=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2387/20190398
|storemode=property
|title=Maintaining Scientific Integrity through Academic-Industrial Research and Development Cooperation
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2387/20190398.pdf
|volume=Vol-2387
|authors=Maryna Zharikova,Volodymyr Sherstjuk
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/icteri/ZharikovaS19
}}
==Maintaining Scientific Integrity through Academic-Industrial Research and Development Cooperation==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2387/20190398.pdf
Maintaining Scientific Integrity through Academic-
Industrial Research and Development Cooperation
Maryna Zharikova, Volodymyr Sherstjuk
Kherson National Technical University, Kherson, Ukraine
marina.jarikova@gmail.com, vgsherstyuk@gmail.com
Abstract. Studies in modern universities are closely integrated with research, in-
novation, and knowledge transfer. Research and development activity can im-
prove the quality of education and help to achieve the desired demands of the
labor market, especially if high-tech enterprises are involved in the process. How-
ever, employers may be dissatisfied with graduates because of their unethical re-
search practices. The latter is a complex multi-faceted phenomenon that requires
a holistic response, beyond just a policy of information and sanctions. This is
especially true for master and doctoral degree students involved in research and
development. It is more preferable to encourage them to build their creativity and
critical thinking skills as a precondition for research integrity than institutionalize
policies and procedures. The aim of the paper is to develop avenues to maintain
scientific integrity among second- and third-level students of higher education
institutions by establishing effective cooperation between universities and high-
tech enterprises in the field of research and development. The paper outlines the
problem of unethical research practices, the analysis of the reasons and typology
of research dishonesty is undertaken. The infrastructure, information technology,
and appropriate tools for academic-industrial cooperation providing ethically
sustainable research and innovation practices are proposed. High-tech enterprises
are involved in feedback using monitoring and audit tools for a systematic and
independent examination of the research and development activities of students.
The adoption of developed information technology and tools will ensure scien-
tific integrity in practice and allow teaching students to think like scientists
through building their creative and innovation skills in close cooperation with
leading high-tech enterprises.
Keywords: research and development, university-enterprise cooperation, scien-
tific integrity, higher education institution, monitoring and audit, information
technology.
1 Introduction
The role of higher educational institutions (HEIs) is not restricted to education and re-
search activity. The crucial task is the development of research culture characterized by
integrity and commitment of academic members to moral values. Research integrity
means academic honesty and implies that students and teachers involved in science
abide by a code of honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility related to the
production, publication, assessment, and exchange of knowledge in research.
Current global, national and institutional pressures and restrictions (such as limited
or lack of resources (money, time, institutional support), as well as lack of institutional
interest or capacity to invest in maintaining research integrity) often give rise to diverse
unethical research practices in Europe. The worst situation with research integrity is
reported in the countries of Eastern Europe. Research conducted in Ukraine shows a
twofold increase in the percentage of students involved in unethical behavior in the last
decades. Tight deadlines and the rush to produce and publish results, funding and fi-
nancial incentives, competition, prestige and fame often lead to a high incidence of
‘sloppy’ results and irreproducible outcomes, which are characterized by a lack of sci-
entific novelty and research validation, publishing the same paper in several different
journals, plagiarizing ideas, etc.
Hyper-competition for funding, globalization, industry-academic partnerships, inter-
disciplinary research challenges give rise to increasing demand for research integrity.
A novel approach to the scientific process, so-called Open Science, makes scientific
research, data, and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society, and
consequently requires that ethically sustainable practices be applied in all stages of the
research process. Being based on cooperative work and information distribution Open
Science promotes collaborative research and development (R&D) activities in an effec-
tive manner. Research and business enterprises often spend resources on certain re-
search undertakings in order to make discoveries that can help to develop new products
or ways of doing things or work towards enhancing pre-existing products or processes.
R&D shall be conducted and communicated in accordance with the highest scientific,
professional, and ethical standards and in a manner that fosters mutual respect and en-
hances the reputation of the individual researcher, his/her colleagues, the university and
the country he/she represents. It’s paramount to conduct research with integrity, i.e.
doing research in a way which allows others, especially business enterprises spending
on R&D, to have trust in the developed methods, findings and any publications based
on the research [1-5]. R&D requires that research activity should be made understand-
able and its quality should be measurable.
The idea of this paper grew up from the contradiction between increasing in diverse
unethical research practices and a lack of methods to deal with them on the one hand,
and requirements imposed by R&D on the other hand.
European countries have already made great progress in the field of maintaining ac-
ademic integrity. There are many trainings and guidelines for maintaining academic
integrity in European countries reflected in Erasmus+ projects, such as “European net-
work for academic integrity” (2016-1-CZ01-KA203-023949) [6], “Integrity”, “Aca-
demic integrity for quality teaching and learning in higher education institutions in
Georgia (INTEGRITY)”, “Innovative approaches towards teaching anti-corruption in
formal education”.
However, none of these projects covers existing problems of bridging the gap be-
tween research activity in the universities and the requirements of business enterprises
through research integrity. Training and guidelines developed within existing Eras-
mus+ projects are necessary, but not sufficient to change behavior: the actual reward
structure is what matters most. To realize the balance of reward and punishment new
approaches to quantitative and qualitative assessments of research activity should be
developed.
The paper is aimed at the development of research ethics information technology
(REIT) for fostering research integrity in higher educational institutions (HEIs) through
establishing effective cooperation between universities and high-tech enterprises in the
field of research and development (R&D). The main components of REIT are the tools
for research integrity monitoring and research integrity audit provided as feedback from
enterprises.
The main target groups of the developed technology are second-level and third-level
students (master degree and Ph.D. degree) of HEIs, as well as their teachers and super-
visors. There are no common rules for assessing research integrity and responding to
research misconduct for these target groups that could be adapted to the countries less
developed in terms of research integrity.
Except for master degree, Ph.D. degree students and their teachers REIT covers the
following audience: HEIs’ management, ethics committees, all career stage research-
ers, business enterprises investing in R&D, employers.
The aim of REIT is to develop avenues to maintain scientific integrity among sec-
ond- and third-level students of higher education institutions by establishing effective
cooperation between universities and high-tech enterprises in the field of research and
development.
2 Typology of Research Misconduct
Research misconduct covers a vast array of behaviors that can be classified in the fol-
lowing way [7-9].
Data fabrication and falsification. Data fabrication implies inventing fake data,
whereas data falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment or pro-
cesses, as well as changing, omitting or suppressing data or results to obtain some spe-
cific results without justification [10].
Plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Plagiarism implies stealing other people’s work or
ideas, and self-plagiarism means using one’s own ideas or re-publishing parts of one’s
own earlier publications, including translations, without providing proper credit to the
original source [10].
Duplicate publication, redundant publication, and salami publication. The duplicate
publication indicated publishing two identical papers in different journals, whereas re-
dundant publication means publication of two similar papers. Salami publication in-
volves publishing several papers from a single study.
Wrongdoings in the process of data analysis. Any wrong doings in the process of
data analysis such as ignoring outliers, ignoring missing data, reporting post-hoc anal-
yses without declaring them could have serious impacts on the results. Each outlier and
the missing result should be admitted and declared. Any type of post-hoc analyses
should be declared in advance by the researchers.
Authorship disputes. Authorship disputes indicate any disagreements between re-
searchers about the names and orders of the authors in a given paper including guest or
ghost authorship.
Failure to carry out a thorough literature review before commencing new research.
Failure to carry out a thorough literature review before commencing new research is
judged to be a questionable research practice since inadequate literature review might
lead to flawed or repetitive research.
Establishing or supporting journals that undermine the quality control of research.
Predatory publishers offer authors a quick and easy route to publication in exchange for
a fee and usually without any apparent peer review or quality control [10].
It’s been proposed to build research misconduct classification tree (Fig.1).
Fig. 1. Research misconduct classification tree
Each research misconduct can be referred to a separate type T and assessed in terms of
severity using n predefined parameters [11].
3 Components of Research Ethics Information Technology
The main components of REIT are the tools for research integrity monitoring, assess-
ment of research misconduct, and research integrity audit provided as feedback from
enterprises.
Monitoring.
Research integrity monitoring is a process meant to provide accurate and real-time
information concerning research activity of the main target group with the aim of diag-
nosis of research misconduct.
Information about violations can be provided by different sources. For example, in-
formation about plagiarism can be detected using special plagiarism check software.
Information about cheating and fabrication can be obtained from the special video con-
trol system.
The responsibility for monitoring in the HEI rests with a monitoring team that ac-
quires evidence either directly or through information supplied by others that a viola-
tion of research integrity by student or teacher may have occurred and recorded the
information in the database [12]. Monitoring team conducts an initial review of allega-
tions of academic dishonesty at the HEI to determine whether there is sufficient evi-
dence of a violation. The monitoring team is responsible for determining whether
charges will be filed against a student or teacher. When a student or a teacher admit
responsibility for an infraction, the monitoring team recommends a sanction.
The sanctions include, but are not limited to [12]:
a reduced grade for the course for the student;
temporary dismissal from class;
dismissal from class for the remainder of the term;
a reduced rating, which leads to a cut in scholarship (salary).
Assessment.
Each research misconduct event should be assessed in terms of severity using n pre-
defined parameters. The violation severity Sev is a point in n-dimensional space of pa-
rameters x1 , x2 ,..., xn . The parameters of misconduct severity assessment in each par-
ticular case are as follows:
1. an amount of violence committed by a definite person;
2. a frequency of violence committed by a definite person;
3. a number of study years or a number of years in the profession. The more the number
of years the more deliberate the violation is.
Knowing the violence type T and the level of its seriousness S we can assess it using
definite quantitative measure A (assessment), which allows determining an appropriate
punishment.
Let us determine zones in n-dimensional space characterizing the violations of dif-
ferent level:
1. violations characterized by inexperience or a lack of knowledge of research integrity
principles;
2. violations characterized by the dishonesty of a more serious nature or by dishonesty
that affects a more significant aspect or portion of the course work.
3. violations characterized by dishonesty that affects a major or essential portion of
work done to meet course requirements, or involve premeditation, or are preceded
by one or more violations at levels one and two.
4. violations characterized by the most serious breaches of intellectual honesty and ac-
ademic integrity:
A f T , S .
Violation response is based on a case base consisting of the following rules:
A Response ,
represented as cases. Case base is developed to create and store these rules, as well as
to respond to research misconduct (Fig.2).
Fig. 2. Research integrity monitoring
Each case includes a description of the research misconduct situation and correspond-
ing response as a kind of penalty that the system prompts a responsible person to choose
for the detected violation. A search for a suitable case requires a given similarity func-
tion assessment for the observed situation with respect to the existing situations stored
in the case base.
To build a similarity degree evaluation function we can use the well-known nearest
neighbor method based on measuring the coincidence degree for the case parameter
values.
Using a case base allows us to take into account the history of violations committed
by a certain student, as well as his (her) overall track record.
Audit.
Research Integrity Audit is systematic and independent examination of research ac-
tivities and documentation, to determine that the research study is being conducted in
accordance with established or predetermined criteria which can then be communicated
to interested parties [13].
According to the developed information technology, academic research audit is pro-
vided by the representatives of enterprises taking part in R&D cooperation with the HEI
who spend resources on certain research undertakings. They check the degree of corre-
spondence between conducted research and R&D agreement [14].
The audit can be conducted systematically or “for cause” if there are suspected prob-
lems with the research. Research integrity audit should involve objective evidence to
evaluate research data and their derivatives. It should determine the degree of corre-
spondence between assertions based on the data (e.g., results, conclusions, tables, fig-
ures) and the original data, using prior criteria. Auditors should communicate the audit
outcome to affected parties.
4 Research Ethics Information Technology through Academic-
Industrial Cooperation
REIT contains a series of interrelated processes such as research integrity monitoring,
assessment of research integrity, and research integrity audit (Fig.3).
Fig. 3. Information technology for research integrity through academic-industrial cooperation
Monitoring is provided by monitoring team composed of the representatives of the in-
stitution (faculty members or administrators). The parameters obtained during monitor-
ing enter the assessment subsystem where the research activity of students and teachers
is assessed. Such assessments should be rational for appropriate sanctions.
The audit is an effective way to gather feedback from enterprises about the effec-
tiveness of the research. How often this is done depends on the amount of research
undertaken in the institution. In major institutions, it is anticipated that an audit should
be undertaken for at least one research project per year.
5 Impact
Concerning the main target groups, master and Ph.D. students, as well as their teachers
and supervisors, the following impacts are expected as a direct result of implementing
REIT:
a better understanding of the concept of research integrity;
increased capacity for professional development for the HEI staff involved in re-
search activities;
improved conditions for researchers and subsequently higher chances to be involved
in international scientific projects;
increased adaptability and flexibility in an increasingly diverse, mobile, multicul-
tural and interdisciplinary work environment and society.
REIT will also influence HEIs’ management, ethics committees and all career stage
researchers allowing to increase their awareness in audit as a procedure, what steps
should be taken to embed it institutionally.
As a result of implementing REIT HEIs will obtain the following benefit:
research ethics development for academics, research staff, and postgraduate re-
searchers;
decreased volume of research misbehavior will be obtained as a result of developed
practices of research monitoring and audit, as well as a result of planned training;
the increased reputation of organizations;
increased number of students who want to be engaged in research;
a higher number of the good-quality thesis, scientific papers, and successful gradu-
ates, they will be more credible and respected by the general public and experts.
Business enterprises investing in R&D will obtain confidence that all possible steps of
research are being taken properly and the funding is not wasted. Potential employers
will get higher efficiency, productivity, responsibility, and creativity of their future em-
ployees.
REIT addresses scientific malpractices which are applicable across the whole re-
search sector not only in Ukraine but in other countries.
Apart from the impact to the universities, there will be a significant impact on the
local associations/institutions as well. Local associations/organizations will be in-
formed about the advancements as a result of REIT adoption, in general, through dis-
semination activities.
On a national level, REIT will be taken in stronger consideration by Ukrainian na-
tional science education system. The produced research integrity practices will continue
to be available and may become a point of reference for all subsequent attempts in the
field, both from the point of innovation and the suitability for a future accreditation and
recognition throughout EU.
The main tool for measuring impacts from implementing REIT is feedback from
students and teachers, as well as stakeholders. During public events, feedback from
relevant participants (students, teachers, academic workers, creative employees, busi-
nesses) can be collected to find out the level of REIT adoption usefulness. The ques-
tionnaires can be written and spread, discussions can be held among students, teacher,
and stakeholders.
In the long term universities will compare:
the percentage of the diploma or master/Ph.D. thesis detected by the developed re-
search integrity audit system to be made using unacceptable practices before and
after the launch of REIT
the number of master degree students applied to postgraduate study before and after
the launch of the REIT
the number of R&D cooperation agreements (collaborative R&D projects) before
and after the launch of REIT.
6 Case Study
The proposed REIT was implemented in Kherson National Technical University. The
technology has been being tested during the last three years among master, Ph.D. stu-
dents, and researches of Program Tools and Technologies department, as well as enter-
prises involved in R&D activities with them.
The impacts obtained as a direct result of the implementation of REIT are repre-
sented in table 1.
Table 1. Results of REIT implementation
Year 2017 2018 2019
Indicator
A percentage of master / Ph.D. thesis made 41 35 15
using unacceptable practices
A number of master degree students applied 1 3 7
to postgraduate study
A number of R&D cooperation agreements 0 2 5
Besides that, the REIT implementation allows master and Ph.D. students, as well as
their teachers and supervisors, to obtain the following impacts:
a better understanding of the concept of Research Integrity;
increased capacity for professional development for the staff of Program Tools and
Technologies department involved in research activities;
improved conditions for researchers and subsequently higher chances to be involved
in international scientific projects;
increased adaptability and flexibility in an increasingly diverse, mobile, multicul-
tural and interdisciplinary work environment and society.
Business enterprises investing in R&D obtain confidence that all possible steps of re-
search are being taken properly and the funding is not wasted. The impact for the em-
ployers is higher efficiency, productivity, responsibility, and creativity of their future
employees.
7 Conclusions
Cooperation between HEIs and business enterprises within the frame of proposed REIT
will enforce the responsibility of researches in HEIs. It will allow HEIs and enterprises
to benefit from the experiences and contacts of each other. Mutually beneficial and
sustainable university-enterprises R&D cooperation will provide graduates with a
high understanding of research integrity principles [14-20]. Ukrainian graduates will
meet the requirements of the international labor market and can enhance the integration
of Ukraine into the European IT sector.
References
1. Darisi, T., Watson, L.: Strengthening Youth Entrepreneurship Education. An Evaluation &
Best Practices Report (2017).
2. Yongxing, L.U.: Science and Technology in China: A Roadmap to 2050. Strategic General
Report of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Science Press Beijing and Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, Heidelberg (2010). DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-05342-9.
3. Kirby, D. A.: Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship
theory to practice. Journal of Technology Transfer 31(5), 599–603 (2006).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-9061-4.
4. Mahdi, R.: Myth and reality of entrepreneurial universities in Iran. In: ADVED 2016 2nd
International Conference on Advances in Education and Social Sciences, pp. 632–640. Is-
tanbul, Turkey (2016). doi 10.18768/ijaedu.280577.
5. Baaken, T., Davey, T.: University-Business cooperation in HEI across Europe with a focus
on universities of applied sciences. In: Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung 7(2), 44–63
(2012). DOI: 10.15290/ose.2015.05.77.01.
6. Final report “South East European Project on Policies for Academic Integrity” (2017). DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.10754.17605.
7. Rezaeian, M.: A review on the diverse types of research misconduct. Middle East Journal of
Family Medicine 12(7), 43-44 (2014). DOI: 10.5742/MEWEM.2014.92547.
8. Marshall, L.L., Varnon, A.W.: Attack on academic dishonesty: what ‘lies’ anead? Journal
of academic administration in higher education 13(2), 31-40 (2017). DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.12731/2218-7405-2013-2-15.
9. Corea, E. Research integrity. Journal of the postgraduate institute of medicine 4(1), 1-2
(2017). DOI: 10.4038/jpgim.8164.
10. The European code of conduct for research integrity. ALLEA, Berlin (2017).
11. Bird, S.J. Research ethics, research integrity and the responsible conduct of research. Sci-
ence and engineering ethics 12, 411-12 (2006).
12. Zharikova, M., Sherstjuk, V.: Academic integrity support system for educational institu-
tion. In: IEEE First Ukraine Conf. on Electrical and Computer Engineering (UKRCON), pp.
1212–1215. Kiev, Ukraine (2017) DOI: 10.1109/UKRCON.2017.8100445
13. Shamoo, A. Data audit as a way to prevent/contain misconduct. Accountability in Research
Policies and Quality Assurance 20, 369-379 (2013). DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822259.
14. Scaffidi, C. A survey of employers’ needs for technical and soft skills among new graduates.
International Journal of Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology 8(5/6),
11-21 (2018). DOI: 10.5121/ijcseit.2018.8602.
15. Dhakal, R.K Responsible practice of research: safeguarding research integrity and publica-
tion ethics. Journal of education and research 6(2) 1-11 (2016). DOI:
dx.doi.org/10.3126/jer.v6i2.22144.
16. Fouka, G. What are the major ethical issues in conducting research? Is there a conflict be-
tween the research ethics and the nature of nursing? Health science journal 5(1), 3-14 (2011)
17. Akaranga, S.I., Makau, B.K. Ethical considerations and their applications to research: a case
of the university of Nairobi. Journal of educational policy and entrepreneurial research 3(12)
1-9 (2016)
18. McGregor, J.L. Population genomics and research ethics with socially identifiable groups.
Journal of law, medicine & ethics 356-370 (2007). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-
720X.2007.00160.x.
19. Weippl, E., Schrittwieser, S., Rennert, S. Empirical research and research ethics in infor-
mation security. Springer International Publishing 14-22 (2017). DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-
54433-5_2.
20. Graf, C., Wager, E., Bowman, A. Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: a pub-
lisher’s perspective. International journal of clinical practice 6(2) 1-11 (2006). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.200.