Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jul 16;18(7):e3000737.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737. eCollection 2020 Jul.

The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity

David Moher  1   2 , Lex Bouter  3   4 , Sabine Kleinert  5 , Paul Glasziou  6 , Mai Har Sham  7 , Virginia Barbour  8 , Anne-Marie Coriat  9 , Nicole Foeger  10 , Ulrich Dirnagl  11
Affiliations

The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity

David Moher et al. PLoS Biol. .

Abstract

For knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous, and transparent at all stages of design, execution, and reporting. Assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor, and transparency. We have developed the Hong Kong Principles (HKPs) as part of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity with a specific focus on the need to drive research improvement through ensuring that researchers are explicitly recognized and rewarded for behaviors that strengthen research integrity. We present five principles: responsible research practices; transparent reporting; open science (open research); valuing a diversity of types of research; and recognizing all contributions to research and scholarly activity. For each principle, we provide a rationale for its inclusion and provide examples where these principles are already being adopted.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: A-MC works for Wellcome. Through this, the organization and she are engaged in a lot of advocacy work to promote a more positive research culture. The guidance asks about advocacy work so I include this for completeness. VB was involved in the creation of a Research Integrity course at QUT. QUT licenses this course to other institutions and provides a proportion of any income to the creators. VB is employed by QUT and the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group. She sits on and is paid for work on the NHMRC’s Research Quality Steering Committee. She is an unpaid advisor to a variety of open access and scholarly communication initiatives, including DORA.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Indicators of responsible research practices.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Funk C, Hefferon M, Kennedy B, Johnson C. Pew Research Centre. Trust and Mistrust in Americans' Views of Scientific Experts [Internet]. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-ame.... [cited 2020 Mar 25]
    1. Moher D, Naudet F, Cristea IA, Miedema F, Ioannidis JPA, Goodman SN. Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLoS Biol. 2018. March;16[3]:e2004089 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017. - PubMed
    1. American Society for Cell Biology. DORA. Declaration on Research Assessment [Internet]. Available from: http://www.ascb.org/dora/. [cited 2020 Mar 25]
    1. Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, de RS, Rafols I. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature. 2015. April 23;520[7548]:429–31. 10.1038/520429a - DOI - PubMed

Publication types