I – Integrity is defined as: “State of a thing, of a whole, which is whole, which has all its parts” (CNRTL, France).
> Thus, we define the research object “Integrity” by its four dimensions: morality, deontology, formal ethics and responsibility. If only one of them is affected, integrity breaks down. But not every instance of integrity failure impacts all of its dimensions. Fortunately, otherwise we would not be able to bring any mediation to a successful conclusion.
II – Integrity is also defined as: “Character, quality of a person of integrity, incorruptible, whose conduct and actions are irreproachable” (CNRTL, France)
> Thus, we aim – in our teaching and our certifications of institutions – to develop and enhance these qualities in all those who wish to do so.
Application by the facts
The breaches of integrity that we encounter are listed below. This list does not claim to be exhaustive
With respect to plagiarism, the following are proven violations of formal ethics and the resulting codes of conduct. This list is far from exhaustive:
Publishing in one’s own name the findings or discoveries of third parties (plagiarism).
Being named as a co-author of a publication without having made a significant contribution to the work.
Deliberately omitting the names of people who worked on a project and made a significant contribution to it.
Knowingly falsifying citations taken from works of third parties that either exist or are said to exist.
Self-plagiarism; that is, willingly failing to cite one’s own prior works.
Publishing an article that has already been published in another language without any explicit reference to it.
In the area of scientific fraud, the following are proven violations of formal ethics and the resulting codes of conduct:
Intentionally falsifying raw research data.
Presenting or analyzing research results in an intentionally misleading manner.
Excluding research data without recording it or providing reasons for its exclusion.
In the area of scientific plagiarism and fraud, the following proven facts are considered serious “deontologic” problems:
Modifying the order of authors’ names without their agreement and without reason.
Willingly naming someone as a coauthor when that person did not contribute to the project.
Deliberately omitting important contributions of other authors on the same subject (incomplete bibliography).
Knowingly remaining silent about conflicts of interest.
Violating duties of confidentiality or duties regarding how state employees should express themselves.
Neglecting duties related to monitoring or supervision.
Refusing to grant duly-authorized third parties the right to consult raw research data.
Presenting differing viewpoints in a non-objective manner.
Incorrectly indicating the stage of publication of one’s own works (for example, stating that an article is “in press” when the manuscript has not yet been accepted.
In the area of scientific plagiarism and fraud, the following proven facts are considered serious responsability failure:
Incorrectly The refusal of persons in authority, elected or appointed to hierarchical positions within institutions, to listen to whistleblowers when they report integrity violations.
Lack of protection of persons in authority of victims and whistleblowers during the entire investigation process.
Failure to address conflicts of interest in research funding.
The lack of reactivity in the face of a crisis situation due to alleged breaches of integrity by one or other of its employees.