NOTES Gender: male Interview year: 2020 Interview mode: remote Full interview length: 00 h 40 min 02 sec; 4050 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 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 research funding organisation. [2] The term of an Ombudsperson's office is used in general sense about the organisation that handles allegations, resolves conflict and/or promotes research integrity in other ways at national level. I: The first question I'd like to ask is quite introductory and... Uh... Could you tell shortly about your path to your role uh... at the [Ombudsperson body [1] of research funding organisation]? R: Ok. My background is... I'm... I'm... I'm [scientist in specific field], but I was also [position] of the University <...> and I'm at the same time while as being a [position], I was also elected onto the... uh... at the committee for [cycle-related] education of the [international organisation]. And at that point I became involved with research integrity issues as well as having responsibility to research integrity at... at the University <...> . Subsequently, I have been appointed a [position] of the... uh... commission within [my country] uh to revise our code of ethics for research integrity through the [national] academies <...>. And in para Excuse me. In parallel, I'm... I have received a mandate from [national] universities, that's our rectors' conference, to investigate the... the... establishment of [an Ombudsperson's office [2]] within [my country]. Whether this is a {a native-language word}, whether this is a reporting instance, is still open for discussion. Um... So, I've become increasingly involved and also, um... I've been part of the [international organisation's] Working Group on research integrity and have also been involved in research integrity cases in number of other international contexts. I: Ok. It's... Giving this very different, but wide... uh... focus {of} roles, by taking this kind of uh... path of research integrity, do you consider yourself as a promoter of research integrity? R: I think the answer has to be "Yes". Um... I think it it's also a question that needs a little bit of additional comment. The first would be that, of course, any active scientist has to be... seen to be working in a scientifically uh... int... integrity-oriented manner. At the same time, um... I have two imperatives. One is from the national point of view that I think we are all aware that it's not a matter of "if" but is just a matter of "when" uh... in our... [country] we have a [prominent researcher] case in which the reputation of a discipline and the reputation of the country is brought into question. So, in that respect, we wanted to try to get as... sensitized view within the research community as possible to try to avoid this happening. As a research scientist, I don't want to be heavy handled. But at the same time, unless we develop this culture, we will have uh... uh... codes imposed upon us from a political uh... uh... uh body that doesn't understand the way in which science works. So, I think I would say I am a promoter, but also relatively uh... not hands-off promoter, but one who believes that the way to achieve research integrity is not by rules but is by changing the culture within the research community. I: And by changing the culture, what are the most important goals that you strive uh... to achieve in promoting research integrity? R: Um... Again, multi-stranded. The first is to recognise that you can never stop too early. Um... We should be promoting ideas of scientific integrity, certainly within the doctorate, and, in my opinion, also earlier, within the research and educational training. Secondly, that... the more senior person is in academic career, the more they have to be aware that people are looking at them to see how they act, and that they become role models. And if their own graduate students see that they are taking short-cuts, so that they are not always behaving in the manner that might be expected, then we wouldn't develop the culture. In general, I find that um... the more senior uh... the colleague in general, the more aware they are of these issues and more aware of engendering the culture within their own um... research... within their own... academic circles. I: Um... That's quite a lot. But... uh... What areas uh... {do} you find the most meaningful to focus on? R: Uh... One is, firstly, recognition that there is no... is not one-model fits all and then if we take a trivial example, the definition of plagiarism is extremely dependent upon the subject area. So, for example, what is recognised as the best practice, normal practice within the experimental sciences, would very often be regarded as uh... plagiarism within the humanities. And so, we have to be careful not to put in artificial um... overriding definitions of correct scientific integrity. Also, to change the culture... I think the way is again not to impose from above, but to engender within the... specific... the discipline-specific community. And so, the national, and international bodies play a role here with their own um... codes of conduct um and their own recognition what the best practice is. At the same time, we probably need to um... address issues, for example, relating to plagiarism um... in the... We see this in various forms from very very early people's academic careers. Whether it's from undergraduate essays which are a copy from the internet through the Master's and PhD theses which contain significant amounts of a non-attributed or copied material. And that's a culture that we we have to to try to address. And I I think we're doing it relatively successfully. Um... But at the same, it's not something that one can achieve overnight. And, of course, the... um... the negative side of this is that it is a very uh emotive issue when um... a, for example, a case of plagiarism involves a public figure. As we've seen in [name of country] and in a number of other countries. Um... it becomes the... uh... it comes into the public domain, in the popular media. So, I I mean, basically, I I think that the... the... the major aim that I have is... to use maybe a modern phrase that the research community should take the ownership of um... research integrity. In other words, that they should feel that it's part of their duty to work in this manner, to engender this culture and and they take pride in it rather than view it as something being imposed. I: And what would be your personal expectations in promoting scientific integrity? R: Um... I think... on the one hand, if we avoid any major cases which bring the reputation of a discipline, of the university or of a... of a national area of research into... disrepute, then we've succeeded. On a more personal level, I... I would... I feel... I... I feel very comfortable that our research output, the research output of my co-workers is, I hope, one hundred per-cent, um... correct and um... would never be brought into question. Um... We also have to recognise um... that not only is the definition of research integrity dependent upon the discipline. It's also time-dependent and so... I mean, this is one of the issues that um... I I have been involved in in a number of countries now. It's the danger of reinterpreting activities in the past, in the context of today's culture and morals and and... So, once we recognise that maybe PhD theses from 1960s do not conform to the standards that we would set today. At the same time, they did conform to the standards that were contemporary, and so we should not go back um... and do historical and archaeological investigations, unless there is, for example, a well- documented case of plagiarism. I: Yeah, but that's... the example of what you provide from these then times and different contexts, different interpretations are. Is it always the context matters? R: I: Because the copyright law is quite an old, it comes from Berne convention which {was approved} more than one hundred years ago. Is it really a matter of the context? R: Uh... I think again my answer has to be yes and no. Um... I... I would argue that fundamentally copyright law has little to do with scientific integrity. It has certainly um... to do with the legal framework in which researcher works, but... the connection between copyright law and the more blatant abuses of it in terms of plagiarism are certainly not linear. So, I would argue that plagiarism is not acceptable um... but the... use or abuse of copyrighted material is within the legislature of the national context or within the rules of regulations of an individual academic institution. And one thing that... that um... I've become very aware of... in trying to establish codes for research integrity. It's that these should, where possible, be clearly separated from the legal framework and in... that is well-defined and that that is something which researchers obey and have to obey. I: Ok. Uh... What... what obstacles do you face with in promoting research integrity? R: Uh... Um... um... Uh I think one of the commonest things is in the... in the relatively rare occasions where... when established and senior researchers don't recognise or well not accept that the way in which they have worked for most of their careers is no longer an acceptable manner. Um... So, then cajoling and persuading... uh... is an aspect there. Another issue is... is in the way it it is easier to do to the early career researchers who are under incredible pressure to produce, to um... publish, that it's not acceptable to take shortcuts. So, in the life sciences, um... there've been so many well-documented cases in which um... artwork, graphic material has been uh... modified in the manner that is either misleading or downright fraudulent. I: Mh. Uh... R: Where the... the real issue that... is institutional rather than dealing with the individuals is that the entire environment in which research integrity is being assessed is changing. In the past, the traditional um... development of a case was from within an institution, very typically uh... a complaint would be lodged, and it would be investigated internally and um... in many cases um... the investigation would be neither transparent uh nor um... in the public domain. That's changed within the last... certainly within the last five to seven years where the first time that a university is aware that they have a research integrity case is when it is on social media, where um... um... websites like Retraction Watch have picked up um... material, published material which appears to be in contravention to um... of the of the codes. And this is where another cultural change has to take place because the... Naturally, I mean it's a human instinct to think um... that we should try to prevent and minimise the damage to our institution and very often the immediate response to try to minimize the damage to the institution is actually the one that causes more long-term damage because the instinct is to {be} saying "We don't want it to come to the public domain". And there are so many cases now that if a university has said from the very outset "We have a case here" or "We have at least uh... a complaint here, we will investigate it." Um... and say this publicly. And that's a culture change in university leaders which is only very slowly happening, but the movement is there. I: Ok. What... Yeah, this is what you remind about this changing leadership and changing cultures. And... what are or were the toughest decisions you had to make as a research integrity promoter? R: That's an interesting question. Um... Probably... one of the most difficult decisions is where you have to advice a university leadership team that they have to operate in a transparent and reproducible and coherent manner. Um... And that is very often a difficult piece of advice for the university leadership to hear. It's equally difficult for the university leadership to implement because very often there are conflicts between national and international law regarding data protection and um... um... um... personal um... um... identification and the need to say, to accept and report that there has been a transgression of the rules. Um... and this... and the difficulty arises um... most often because that... in many cases all leadership can say is "There has been uh um... case of uh... plagiarism or falsification of results". And in many cases, they can't actually say any more than that because they can't identify the discipline because very often there is only one or two professors in that discipline within the university. They can't um... identify the individuals and indeed, depending upon the local national legislation even when social media or the press identify individuals, they can't confirm or deny this. It it it's again um... that... the legal system is very often constraining best practice in many cases. Equally difficult um... I think is to tell coll..., I mentioned before, to tell a colleague that his or her behaviour is not regarded as best practice anymore, but strangely one of the most distressing thing{s} is um... where a co-worker of an established colleague has without his or her knowledge falsified results because that creates a feeling of disappointment within the more senior colleague and leads to a... can lead to the culture of distrust within a... research group. And that is something that has to be handled with immense sensitivity. I: Ok. And could you describe how did you feel about uh... for example, as you mentioned, {at} the beginning about this kind of balancing between the interests. I mean that you <...> were a promoter of research integrity and, on another side, there is a leadership. R: Um... I... I'll try to think in terms of the traffic light system. And and... I'm very cautious about this and in... We can identify cases which are red, or orange, or green. Um... These don't necessarily relate to the seriousness of the case, but they define the environment in which any investigation and in which any sanctions should operate. So, the green cases are... not necessarily trivial cases, but they are those which lie completely within the responsibility of the institution. That... These these would typically be in Master's theses. These would typically be questions about management practices uh... within research groups, but not um... involving... uh... published work and not involving major disciplinary uh... uh... activities. The red ones are the ones in which there is serious uh... uh... chances of damage to the reputation of the institution, of the discipline or indeed of the entire national scientific activity. Um I feel very strongly that when you have cases like that, they should never be handled within the institution. They should always be handled outside the institution, so that... any questions of conflict of interests and any questions of uh... transparency are automatically uh... removed. Of course, the real problem is the orange cases uh... which are are the majority... These can be handled within the institution. In most cases, I'm absolutely happy that they are handled within the institution, they are handled correctly within the institution. But if there is an escalation of those cases, then the... the processes and procedures within the institution don't usually um... fulfil the criteria of transparency that one would expect if they've been handled outside the institution. So, it's these escalation cases. And the question of who actually identifies that a case is one that probably should be um... dealt with by an external rather than an internal body. I: Ok. So, what motivates you in your work? R: Um... One... Uh... completely... No, two completely selfish answers here. One is a very personal one - I don't want anybody ever to uh... call any of my own research output into question. That's very personal one. And the other one is the national and international one that um... I never want to see a [prominent researcher] case in [my country]. Um... And everything that we can do to avoid um... that happening, we really have to do. I: From the first uh... note that uh... you uh... provide here, is it possible to escape from defamation? R: Uh... . No, frankly. Um... It it's the same... It's actually part of the same issue that I mentioned earlier, the the distrust that a um... established researcher can have after a co-worker has been found to act fraudulently. Um... It's the same thing. You can actually never stop somebody who is determined to cheat. And at the same time, you can never stop somebody who is... outside the institution, who is determined to uh... bring work into disrepute. All you can do is um... um... stand by your own code of ethics. And of course, there is a legal framework, but the development of social media has been very much faster and very much less regulated than the national regulatory... legal structure can handle. So, and we all know websites and social media carrying stories which are completely untrue, completely without facts. And I think we have to accept that it is one of the new realities um... And, hopefully, that the majority of the community can recognise um... these defamatory um... sides. That is not a very positive answer, I'm afraid, but I I... It's one of the things that I... I I've been struggling with. And of course, it's outside any legislation and outside the um... competency of any researcher. All you can do is say: "It's not true" . I: Yeah. So, what makes you then persistent in performing your duties to promote research integrity? Because, as you said, it is not a positive example though. R: Um... I will be... Always explaining what we're doing, why we're doing actually. For example, within the research group, why we do things in a particular way and... that in turn means that the next generation of researchers are going to be sensitized to this. With colleagues, also, explaining uh you know, why we are moving into this direction, why we are making particular recommendations and also um... using a good English metaphor - the trying to use carrots to bring the horse towards rather than a stick to hit a horse with. I: Ok. Um... What are your greatest achievements in promoting research integrity? R: I think um... the new um... [code] for [my country] is going to be uh... um... something that I hope researchers will embrace. We've we've tried to recognise that the environment is totally different from ten years ago. We've tried to recognise that the stresses and the expectations on researchers have changed and that the um... scrutiny by external uh bodies um... has become intense in the last ten years. And trying to engender the spirit within the research community that it is within their interests and that it's not a burden, but it is actually best practice within their chosen discipline. And recognising that the disciplines have their own very specific needs and requirements. I: Yeah. That's quite a good start in advancement. But what else would you like to achieve? R: I: Is there something in your plans for the future? Because changing the culture is all over the time, it's within... it doesn't... doesn't happen, as you said, in one night. R: As one... one thing is the negative one that we we don't see another big case <...>. The other is... I would like to see academic institutions in their leadership slowly becoming more open. Um... and... and being up front... within the constraints of data protection and say... and, for example... the Nordic countries are very advanced in this. And the further South you travel in Europe um the less there is a tendency for transparency and the less of a tendency for openness. Um... I would very much like to see within universities, academic institutions and annual reports uh... just a paragraph saying that this year there were no academic... no cases, transgressions of research integrity or that there were two and that these have been dealt with internally. No identification of the subject, no identification. Just saying that... You know, it's it. It does happen, or it has happened, but it's not a major issue and that is something that I hope we will begin to see within the next five to ten years. I: Mh. Ok. So, what do you get from... this job? R: I'm sorry. I lost the internet. I: My question is "What do you get from this job?". R: Uh... A lot of headaches, actually . {...} A lot. I... I think a little bit of the sense of giving back to the community. Um... I I've been, I think, uh... very well treated by the academic community, the academic institutions. I've had very very fertile and supportive research environment and and it it's... one of the things that I feel that our more senior... colleagues should be doing, thinking about what they can do for their subject, for their... academic community, for their national community and so on. I I I get... I get a great deal of pleasure out of that, feeling that maybe we are doing something that will help the next generation in the generation after that. I: Mh. How are you appreciated for this? I mean, what credit do you get from this? R: Um... Not really a lot . It's recognised within the university that's... we'are fulfilling this role, but there is, certainly, no formal recognition of it um... within the academic institution. I: Mh. So, to summing up, what does your work mean to you? R: It... makes me optimistic for the future. It makes me... believe that next and future generations of scientists in a general sense of all academic activities will be better prepared for the challenges that they face, that they will... embrace the opportunities of open science um... and... become more conscious of their relationship with the broader society. And at the same time recognising that the codes and the um... oversight, which academic activities have, is greater than almost any other uh... area of human activity um... Whether we compare it with the financial world, whether we... even if we compare it... Maybe if we... say that all academic activities are coming under the same sorts of oversight that medical activities have been in the past. And so... the future generations of academics, that we're hoping to help here, are going to have to... operate in an environment which uh... in the 1980s and 1990s would have been unrecognised. So that that's my... what I think is going to be of great benefit of all we're doing. I: Mh. And is there anything else that you find important, but I haven't asked, and you would like to share? R: Um... Probably simply to say... that... to reiterate the Nordic countries are uh... significantly further down the line in terms of institutionalisation of uh... research integrity um... in terms of national structures, in terms of codes of conduct. Um... There is a relatively lively debate at present as to whether those institutional structures are necessarily achieving the goals that they were set up for or whether they are having an effect of driving transgression deeper underground. I: Mh. R: I I I think the... maybe my my my final comment here is... I think that... there was one of the American um... presidents um... who said - "Speak softly but carry a big stick". And I... I think this is the thing that you should try to persuade, and you should uh... bring a research community with you, but, at the same time, that community has to be aware that there are uh... sanctions if the um... if transgressions are identified. I: Ok. Great! So, thank you once again a lot! {...}