This tip* provides guidance on how to deal with research integrity when writing a Horizon Europe grant proposal.  

It has been compiled from the following sources containing more extensive information:

• European Commission, Horizon Europe Programme Guide (contains a dedicated section on ethics and integrity, n° 12, p. 23-28)   
• European Commission, Horizon Europe Programme Standard Application Form (HE RIA, IA)  
• European Commission, EU Grants AGA- Annotated Model Grant Agreement   

Below, text in italics and between quotation marks has been extracted from the sources listed above.

*The form and content of this tip is based on the Research Tip: EU funding: How do I address open science in my Horizon Europe proposal?

 

Why address research integrity in your proposal 

Maintaining high standards of research integrity and fostering good academic research practices in your research, are criteria considered in the evaluation of Horizon Europe proposals. Although specific requirements in the application are imposed for subtopics such as data management, ethics review, etc., adherence to the general principles of research integrity throughout the entire research process, as laid down in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, also called ALLEA code, is also crucial. 

“For all activities funded by the EU, the ethical dimension is an integral part of research from beginning to end, and ethical compliance is seen as pivotal to achieve real research excellence. There is a clear need to make a thorough ethical evaluation from the conceptual stage of the proposal not only to respect the legal framework but also to enhance the quality of the research. Ethical research conduct implies the application of fundamental ethical principles and legislation to scientific research in all possible domains of research. This includes the adherence to the highest standards of research integrity as described in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.” (Horizon Europe Programme Guide)

 

Where to address research integrity in your proposal: overview

Unlike other topics such as Research Data Management or Open Science, proposals don’t require additional documents or specifically dedicated passages when it comes to research integrity. Compliance with the principles of research integrity is partly implicit in the drafting of the research application itself. What is important here is not so much that the principles are named, but rather that they are applied to the content, e.g. you do not have to mention that you describe previous research realisations honestly, but you describe the realisations truthfully. For the other part, it will be necessary to explicitly weave the principles of research integrity throughout the content of other passages.

To positively affect your proposal’s evaluation score, adequately address research integrity aspects in the relevant sections of the proposal by providing sufficient and concrete information on how you will comply with Horizon Europe’s research integrity obligations (adherence to the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity). The classification (numbering) here below therefore refers in each case to the relevant passages (numbering) in the project proposal. 

 

European Commission, Horizon Europe Programme Standard Application Form

Application Form Part A:

 

1. General Information - Declarations

Declaring compliance with the ALLEA code assumes a good knowledge of the principles of research integrity and the norms derived from them, both in the drafting of the project proposal and in its implementation. For this reason, please read the ALLEA code carefully.

 

2. Participants 

It is important to thoroughly evaluate potential partners at the earliest possible stage of (exploration into) cooperation. Besides the ‘scientific match’ where substantive agreement between partners on the research topic and plan is important, also check the reliability and integrity of your potential partners. 

An (online) enquiry about partners' merits often brings clarity, even for partners you “know well” or have worked with before. As an example, you can: 

• Look at withdrawn papers and the reason why;
• ask previous project partners about their experiences;
• check the principles of FAIR data (is data available, what is the quality, what about metadata and documentation, ...);
• assess the quality of previous work yourself by reading some major papers;
• check whether there are scientific and/or other links e.g. with certain companies, institutions, etc. that might influence cooperation;
• ... . 

In addition, it is necessary to discuss the framework of research integrity beforehand. This way, you can check whether all partners are sufficiently familiar with and subscribe to the ALLEA code. Make the arrangements as concrete as possible:

• What arrangements will be made in case of alleged breaches and/or conflicts?
• Does each partner institution have a Commission for Research Integrity or equivalent?
• Who will take the lead in case of alleged violations or conflict situations?
• How will authorship conditions be met?
• How can knowledge and data be used further or more widely in the project? 

Put the agreements in writing. 

 

Organisation data - listing 

• List of up to 5 publications, widely-used datasets, software, goods, services, or any other achievements relevant to the call content.

Present your realisations honestly both in terms of the work done and the impact it has generated. “Misrepresenting research achievements, data, involvement, or interests” is an unacceptable practice” (ALLEA code, 3.1).

• List of up to 5 most relevant previous projects or activities, connected to the subject of this proposal

Be accurate in the representation of results of previous or preliminary research to demonstrate, for example, the importance of further study or indicate expectations of future research. A.o. “Misusing statistics, for example to inappropriately suggest statistical significance, is an unacceptable practice” (ALLEA code, 3.1). 

 

4. Ethics and security - ethics issues table 

Thinking about the implications of doing your research and considering how any (positive or negative) consequences should be addressed, in the light of the researcher's responsibility, is a crucial part of planning the research. Therefor “researchers recognise and weigh potential harms and risks relating to their research and its applications and mitigate possible negative impacts” (ALLEA, 2.4), when you fill in the table. To make this estimate, it is important to know what the topics mentioned in the ethics table are about, and their relevance to your research.

To quickly find your way through the multitude of topics, use the Framework for Good Research Practice.

 

 

European Commission, Horizon Europe Programme Standard Application Form

Project proposal - Technical description Part B: 

 

Integrate the 4 basic principles of the ALLEA code (reliability, honesty, respect and accountability) in the sections below. 

1. Excellence 

1.1. Objectives and ambition

When outlining the context and scientific knowledge preceding your research idea, describe the state-of-the-art thoroughly and make sure you build on reliable and undisputed (published) knowledge (“Researchers take into account the state-of-the-art in relevant fields when developing research ideas”; “Citing selectively or inaccurately is an example of an unacceptable practice” – ALLEA, 2.3 ; 3.1). Check how your research can build upon and push forward existing knowledge. Avoid unnecessary duplication (“Researchers make proper and conscientious use of research funds” – ALLEA, 2.3). 

Describe the importance and necessity of your research in the proposal as aptly as possible but remain nuanced and honest about what, even in the most positive scenario, can be expected. Do not promise more than what you can realistically deliver. (“Authors are transparent in their communication […] about the robustness of the evidence, including remaining uncertainties and knowledge gaps” – ALLEA, 2.7).

 

1.2. Methodology 

• On the data 

“Being reliable in ensuring the quality of research” (ALLEA, 1), one of the four principles of research integrity, has to do with handling data. Proper Research Data Management (RDM) is mandatory for any Horizon Europe project generating or reusing research data and should be considered from the proposal stage. 

“Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary, and where appropriate in line with the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) for data management” (ALLEA, 2.5). 

To appropriately incorporate research integrity into your project proposal with regards to your data, please follow the guidance in the Research Tip: EU funding: How do I comply with RDM requirements in my Horizon Europe proposal?, on the parts that deal with Research Data Management. 

• With regards to the gender dimension of research: 

“Research protocols take account of, and are sensitive to, relevant differences among research participants, such as age, gender, sex, culture, religion, worldview, ethnicity, geographical location, and social class” (ALLEA, 2.3). 

 

2. Impact 

2.1. Project's pathways towards impact 

“Researchers have due regard for the health, safety, and welfare of the community, of collaborators, and others connected with their research. Researchers recognise and weigh potential harms and risks relating to their research and its applications and mitigate possible negative impacts” (ALLEA, 2.4).

By making a risk assessment and taking time in advance to think about ways to avoid and properly address potential risks, you anticipate any potential negative outcome or impact of the project (incl. environmental), as questioned in the project proposal.

 

 

European Commission, EU Grants AGA- Annotated Model Grant Agreement   

Annex 5 to proposal Part B / AGA – Annotated Grant Agreement

The ethics self-assessment should be included in proposal part A. You can add additional information in an annex to proposal part B e.g. in case of serious ethics issues. Because the Annotated Grant Agreement besides to ethics, also refers to ‘AND research integrity (HE and RFCS)’ (article 14) and to conflicts of interest in particular (article 12), we advise you to also add a paragraph on the Ghent University infrastructure relating research integrity in this annex to proposal part B. 

You can include the paragraphs below in full in the proposal:

All research practices carried out under this proposal will comply with the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, as adopted by Ghent University Board of Governors (2/3/2018 and again for the revised version on 8/9/2023) and refrain from any research integrity violations it describes. I am familiar with the institution's efforts to build a research integrity culture:

At university level, Ghent University has several policy officers who help support the principles of research integrity (on data management, open science, conflicts of interest, etc.) as well as a policy officer dedicated to the topic of research integrity. 

Besides compliance to the European Code, this results in additional rules and regulations relating to aspects of the scientific work such as scholarly publishing, data management, authorship, conflicts of interest, etc. 

By promoting (e.g. with an integrity affirmation during the public defense of PhD students, presentations on research integrity for newly appointed professors, …), informing (e.g. via hands-on information on the Research Tip platform, newsletter items, …), and training (e.g. with an online training module Mind the GAP and in-depth dilemma training for all (research) staff), the university takes on its responsibility to guide and support researchers in translating the principles of research integrity into good research practices and prevent violations and misconduct. 

At faculty level, a network of ‘Faculty Contact Points Research Integrity (FAP)’ has been set up for those who have questions about the integrity of their own work or that of colleagues. The FAP’s are ambassadors of research integrity, close to the research groups. For those who want to report (presumed) violations of research integrity and misconduct , a ‘Commission for Research Integrity’ is set up. This independent commission is an investigative and advisory body to the institution’s management.