Intranet

Scientific integrity home page

Details

The Observatory's position on Scientific Integrity

The Observatory's positioning is consistent with the advice of committees and actions implemented by Université Côte d'Azur. The Scientific Integrity Committee, which advises the OCA's Scientific Integrity Officer, aims to address scientific integrity issues by taking into account the specificities of research practices in Earth and Universe Sciences.
Observatory's Scientific Integrity Officer is a member of OFIS's national network of Scientific Integrity Officers.
As the CNRS is a major player in scientific practices in research units, the opinions of the CNRS Ethics Committee are also a reference.

HRS4R Label

This mini-intranet was created as part of the Côte d'Azur Observatory's HRS4R (Human resources strategy for researchers) label.
 

Scientific Integrity agenda

> February 2024 - A 1st “ethics café” is organized by UniCA on the theme of freedom of expression/academia and the impact of communication on research and vice versa.
> June 11, 2024: 3rd International Colloquium on Research and Action on Academic Integrity organized by the Institute for Research and Action on Academic Fraud and Plagiarism (IRAFPA)
 

Scientific Integrity news

> OFIS: Reducing the circulation of retracted articles, a challenge for reliable science
Retracting an article is an essential mechanism for preserving the reliability of scientific publications. But to be effective, the article's editorial status must be clearly and systematically accessible to all users. But this is far from being the case. More info

> OFIS : Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organizational culture
Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organizational culture is a new analysis of part of the data from the vast IRIS international survey, focusing on the factors that encourage breaches described as “questionable practices”. Based on the declarations of 39,699 respondents, it identifies or confirms individual factors (type of contract, career level, field of research, gender, etc.) and systemic factors (pressure to publish, lack of information on scientific integrity policy, mechanisms and qualified people at their institution). It also shows that adherence to Merton standards seems to protect against deviations from good practice.

> IRAFPA - The right to supervise research
Mediations carried out by IRAFPA in international academic contexts show that a significant number of academic misconducts emerge and take root during the doctoral student/thesis director or young researcher/laboratory director relationship. More info

> OFIS: Generative artificial intelligence systems: a few points to watch out for

Since the end of 2022, generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as ChatGPT have become increasingly popular. The research sector is a major contributor to this craze, as researchers have been quick to adopt these tools. Ofis (national network of Scientific Integrity Officers) would like to draw attention to certain aspects of these practices that may contravene the requirements of scientific integrity. More info

> OFIS: What is a breach of scientific integrity?
 
Any practice that undermines the reliability of results and the proper functioning of research communities is likely to constitute a breach of scientific integrity. Ofis brings together the main examples of such practices, according to the different dimensions of research activities they affect. More info
> CCSD : Maintaining trust in HAL: the CCSD establishes a research integrity board

How should scientific integrity misconduct related to a publication deposited in HAL be addressed and dealt with? Although reports are rare, they unfortunately do occur. The CCSD is implementing a system that will allow it to rely on the scientific advisors of its three supervising institutions. More info

> OFIS: Artificial intelligence: new regulations to promote transparency

Generative AI is changing the way we do research. The scientific integrity issues associated with these developments are leading institutions around the world to review their codes of good practice, and transparency is the watchword.

Alexei Grinbaum, a specialist in digital ethics, sheds light on these issues for Ofis. He explains why the regulatory requirement to mark AI-generated content is a step forward for scientific integrity.

AI enters the European code of conduct. More info

> OFIS : Generative artificial intelligence systems: some points to watch out
 
To support users of generative AI in their research practices, Ofis calls for vigilance on a number of crucial points. More info
 > OFIS : China publishes new guidelines for responsible research
 
In December 2023, China's Ministry of Science and Technology published its new “Guidelines for Responsible Research Conduct”. China has a worrying rate of retractions in international publications. An introductory document states that these guidelines are based on a broad consensus in the scientific community. Aimed at all those involved in Chinese research, they cover in detail 11 aspects of the research process (selection of research subjects, data management, publication of results, peer review, etc.).

Regarding the use of generative AI, the guidelines are quite similar to the recommendations that abound elsewhere in the world. Any content or results using generative AI must be clearly identified as such, the methods used must be explained, and the use must be appropriate and compliant with regulations. Some uses are banned such as «direct use» of generative AI in applications for funding and approval of research work.

The lack of an English version on the Chinese Ministry's website, the one Ofis gives you to read was carried out using the multilingual translation model mbart-large-50-many-to-many-mmt (611M parameters), freely available on HuggingFace.

> OFIS : Retraction of published articles: a good thing ?

Paper mills, predatory journals, fraud or simple publication errors: correcting scientific literature is more necessary than ever. Not only for the scientific community, but also for society as a whole, which needs expertise and reliable results..

Retraction of published articles is at the heart of this process. For more than 12 years, Retraction Watch has been monitoring the evolution of this post-publication correction and commenting on topics related to scientific integrity. Today, it has 40,000 retractions in its database. Ivan Oransky, one of the site's co-founders, analyses the main trends. More info