Research ethics

The definition of good research practice

The overall ethical requirements for how good research should be carried out can be said to define good research practice. Below is an introduction to the subject’s main sources, together with an overview of what good research practice means in practice, with relevant links to further information.

Sources

• The Swedish Higher Education Act (riksdagen.se/sv) emphasises that the credibility of science and good research practice must be defended in the work of universities.
• The Swedish Act on Responsibility for Good Research Practice and Review of Research Misconduct (riksdagen.se/sv) defines research misconduct and other relevant concepts, and contains provisions on the responsibility of researchers and research managers (i.e. university colleges and universities) for ensuring that research is carried out in accordance with good research practice. The law also includes information about how research misconduct should be investigated, and about the new National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct (Npof), which was established in 2020.
• The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity [revised 2023] (pdf) is mandatory for research funded by the EU Framework Programmes, and is referred to by the Swedish Research Council as guidance in the case of practical, ethical and intellectual problems associated with research (SUHF, 2023: Guidance for higher education institutions’ efforts to prevent, manage and follow up on suspected deviations from good research practice (pdf)). The Code is of great importance in Swedish and European discussions on and definitions of what constitutes both good research practice and deviations from such practice.
• The Swedish Research Council’s publication Good Research Practice 2024 (vr.se) (2025) discusses relevant legislation and ethical requirements and recommendations against a background of issues that may arise within research work, with the aim of providing orientation, encouraging thoughts and contributing to discussions on responsibilities and challenges within research.
• The University of Skövde’s Guidelines for dealing with suspected research misconduct and other deviations from good research practice (pdf) include an overview of how the University deals with suspected deviations from such practice.
• The University of Skövde’s Research Ethics Council is responsible for increasing knowledge about research ethics issues through information, seminars and other training, and for assessing and investigating suspected deviations from good research practice.

Good research practice

Some fundamental interests and requirements according to the Swedish Research Council

The Swedish Research Council describes four fundamental interests that must always be considered, as well as requirements that apply to all research.

“The research interest is the interest of conducting important research of high quality that leads to valuable knowledge. For research to fulfil its function at all, and thereby be justified with reference to the research interest, it must be reliable, in accordance with the ALLEA Code’s principle of reliability.”

“The protection interest is the interest to protect those involved in the research or are otherwise affected by it. The protection interest is superordinate and shall be prioritised when it is weighed against other interests, including the research interest. The research must not entail violations of fundamental rights or values, or that humans, animals, society, the environment, the climate, or cultural heritage are exposed to excessive or disproportionate risk or damage. This also applies when they are only affected indirectly or through the wider consequences of the research (see the ALLEA Code’s principles on respect and accountability).”

“The openness interest is an interest that has been increasingly emphasised in recent years. It is about making the research and its results as accessible as possible, which can contribute to promoting good research practice in many different ways (compare the ALLEA Code’s principle of honesty). Like the research interest, the openness interest must always be balanced against the protection interest according to the principle “as open as possible, as closed as necessary”.

“The trust interest is about trust in the research and in those responsible for conducting it, which is crucial for enabling research to remain free and fulfil its function in society. The trust interest must not, however, be used as an excuse for hiding irregularities, or unduly restrict the freedom to seek knowledge, as this would be contrary to the fundamental principle of honesty and threaten the freedom of research. For example, it is not acceptable to attempt to protect the reputation of an organisation by refraining from drawing attention to and dealing with deviations from good research practice, or to cover up or manipulate results that could damage trust, and therefore threaten for instance commercial interests. On the contrary, trust must be safeguarded by preventing such deviations and avoiding problematic conflicts of interest.”

See the Swedish Research Council’s publication Good Research Practice 2024 (vr.se) from 2025, pp. 12–14, for supplementary descriptions and examples of the four interests.

ALLEA's four principles of research integrity

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity [revised 2023] (pdf) states the following four principles of research integrity, including (p. 5):

1. Reliability in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, the methodology, the analysis and the use of resources.
2. Honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting, and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full, and unbiased way.
3. Respect for colleagues, research participants, research subjects, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage, and the environment.
4. Accountability for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision and mentoring, and for its wider societal impacts.

For more specific and concrete examples of good research practice in relation to different aspects of research, see Chapter 2 of the Code.

Misconduct and other deviations

The Swedish Act on Responsibility for Good Research Practice and Review of Research Misconduct (riksdagen.se/sv) defines misconduct as “a serious deviation from good research practice in the form of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism that is committed intentionally or with gross negligence in the planning, implementation or reporting of research”.

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity [revised 2023] (pdf) (p. 10) defines the concepts in greater detail:

• Fabrication is making up data or results and recording them as if they were real.
• Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, images, or processes, or changing, omitting, or suppressing data or results without justification.
• Plagiarism is using other people’s work or ideas without giving proper credit to the original source.

Other deviations from good research practice, referred to in the Code (pp. 10–11, where they are referred to as “unacceptable practices”) are deviations from good research practice that do not count as misconduct (i.e. they do not constitute fabrication, falsification or plagiarism), but which nevertheless “damage the integrity of the research process or of researchers”. Examples of such deviations, taken directly from the Code (pp. 10–11), include:

• Allowing funders, sponsors, or others to jeopardise independence and impartiality in the research process or unbiased reporting of the results.
• Misusing seniority to encourage violations of research integrity or to advance one's own career.
• Delaying or inappropriately hampering the work of other researchers.
• Misusing statistics, for example to inappropriately suggest statistical significance.
• Hiding the use of AI or automated tools in the creation of content or drafting of publications.
• Withholding research data or results without justification.
• Chopping up research results with the specific aim of increasing the number of
• research publications (‘salami publications’).
• Citing selectively or inaccurately.
• Expanding unnecessarily the bibliography of a study to please editors, reviewers, or colleagues, or to manipulate bibliographic data.
• Manipulating authorship or denigrating the role of other researchers in publications.
• Re-publishing substantive parts of one’s own earlier publications, including translations, without duly acknowledging or citing the original (‘self-plagiarism’).
• Establishing, supporting, or deliberately using journals, publishers, events, or services that undermine the quality of research (‘predatory’ journals or conferences and paper mills).
• Participating in cartels of reviewers and authors colluding to review each other’s publications.
• Misrepresenting research achievements, data, involvement, or interests.
• Accusing a researcher of misconduct or other violations in a malicious way.
• Ignoring putative violations of research integrity by others or covering up inappropriate responses to misconduct or other violations by institutions.

When dealing with suspected deviations from good research practice at the University of Skövde, see our Guidelines for dealing with suspected research misconduct and other deviations from good research practice (pdf).