7th World Conference
on Research Integrity
Cape Town, South Africa
29 May – 1 June 2022
The following information will be updated as the programme evolves. Please subscribe to our mailing list for programme and conference updates.
- Conference Theme
- Plenary Speakers
- Steneck-Mayer Lecture
- Program at a Glance
- Pre-conference Workshops
- Doctoral Forum
- Plenary Sessions
- Focus Track
- Concurrent Sessions
- Poster Sessions
- Meet the Expert Sessions
- WCRI Awards
The overarching theme of the 7th WCRI is Fostering Research Integrity in an Unequal World.
Conference subthemes include current global research integrity discussion areas such as:
- Research Integrity as a driver of research excellence and public trust
- Ethical best practice in authorship, publication and the use of research metrics
- Best practice in detection, investigation, and responding to research misconduct
An additional emerging subtheme included is:
- Ensuring research integrity in the context of the 4th Industrial Revolution (the convergence of the physical, biological, and digital world)
As this conference is in Africa for the first time, some additional subthemes particularly relevant to many African and Low and Middle Income (LMIC) Countries are included:
- Colonial legacies and research integrity: moving forward by building equity into research
- Counteracting plagiarism in multicultural and multilingual contexts
- Institutionalising Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) education and training, including curriculum development and implementation in low resource settings
Dr Gowri Gopalakrishna
Postdoc researcher of the Netherlands National Survey on Research Integrity, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science , Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Presentation title: Key findings of the Netherlands National Survey on Research Integrity
Dr Mario Malički
Postdoc researcher at Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, USA.
Presentation title: Influence of peer review in guarding publication quality and research integrity
Dr Sophia Jui-An Pan
Dr. Pan is an Assistant Research Fellow at the Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences (RCHSS), National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.
She has a specific interest in the best practices in ethics education, publication ethics in the digital era, and the challenges of supporting research integrity in the face of publication pressures, particularly from an East Asian perspective. She works with incredible scholars in Taiwan to promote research integrity and relevant education, especially with the Center for Taiwan Academic Research Ethics Education (AREE) and Taiwan Association for Academic Ethics Education (TAAEE). She conducts empirical research on research integrity (online) curriculum design and assessments.
Presentation title: Teaching research integrity through what students have known: the implementation of educational diagnostic assessments
Prof Amos Laar
Professor Amos Laar has academic training in Nutrition, Public Health, and Bioethics. In his independent scholarship, he draws on theoretical and methodological perspectives from the social sciences, bioethics, and public health to understand how physical environment, social environment, and the macro-environment affect health. Currently, his research focuses on two distinct, yet related areas of public health: bioethics (research ethics, ethics & public health; health & human rights); public health nutrition (food environment and nutrition-related non-communicable diseases).
Presentation title: Building sustainable research integrity and ethics capacity in Africa: Lessons from Ghana
Prof Edwin Were
Dr. Were is a Professor in the Department of Reproductive Health, Moi University School of Medicine.
He is an experienced HIV Prevention researcher who has participated in groundbreaking clinical trials including Partners HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis.
Additionally, Dr. Were has led the Institutional Research Ethics Committee for Moi University over the last 20 years, initially as Secretary, and now, as Chair.
He is a member of the Medicins san Frontiers, Ethics Review Board and is currently concluding an NIH supported project to build the Moi University
institutional capacity on Research Integrity. Dr. Were has over 50 peer-reviewed publications.
Presentation title: Developing and pilot testing an institutional framework for research misconduct management and prevention in Moi University, Kenya
Prof Ntobeko Ntusi
Prof Ntusi is the Head of Medicine and the Clinical Lead for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and cardiovascular computed tomography (CCT) at Groote Schuur Hospital and is appointed as a Cardiologist, Professor and Chair of Medicine to the faculty in the Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town. His primary research interests comprise inflammatory heart disease (including HIV-associated cardiovascular disease), non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and non-invasive imaging, with CMR.
Presentation title: Fostering Research Integrity in Clinical and Biomedical Research
Dr John Nkengasong
Dr John Nkengasong currently serves as the first Director of the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC). He is a leading virologist with nearly 30 years of work experience in public health. Prior to his appointment with Africa CDC, he was the Deputy Principal Director (acting) of the Centre for Global Health at the United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, and Associate Director of Laboratory Science and Chief of the International Laboratory Branch at the Division of Global HIV/AIDS and TB. Earlier this year, he was appointed as one of the WHO Director-General’s Special Envoys on COVID-19 Preparedness and Response.
Presentation title: The African CDC and Importance of Trusted Data Release
Dr David M Morens
David M. Morens serves as Senior Advisor to the Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health. He received the A.B. degree (Psychology) in 1969 and the M.D. degree in 1973, both from the University of Michigan.
He is Board Certified in Pediatrics (1978) and in Preventive Medicine (1980), with fellowship training in pediatric infectious diseases and additional training in virology.
Dr. Morens served as a United States Public Health Service officer in CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service from 1976-1978; then served as a virologist in CDC’s Bureau of Laboratories, including two years studying Lassa fever in Sierra Leone, West Africa; and served as Chief of CDC’s Respiratory & Special Pathogens Branch, where he also represented the National Center for Infectious Diseases on CDC’s AIDS Task Force.
Presentation title: Reflections on research integrity during a pandemic from the National Institutes of Health
The Steneck-Mayer Lecture
The Steneck-Mayer Lecture is named after Nicholas H. Steneck and Tony Mayer who together started the World Conferences on Research Integrity.
Professor Thulisile “Thuli” Madonsela, an advocate of the High Court of South Africa, is the law trust chair in social justice and a law professor at the University of Stellenbosch, where she conducts and coordinates social justice research and teaches constitutional and administrative law.
She is the founder of the Thuma Foundation, an independent democracy leadership and literacy public benefit organisation and convener of the Social Justice M-Plan, a Marshall Plan-like initiative aimed at catalysing progress towards ending poverty and reducing inequality by 2030, in line with the National Development Plan (NDP) and Sustainable Development Goals (SGGs). She is a monthly columnist for the Financial Mail and City Press/Rapport, and occasionally writes for other newspapers.
A multiple award-winning legal professional, with over 50 national and global awards, Thuli Madonsela has eight honorary doctor of laws degrees, one of which was awarded by the Law Society of Canada. She holds a BA Law from Uniswa, a Bachelor of Laws from Wits University and a Harvard Advanced Leadership Certificate, and has been trained in legal drafting, leadership, strategic planning, scenario planning, gender mainstreaming, mediation and arbitration, and training facilitation, among other things.
Thuli Madonsela was the Public Protector of South Africa from 2009 to 2016. She is credited with transforming the institution by enhancing its effectiveness in promoting good governance and integrity – including ethical governance and anticorruption in state affairs – through her reports, jurisprudence on the powers of the Public Protector and introduction of ADR. She is the architect of the OR Tambo Declaration on the minimum standards for an effective ombudsman institution and cooperation with the African Union on strengthening good governance and co-founder of the African Ombudsman Research Centre (AORC) at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, and served as AORC’s founding chairperson. As a full-time commissioner of the South African Law Commission, she supervised several investigations – among them Project 25 – on aligning all laws with the Constitution, and participated in the drafting of several laws. She chaired and later project-managed the Equality Legal Education Training Unit (ELETU), which provided foundational training for Equality Court judicial officers. She is the co-founder and one of the inaugural leaders of the South African Women Lawyers Association (SAWLA).
Named one of Time 100’s Most Influential People in the World in 2014, Forbes Africa Person of the Year in 2016 and one of BBC’s 100 Women, her peer recognition includes the Commonwealth Lawyers Association’s Truth and Justice Award, Transparency International’s Integrity Award, the South African Law Society’s Truth and Justice Award, General Council of the Bar membership, the Sydney and Felicia Kentridge Award, the SAWLA Women in Law Icon Award, Botswana Lawyers Association Honorary Bar membership, the German Presidential Medal, the German Africa Prize, the African Peer Review Mechanism Anticorruption Crusader Award, Tällberg Global Leader recognition, Rotary International’s Paul Harris Fellow recognition, the Gauteng Premier’s Provincial Achiever Award, and having a rose named after her in recognition of her social justice and integrity work. Recently, Madonsela was appointed as Knight of the Legion of Honour by French President Emmanuel Macron. Viewed as the highest decoration in France, the Knight of Legion was bestowed on Madonsela in recognition of her remarkable achievements in defence of the rule of law and the fight against corruption in South Africa
Thuli Madonsela is one of the drafters of South Africa’s Constitution and co-architect of several laws that have sought to anchor South Africa’s democracy. Among the laws she has helped draft are the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), the Employment Equity Act (EEA) and the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act. She also contributed to the conceptualisation and quality assurance of laws such as the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, the Domestic Violence Act and the Repeal of the Black Administration Act.
Her policy contributions have focused on the transformation of the judicial system, the promotion of equality – particularly gender equality – and the Victims Charter. She has also participated in the drafting of several international instruments, mainly on human rights, gender, race, disability, development and gender-based violence, in addition to participating in the preparation of country reports and representing the country.
Her extensive publishing record includes books/learning resources, book chapters/forewords, journal articles, newspaper articles and papers.
She is a sought-after speaker and has presented several memorial lectures, including international memorial lectures for Kofi Annan, John Wendell Holmes and Oliver Tambo, and the Desmond Tutu International Peace Lecture.
We are honoured to welcome Prof. Madonsela as the speaker in the WCRI’s 2022 Steneck-Mayer lecture in Cape Town, South Africa
Who is left behind? Mapping Matthew Effects in Research Integrity
The project ON-MERRIT investigates how and if open and responsible research practices could worsen existing inequalities. It aims at evidence-based recommendations for science policies, indicators and incentives to address and mitigate cumulative (dis)advantages, so called Matthew effects, in Open Science transition.
This workshop will focus on issues of Research Integrity. It will engage the WCRI expert audience to co-create, map and prioritise an agenda for research into areas where RI policies and their practical implementations could potentially worsen existing inequalities or endanger traditionally under-represented demographics, institutions or regions.
To facilitate this dialogue, we propose four subtopics based on the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity:
- Research environment & evaluation culture
- Publication & Dissemination
- Research & Data Practices
- Collaboration & Power Imbalances
Participants will have the opportunity to co-create the agenda via an online survey distributed to participants in advance of the conference. The agenda will be finalised at the start of the workshop with the input from participants. Key to the workshop’s success is the diversity of these participants. We will therefore ensure the relevance of our discussion for a range of important stakeholders including researchers, policy makers,institutional research integrity officers and managers and funders.
The success of the workshop depends on the diversity of the participants. We therefore encourage the participation of everyone working on RI and Open Science, especially policy makers and funders, as well as researchers with a background in research evaluation or bibliometrics.
Moderators and contributors
- Tony Ross-Hellauer, Graz University of Technology
- Thomas Klebel, Know-Center GmbH
- Joeri Tijdink, Amsterdam University Medical Centers
Positive research integrity governance: How to support and empower researchers
Research misconduct scandals highlight the need for research governance to hold both researchers and research organizations accountable, reduce misconduct, and thereby improve the trustworthiness of research1. However, existing frameworks of research integrity (RI) governance have been criticized for hindering RI by unnecessarily increasing bureaucracy2, and showing mistrust in researchers3, without addressing a major root cause of breaches of RI – the perverse incentives present in the system of science (e.g. publication pressure)4. This is compounded by the feeling that RI governance inappropriately imposes Western biomedical standards on research in different countries and disciplines5,6. Therefore, there is a need to refocus RI governance beyond compliance with RI standards, and towards supporting and empowering researchers i.e. by providing them with the right research environment, conditions and support tools .
In this workshop, we will use interactive and playful co-creation methods7 to engage participants – policy officers and research leaders – in exploring how to create a positive RI governance framework focused on supporting and empowering researchers across different geographical contexts and disciplines to do research with integrity.
We will use a series of co-creation exercises to evoke out-of-the-box thinking in order to find innovative solutions to the current problems with RI governance and jointly develop recommendations for positive RI governance.
Moderators and contributors
- Krishma Labib, Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands
- Dr. Cheluchi Onyemelukwe, Health Ethics and Law Consulting
- Dr. Angeliki Kerasidou, University of Oxford
- Dr. Daniel Barr, RMIT University
- Prof. Mai Har Sham, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
- Dr. Joeri Tijdink, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Bridging Research Integrity and Fairness in Global Health Epidemiology
The BRIDGE guidelines foster better standards for global health epidemiology with a dual focus on research integrity and research fairness. Developed by global health practitioners from five continents and over 20 countries, the BRIDGE guidelines offer practical guidance to all stakeholders involved in research – from commissioning, conducting and appraising of research – to build equity in all stages of research.
In this pre-conference workshop attendees will be introduced to the BRIDGE guidelines and provided with examples of their use in recent studies in South Sudan and India.
Attendees will then be invited to debate a scenario where threats to both research integrity and research fairness risk compromising a national survey in a low-income country. In this case-study scenario, local policy makers request the study epidemiologists (based in an institution in a high income country) to perform some extra analyses upon the completion of the survey. Two opposing views will be debated: the epidemiologists’ refusal to perform analyses that were not foreseen in the study protocol; and the local policy makers’ argument that the information, although not pre-planned, is crucial for service delivery planning.
Thereafter a panel discussion will discuss how the BRIDGE guidelines can help navigate the dilemmas that emerged
- Global health epidemiologists who aim to conduct high quality and impactful research.
- National policy-makers, representatives of civil-society and donors who aim to ensure that epidemiological research in low and middle income countries achieves maximum benefit for the communities and societies where the research is conducted.
Moderators and contributors
- Dr Sandra Alba, Senior epidemiologist, KIT Royal Tropical Institute, Netherlands
- Prof. Sanjay Juvekar, Officer in Charge, Vadu Rural Health Program, India
- Dr Masja Straetemans, Senior epidemiologist, KIT Royal Tropical Institute, Netherlands
- Dr George Lutwama, Programme Manager for South Sudan, KIT Royal Tropical Institute, Netherlands
Exploring Approaches to Responsible Conduct of Research Training Programmes
The workshop will offer a space for thinking about andexploring how different places have set up (or are setting up) RCR training programmes. The aim is to offer perspectives from a variety of contexts (institutions, regulatory environments and maturity of programmes) to give participants as broad a view as possible. The workshop would also offer an opportunity for those in LMIC (or other resource-limited contexts) to be introduced to ideas which could translate into or, be adapted to work in their own settings.
The intention is for the workshop to act as a catalyst for LMIC participants to think about how to go about setting up their own RCR programme in a way which is relevant to local contexts and meets their specific needs whilst being aligned with international best practice. It is also an opportunity to think about available resources which could be used/adapted in building their own programme etc… The goal would be to get participants thinking about: What steps they would need to take to take meaningful steps towards a context- and resource-relevant RCR programme.
- People tasked with establishing institutional, local, or national RCR training programmes
- People in the early stages of developing an RCR training programme
- People seeking guidance in making sure their RCR programme is context-relevant.
Moderators and contributors
- Mrs Paula Saner, University of Cape Town
- Dr De-Ming Chau, Universiti Putra Malaysia
- Prof Ana Marušić, University of Split School of Medicine, Croatia
Promoting innovative, learner-centered research integrity education
Research integrity education has witnessed a shift to a positive approach that emphasizes what researchers should do when facing moral challenges. Drawing on a positive approach, and learner-centered didactics, this workshop discusses innovative ways to tailor research integrity for different target groups, from secondary school students to senior researchers. These approaches are complementary and foster cumulative learning.
The first part of the workshop is based on results of the Path2Integrity project and addresses the needs of secondary school students, under- and postgraduates, and early stage researchers. Students are asked, in a dialogical argument-based approach, what research integrity means to them – encouraging quick comprehension and internalization.
The second part focuses on interactive approaches, developed by the VIRT2UE project, to train research integrity trainers and foster scientific virtues in researchers (junior and senior). This virtue-based approach is particularly appropriate for developing a professional ethic. Participants will experience an example exercise that encourages researchers to reflect on what it means to be a ‘good’ researcher doing ‘good’ research, and how norms underpin codes of conduct.
In the third part, the moderators share their experiences about how to adapt educational materials to different settings, giving special attention to challenges researchers from LMICs face.
Research integrity and research ethics trainers and teachers, curriculum developers, department and faculty heads, and research policy makers.
Moderators and contributors
- Dr. Tom Lindemann, European Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC Office)
- Prof. Dr. Julia Prieß-Buchheit, Coburg University
- Mr. Simson Mwale, Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM)
- Dr. Panagiotis Kavouras, National Technical University of Athens
- Ms. Giulia Inguaggiato, Amsterdam UMC
- Dr. Fenneke Blom, Amsterdam UMC
Introducing photovoice as a qualitative, participatory research methodology
Photovoice (PV) is a visual anthropological and participatory research method (PRM) where participants create research “content” in the form of photographs, guided by the facilitators.
The first part of the workshop will focus on the theory and methodology behind PV. The second part puts the theory into practice, using ‘diversity in RI’ as the study theme. Participants apply what they have learnt in the first part of the workshop to create photographs to “answer” the study question concerned. A narrative accompanies each photo. In the second part, photos and narratives are analysed through a selection, contextualization and categorization process guided by the facilitators. In this way, participants identify and represent issues of importance to them and providing their interpretations on the subject, thereby stimulating critical dialogue and reflection.
PV is useful in visualizing individuals’ perceptions associated with the study theme. It can generate unexpected results, beyond the dominant narrative. As such, it is a novel and useful way to get first explorative insight on how diversity is viewed within the field of research integrity. At the end, participants will have both the theoretical understanding and practical application of how they can use the method in their own research.
Participants of the WCRI who are interested in learning a participatory research method such as photovoice which can then be used in their settings for teaching or research on RI.
Moderators and contributors
- Karijn Kakebeeke, Visual Anthropology and Storytelling
- Gowri Gopalakrishna, National Survey on Research Integrity
- Fenneke Blom, Amsterdam UMC
Research Integrity Promotion Plans – How do we apply them in diverse institutional settings?
The SOPs4RI (Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity) project is funded by the European Commission to foster the promotion of excellent research and to strengthen
research integrity culture. The project is creating an online toolbox to support and guide research performing organisations (RPOs) and research funding organisations (RFOs) in cultivating research integrity and preventing, detecting and handling research misconduct.
SOPs4RI’s co-creative approach to the development and empirical validation of SOPs and guidelines enabled a final pilot testing of selected tools in several RPOs and RFOs.
Drawing from our experience, we will offer practical suggestions for setting up Research Integrity Promotion Plans in various contexts.
Together with our participants we will focus on establishing a framework for RPOs and RFOs to establish a Research Integrity Promotion Plan, use an implementation guideline and draw upon tools from the SOPs4RI toolbox. We will present and discuss topics identified and developed for the RPOs and RFOs. Participants will be asked to engage in a selfassessment exercise to identify their institutional needs. The last segment will offer reflections on a cost-benefit analysis.
Research integrity champions, including managers and administrators, persons tasked with establishing institutional, local, or national RI promotion programmes, policy officers, research leaders and other participants interested in the topic.
Moderators and contributors
- Nicole Foeger
- Teodora Konach
- Zoë Hammatt
Moderators: Prof. Dr. Lex Bouter & Prof Ana Marušić Prof Elizabeth Heitman
One of the cherished traditions of the WCRIs is the Doctoral Forum. It provides a unique opportunity for PhD and Research Master students with research projects that fit in the scope of the WCRIs to interact and to get advice and comments from an international panel of experts in the field with a strong methods background. The Doctoral Forum provides an exciting, friendly and supportive environment for selected PhD and Research Master students to share ideas and to interact with each other and with established research integrity researchers.
Students interested in participating in the Doctoral Forum must indicate this on their registration form. They will subsequently receive instructions for their application that needs to be submitted by 15 April 2021 latest. The application will be reviewed for suitability for the Doctoral Forum by the expert panel.
Based on the quality and relevancy of the research project, the presentation of it by the PhD or Research Master student, and the contribution made to the Doctoral Forum, the expert panel will decide on three Awards for Excellence in Doctoral Research that will be presented during one of the Plenary Sessions of the 7th WCRI.
Important work by Early and Mid-Career Researchers
Prof Dr Lex Bouter – Amsterdam University Medical Centers and Vrije Universiteit
Research on research integrity is on the rise worldwide. This is predominantly picked up by talented Early and Mid-Career Researchers. This plenary session will give three of the them a platform to present their studies that bring our knowledge to the next level.
For the National Survey on Research Integrity (NSRI) ALL academic researchers in The Netherlands were invited. Innovative methods were used to elicit valid answers to sensitive questions and to keep the time for completing the survey short. The prevalence of a wide range of research practices and their explanatory factors is explored for all disciplinary fields and academic ranks.
Journals and preprint servers have a large responsibility as guardian of publication quality and research integrity. They set the rules of engagement in their Instructions-to-Authors. In a series of innovative reviews it was explored whether important responsible research practices got proper attention in the Instructions-to-Authors of journals and preprint servers.
Early career researchers are vulnerable and inexperienced. Many of them are confronted with questionable authorship practices and problematic mentoring. Recently some promising research was performed that opens the door to effective prevention of these barriers to a balanced development of young researchers.
Dr Gowri Gopalakrishna
Dr Mario Malički
Dr Sophia Jui-An Pan
Fostering Research Integrity in Universities: Perspectives from African Researchers
Dr Retha Visagie – University of South Africa (Unisa)
Research on the African continent has much to offer people, groups and communities, but to move forward with integrity, universities are compelled to act toward fostering research integrity. This plenary session will aim to combine the experience and research of leading African scholars to identify and define actions taken to foster research integrity in African universities. Many African universities faced public scandals due to alleged research misconduct in recent years, thus affirming a need for context-specific research integrity policies, frameworks, courses, and mentoring programmes for both academic and student researchers.
Much work has gone into developing research ethics expertise and capacity in Africa, particularly about supporting the adequate functioning of research ethics committees. Far fewer initiatives have been taken to create programmes that foster and implement research integrity plans at universities and research institutes nationally.
The speakers will each share their insights into what can be done in Africa and other LMIC countries to foster research integrity at their universities and countries. Ideas will be relevant to colleagues in LMIC countries as well as to all those who interact in some way often via research collaborations, with researchers working in these contexts.
The session will conclude with the launch of the African Research Integrity Network.
Dr Retha Visagie
Prof Amos Laar
Prof Edwin Were
Prof Ntobeko Ntusi
Data, research, and integrity in the time of a global pandemic (Covid-19)
Dr Sabine Kleinert – Senior Executive Editor, The Lancet
In 2020, the world has experienced an extraordinary pandemic with many lives lost, but also an unprecedented pace of data collection, collaborative research activity, and rapid publication to inform national and international decision-making and policy.
Data have been presented to the public on a daily basis with varying degrees of transparency and explanation. Scientists and politicians have been in close collaboration and proximity with, at times, a blurring of independent evidence-based advice and political spin.
This plenary will explore the wider implications of a global emergency on the integrity and use of science and data. It will highlight changes in the way research has been funded, conducted, peer reviewed, published, and interpreted by the media. These changes have the potential of both positive and negative effects on research integrity with wide-reaching consequences for public health.
David M Morens
Towards a Cape Town statement: Fair and Equitable Partnerships as an essential basis for research integrity and development
Mr Francis Kombe – COHRED
Partnerships are at the heart of global science’s fair and equitable partnership management, sharing of costs and benefits, and post-collaboration empowerment of institutions is at the heart of successful global collaborations. Currently, there is often a lack of transparency, equity and fairness in collaborations between the global North and South, which continues to diminish trust in science.
This 7th WCRI is the first to be held in African and wants to focus on fairness and equitability of research partnerships as an essential aspect of research integrity.
Historical, financial and scientific resources inequalities continue to generate imbalances in research ecosystems, particularly for collaborations involving researchers and institutions in low and in high income countries. Such systematic differentials cannot be addressed using ad hoc ‘capacity building’ components in individual research projects, rather, they need systemic solutions. The Research Fairness Initiative (RFI) will be presented as a unique tool for such solutions.
The 7th WCRI intends to generate a Cape Town Statement, focusing on fair and equitable research collaborations as a research integrity issue. The statement will explore the best way forward by all involved, to empower research systems in LMIC to decide on research priorities, partners and partnerships as an essential part to equity in development.
Mr Francis Kombe
Prof Carel IJsselmuiden
Prof Mamokgeti Phakeng
Impact of research assessment and institutional ranking on research integrity
Mai Har Sham – The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Research should be conducted with high quality, in an ethical, reliable and responsible manner. Many research intensive institutions take pride on their aspiration of research excellence. The focus of many institutional strategies are on research metrics that centred around the quantity and impact of research publications, in order to elevate the institute’s global ranking in international league tables.
In a post Covid-19 pandemic era, we expect an outlook of economic down turn, more severe competition for reduced research funding, as well as a retrospective trend of de-globalization. The internationally prevailing culture of adverse competition is not necessarily conducive for high standard of research conduct. How would institutions and their researchers maintain a responsible research culture, and continue to drive research excellence?
To address the perverse incentives for research excellence, the Hong Kong Principles (HKP) for assessment of research was drawn up in the 6th WCRI. In this session, a follow up on the implementation and effectiveness of the HKP in different parts of the world will be gathered.
Furthermore, key members in leading international ranking agencies will be engaged in this session. Potential inclusion of responsible research indexes as institutional assessment criteria will be discussed.
How enhanced data quality can boost innovation
Anja Gilis – Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V.
Biomedical research serves to address unmet medical needs, however success rates have been declining over the past decades. Adherence to appropriate research rigor is important to ensure trustworthy and robust data. However, evidence shows that many studies have questionable research practices and lack sufficient protection against bias. Strategies to increase robustness of preclinical data have the potential to accelerate innovation for the benefit of patient needs.
Today’s research environment is characterized by dynamic collaboration networks involving academia, contract research, biotech and pharmaceutical industry. How can we design a solution that works for all these parties, that is seen as a help rather than a burden and that is sufficiently flexible to fit the needs of various types of institutions with different levels of technology and automation? This is exactly the question the EQIPD consortium (European Quality in Preclinical Data) has been working on for the past 3 years. EQIPD proposes a unique solution addressing the various facets of research rigor.
This session compares challenges and needs in biomedical research in academic versus industry, as well as LMIC versus HIC, settings and addresses how EQIPD may contribute to a solution that is suitable for these different settings.
Implementation of the Hong Kong Principles in an African context
Applicant: Dr Sabine Kleinert, The Lancet
The Hong Kong Principles focus on the way current research assessment criteria are potentially detrimental to research integrity and offer a framework how this can be changed. The 7th WCRI for the first time held in Africa, should explore what African and other low-income and middle-income institutions can and should be doing differently when assessing researchers. Rather than copying the widely prevalent methods for research assessment in high-income countries, there is an opportunity to take a different path. This approach guided by the Hong Kong Principles could both benefit Institutions in terms of leadership in this area and African researchers in terms of strengthening the trustworthiness and societal usefulness of research. Research should be important for local needs rather than benefitting a researcher’s career using high-income country criteria with potentially detrimental effects on research integrity.
This symposium will look at practical steps that could be taken to implement the Hong Kong Principles in the context of low-income and middle-income countries.
Global perspectives on Doctoral Supervisor Training in Research Integrity
Applicant: Professor Jan Botha, Stellenbosch University
Postgraduate supervisor training is relatively new in academia. Most educational programs include a focus on research integrity training for individual early-career researchers. The courses for supervisors that are available, are provided in various formats and modes across the world. In this symposium, we will consider perspectives from four different regions/countries, namely, Africa, Australia, Europe and Latin America. Of particular interest will be to consider how RCR training opportunities attend to global issues in RCR while also making provision for the issues of concern in a specific context, country or region. Against this background, the following aspects, amongst others, will be considered:
a) Rationale for attending to RCR in postgraduate supervisor training.
b) Examples postgraduate supervisor training courses with a strong RCR component.
c) The RCR curriculum in postgraduate supervisor training.
d) Limits and potential of different modes of RCR training for supervisors (face-to-face, online, hybrid).
e) Best practices and ongoing challenges in RCR training for supervisors.
f) Steps towards successful implementation.
g) Evaluation of the effectiveness and impact of RCR training for supervisors.
Networks to foster research integrity in a changing world
Applicant: Dr Christa van Zyl, African Research Integrity Network (ARIN)
Promotion of research integrity is often dependent on individuals or small teams working in large institutions. They need opportunities for on-going learning and engagement with others to become more knowledgeable, effective and efficient in their roles. In the recent past, several networks were established to promote regional, inter-institutional and interpersonal learning in the field.
The 4th WCRI in Brazil provided a platform for networks from different regions of the world such as ENRIO (European Network of Research Integrity Offices) and APRI (Asia Pacific Research Integrity Network) to present and discuss their work. This also served as inspiration for delegates from other regions – notably Latin America and Africa – to meet informally, and to start thinking about forming networks of their own.
The African Research Integrity Network (ARIN) was conceived as a network to link individuals and institutions from different parts of the African continent to promote research integrity in Africa, with Africa and for Africa. It is delighted to host a symposium involving thought and network leaders from different parts of the world to reflect on the value, role and contributions of research integrity networks in developed as well as developing parts of the world at this 7th WCRI, the first to be held on African soil.
Mentoring in LMICs: Adapting to local cultures, overcoming hierarchical structures and resources
Applicant: A.Roxana Lescano, US Naval Medical Research Unit No. 6 Peru
This symposium aims to describe the importance of mentoring systems that reflect local resources, hierarchies, cultures and research infrastructures by providing the experiences of three different regions of the world, Peru, Kenya and Malaysia, where mentoring has not been the norm.
Mentoring in the developed world is a long-standing tradition geared toward improving the path to the development of future cadres of investigators, even though formal mentoring training and frameworks have only existed in the last decades. Globalization of health research efforts has spread the importance of mentoring and resulted in greater interest in LMICs scientific communities. LMIC scientific communities, without a history of mentoring, have started importing systems that do not quite fit into their local infrastructures and cultures. Some of these imported mentoring practices introduce biases and apply to societies where mentoring is highly rewarded in various ways, which does not reflect LMIC cultures.
Finally, the limited resources and support existing in LMICs prevent implementing mentoring in the models developed in high income countries, require adaptation and phased implementation
When and how to report to institutions, journals, publishers, or elsewhere
Applicant: Matt Hodgkinson, Committee on Publication Ethics
This session will explore how and when to report issues to different stakeholders – journals, publishers, institutions, and country-level oversight bodies – building on the 2017 discussion of the CLUE guidelines (and the earlier COPE guidelines) and the COPE discussion document on whistleblowers. What kind of tools and information are needed to report effectively, what are the barriers, and what resources are available, such as Gunsaslus et al.’s investigations checklist or the REAPPRAISED checklist? How could we improve the current situation?
The session will be moderated by Daniel Kulp, Chair elect of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We will hear from three perspectives – claimant, publisher, and university. Dr. Elisabeth Bik is a “figure sleuth” and whistleblower who was commended by the Maddox Prize judges in 2019 and has discussed difficulties with reporting to journals. Matt Hodgkinson has worked for three journal publishers and received many reports from whistleblowers and institutions and reported concerns to institutions, and presented a poster at the WCRI 2019 on this experience. Paula Saner is a research integrity advisor at the University of Cape Town, who often handles issues of when and how to report concerns and trains the university community in research integrity.
Can integrity issues encountered by a publisher inform best practices at institutions?
Applicant: Elizabeth C Moylan PhD, Wiley
Everyone involved in research has a role to play in research integrity, no single stakeholder can do this alone. We will present information on the research integrity and publishing ethics cases that Wiley’s Integrity in Publishing Group have handled over the past two years, classified according to the COPE Cases taxonomy. These span requests to amend published articles, authorship issues, data concerns, plagiarism and potentially questionable research behaviour. Across the publishing landscape, cases are becoming increasingly more complex and can involve large-scale manipulations of the publication process including fabricated peer review, papermills, authorship manipulation and image manipulation.
The session will focus on what we can learn from the data shared. While our findings inform best practice in terms of investigating and responding to potentially questionable research practices, they also inform the training and support that researchers need. Given the conference theme, “Fostering Research Integrity in an Unequal World”, we will discuss reactions to our findings from the perspective of research integrity officers from across the world. We will share how different regions are supporting best practice, and the role that recognition and reward for open research practices can play.
Research Integrity Promotion Plans: from Principles to Practice
Applicant: Professor Niels Mejlgaard, Aarhus University
Universities and other research performing organizations need to find efficient ways to translate universal principles of research integrity, such as honesty, reliability, respect, and accountability, into practice. Appropriate organizational policies and governance arrangements should enable and empower researchers to engage in responsible research practices while avoiding box-ticking and de-motivating bureaucracy.
The notion of an organizational ‘Research Integrity Promotion Plan’ (RIPP) tailored to the specific needs and context of the research performing organization has recently emerged as a response to this challenge. A RIPP outlines the steps that the organization takes to promote research integrity in the context of its mission and disciplinary focus.
Currently, the use of RIPPs is advocated by different parties in the research system, including funders and research performing organizations. The contributors to this symposium will share their experiences with stimulating and implementing organizational policies to promote research integrity. Conditions for developing and implementing RIPPs may be different across countries and types of organizations, and may depend on access to resources. The symposium will discuss the aims and importance of having an organizational RIPP but also the potential barriers to successful implementation.
Paper mills as potential enablers of systematic research fraud
Applicant: Professor Jennifer Byrne, NSW Health Pathology
Reports published since 2013 suggest that as-yet unknown numbers of scientific manuscripts and publications could be produced every year by research contract cheating organizations termed paper mills. These organizations have been proposed to generate large numbers of superficially plausible yet fraudulent manuscripts, a proportion of which are accepted for publication, likely by lower-profile specialty journals. Drivers of market demand for paper mills may include unrealistic publication quotas that are imposed upon students, academics and medical doctors, combined with systems of monetary publication rewards. This symposium will present the latest information on the possible operations and outputs from paper mills.
Embassy of Good Science: Fostering Research Integrity and Research Ethics
Applicant: Prof. Dr. Guy Widdershoven, Amsterdam UMC
Easy access to up-to-date and understandable research integrity guidance and training material is essential in a world where information is disparate and fast-changing. The Embassy of Good Science aims to provide the global community of researchers with a central go-to place for research integrity and ethics. The use of Semantic MediaWiki software enables the community to take over; researchers can exchange knowledge and support good research practices, by asking questions, providing answers, and adding content.
In this session, stakeholders will describe and discuss their experiences with using a central wiki-based hub for research integrity and ethics education and training, and dissemination of tools and guidelines:
- Supporting research integrity and ethics education and training
Users will present their experiences with The Embassy to support education and training for various target groups (researchers, students, trainers). Users describe the added value of offering materials in a standardized way and making them open to being edited, developed and shared.
- Dissemination of research integrity and ethics tools and guidelines
Users will present their experiences with The Embassy for dissemination of tools and guidelines. Examples are case analysis methods and Standard Operation Procedures for Research Integrity. Users describe the added value of combining presentation of tools and guidelines in a fixed and unchangeable way with applications that invite uptake by the community, sharing of experiences, and further development.
Data publishing: Responding to emerging ethical challenges with community-driven guidelines
Applicant: Iratxe Puebla, ASAPbio
The last decade has brought initiatives to promote research data sharing: funders and institutions have introduced mandates for data deposition, and data policies are increasingly common among journals. As data publishing increases, ethical challenges around datasets are arising and will become increasingly relevant in coming years. Ethical best practices have been well documented for journal publications, but such guidelines were lacking for datasets: what should an editor or a repository manager do if a dataset includes offensive or libelous information? Should journals and repositories take any steps for datasets related to publications that are later retracted? What are the expectations for data associated with a preprint? How should claims for authorship or intellectual property over datasets be handled?
In this session, speakers bringing the perspective of journals, data managers and institutions will share their experience handling integrity cases related to research data. We will discuss the guidance and resources developed by the FORCE11 Research Data Publishing Ethics Working Group (in partnership with the Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE), and encourage feedback from the audience on the recommendations as well as on existing gaps in research integrity standards for datasets to inform the Working Group’s next steps.
Recent advances in research integrity
Moderator: Professor Lex Bouter,
Recently more work has been conducted on understanding why research integrity problems occur and how these can be prevented or handled effectively. This plenary session presents recent advances on three important topics that are highly relevant for fostering responsible research practices and deserve our attention.
The first topic is conflict-of-interest (CoI) as driver of compromised research integrity. There is consensus that substantial financial interests should be reported, but it’s difficult to define and assess non-financial COIs (e.g., strong personal, political or religious convictions). It is also unclear how CoIs should be weighted when interpreting the findings at issue.
The second topic concerns innovative teaching methods for research integrity education. This is a rapidly evolving field that includes undergraduate and postgraduate training, but also research integrity education in high schools. Furthermore, teaching materials and train-the-trainer courses have substantially improved recently.
The third topic concerns the recent developments and accumulating evidence on the importance of fostering reproducibility and of removing barriers to engage in replication studies, including changing the incentives for researchers, and working directly with researchers, funders, publishers and other organizations.
Applicant: Anne-Marie Coriat, Wellcome Trust
Notions of ‘excellence’ have become increasingly central to research funding and evaluation, both at the level of high-level strategy and in specific schemes. Examples include the Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa (AESA), UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF), Germany’s Exzellenzinitiative and Switzerland’s Eccellenza grants.
However, excellence remains an ambiguous, poorly-defined concept. It is often operationalised through narrow metrics, such as H-Indices or Journal Impact Factors, which can encourage poor practices. Some have called for the concept to be pluralised – taking account of more diverse indicators, such as open research practices. Others have called for it to be scrapped, as little more than a buzzword.
In response to such concerns, and high profile initiatives such as the San Francisco Declaration (DORA), Leiden Manifesto and Hong Kong Principles, those undertaking evaluation are rethinking ways in which they define and operationalise notions of excellence. Drawing on the strategies and insights of research funders from diverse settings, this symposium will explore how excellence is being transformed in decision making and evaluation. It will also showcase the findings of a multi-funder study being carried out through the Research on Research Institute (RoRI), based at Wellcome in London.
Cape Town Statement on diversity, equity and fairness in research contexts
Research integrity refers to the principles and standards that ensure validity and trustworthiness of research and is integral to public trust in research and researchers. The Singapore and Montreal statements outlined principles that respectively govern individual and institutional professional conduct. However, continued inequality and power imbalance within a research context continue. Partnerships are at the heart of global science, and integrity within the entire spectrum of research partnership is integral to sustainable successful global collaborations.
Despite the existence of the Singapore and Montreal statements on research integrity, there are still challenges regarding how to achieve equity, diversity and fairness in research, particularly (but not exclusively) within the context of collaborations between the global North and South. According to the Council for Health Research and Development (COHRED), “Partnerships are essential to deliver research and innovation for global health and partner development. Unfortunately, there is no framework, no benchmark, no standard of best practice on which to model governmental, corporate, non-profit, or academic collaborations, particularly for collaborative research involving global North and South”.
Through a consultative process, this focus track aims at exploring the related issues of equity, diversity and fairness within the entire research life cycle, in order to develop a Cape Town Statement that provides practical and implementable steps to specifically address these issues.
All researchers and funders involved in research collaborations particularly in contexts where there are differences in capacity and available resources.
- Francis Kombe, COHRED
- Lyn Horn, University of Cape Town; A/Prof Center for Applied Ethics, Stellenbosch University
- Carel IJsslemuiden, COHRED
- Fenneke Blom, Amsterdam UMC
- Zoë Hamatt, Z Consulting LLC
- Sonia Vasconcelos, Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis
- Roxana Lescano, Research Integrity Officer, US Navy Research Unit
The 7th WCRI lunchtime Poster Walks offer an interactive format for stimulating the exchange of ideas among participants. Poster Walks concern subsets of posters grouped according to topic. Moderators will lead the Poster Walks, moving from poster to poster, with each presenter pitching for 2 minutes followed by 3 minutes of discussion and questions from the audience.
Instructions for Poster
Posters should be mounted on the designated poster board in the poster area at the designated time. Maximum size of the poster is size A0 in portrait format (84.1 cm width x 118.9 cm height). Presenters are reminded to bring their printed posters to the conference venue. No printing service will be provided on site. The conference staff will provide materials for fixing posters to boards.
Presenters should be available near their poster for presentations and discussion during Poster Walks, and during the coffee and lunch breaks as much as possible.
Note from the Poster Committee
The language of the conference is English and no simultaneous translation services will be provided. Presenters will have two minutes to present their poster in English. We encourage you to practice your presentation several times. If English is not your native language, as you prepare it could be useful to ask a native or fluent English speaker to provide feedback and help you articulate your key points effectively within two minutes.
The following resources may be useful for poster preparation:
Ten Simple Rules for a Good Poster Presentation – https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030102
How to create a better research poster in less time – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYk29tnxASs
Make the most of conference posters and slides on F1000Research – https://blog.f1000.com/2016/03/24/make-the-most-of-conference-posters-and-slides-on-f1000research/
Conference presentations: Lead the poster parade – https://www.nature.com/articles/nj7614-115a
Meet the Expert Sessions
As in previous years, the 7th WCRI will offer multiple parallel Meet the Expert sessions during each of the three conference lunch breaks. These one hour round-table discussions will allow participants to ask questions and learn from Research Integrity experts and leaders, as well as network with other peers. Each Meet the Expert session will feature one research integrity expert, up to 12 participants, and a supporting moderator, with lunch provided for all attendees. Following brief introductions, the expert will describe their area of interest, and how they reached their current career position. A question and answer session will follow, with sessions concluding by participants sharing contact details.
All early career professionals (including postgraduate researchers, research managers and students) who have registered to attend the 7th WCRI will be eligible to register for Meet the Expert sessions at no additional cost. Participants will be invited to register for Meet the Expert sessions by email. Registrants will be asked to indicate the expert whom s/he would like to meet, and any intended questions/topics for discussion. The list of available experts and registrations will be available from early April 2021.
Jennifer Byrne (Australia), Seeiso Koali (South Africa), Paula Saner (South Africa), Joeri Tijdink (Netherlands)
The 7th WCRI will grant awards for posters, oral presentations, the Anderson-Kleinert Diversity Award, and for projects presented in the Doctoral Forum.
Three poster awards will be granted for posters by PhD students or early career professionals (< 5 years post-education). Only posters presented by the PhD student or early career professional who submitted the poster will be considered. In addition to these two requirements, awards will be based on the following criteria (scale of 1-5 for each criterion):
- Academic Quality – Originality of topic or research question, clear methodology, consideration of pertinent literature, relevance to the conference theme and contribution to advancing the field (e.g., addresses new challenges for research integrity and offers new insights).
- Poster Quality – Overall design, color scheme, and format (e.g., visually appealing, conveys the project data and conclusions effectively).
- Presentation Skill – Clarity of two-minute presentation and demonstration during three-minute discussion of 1) knowledge of the topic and related literature, and 2) mastery of relevant issues, including strengths and limitations of the ideas and methods.
Poster Walk Moderators will nominate two posters from their group prior to their scheduled Walk. Members of the Poster Award Committee will receive the nominations prior to the walks and ensure that at least one award committee member observes the presentation for each of the nominated posters during the Poster Walks.
Poster and Award Committee members, who should not be co-authors of posters by early-career authors, will be invited by the Poster Committee. Moderators will be drawn from the Poster Committee and other 7th WCRI committees, as well as previous poster award recipients.
Oral Presentation Awards
Up to three Oral Presentation awards will be granted to the highest-scoring oral presentations, regardless of career level. Awards will be based on the following criteria:
- Academic content/significance of the findings and/or proposal (a clear research question and hypothesis (for hypothesis-driven research), proper methodological design, interpretation of results and conclusions); and,
- Quality of presentation (verbal communication skills, demonstration of knowledge of the subject, quality of slides, flow and organization of the presentation, response to questions).
The Anderson-Kleinert Diversity Award
The Anderson-Kleinert Diversity Award highlights oral presentations that represent and enhance diversity of voice, ideas, or experience. These awards are intended to recognize:
- people from countries, research sectors, communities or other groups not often represented at the World Conferences;
- creative ideas and new ways of promoting research integrity; or
- experience with research integrity issues in contexts that call for novel approaches or perspectives.
For more detail, please visit: https://wcrif.org/foundation/anderson-kleinert-diversity-award
Excellence in Doctoral Research Award
On the recommendation of the Doctoral Forum panel, an Excellence in Doctoral Research Award will be granted to the best doctoral projects. Applications will be limited to doctoral students officially enrolled in a graduate program.
Based on the quality and relevancy of the research project, the presentation of the project by the PhD, and the contribution made to the Doctoral Forum, the expert panel will decide on three Awards for Excellence in Doctoral Research that will be presented during one of the plenary sessions of the 7th WCRI.
For more detail, please visit: https://wcri2022.org/programme