1,721,356 research outputs found
Research Assessments Should Recognize Responsible Research Practices. Narrative Review of a Lively Debate and Promising Developments
No full textResearch assessments have been under growing scrutiny in the past few years. The way in which researchers are assessed has a tangible impact on decisions and practices in research. Yet, there is an emerging understanding that research assessments as they currently stand might hamper the quality and the integrity of research. In this chapter, we provide a narrative review of the shortcomings of current research assessments and showcase innovative actions that aim to address these. To discuss these shortcomings and actions, we target five different dimensions of research assessment. First, we discuss the content of research assessment, thereby introducing the common indicators used to assess researchers and the way these indicators are being used. Second, we address the procedure of research assessments, describing the resources needed for assessing researchers in an ever-growing research system. Third, we describe the crucial role of assessors in improving research assessments. Fourth, we present the broader environments in which researchers work, explaining that omnipresent competition and employment insecurity also need to be toned down substantially to foster high quality and high integrity research. Finally, we describe the challenge of coordinating individual actions to ensure that the problems of research assessments are addressed tangibly and sustainably
What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity
Full text linkIn many countries attention for fostering research integrity started with a misconduct case that got a lot of media exposure. But there is an emerging consensus that questionable research practices are more harmful due to their high prevalence. QRPs have in common that they can help to make study results more exciting, more positive and more statistically significant. That makes them tempting to engage in. Research institutions have the duty to empower their research staff to steer away from QRPs and to explain how they realize that in a Research Integrity Promotion Plan. Avoiding perverse incentives in assessing researchers for career advancement is an important element in that plan. Research institutions, funding agencies and journals should make their research integrity policies as evidence-based as possible. The dilemmas and distractions researchers face are real and universal. We owe it to society to collaborate and to do our utmost best to prevent QRPs and to foster research integrity.</p
Research misconduct and questionable research practices form a continuum
Full text linkResearch data mismanagement (RDMM) is a serious threat to accountability, reproducibility, and re-use of data. In a recent article in this journal, it was argued that RDMM can take two forms: intentional research misconduct or unintentional questionable research practice (QRP). I disagree because the scale for severity of consequences of research misbehavior is not bimodal. Furthermore, intentionality is difficult to prove beyond doubt and is only one of many criteria that should be taken into account when deciding on the severity of a breach of research integrity and whether a sanction is justified. Making a distinction between RDMM that is research misconduct and RDMM which not puts too much emphasis on intentionality and sanctioning. The focus should rather be on improving data management practices by preventive actions, in which research institutions should take a leading role
Why research integrity matters and how it can be improved
Full text linkScholars need to be able to trust each other, because otherwise they cannot collaborate and use each other's findings. Similarly trust is essential for research to be applied for individuals, society or the natural environment. The trustworthiness is threatened when researchers engage in questionable research practices or worse. By adopting open science practices, research becomes transparent and accountable. Only then it is possible to verify whether trust in research findings is justified. The magnitude of the issue is substantial with a prevalence of four percent for both fabrication and falsification, and more than 50% for questionable research practices. This implies that researchers regularly engage in behaviors that harm the validity and trustworthiness of their work. What is good for the quality and reliability of research is not always good for a scholarly career. Navigating this dilemma depends on how virtuous the researcher at issue is, but also on the local research climate and the perverse incentives in the way the research system functions. Research institutes, funding agencies and scholarly journals can do a lot to foster research integrity, first and foremost by improving the quality of peer review and reforming researcher assessment.</p
Rehabilitation activities profile: the ICIDH as a framework for a problem-oriented assessment method in rehabilitation medicine
No full text
- …
