EUA welcomes the document as a sound draft, though still in need of essential amendments. The document, as stated, should function as a framework for institutional and national codes and practices, and should thus not be overly prescriptive while attributing main responsibilities to the various stakeholders.
EUA believes that the Code could be shortened somewhat, particularly Chapter 4, which is found to be overly prescriptive. In the view of EUA, there is good research conduct and misconduct, but in between is a ’grey zone’ of questionable conduct, which is by definition not possible to delimit. The framework document should focus on definitions of good conduct and misconduct, underlining the necessity for proper institutional processes to ensure good conduct, deal appropriately with misconduct, and review questionable conduct in a manner that is fit for purpose.