¶ … Integrity in Canada Even though Canada has one of the best systems dealing with research integrity and disciplining of misconduct, the system just like any other, has a few disadvantages. In fact, many people in the Canadian research community are of the opinion that something needs to be done to make the system more efficient to avoid any destructive future effects of negative research conduct. However, Canada is not the only country in the world that is seeking to make its system more efficient (Creutzberg et al., 2009). This research looks into integrity systems in 8 other nations and finds that there are discussions in all these other developed nations on how to improve their respective systems. The widespread concern is due to the increasing number of negative effects that every individual public case is bringing to science. The negative effects include: wasted resources, time and efforts for the regulatory institutions and researchers who then have to check-up falsified findings; the possible harm not only on people, but also on the community, if falsified studies could lead to the production of unsafe items or procedure, or if such falsified research are widely known and used by other scientists in drawing conclusions; and its effects on the trust in science, the trust that has seen governments and other institutions or individuals giving or donating funding for public research (Creutzberg et al., 2009).

Introduction

The policies guiding the Canadian research conduct are multifaceted and multilevel. The policy landscape is made up of guidelines, codes of conduct and policies that influence the way different players in the Canadian research community react to cases of misconduct. These policies only guide publicly financed studies in the country, leaving privately funded studies out of reach for the Canada's present research integrity system (Creutzberg et al., 2009). In spite of the system being decentralized, the country's integrity system influences all the three of the nation's research funding councils via its TCPS-IRS document, which means Tri-Council Policy Statement on Integrity in Research and Scholarship and other related polices, which researchers are made aware of through a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) that must be signed between a granting council and the institution that receives funding. According to Creutzberg et al. (2009), the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Integrity in Research and Scholarship has been the most important document in bringing about some sense of compliance and federal coordination across the entire system, in spite of having jurisdiction only over institutions that receive public funding (Creutzberg et al., 2009).

Literature Review

The mix of guidelines, codes and policies at the heart of the Canadian research integrity system do recognize that the duty of responding to cases of research misconduct is with the organization where the misconduct is alleged to have taken place (Creutzberg et al., 2009). The organizations/institutions often respond to possible cases in accordance to their own internal regulations for dealing with such matters, which often would have been developed to in line with TCPS-IRS or other provincial or international documents. The institutions responding to the allegations of misconduct are only a cog in the wheel and they help activate the process; such institutions are the ones that should have committees, that should have the professional responsibility of ensuring that no misconduct occurs in the first place, or if it occurs, those who report misconduct are not victimized (Creutzberg et al., 2009).

As the data reveals in many other nations, few experimental studies have been done in Canada on the causes, nature and the prevalence of research misconduct. Not many studies have been done in Canada on the issue of research misconduct. A study done by Cossette (2004) on the perceptions about research misconduct in the province of Quebec (p. 213), found that the incidents of misconduct were somewhat frequent. The participants of the study also pointed out that the causes of lack of research integrity were associated with the need to archive professional success. The participants in the study also preferred solutions that were linked to the prioritization of quality over quantity in research publications, and also the addition of at least one workshop on integrity issues in all programs that involved research (Cossette, 2004, p. 213; Baerlocher, O'Brien, Newton, Gautam, & Noble, 2010). It is also known that most studies on research integrity have concentrated in medical sciences, and therefore, it is also crucial that studies are done in other disciplines and especially in social sciences, humanities and arts (Davenport, et al., 2010).

According to Davenport, the research integrity system in Canada is decentralized and it is also not lawful....

The document's objective is to offer guidance to the granting councils in discharging their mandates and also in creating a positive environment. The three granting councils require that all institutions applying for research grants should comply with the tri-council policy. All institutions or individuals applying for grants shall try to the best of their ability to conduct their studies honestly, fairly, accountably and openly. Additionally, researchers are also required to adhere to respective institutional policies guiding the kind of the research they are doing and also to adhere to international research integrity guidelines if available, and plus professional association guidelines and any other relevant laws (RCR, 2015).
The majority of the above mentioned policies often have guidelines and policies that are within the framework of the TCPS-IRS because the majority of publicly funded research in Canada is influenced in one way or another by the tri-council policy. Institutions that are under the jurisdiction of the tri-council policy are required to formulate and adhere to a number of fundamental principles on the issue of research integrity, and also to develop procedures for dealing with alleged cases of misconduct and the reporting channels (Creutzberg et al., 2009). To further help institutions, the policy highlights in clear detail, what is expected in universities' and other research institutions' integrity policies. Finally, it is important to note that research integrity policy is just one of many documents that could be guiding research in any given organization. Some institutions have up to 14 policies that can affect research, including research safety and research by non-institutional researchers. One way of making it easier for researchers not to be confused with all these documents, is to come up with one research conduct policy that highlights all the best practices in all the documents and has references to related guiding policies (Creutzberg et al., 2009).

Summary and Conclusion

In a research done while in campus, the supervisor has the responsibility to guide research; his or her failure to execute their duty may result, in them (the supervisors), being held partly responsible for the misconduct done by researchers under them (RIP, 2013). This statement reveals the growing belief that for people to bring about research integrity, there will have to be a united effort, whereby all players in the research community not only just focus on their individual responsibilities, but on the overall institutional goal of ensuring integrity of the research. To sufficiently deal with the issues surrounding integrity, such as supervision, training, whistle blower assistance, and education on the same, there's need for the development of a national integrity system that gives serious researchers a platform or a policy to quickly refer to. Researchers in Canada have no such platform, leaving many of them who are frustrated with the current one, to be dismissive of any efforts to ensure integrity (Creutzberg et al., 2009).

Recommendations

There are many convincing reasons why the country should strengthen its research integrity systems. One of the reasons is to make sure that the country's potential future misconduct allegations do not hamper Canada's scientific development. Another reason would be the need to mitigate any damage on public trust in science that would be brought about by any misconduct. Finally, since research is increasingly becoming a worldwide activity, Canada must have a strong research integrity system that will help it relate to the global scientific community on a solid footing.

Option a- An evolving Current system: this option entails maintaining Canada's present research integrity system and encouraging its strengthening through the tri-council. In fact, this is already, to some part happening. For instance, the council is reviewing its guiding policy, the TCPS-IRS to make the system more effective.

Option b- Office of the Ombudsman: establishing such an office with a primary role of being an intermediary instead of an enforcer of the law offers quite a number of advantages. This includes the fact that it will be a formal point of contact that is independent of the institutions conducting research, and that could also function as a platform…