Dutch Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

The new version of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity has been published. Recently, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Netherlands Federation of University Medical Centres (NFU), Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), Associated Applied Research Institutes (TO2), Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences (VH), and the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) worked together intensively to thoroughly amend and expand the Code of Conduct that has been in use since 2004. This amendment process, which included a public consultation, was led by a committee chaired by Prof. Keimpe Algra. The Code of Conduct is active as of 1 October 2018. Committee chair Prof. Keimpe Algra says, “Research integrity is essential if research is to be conducted properly. This new Code of Conduct ensures that the Netherlands keeps up with international developments regarding research integrity. I am proud that we have drawn up a Code of Conduct that applies to fundamental, applied, and practice-oriented research. This new Code of Conduct describes clear standards that researchers in many research organizations can apply to their daily practices”

The Code of Conduct specifically allows for collaboration and multidisciplinary approaches, as it takes into account the differences between different institutions. The Code of Conduct defines five principles of research integrity and 61 standards for good research practices and duties of care for the institutions.

Amsterdam Neuroscience and the other alliance research institutes of Amsterdam UMC have special obligation to implement this code of conduct. In particular, the institute shoud:

  1. Raise awareness about research integrity within the organization and, where necessary, provide or facilitate training courses for researchers, support staff, research leaders and research managers.
  2. Embed a focus on research integrity firmly in educational activities of higher education institutions.
  3. Provide a working environment in which responsible research practices are facilitated.
  4. Ensure that new researchers and PhD students are supervised by suitably qualified persons.
  5. Ensure transparent and fair procedures for appointments, promotions and remuneration.

About research misconduct: The clearest examples of research misconduct are fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. I) Fabrication means the invention of data or research results and reporting them as if they are fact. II) Falsification means the manipulation of data or research material, equipment or processes to change, withhold or remove data or research results without justification. III) Plagiarism means the use of another person’s ideas, work methods, results or texts without appropriate acknowledgement (standards 34, 40). In some cases, however, plagiarism is of such limited extent and significance that its labelling as ‘research misconduct’ would be excessive. In the event that the following standards are not met, the determination of whether the case in question constitutes ‘research misconduct’ or a less serious violation will depend on the outcome of an assessment using the criteria as described in the new code of conduct.

The new code of conduct can be found on the DANS website.

Or download them here: