Manifesto of more ethical and responsible research groups

We firmly believe that the pursuit of exceptional science is intrinsically tied to the values and integrity of the individuals who conduct it. As such, we advocate for the establishment of more ethical and responsible research groups. It is within these groups that aspiring researchers, including undergraduate and early-stage graduate students, take their initial steps into academia. In an increasingly competitive landscape, where academia competes for talent with industries offering higher salaries, it becomes imperative to demonstrate to these budding scholars that the academic community comprises individuals of utmost integrity and goodwill.

For seasoned researchers as well, the treatment they receive is a pivotal factor that influences their decision to either remain within the academic realm or contemplate leaving. Therefore, it is crucial that we address concerns regarding fairness and foster an environment that upholds the principles of equity and respect.

We acknowledge that this project is a work in progress, with the aim of effecting positive change within research communities. We warmly welcome your input, ideas, and personal anecdotes. If you have experiences or insights that can contribute to our cause, we encourage you to reach out to us. Together, let us shape a future where ethical and responsible research practices are the cornerstone of scientific progress.

Due to the innovative nature of research endeavors, determining right and wrong in conflicts, be it professional or personal, can often be challenging. Various research laboratories adopt different approaches to address such conflicts. We propose implementing a rule-based lab culture, wherein all participants in research activities are familiarized in advance with the expected norms and behaviors. By establishing clear rules, conflict resolution becomes more streamlined and standardized, ultimately promoting fairness and facilitating effective resolution.

We offer an initial set of rules ("these Rules") as an example for consideration. Feel free to review and adapt them to suit your research group's requirements:

Chapter I. General Principles

1. Familiarity with Rules: It is expected that all research group members possess a comprehensive understanding of these Rules, and the University X research policies and behavioral codes. Moreover, members are required to know and uphold the highest level of academic ethics in our field and know relevant local laws. In cases where multiple sets of guidelines exist, members must adhere to the most stringent standards among them.

2. Honesty: Under no circumstances should any member knowingly misrepresent research outcomes, contributions, personal interactions, or conversations that transpire within or in relation to the group. This rule does not extend to encompass white lies.

3. Sexual Misconducts: The research group strictly prohibits any form of sexual misconduct, including but not limited to sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. It is paramount that all members uphold a zero-tolerance approach towards such behaviors.

4. Defamation and Falsification: It is strictly prohibited to misuse or exploit Rule 3 with the intention of fabricating incidents in order to defame or harm others. Members are expected to act with integrity and refrain from making false accusations either publicly or privately.

5. Collaborative Environment: TBD.

6. Authorship: The author list for research papers arising from group activities is based on the actual contribution made by individuals, whether it be intellectual or physical. All members, including the principal investigator, are expected to possess a solid understanding of academic ethics pertaining to authorship and the widely accepted practices within the field. Diligent efforts should be made by all members to ensure an accurate representation of their respective contributions. In situations where conflicts arise, the principal investigator bears the responsibility of actively quantifying each member's contribution. Although the final decision ultimately rests with the principal investigator, the principal investigator is obliged to provide a written rationale to all parties involved and disclose the rationale in the author contribution section. Co-first authorship should be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary. See Appendix A for details.

7. Democratic Procedures: Every member is entitled to propose additions, deletions, or modifications to these Rules. While the principal investigator retains the authority to make the ultimate decision, it is crucial to consult with and adhere to democratic procedures when any changes are contemplated. In cases where the principal investigator's decision diverges from the outcome derived through democratic procedures, it becomes the principal investigator's responsibility to substantiate that the decision was made with good intentions.

8. Disciplinary Actions: In the event that the principal investigator violates these Rules, members possess the right to require that the principal investigator strictly adhere to these Rules, refuse to comply with orders issued by the principal investigator, or report such behaviors to higher authorities. Conversely, when a member other than the principal investigator violates these Rules, the principal investigator is empowered to require the member to adhere to these Rules, initiate a thorough investigation, or, if permissible by other codes or laws, expel the member from the group. As a supplementary disciplinary measure, any member found to have violated these Rules may be obligated to issue a formal apology.

Chapter II. Principal Investigator

9. Role of the principal investigator: TBD.

10. Rights of the principal investigator: TBD.

11. Obligations of the principal investigator: TBD.

Chapter III. Graduate Students and Postdocs

Chapter IV. Undergraduate students

Chapter V. Miscellaneous

Appendix A. Deciding Author List

Project initiation 5/9/2023

Last updated 7/8/2023