Undoubtedly the outlier of this podcast series. While perhaps not at the heart of the concept of research integrity, the choice to highlight humanity in doing science is deliberate. After all, a research integrity culture cannot grow and flourish without vulnerability. Without questioning ourselves, our behaviour, our work, the scientific enterprise. Without addressing those issues that make us push (scientific) boundaries and at the same time, run into (personal) limits.

This episode is an intimate conversation about real people, who are also real scientists. We welcome:  Charlotte De Backer, Full Professor of communication sciences at the University of Antwerp, specialized in interpersonal communication and Ernst Koster, full Professor in Clinical Psychology affiliated to the dept. of Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology at Ghent University. 

In this episode, we cover

• The personal case of Charlotte.
• Pitfalls of the research profession (academic environment) and the internal mechanisms (personality traits) of researchers, backed up by theory and scientific proof.
• How these in- and external mechanisms influence our way of working when it comes to research integrity and how we can foster research integrity (more).
• How these mechanisms evolved over time and how they can/should evolve in the future (alternatives).
• Specific advice from the experts.

----------------------------------------------------------------

This podcast series complements the online training tool 'Mind the GAP, training on Good Academic Practices'. Mind the GAP is an English-language training tool for all researchers and those involved in research, from PhD students to more experienced researchers, to teachers and policy makers.  

If you are affiliated with a Flemish university you can find the tool on your institution’s educational platform: 

Ghent University: Ufora  

KU Leuven: Toledo 

University of Antwerp: Blackboard 

Hasselt University: Blackboard  

Vrije Universiteit Brussel: Canvas 

Not part of the above institutions? Go to https://mindthegap.vlir.be/ and follow the international version of the tool (condensed version).   

The Mind the GAP Podcast was jointly developed by VLIR (Flemish Interuniversity Council – Filip Colson) and the five Flemish universities (Ghent University – Stefanie Van der Burght; KU Leuven – Wouter Vandevelde; University of Antwerp – Marianne De Voecht; Hasselt University – Stephanie Ruysschaert; Vrije Universiteit Brussel – Klara Swalus) and was financed by the Flemish government. It was produced by podcast agency De Praeters and hosted by Elisa Nelissen (KU Leuven). 

Connect with us: https://mindthegap.vlir.be/

----------------------------------------------------------------

Resources Mentioned 

• ALLEA (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Revised Edition 2023. Berlin. DOI 10.26356/ECOC           
• Carpentier N. (2022). Waarom moet alles “top” zijn en is er geen trager rijvak meer? De Standaard, 1 juni. Retrieved July 9, 2024 from https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20220531_97581993.  
• Need help? 
• Ghent University: Intranet (search: Psychosocial well-being)  
• KU Leuven: Well-being - Health care, well-being & safety
• University of Antwerp: Intranet on wellbeing
• Hasselt University: Support  
• Vrije Universiteit Brussel: Welzijn: ons hulpaanbod – VUB
• Ashley Crossman (2019). What is game theory? Economic game theory? ThoughtCo, March 1. Retrieved July 15, 2024 from https://www.thoughtco.com/game-theory-3026626.  

Key Takeaways

• Being a scientist is doing 3 jobs at the same time (research, education, administration), this can be hard.
• The passion that drives us can at the same time hold a risk to overachieving, crossing personal boundaries, stress, perfectionism, imposter syndrome, ... .
• All of us struggle with the mixture of personality traits and the demands of the academic environment, at some point, to some extent. How much will differ from the specific combination.
• Researchers have to make/get/take time to reflect and doubt on what they do. It is a crucial element in an environment of thinkers.
• Cultural change is slow, we need to actively work on it.
• Different people have different strengths and all of them are valuable.
• If you do something for a day job, you will make mistakes. This is not embarrassing. We just must deal with it.
• Research is a team effort.
• Advice Charlotte: take moments of silence and breaks. That too is being highly efficient (this idea is backed up by research on mind wandering)
• Advice Ernst: keep talking about the issues to keep improving working in academia.

In this episode we discuss authorship in academic research; the core aspects of recognizing contributions to scientific research, and all challenges related to this. Why is authorship such an important issue in science? How do you determine all authors on a paper? What is a significant contribution? What are the consequences of becoming an author? Where do issues mostly arise and what can we do to avoid them?  

Together with Ben Nemery, Emeritus Professor in Medicine and Toxicology at the Centre for Environment and Health within the Department of Public Health and Primary Care of the Medical Faculty of the KU Leuven and Kevin De Moortel, Tenure Track Professor of Digital Entrepreneurship & Innovation in the department of Business Technology and Operations (BUTO) of VUB’s Faculty of Social Sciences and Solvay Business School, we try to find some answers to these challenging questions.  

In this episode, we cover

• What is authorship?
• What is a substantial contribution?
• The importance of authorship within the broader research climate
• Struggles considering authorship and integrity
• Good practices concerning determining authorship
• How to discuss authorship with your colleagues
• How te deal with authorship disputes

----------------------------------------------------------------

This podcast series complements the online training tool 'Mind the GAP, training on Good Academic Practices'. Mind the GAP is an English-language training tool for all researchers and those involved in research, from PhD students to more experienced researchers, to teachers and policy makers.  

If you are affiliated with a Flemish university you can find the tool on your institution’s educational platform: 

Ghent University: Ufora  

KU Leuven: Toledo 

University of Antwerp: Blackboard 

Hasselt University: Blackboard  

Vrije Universiteit Brussel: Canvas 

Not part of the above institutions? Go to https://mindthegap.vlir.be/ and follow the international version of the tool (condensed version).   

The Mind the GAP Podcast was jointly developed by VLIR (Flemish Interuniversity Council – Filip Colson) and the five Flemish universities (Ghent University – Stefanie Van der Burght; KU Leuven – Wouter Vandevelde; University of Antwerp – Marianne De Voecht; Hasselt University – Stephanie Ruysschaert; Vrije Universiteit Brussel – Klara Swalus) and was financed by the Flemish government. It was produced by podcast agency De Praeters and hosted by Elisa Nelissen (KU Leuven). 

Connect with us: https://mindthegap.vlir.be/

----------------------------------------------------------------

Resources mentioned

ALLEA (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Revised Edition 2023. Berlin. DOI 10.26356/ECOC       

Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) https://credit.niso.org/

Key Takeaways

• Deciding on authorship is a hard thing and can involve various forms of potential misconduct.
• Authorship has always been important in science. This has only increased as it is now the coin for promotion. With this, the number of related issues increased, making authorship issues most files within the commissions for research integrity.
• Learning how to handle the determining of authorship from a promotor is most valuable.
• The contribution to justify authorship should be substantial, intellectual and is in no way quantifiable.
• There’re 4 conditions to meet before becoming an author.
• Ignoring contributions is not a good research practice.
• Research is a collective exercise, in general, and so is authorship. It’s an exercise in democracy.
• Authorship roles such as CRediT is a safer way of determining contributions (use it!), but it doesn’t solve all issues.
• Responsibility for the (content) of the article and the integrity of the other coauthors is part of being an author and should be accepted by all authors involved.
• Discuss authorship issues at an early stage and keep them updated throughout the making of the article, in an agreement.
• In case of conflict, people can file a report to the commissions for research integrity but it’s more important to prevent this by talking to contact points, ombuds persons, ... .
• The atmosphere in the work environment co-determines the occurrence of authorship issues. Toxic leadership increases the probability of these issues happening.
• The focus on metrics in researcher evaluation (number of publications, factor analyses, ...) has an impact on the occurrence of authorship issues. Good evaluation boards will now focus more on the quality of papers.
• The content of your paper is more likely to make a difference than you as an author.
• Think strategically about what you want to be known for (your expertise) and the quality of your work.

Hot and trending as this topic may well be, the use of (Gen)AI in research is here to stay. And it’s use also presents some challenges from a research integrity perspective. What are the (dis)advantages and how can we integrate them into good research practice? Who is responsible for the correct use of (Gen)AI and how can we achieve the correct use of the tools amongst researchers?  Walter Daelemans, Full Professor of Computational Linguistics at the University of Antwerp, Geert-Jan Bex, Full Professor at the Faculty of Science, Hasselt University and Vincent Ginis, Associate Professor at the Data Analytics Lab at Vrije Universiteit Brussel discuss the main issues from their own research expertise.  

In this episode, we cover:

• What is (Gen)AI & how does it work?
• How can (Gen)AI be used in an academic (research) practice?
• What is the impact of the use of (Gen)AI on our time and efficiency?
• Ways to estimate the extent to which (Gen)AI is used
• What is responsible use of (Gen)AI?
• What do you need to know before starting to use (Gen)AI?
• What disadvantages should you take into account?
• What are the main ethical issues when using (Gen)AI in research?
• How to deal with hallucinations in tools?
• How to reference the use of (Gen)AI?
• Who is responsible when using (Gen)AI?

---------------------------------------------------------------

This podcast series complements the online training tool 'Mind the GAP, training on Good Academic Practices'. Mind the GAP is an English-language training tool for all researchers and those involved in research, from PhD students to more experienced researchers, to teachers and policy makers.  

If you are affiliated with a Flemish university you can find the tool on your institution’s educational platform: 

Ghent University: Ufora 

KU Leuven: Toledo 

University of Antwerp: Blackboard 

Hasselt University: Blackboard  

Vrije Universiteit Brussels: Canvas  

Not part of the above institutions? Go to https://mindthegap.vlir.be/ and follow the international version of the tool (condensed version).   

The Mind the GAP Podcast was jointly developed by VLIR (Flemish Interuniversity Council – Filip Colson) and the five Flemish universities (Ghent University – Stefanie Van der Burght; KU Leuven – Wouter Vandevelde; University of Antwerp – Marianne De Voecht; Hasselt University – Stephanie Ruysschaert; Vrije Universiteit Brussel – Klara Swalus) and was financed by the Flemish government. It was produced by podcast agency De Praeters and hosted by Elisa Nelissen (KU Leuven).  

Connect with Us: https://mindthegap.vlir.be/

------------------------------------------------------------

Resources Mentioned 

• ALLEA (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Revised Edition 2023. Berlin. DOI 10.26356/ECOC       
• Chat GPT  
• DALL-E 
• Github 
• Copilot 
• Consensus 
• Roth, E. (2024). Google explains Gemini’s ‘embarrassing’ AI pictures of diverse Nazis. The Verge, 23 February. Retrieved July 9 from Google explains Gemini’s ‘embarrassing’ AI pictures of diverse Nazis - The Verge  

Key Takeaways

• Researchers remain responsible for the use of (Gen)AI and its outputs (full accountability). Institutions have an important role to play in building the right infrastructure.
• You need to become an expert in a (Gen)AI tool to use it as an assistant (you must know your field before you can use it in your field)
• Avoid copy/paste in and out of any (Gen)AI tool. Think of it as a conversation partner, get input and work on it yourself.
• Scrutinize everything that comes out with domain knowledge.
• Garbage in = garbage out.
• Tools and models are constantly evolving, both the possibilities and concrete usability need to be monitored and fine-tuned constantly.
• Hallucinations are not necessarily a bad thing, it shows the creative possibilities of a system. It is up to the researcher to make sense of it in the context of use.
• Referencing (Gen)AI makes little sense as in the future tools will be built in all kinds of applications which will make them even more difficult (or impossible) to be distinguished.

Science claims to be self-correcting through the system of corrections and retractions in journal publications. But how effective and comprehensive is this self-regulating system? How to deal with potential mistakes? What distinguishes a correction from a retraction? When are they needed and who makes the decision? Where do the responsibilities lie and for whom?

In this episode 3 guests share thoughts on this: Gert Storms, Full Professor at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences at KU Leuven and chairperson of the Flemish Commission for Research Integrity; Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, a website reporting on retractions of scientific papers and related topics; Line Edslev Andersen, a philosopher and postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science at Vrije Universiteit Brussel. 

In this episode, we cover:  

• The difference between corrections and retractions.
• The procedure to make these adjustments to the scientific literature.
• Why it is important to correct and retract literature
• Why it is important to be transparent about this.
• What to do when you suspect fraud/mistake in someone else’s paper.
• The responsibility of all authors of the questioned publication.

----------------------------------------------------------------

This podcast series complements the online training tool 'Mind the GAP, training on Good Academic Practices'. Mind the GAP is an English-language training tool for all researchers and those involved in research, from PhD students to more experienced researchers, to teachers and policy makers.  

If you are affiliated with a Flemish university you can find the tool on your institution’s educational platform: 

Ghent University: Ufora 

KU Leuven: Toledo 

University of Antwerp: Blackboard 

Hasselt University: Blackboard  

Vrije Universiteit Brussels: Canvas 

Not part of the above institutions? Go to https://mindthegap.vlir.be/ and follow the international version of the tool (condensed version).   

The Mind the GAP Podcast was jointly developed by VLIR (Flemish Interuniversity Council – Filip Colson) and the five Flemish universities (Ghent University – Stefanie Van der Burght; KU Leuven – Wouter Vandevelde; University of Antwerp – Marianne De Voecht; Hasselt University – Stephanie Ruysschaert; Vrije Universiteit Brussel – Klara Swalus) and was financed by the Flemish government. It was produced by podcast agency De Praeters and hosted by Elisa Nelissen (KU Leuven). 

Connect with us: https://mindthegap.vlir.be/

--------------------------------------------------------------

Resources Mentioned 

• NISO. (27/06/2024). NISO Publishes Recommended Practice for the Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC). Retrieved September 6, 2024 from https://www.niso.org/press-releases/niso-publishes-recommended-practice-communication-retractions-removals-and   
• Retraction Watch: https://retractionwatch.com/ 
• Retraction Watch Database: http://retractiondatabase.org  

Key Takeaways

• The number of retractions is likely an underestimation of the actual number of publications that need to be retracted.
• Within the last years, more efforts have been made to discover errors in research.
• Mistakes can happen, if so, it is important to be transparent about this.
• A retraction does not mean that misconduct occurred.
• All authors on a paper are responsible to make sure that mistakes/fraud are handled appropriately.

Initially, the principles of Research Data Management (RDM) were often seen as an administrative burden. Today, however, we see a well-oiled system designed to enhance data quality and improve the overall research process. RDM is now a cornerstone of research integrity. What constitutes solid Research Data Management? What do researchers have to take into account when starting and conducting their research?  How can we navigate the complexities of Data Management Plans (DMPs) and FAIR data principles without getting lost?

Two experts guide us through this interesting area; Nicky Daniels, RDM Data Steward at Hasselt University and Laura Standaert, Data Steward at Ghent University (Life Sciences & Medicine cluster, which includes the Faculties of Medicine, Health Sciences, Veterinary Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences).  

In this episode, we cover:

• Definition and impact of Research Data Management
• Risks of not having Research Data Management procedures
• Enhancing visibility through sound Research Data Management
• Perceived barriers to data sharing
• The FAIR principles
• Link of Research Data Management with ethics and privacy
• The recognition for the importance of Research Data Management
• What is a Data Management Plan?
• How do you choose the right repository for your data?

----------------------------------------------------------------

This podcast series complements the online training tool 'Mind the GAP, training on Good Academic Practices'. Mind the GAP is an English-language training tool for all researchers and those involved in research, from PhD students to more experienced researchers, to teachers and policy makers.  

If you are affiliated with a Flemish university you can find the tool on your institution’s educational platform: 

Ghent University: Ufora  

KU Leuven: Toledo 

University of Antwerp: Blackboard 

Hasselt University: Blackboard  

Vrije Universiteit Brussels: Canvas  

Not part of the above institutions? Go to https://mindthegap.vlir.be/ and follow the international version of the tool (condensed version).   

The Mind the GAP Podcast was jointly developed by VLIR (Flemish Interuniversity Council – Filip Colson) and the five Flemish universities (Ghent University – Stefanie Van der Burght; KU Leuven – Wouter Vandevelde; University of Antwerp – Marianne De voecht; Hasselt University – Stephanie Ruysschaert; Vrije Universiteit Brussel – Klara Swalus) and was financed by the Flemish government. It was produced by podcast agency De Praeters and hosted by Elisa Nelissen (KU Leuven). 

Connect with us: https://mindthegap.vlir.be/

----------------------------------------------------------------

Resources Mentioned 

• Creative Commons: Creative Commons licences  
• Re3data.org: Re3data 
• Zenodo 

Key Takeaways

• Sound Research Data Management makes your research more efficient
• With Research Data Management you can acknowledge researchers involved in data collection.
• The FAIR principles: the acronym is more difficult than the practice
• The attitude of senior researchers sets the treshold for data sharing
• Check Research Data Management requirements of journals and funders in advance

Research integrity evolved from a trending topic to a comprehensive and robust scientific discipline. But what exactly are we talking about? What is the concept of research integrity and what does it look like in everyday practice?  

Aurélie Crabbé, Assistant professor at the Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Microbiology, Ghent University, Belgium and Kris Dierickx, Full professor of medical ethics at the Faculty of Medicine and a member of the Interfaculty Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, part of the Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Belgium, talk about the many aspects of research integrity and the challenges of translating a theoretical framework into everyday research practice.  

In this episode, we cover:

• What is research integrity (three levels of research integrity)?
• Why is research integrity important?
• How research integrity affects society
• Is research integrity a new phenomenon?
• How to combine the pressure in academia with research integrity?
• How to stay on the right path forward?
• The responsibility of PI’s

----------------------------------------------------------------

This podcast series complements the online training tool 'Mind the GAP, training on Good Academic Practices'. Mind the GAP is an English-language training tool for all researchers and those involved in research, from PhD students to more experienced researchers, to teachers and policy makers.  

If you are affiliated with a Flemish university you can find the tool on your institution’s educational platform: 

Ghent University: Ufora  

KU Leuven: Toledo  

University of Antwerp: Blackboard 

Hasselt University: Blackboard  

Vrije Universiteit Brussel: Canvas 

Not part of the above institutions? Go to https://mindthegap.vlir.be/ and follow the international version of the tool (condensed version).   

The Mind the GAP Podcast was jointly developed by VLIR (Flemish Interuniversity Council – Filip Colson) and the five Flemish universities (Ghent University – Stefanie Van der Burght; KU Leuven – Wouter Vandevelde; University of Antwerp – Marianne De Voecht; Hasselt University – Stephanie Ruysschaert; Vrije Universiteit Brussel – Klara Swalus) and was financed by the Flemish government. It was produced by podcast agency De Praeters and hosted by Elisa Nelissen (KU Leuven). 

Connect with us: https://mindthegap.vlir.be/

----------------------------------------------------------------

Resources Mentioned 

• Wakefield, A. J. et al. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet, 351(9103):637-41. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(97)11096-0.
• Rao T.S., Andrade C. (2011). The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud. Indian J Psychiatry. 53(2):95-6. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.82529. PMID: 21772639;PMCID: PMC3136032.
• Elisabeth Bik. Science Integrity Digest – A blog about science integrity. https://scienceintegritydigest.com/
• ALLEA (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Revised Edition 2023. Berlin. DOI 10.26356/ECOC    
• Vlaamse Commissie voor Wetenschappelijke Integriteit (VCWI) (Flemish Commission for Scientific Integrity). https://vcwi.be/
• World Health Organisation (WHO). (31/07/2023). Factsheet Tobacco. Retrieved July 15, 2024 from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco.

Key Takeaways

• Research integrity is a hard concept to define. It can have many meanings, at least three: on the individual (moral character), on the research process (method, design, …) and on an institutional level (funders, journals, …).
• The importance of research integrity relates to the basis of research: we build upon previous knowledge therefore it is important to start with high quality results. It’s a matter of trust.
• The impact of breaches of research integrity is case-specific: in some cases the effect is clear (and impactful) e.g. clinical trial research on patients, but even cases with ‘minor’ consequences can still have an effect e.g. loss of research time, money.
• Research integrity isn’t a new topic but current context has an impact (increase of the courage to report, knowledge on the topic, pressure/competition, limited risk to be caught, …).
• To be able to combine working with research integrity with the current pressures, structural changes have to be made, e.g. focus on quality instead of quantity in research(er) evaluation is one such small step.
• It’s a big challenge for researchers to deal with issues of research integrity but discussing the issues is worth it: there’s always a solution.
• Research integrity is a shared responsibility for all those involved (junior, supervisors, institution, doctoral schools unit, …). Institutions have a crucial role in creating a safe environment and in enhancing research skills (training, support, …).
• A safe environment and an open research climate in which issues can be debated, are important preconditions for a research climate with integrity.
• (Working with) research integrity is team work as is science (‘team science’).
• With a view to reproducibility, both for yourself and for colleagues, it is important to accurately write down all steps relating to the (processing of the) data.
• (Early on) training is crucial (provide it – attend it – value it, throughout your career).
• Talk to your supervisor (or someone in your professional environment) if you have any doubts.