Interview with dr. hab. Slawomir Steinborn, prof. UG, spokesman for scientific integrity

Let's start with the basic issue - what are scientific dishonesty and plagiarism?

Plagiarism is one of the manifestations of scientific dishonesty, in short, it is appropriating another person's work or a fragment thereof and claiming authorship. Scientific dishonesty is a broad concept. It can be various phenomena related to the conduct of scientific research, for example, with their falsification. At the same time, the negative consequences of this dishonesty can be enormous. I will refer to a current problem. Today's lack of confidence in vaccinations among some people has its origins in unreliable studies published in the 1980s when scientific standards of methodology were not respected. An extreme case could be the presentation of results of studies that have not been carried out at all, but sometimes someone claims to have carried out a study on a sample of a hundred people when in fact there were ten.

So there is always an ethical problem.

To use a criminal law analogy, it is fraud or theft. However, the problem is wider than that. Trust in science comes from the belief that research results are not falsified and that the research itself is reliable. It is not carried out in shortcuts, but by research procedures, based on the appropriate methodology and a suitable research sample. Scientific dishonesty touches the foundations of science. The social harm of such an act is enormous. The problem is not only that someone has fraudulently obtained a degree or title, but above all that such unreliable researchers undermine confidence in science. Then it is easier to undermine even the results of reliable research. All kinds of phenomena on the Internet show this - some people trust the statements of celebrities more than the results of scientific research.

The consequences are denialism, infodemic, fake news... Why do scientists "lose" on the Internet to celebrities?

I don't think we are that attractive to the public. Research needs to be analysed and even if it is communicated in a popularising way, it will always be more difficult and boring to read than easy theses.

How can the ombudsman for scientific integrity support the tasks of the disciplinary ombudsman for academics or ethics?

There is a large space between these functions, a kind of empty field for the activities of the scientific integrity ombudsman. Not all matters are so obvious that they should immediately be dealt with by a disciplinary ombudsman. There is a need for additional procedures to verify allegations in a fair, complete, transparent and impartial manner and to develop high standards and preventive mechanisms. There is a need for a clearly delineated path that will enable steps to be taken that are appropriate to the individual case - from the dismissal of charges to referring the case to the disciplinary ombudsman for academic staff to initiating a procedure for the revocation of a degree or academic title, to filing a criminal complaint. It is also about creating opportunities for the appointment of experts, for consultation between disciplines. This is one of the tasks set before me by His Magnificence the Rector of the University of Gdańsk.

I have the impression that in the course of explaining the cases of scientific dishonesty we are stuck in a kind of a clinch. On the one hand, there is the person who feels attacked and, on the other, the person who is convinced of a conspiracy and a cover-up. How do we break out of this dichotomy? 

In my opinion, the way out is to appoint an ombudsman for scientific integrity. As I pointed out earlier, we should strive to explain the matter fully, transparently and impartially, but at the same time respecting the positions of both sides in the dispute. This builds confidence in a resolution that will not be questioned. Of course, this assumes goodwill, because someone may always be dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings. In legal procedures, we use the concept of procedural justice. Not only the result, the outcome of the proceedings, is important, but also the path leading to it. On the one hand, we have evidence, analyses, expert opinions, and, on the other, the persons involved in the proceedings. Proceedings should respect the subjectivity of people who want to be heard. The participants in the dispute should feel that their position has been taken into account, even if it has not been considered convincing or accepted in the end.

What are the sine qua non conditions when it comes to standards related to scientific integrity?

Standards are another task, but this time requiring the cooperation of the ombudsman with scientists from various scientific disciplines. In addition to the commonly simple and elementary principles that we teach students, there are problems specific to individual disciplines. For example, in the experimental sciences, the issues of taking care of the methodological correctness of research conducted in the laboratory, its documentation, publication, determining the contribution to team research work, the use of research methods or the results of other research themselves are important. I see a preventive value in standards and good practice. Following clear and predefined rules can eliminate most of the mistakes made.

How important is training in this area?

Let me put it humorously: it is in my best interest to train and promote standards because that way I will have less work in the future... Mistakes often arise not only from ignorance but also from a kind of recklessness, a lack of attention to the rules. Training activities and work with young students of science, doctoral students, are the foundation for shaping appropriate attitudes and applying good practices. I have received signals from many quarters that such activities are very much needed, and we will certainly conduct them. We are already making concrete plans with some faculties.

Is there a chance to support the fight against scientific dishonesty with additional anti-plagiarism systems?

The rector's authorities have taken such measures and additional software will be purchased. The standard will be, colloquially speaking, "passing" doctoral or postdoctoral theses through the anti-plagiarism system. The problem with the Single Anti-Plagiarism System is that it can only be used for theses. With additional software, it will be possible to check all papers. The main activity of scientists is reviewing; hundreds of articles and books pass through our hands. And for plagiarism it does not matter how many pages have been duplicated, it could be 'only' two pages that the reviewer did not notice. An additional anti-plagiarism system will therefore be a very helpful tool for supervisors, reviewers and editors of scientific journals or monographs.

It remains for me to wish you good luck and probably... not much work.

Let us hope so. Above all, prevention is the work that awaits us. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Thank you for the interview.

_____

Sławomir Steinborn – holder of a postdoctoral degree in legal sciences, professor at the University of Gdańsk, head of the Department of Procedural Criminal Law and Criminalistics, since 2016 has held the office of a judge of the Appeal Court in Gdańsk. He is the author and co-author of more than 130 scientific studies on criminal procedure, constitutional law and European criminal law, including articles published in recognized journals and foreign publications, monographs, commentaries and academic textbooks. As a holder of scholarships from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Max Planck Society, in 2008-2009 and 2015 he was a research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law in Freiburg (Germany). He collaborates with researchers from Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain, among others. Between 2013 and 2016 he was a member of the Commission for the Codification of Criminal Law by the Minister of Justice. He is the author of legal expertise for, among others, the Parliament, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice and the Council of Europe. He is a member of scientific and academic associations, e.g. a member of the Board of Directors of Societas Humboldtiana Polonorum.