How to evaluate a nation’s scientific integrity is the question tackled in one of the Editorials in the current issue of Nature (457, 512; 29 January 2009, free to access online). From the Editorial: "Like many emerging countries, Saudi Arabia measures itself by indices, and has developed its own index for ‘responsible competitiveness’, based on a number of metrics. But fostering strong science-based innovation requires its own metrics of inputs and achievement. So here, for any country concerned about the reputation and integrity of its research base, are some metrics that might be developed into an index for responsible scientific competitiveness."

Four main sets of metric are identified: (1) misconduct such as fraud, fabrication and plagiarism; (2) transparency and objectivity of a nation’s systems of evaluation, funding, staff appointments and promotion; (3) a nation’s framework for science policy, and the extent to which it allows talented scientists to follow their noses in the pursuit of what makes the world tick while also giving societal values and economic needs their due priority; and (4) the elusive concept of ‘openness’ — a key corollary of trust.

The Editorial concludes that, “taken together, these qualitative metrics would amount to an index of responsible science for any country, whatever its stage of scientific development. They could be measured by the documentation of structures and practices and by independent surveys of scientists.”

Previous Nautilus posts on quality measures (mostly focusing on individuals’ scientific research output, rather than on a country’s ‘scientific integrity’.)