about different disciplines and how they do. For example, the order of authorship on publications. And um sometimes also people just want to know. They explain, for example, how they um... handle samples in in their research group and how to archive them the best way. Accurate. "This is something living, you know, and it's in a specific medium. Of course, all kinds of bacteria and mushrooms and whatever like this medium as well". Uh so the idea, for example, there was to make pictures and to have a digital documentation, not to keep all of these uh plates in in a specific temperature and so on. Or for example, data occ... archiving is is a very important issue, I think. Not so many people thought about it uh like 10 years ago. But now with all this GDPR and all these kind of things there is much more focus on it. And... mostly there are no rules, no specific rules for this server. This is always something where you have to find the solution. So, this is also a typical issue for, yeah, finding common solutions. And we can also see, by the way, that this advising is much... uh... so the... like last year, for example, just to give you number, not for for research {...} but just to give you an idea. We had, like, more than [number of] inquiries to the office where people wanted to have advice, but we have some... I don't know, [number of] inquiries to the [Ombudsperson's body] where there was about investigation. So, you can really see that people try {...} to find solutions before there is a conflict and a case of research misconduct. I: Uh, what are your personal expectations in promoting research integrity? R: Um, I would like to have less cases , more more of this advising and [resolving conflicts] things. Um... Of course, we, we cannot... I mean, there's no way to influence it, because uh also I think, I mean it's humans, and so things like this happen. Not only in research, but everywhere. Um I would like to have maybe less hierarchies, more supervision, more promotion of research integrity. Uh... Still people think, or maybe they're scared because of rules or guidelines they should follow, but it's it's not like, uh... not like a law where if you do not do it the right way then you have to go to the prison or something. We don't have this in Europe and, also not in [my country]. Um but they should see it more than an advice, as a guideline, you know, like a good thing. And I think that uh... It got better the last 10 years, but still it's not only seen like a positive thing. So here we still have to work on it. Um... Also, what I can see is we have a lot of coming back to academic integrity. We have a lot of cases of plagiarism. {...} Um, I think here this is something which can easily be avoided because, you know, there are citation rules, they're not hidden, and so on. It's it's something you can learn. It's a tool. How to do eh good writing or ethical writing. Uh but the cases we see now are very old cases. There is always the question if if you can have the same standard. Of course, citing and referencing was always a duty, uh but how to do this probably is today much more discussed and much more known than it was like 20 or 30 years ago or so. So, I would like to see that people have a very positive approach to research integrity, not to see it something like a duty or an addition or something like uh external or so, but they see this part of their daily work. I: Uh, what cos... constraints or obstacles do you face when promoting research integrity? R: Um, yeah, sometimes career . Like when people concentrate on careers. Sometimes you have... But this is... does not happen very often anymore. But I had it in the very beginning, like [number of] years ago. Quite often that people would say: "What? I should follow these rules? I have no time for this because I need to publish, publish, publish, otherwise I don't get this permanent position, this habilitation, these publications and so on. So, this is like um... you're giving much more burden on me". Uh and I think people have to understand that it's not the way. Um, so that... that it is a good thing to follow these rules. So quite loud noise, I think . I: It's OK. R: Um... Because uh they should see it as an integral part of research. Nothing additional, but it's something they should have learned uh during their studies, for example. And that's a big challenge or big obstacle that sometimes PhD students hear about research integrity the first time when they come to my workshop. But then they are already PhD students and maybe they're already in their third year or so. Um so it... of course good scientific practice needs to be part of the curriculum, mandatory, and that's almost nowhere the case. I mean, there are a few universities from... which make it mandatory for PhD students. But as I said before that's rather late. Some, in some studies you have to do some kind of uh seminar work or whatever, to do some research already during your studies, so it would be much better to do it earlier. Especially in [my country] um... the the the youngsters who finish their school with 18, they have to start writing a... <...> work. <...>. And they actually start to do this when they're 17 years old. And uh it's the first time they have to do this kind of research thing. And, of course, the supervisor are teachers. Maybe they have done this once, like in a diploma work, but, you know, some of them maybe, I don't know, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, so. So, of course, they also are not so much aware probably about citation rules, and so on. And we can... be quite often hear from universities that they would like the students, the new students to know all these kind of things already. But that's not the case. So, I think research integrity, again, academic integrity, should be much uh earlier involved in studies or maybe already in school. Why not? I: Mh. What are the toughest decisions that you had to make when promoting research integrity? R: The toughest decisions? Ehr... fu... Uh... Like decision, can you explain what that decision could be, like an example? I: Eh... So in in your work, I don't know, when investigating or I don't know, solving some conflict or or advising? I don't know, that that was something... that was, I don't know, impressed you in a negative way or or really was tough to do? R: M. Probably many things. This is where where I cannot come up with the one example. Um... What I can also see and from... from... uh... senior researchers and... that can also be the case with the Commission members, for example, not only here, but I, I saw it also in other panels, international level and so on. It is sometimes also... Let's just wait a second. {...} OK, now it's over. I can see that sometimes they also start discussing with: "But this was always done like this". So, uh it's OK, something like that. And then it's a problem for me because I'm promoting something different in my trainings. So, you know, to... to... I think the biggest challenge is probably to have... um... to promote your highest standards, your own ones which you have... uh... which you... communicate during the trainings, also to have them in the investigations. I think that's that's probably a big challenge, and I think for this I could have many examples probably, but I think that's the pattern I can see. I: And and so how how do you feel when, when you have this this kind of situations, yeah? So how how [do] you work with them? R: I try to convince the people, which might be successful, but not always. Like, you know, uh when I say, but during the training that I always tell the participants "da da da da", so we cannot have different rules and different standards when we do the investigation. So, we should really follow this. They... Like... I mean just to give you an example. I've learned now from from 2 very recent cases that young researchers write a manuscript and then they put some high-level researchers on the manuscript as an author and it's just like a first draft or so. And they put them already in the authorship list and send um send it out to them. And it's like an invitation to eh add some contribution to the paper. {...} And then maybe they don't send any contributions. They do not contribute. They do not read critically their manuscript. They don't do anything. And and then it might be the case if these{students} are tough people or if they {students} really think OK, there are rules and I want to follow these rules, so these people cannot be authors anymore, because they never did this contribution. And so, they {students} remove these people from the paper. But they're {potential contributors} not used to it. And then of course they {potential contributors} would come up with this first draft and they would say: "I've... first versions of the manuscript, I've always been one of the authors. So, you see, this guy did research misconduct because he removed me from the authorship list". And then you start discussing this kind of "Yeah, I took play... I took part in so many discussions and some of my ideas, of course, went into this paper and blah blah blah blah". So, what I learned from this, actually, is that I would ask um... participants in my trainings not to put anyone on the paper before before they did not give a contribution. Yeah. And this is what I just learned recently that the youngsters see it as a kind of offer, invitation to contribute, but the the elder ones they of course see it is their... as a standard, because they have always been co-authors on publications of their PhD students, postdocs and so on. And I, I don't like it actually, because I think some... somehow it that was also... a nice kind of trying to involve the seniors from from the young researchers, but it just obviously sometimes it just went into the wrong direction. And what I learned from myself, maybe coming back to my personal reflections on this, is I have [number of] staff members <...>, we're also researchers, and they're involved in EU projects. And when they write a manuscript and it's, it's not my expertise, I mean like, research integrity would would be my expertise, but if it's about, you know, their discipline that they studied and they read all the literature, that I'm not an author on this publication. Only if [we] think that I, I did a really important contribution to it. But um you know, if I have not read all this literature and if it's not my discipline, I do not think that I should be an author. Which I can easily say because I'm not a researcher anymore. This is at least how I see myself. I'm [managing the Office], so I don't need publications. I: Uh, what motivates you in your work? R: Eh the motivation is for sure to help other people. Like, you know, to support researchers, not only young researchers, I sometimes also have senior, or maybe already professor emeritus sitting in my office and they want to have advice on on some issues they have. And this is what I, I think I'm mostly like to see that I could have helped, that I have helped them, that I could support them in different difficult situations. But also, when they want to do things in uh in the best way. And sometimes I feel this advising can also be more like... eh... uh... not only so much about the the... the issue at stake, but sometimes it's also how to make them more conf... self-confident, you know, to go into a discussion with their supervisor so and uh to make their point very clear and this kind of thing. So sometimes it's also like life advice, you know . It's not so much about the content or the issue, uh, but sometimes it's also how they can be more brave or something like that. Also, how to teach them.... Not how to teach, but how to advise them to go to difficult conversations with, for example... cooperation partners where they think that they've done something wrong or so, or if it's an issue about authorship conflict. That's quite funny because I also thought... uh <...> I think my job has a lot of psychology in it uh which I like a lot too, yeah. I: Uh, you you you touched a little bit that that still there are sometimes difficult situations or difficult conversation. So, um, how {do} they affect you? R: Yes . They do . I: And how is it um...? R: Yeah, I mean sometimes if you have especially this {these} young researchers, but also with uh... also older ones, I think it's it all kind of things happened already and you could see how tough the situation is. And... you can also see that sometimes they're... you know, they're maybe not very self-confident and so on. So, if there are really rude people around and they, of course, they realise where their power is and if they can be successful with this. They also use their power against young researchers. But also... could be also a senior researcher. I can see a lot of cases with women being in this kind of victim role. Uh where they uh... are not... maybe I'm not seeing like equal cooperation partners, for example, equal research partners and that other ones uh... try to say "This was all my idea and um... and the more important cooperation partner and so on and I should go forward with this idea". And and this kind of thing. So, this is quite tough because I'm also a woman. Also, not too old by now, so I can really understand what what kind of tough situations they have. And then that's something something, of course you you do not really leave in the office and you go home, but quite often it stays with you in your memories and at your brain and in your dreams maybe even. Um... so you take a lot of these bad things also, I have to say, yeah. It would be good to have some kind of supervision of myself uh which we don't have. I know, so that's the thing with the investigations, but also with the advising. I: What keeps you persistent in in in your role as research integrity promoter? R: I think all the the good things that happen, and I think still there are more good things than the bad things. Um... I can see that many people are very um thankful. For training. So quite often after trainings people come to me, not to only say "goodbye", but they really say: "Thank you, and I've learned a lot" and "Thanks a lot of, some things became more clear for me". So, this is the the positive energy you can get for for all your work. And I also with... tried to say those people I have to advise with complicated situations and so on, that they should "Please, come back with the feedback. So, if it worked out at the end". So that you also get some positive feedback from from these kind of things. So, I think this is something where you can get the power from... for for future work. I: Just some notes . Um... What are your greatest achievements in promoting research integrity? What would you say? R: Um, I think we are currently in the process of professionalisation. Like uh... lot of processes were done in the... in... how we thought in the best way, but mostly it was because we advise people but we did... we didn't have it like a written procedure. And so, this is what we are currently doing. Um... I think we we had a very important process when we wrote the new guidelines, [number of years] ago. And where we invited all the stakeholders uh to also give their, you know, additional comments but also to criticise if they wanted to. So, to have them all in the same boat and to work with them together. And regarding training, we set up a [programme of consultants' [3] training] [number of] years ago now. That's very important because I had the feeling that... so we are very small organisation. We cannot do the trainings for [my whole country], that's impossible. So... Um... The idea was here to train [consultants] and then they can do the local trainings at their own universities. So, I think that was one of the biggest achievements by now. The [consultants' training] course which took us a lot of energy and and time. Of course, it was very time consuming. But we have to work on. Still is that those [consultants] feel also that self-confident... self-confidence to do these trainings on their own because now they still want us to have there. So, it's kind of double work and this is what we... we still have to work on so that they can do their trainings on their own. I: What else would you like to further achieve? R: What else? Oh... f... So, what we thought... It's a little bit... um... maybe a rethinking of the issue of training. I would thought that it's most important to have personal face to face trainings and still think so. But with the COVID-19 situation we realised: OK, this is currently not possible, not in the way we want to do it. So, we are currently thinking about having our own or establishing our own online courses. Um... But not kind of tick the box things, so, but to make people thinking about the issue of research integrity and how to... um... how to do it in in your daily work. And... uh... in this way, of course, we can also reach much more scientists than we can do in face-to-face trainings, but we do not have so many trainers. And then probably have these discussions and these questions. We have to think about this part of part of it that you can still offer advice and and things like that. But maybe this can also be done then on the local level. So, this is something we currently think about, yeah. I: If to think about all your... uh... roles within your role <...>. So, what do you get from this job? R: M... What do I get from this job? I'm... coming back to this psychology thing. You can see that sometimes um... you do not only solve this one issue, but you really help this person to go forward eh in their careers. And you know, sometimes the career might not be in research. So, I think there can be also other ways, like me now doing not really research but still working with researchers. And sometimes also people come after trainings and then they would say "How did you get your job?" and "Are there many jobs like this?", "How can I find such a job also?" So also, to... discuss with people maybe what what they can change, you know, if they're not happy in research. Or if they're not helping the situation, also to find solutions, maybe what they can change, like maybe also sometimes going abroad or leaving this kind of discipline, going into a more multidisciplinary research, maybe also leaving research. So, it depends. I: So, this is a bit broader? R: It's a bit broader, yeah. I think, I think you have to see the whole thing broader than it is. This research integrity issue is a, is a much broader thing. It's not only about procedures and tools and so on, it's much more. It's like uh also ethical thinking about it, but also the way... not only the way how you see your work, but then finally, also the the way you live. Because if you are researcher that's something very personal, it's not like you go to eh... I don't know, to... to a company or... maybe if you work for a supermarket, for example, you can just go there to your work and go home and you might not be interested in your stuff. But maybe you are quite interested in discussing with people coming in {supermarket} to talk about, you know, about their lives maybe. Or how they are and you really enjoy this {these} communications and these kind of things. So, you can do it in very different ways. And I think research is something... um... well, for example, when we discussed this informed content, consent things and this ethical rethinking about your research project, this brings in another responsibility. It's not true, it's not new, the responsibility was there already before. But now people become more aware that the responsibility is not only about collecting data and trying to find eh... a good explanation how they match to your hy... hypothesis or so on. But it's much more, you have much more responsibility, for example, to human participants, but also if you do research in life sciences, {you have responsibility} to the society and this kind of things. And my feeling is currently that people kind of wake up and see that they are... responsibility of being a researcher is a much bigger one. Um... Also, in the in the global... Um... In a global way of thinking and this is the way I like it, I like to see it. Not only I'm the one pipetting at my, you know, my bench and putting samples together, but to see the the bigger picture of it. I: Mh, mh. Um... How how are you appreciated for for your work? R: Uh... I think this is something where you have to work hard until people know "Oh, this is a really good person doing a really good job". So, I think I get a lot of good feedback um... which is important for me because otherwise I couldn't do that work. So, if I wouldn't get it positive feedback and wouldn't know where I am and if the things I do are helpful and good for others. Um... So, I think this is already the case. I: But... R: But, of course, there are always people who do not like these rules and this kind of thing. So, if they want to have an enemy, it can be me . I: How do you feel about it... when someone considers you an enemy? R: Um... I don't like it, actually . We currently drafted [with a governmental body's working group] guidelines on research ethics and research integrity. And it's really called "guidelines" and it's not called "rules" and for sure not "law" or something and we're trying to guide researchers and research institutions on this way to a good scientific practice and and these kind of things. And also put ethical uh... solutions on how to do research. But there are some people who think "Oh, there is another rules or something we have to follow this and it's already so much work we have to do. We cannot really do this". And also we have some uh... people at the highest level of universities, for example, but they... not a lot, but there are some, and they they say something like uh "This is all too... maybe too na?ve also and this kind of things". So, this is quite tough because you thought "Oh, I left this... I thought I left these discussions already behind me". But you can see with these big things, like national guidelines, they of course pop up again. So, they they see themselves like they have to defend themselves in their roles. Yeah, that's no fun. {...} Of course, you also have to convince the top- level management and not only from doing the training from bottom up and to discuss with researchers how they do it best, but you also need to discuss with top level management how to implement these kind of things. I: Mh. Uh... You also discussed about this more positive feedback. So, who are the sources of this positive feedback mainly? Where it comes from? R: I think it's it's also all kind of flavours. It could be PhD students as well as senior researchers. Um... I went to a very funny uh... workshop with the PhD students of an institution. They wanted to invite me for doing uh... the workshop and then the head of the institution asked me if [s/he] can also be there during the workshop. And I told [her/him]: "I think you have to ask your group. Because your group asked me to come and I don't know if they want you to have... there because they might have very sensitive questions also, and probably they they do not feel to ask them if you are in the same room". So that was quite funny because [s/he] came back and obviously, they had a very good relationship, so it was no problem that he was there. But during this training we could also find a lot of solutions how to do some of the things they are already implemented in a little bit better way. So, there you got a positive feedback from the whole group and you also knew that they're going to implement a lot of things which make their work not only easier but also more related to good scientific practice and research integrity. So, there is something where you really know you have... you achieved something. And and I think this is uh... these are the things um which are most important for me because you do not only solve an issue for one person, but you can already implement something at an institution or maybe at the whole organisation. So, these are the most important things because they lead to permanent... uh... permanent raising awareness but also to uh... yeah, how to make things better on the long run, not only for for the current situation. I: Uh... How how your work in current position could affect your career in the future? R: I don't know . Um... Maybe in my other roles I have... I'm also, I also had a very important position... on the European level. I'm also involved in the... on the global levels or I also have lot of networks, you know, international ones all over the world. I'm invited to many other places, to um advise them, for example, how to implement uh similar national organisations on research integrity. I was invited for doing this kind of advising not only to European countries close to [my country], but also to Asia, US, Africa and so on. So, I think I get a very good and wide network, so if I want to stay in the field, I think I, I have quite good networks and quite good um reputation so that people also would like to learn from my experience and so on. The question is only if I want to do this forever. And then if I do something very different, I, I think I can... I still I... collected a lot of experience which you do not need only in this field, but which can also help you in very many different other fields. I: But at the moment so I mean, you you are not projecting any any career in... like changing career or something? It's still here? R: Uh, sometimes I do. In the situation is going to be too tough then I sometimes I think I'm getting tired from this, but you know, as soon as you get again positive feedback from from other people and you find out that it's really important what you do and then that you do it in a good way. Of course, mistakes can always happen. Uh... But I think most important is that you want to do it the right way and that it mostly works. Um... Then I think I'm I'm convinced that this is a good, good job and also a good work to do, yeah. But I guess this is always with life. I: Yeah, so we we are kind of moving to the end then. To sum it up, what does your work mean to you? R: I mean, it's like I said before, it's not only that I go to work and then I do my work and then I go home. It's more like a vision also to maybe... kind of make the world better, at least the research world. Um... And I think... I'm probably not someone who could do the work in... differently. You know, I'm not the kind of person who would just go to work just to finish the work and go home and that's it. Uh... It needs to be something I really believe in. And also, I really need the opportunity to change things and also to do the things like I think it would be good. It's not like that I'm selfish and I think I'm the only one who knows how to do it. Of course, I learn from others also what could be the best way, I learn a lot from the experiences and the conversations I have with other people. Uh... But then when I think I know what the right way could be, or at least the direction, then I also want to do it that way. I'm glad that the position currently is like this. Still. And I think if that would change, then probably uh... it wouldn't be the job I'd like to do. So, if someone would explain me or would... force me to do things I do not believe in, then probably I would have to change the job because I, I have to really believe in the things that we're doing here. I: And and you shortly mentioned that you contribute to changing things. Yeah, to, to promoting some change. So, could you develop a little bit on that? R: Mm. Um... I mean like uh... These new guidelines, for example, we have on the national level I think they can help a lot... uh... to reach all kind of people, to read them, but also to rethink their own work. So, it's not like um... and then you do A, B, C, D, E but then you see if you do A then you should also think about what could be A, B, C and D and so on. So, it's it's to make people uh rethinking their their work. Um on the global level, there were also some... there's also some... a [publication] <...>. <...>. Nevertheless, it's about how to improve research assessment because I think this is also the source of the devil. You know that we are counting these publications and that we try to have long publication lists, but we do not think about all the other things. Researchers too, like mentoring, peer review, also maybe open science and these kind of things. So again, it's this broader, broader view of what research is. So... These are few examples of what can change the world a bit. Yeah. I: Uh, so I think this is it from our side, the questions. Um... but maybe there is something else that that you were keeping in mind during the interview but what we haven't asked about it? R: I'm not sure. I think we talked about a lot of things. Um, yeah, maybe just just to make it more clear so this is nothing which... this improving research integrity and improving research finally is not a thing which can be done by single individuals. Of course, it's a joint effort where you need all the stakeholders, and you need them from all over the world. Because we're also having these international cooperations and of course we need to kind... kind of the same standards we follow. Um... and I think this is most important when we talk about research integrity. That it's not about single persons. So, everyone has to do his or her um little thing to to work on this, this big picture. I: OK, so thank you very much for the interview.