Lex Bouter is a Dutch epidemiologist renowned for his leadership in research integrity. Formerly Rector Magnificus of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, he later became Professor of Methodology and Integrity and chaired the World Conferences on Research Integrity Foundation (WCRIF) from 2017 to 2025. With over 770 publications and more than 80 PhD students supervised, he has significantly influenced global research integrity and research ethics.

He currently serves as Co-Chair of the 2026 World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) in Vancouver.

[SIA] What initially drew you into the field of research integrity, and how did your career path evolve to focus on this area?

[LB] In hindsight, I can see two distinct attractors. In 1992, I became a professor in Epidemiology and director of a public health research institute. Quickly, we decided to take quality control seriously, and we started to specify guidelines in an institutional handbook and initiated regular internal audits. This taught me that many things can and, in fact, regularly do go wrong in the daily practice of research, a phenomenon that was much later labeled as questionable research practices (QRPs).

Between 2001 and 2013, I was the methodological expert member of the Netherlands Central Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects. In that role, I became aware of how interrelated research integrity and research ethics are. I also saw some examples of the detrimental consequences for patients and reputations when things go wrong at the intersection of ethics and integrity.

[SIA] Reflecting on your time as Rector Magnificus at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, what pivotal moments influenced your shift towards emphasizing research integrity?

[LB] When I was a rector, the infamous Diederik Stapel case occurred at another Dutch university. In the monthly meetings of the Dutch Rectors College, this was discussed in depth. Quickly, the existing skeleton Netherlands code of conduct for research integrity was updated and expanded. Both the public and academic awareness of research integrity issues increased steeply due to the Stapel case. Also in my own university, I was faced with a few research integrity scandals. From these, I learned that handling them is difficult and that both whistleblowers and scholars of unjustified allegations can suffer severe consequences. When my term as rector ended after 7 years, I decided to go back to teaching and research, but the focus of my chair was changed to Methodology and Integrity, because I wanted to concentrate my work there.

[SIA] How have recent global events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, impacted the landscape of research integrity?

[LB] In a committee of the Netherlands Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences on which I served, the consequences of the pandemic for academic research and scholars were analyzed. We concluded that the pandemic had acted like a "pressure cooker": due to the enormous time pressure and urgency to produce results that could help fight COVID, many existing shortcomings became more virulent and more detrimental. It was a mixed bag of some positive and many negative effects. While we discovered fast public peer review (e.g., on Twitter [now X]) and adopted preprinting, the social safety of academic workers deteriorated substantially. The pandemic also made it clearer that not following responsible research practices can have a substantial negative impact on individuals and communities.

[SIA] Looking ahead, what do you see as the key areas that need attention to further promote and safeguard research integrity?

[LB] I firmly believe that fostering responsible research practices is more important than detecting and sanctioning fraud and QRPs. We should make "doing the right thing" easier and deviating from the desirable track more difficult. For that, we need an evidence-based mix of training, facilitation, and policies. Ideally, all important stakeholders of the research ecosystem (researchers, institutions, funders, journals, editors, and learned societies) should collaborate and align their efforts for the common goal. Like Brian Nosek said, the necessary cultural changes ideally follow five consecutive steps: make it possible, make it easy, make it normative, make it rewarding, and finally make it required.

[SIA] With the recent launch of the Lancet–WCRIF Commission on Research Integrity, what do you hope this initiative will achieve, and how do you see it shaping the future of research integrity in light of persistent and emerging challenges, including those posed by generative AI?

[LB] I’m excited about the opportunity to work with a diverse group of about 20 research integrity scholars and professionals from all relevant stakeholders. The Commission will depart from the view that there is no magic bullet to make research integrity problems go away and that to improve matters many stakeholders need to act together in a consistent way. We will therefore take a multifactor and multistakeholder approach, and will work towards innovative solutions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the issues that threaten the quality and credibility of research. The ambitious goal is to reflect on the issues at hand, review what is known, collect new data when needed, and formulate actionable recommendations for the main stakeholders. One might argue that the introduction of generative artificial intelligence (e.g., ChatGPT) is the challenge of our times, but in fact this piece of disruptive innovation might have very few implications on the principles and standards of research integrity. Also, in the new era we should be honest and transparent, be open about eventual use of these new tools, and take responsibility for the process and the results when using them.

Read the published comment on the Lancet–World Conferences on Research Integrity Foundation Commission on Research Integrity

[SIA] What have been some of the most rewarding experiences related to your work in research integrity?

[LB] For me, the most rewarding is mentoring early-career professionals involved in research integrity. Giving them trust and responsibility never disappoints. They are the driving force of necessary changes in the research ecosystem. More senior scholars and professionals, with a few exceptions, somewhat understandably have reservations about the ongoing reforms and are rarely among the early adopters.

[SIA] How do you stay motivated and inspired to continue advocating for ethical and responsible research practices?

[LB] I have no difficulty at all in staying motivated: I have the opportunity to work with nice and clever colleagues on academic issues I believe to be important. I also believe that the changes we want to see are really happening, although not universally and often a bit slower than hoped for. And in rare moments of mild despair, I realize that giving up is not an option.

[SIA] Can you share any success examples where enhanced research integrity has led to significant advancements or positive outcomes in the scientific community?

[LB] It often starts with a crisis, and the trick is not to waste the momentum when one occurs. A good example is how the “replication crisis” helped both researchers doing animal experiments and psychologists to get their act together and to improve levels of replication success from around 20 to 80 percent or more. This was mainly realized by adopting open science practices, like open methods, open codes, and open data, which in turn proved to be very helpful in diagnosing and preventing QRPs.

[SIA] How do you envision the role of interdisciplinary research in advancing the goals of research integrity?

[LB] Interdisciplinary research is difficult, but also can be very rewarding. Many important innovations originated in interdisciplinary research. Collaboration with other disciplines often is essential, because the problems science tries to tackle usually do not respect the boundaries between disciplines. It takes some courage to collaborate with other disciplines, and one should be willing to invest in understanding the methods and standards of another discipline. When it goes well, this leads to an open atmosphere in which ethical and research integrity dilemmas can also be discussed constructively and respectfully. So I believe that inter-disciplinary collaboration can help in fostering research integrity and that ideally the effects will diffuse subsequently to the separate disciplines.

[SIA] What message would you like to convey to the readers of REACH?

[LB] Try to realize that the importance of science is larger than your personal satisfaction and your career. Remember that scholars are human and can easily be distracted by other interests than finding the truth. Only by collaborating, by being transparent and open to constructive criticism, can the research system function optimally and fuel trust in research and researchers. We need our work to be trusted to have a positive impact on individuals, society, and nature.