How do PhD candidates perceive good research practices in the Netherlands code of conduct for research integrity?

IntroductionResearch misconduct and questionable research practices compromise the quality of scientific research. The Netherlands code of conduct on research integrity 2018 outlines 61 good research practices intended to guide researchers. For the code to be effective, its standards must be perceived as clear, relevant, and accurately reflective of both the frequency and seriousness of non-adherence. This study examines how PhD candidates in the Science and Medicine schools at Leiden University perceive these practicesMethodsA mandatory online questionnaire was administered as part of a PhD research integrity workshop, yielding 332 completed responses (73% participation proportion). Each participant evaluated 31 randomly selected standards from the code using 5-point Likert scales for clarity, relevance, and frequency of non-adherence, alongside a three-category scale for assessing the seriousness of non-adherence. Additionally, open-text responses were collected and categorized according to the five core principles of research integrity: honesty, scrupulousness, transparency, independence, and responsibility.ResultsOverall, 83% of clarity ratings and 77% of relevance ratings scored 4 or 5, indicating a generally positive perception of the standards. However, the perceived frequency of non-adherence varied markedly across practices (ranging from 5% to 34%). Discrepancies were also noted in severity assessments: several practices labeled as minor shortcomings by the code were deemed by participants to constitute serious misconduct, with a notable misalignment observed for one plagiarism-related standard. Open-text responses primarily emphasized honesty and transparency, while independence was rarely mentioned. Additionally, participants highlighted values not explicitly covered by the current code, such as equality in research and ethical collaboration.DiscussionAlthough early-career researchers largely view the Dutch code as clear and relevant, the study reveals significant nuances in how its standards are interpreted, particularly concerning the frequency and severity of non-adherence. The misclassification of certain practices, especially those related to plagiarism, highlights the need for revising some of the code’s wording and its three-tier severity framework. By integrating the survey into mandatory training, self-selection bias was minimized, offering a representative snapshot that can inform future revisions of the code and guide enhancements in research integrity training programs.