6 questions to Michael Antioco on EDHEC’s Research Integrity Review Committee

Could you briefly introduce EDHEC’s Research Integrity Review Committee (RIRC)?

Michael Antioco : The RIRC is a body dedicated to the ethical review of research projects conducted at EDHEC. Its mission is to identify, at an early stage, risks relating to scientific integrity – whether concerning data protection, conflicts of interest, the treatment of participants or the robustness of protocols – and to support researchers in complying with international standards, or simply to validate their projects where they already meet these standards.

These standards are now widely adopted by the world’s leading academic institutions, which have established similar frameworks and from which we also draw inspiration. They increasingly align with the expectations of academic journals, which have tightened their requirements regarding research ethics and integrity in recent years.

The RIRC therefore follows this dual approach: aligning with international best practices and enabling our researchers to anticipate the requirements of journals, whilst contributing to a comprehensive approach to quality and scientific accountability, rather than mere compliance.

You were the driving force behind it as Dean of the Faculty and Research, but this committee is now independent, run by five professors from the school. Why is this important? How do you ensure its independence?

Michael Antioco : Independence is essential to ensure the committee’s credibility and legitimacy. A body perceived as being dependent on the faculty management could give rise to bias or the suspicion of bias in the evaluation of projects.

This independence is based on several mechanisms:

• A collegial body comprising five recognised professors from different disciplines.
• Transparent operations, with formalised procedures.
• A clear separation between the roles of academic governance and ethical review.

Some procedures are still being developed: the RIRC is a relatively new body, and we are learning as we go along. They are therefore intended to evolve and be refined as we gain experience.

Furthermore, we have set up a dedicated administrative support unit, with a member of staff responsible for the committee’s secretariat. This role is attached to the Dean’s Office in organisational terms, but operates independently within the RIRC. It enables requests to be centralised, facilitates communication and ensures that the evaluation process remains clearly separate from governance functions.

The Dean’s Office does not intervene in the evaluation process itself: it merely receives the decisions, except in the case of a specific issue requiring discussion. This provides a further guarantee of independence.

Each faculty member assesses ex ante whether or not to submit their project to the RIRC. That said, how do you assess and manage the risks associated with these self-assessments?

Michael Antioco : That is an important question. This model is based on researchers taking responsibility, which is in line with international standards, but it also requires support.

We operate on several levels:

• By clarifying the submission criteria through simple guidelines.
• By fostering a shared culture of research ethics.
• By encouraging a cautious approach: where in doubt, early submission is always strongly recommended.

The aim of the committee is indeed to intervene before projects are implemented, rather than to assess situations after. This is not a matter of principle, but of consistency: the committee’s objective is to provide guidance on methodological and ethical choices at the very moment they are being formulated, when it can be of real use.

This does not call into question the responsibility or professionalism of researchers. Rather, it is a matter of gradually establishing collective reflexes in an environment where expectations are changing rapidly, particularly on the part of journals.

Ultimately, the aim is for this self-assessment to become increasingly consistent and robust within the faculty.

The RIRC has been in operation for over two years. What effects are already visible?

Michael Antioco : Although these changes take time, several effects are beginning to become apparent: firstly, greater consideration of ethical issues right from the project design stage; secondly, improved documentation of research protocols; and finally, greater awareness of data issues and even the reproducibility of research.

We also note that interaction with the committee is seen as a resource, rather than a burden.

Finally, this has a more subtle but significant impact in the classroom. Research directly nurtures our teaching, and it is essential that our students - who are themselves very attuned to these issues - can see that this research is conducted within a rigorous framework of ethics and accountability. This helps to ensure consistency between what we teach and how we generate knowledge.

Is there a different approach for early-career researchers and senior researchers?

Michael Antioco : The framework and requirements are, of course, the same for everyone. However, the support needs may vary.

Young researchers today are often very well trained in issues of scientific integrity, which are now an integral part of their doctoral training. They therefore arrive with a solid grounding in these matters.

Conversely, more experienced researchers have a very strong culture of scientific rigour and ethics, but they may be faced with rapidly changing standards – particularly as a result of new journal requirements, data regulations or changes linked to AI. In this context, the committee can also play a supportive role in helping to integrate these developments.

The challenge is therefore to support different career paths: researchers who were trained in contexts where these standards were already highly established, and others who must sometimes adapt to them within a scientific environment that has changed profoundly.

How has AI changed the ethical practices and intentions of scientists – both in general and at EDHEC? In what way does this strengthen the legitimacy of initiatives such as the RIRC?

Michael Antioco : AI has profoundly transformed research practices by facilitating access to data, analysis and even the production of scientific content. This opens up considerable opportunities, but also new risks: algorithmic bias, model opacity, and the inappropriate use of generative tools.

In this context, integrity issues are becoming increasingly complex. Researchers must now incorporate new dimensions into their methodological and ethical choices.

These issues, moreover, extend beyond research alone: they concern the institution as a whole. At EDHEC, this is the subject of a broader discussion at the school level, with initiatives focused on sharing best practices, training and providing guidance on the use of AI.

Within this framework, the RIRC plays a specific yet essential role. It provides a space where these issues can be examined from the perspective of research projects, in relation to real-world situations. And quite naturally, given the implication of the committee members, these issues find their place there.

The aim is therefore not to place the entire burden of AI policy on the RIRC, but to situate it within a broader ecosystem, where it helps to shape ethical thinking in the field of research, in conjunction with institutional initiatives.