There is little research on the content of research integrity (RI)-related guidance provided by pan-European discipline-specific learned societies, or how this guidance compares with recommendations made in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA code). Therefore, we aimed to (1) assess the availability of RI guidance from these learned societies, (2) compare learned societies' guidance with the ALLEA code, and (3) explore similarities and differences in guidance between learned societies of different disciplines. Using a scoping review, we identified 245 learned societies, from which we identified and conducted a content analysis of fifty-eight guideline documents, developed by forty-six of these learned societies. Less than 25 per cent of learned societies in any discipline provide guidance, and there are notable disciplinary differences. Recommendations made by learned societies, which are not reflected in the ALLEA code, relate primarily to research culture and environment. Medical and Health Sciences societies often focus on regulatory and procedural aspects of research, whereas Natural Sciences societies emphasize the importance of accurate and appropriate dissemination of results. Humanities and Social Sciences societies' recommendations are more heterogeneous and closely related to the nature of specific subdisciplines. Our results reflect differences in epistemological approaches as well as the specific roles and responsibilities of learned societies. We recommend that learned societies develop, or endorse, appropriate RI guidance.
- open science
- research ethics
- research integrity
- responsible conduct of research
- science policy