1,720,968 research outputs found
Research Integrity and Research Fairness: Harmonious or in Conflict?
No full textDominant initiatives focusing on research integrity are changing the research landscape by leading to the development and application of rules, guidelines and standards that researchers across borders have to abide by. There is an increasing attention within these initiatives to the importance of research fairness for conducting responsible research. However, some stakeholders view research fairness as separate and sometimes even conflicting with research integrity. To make sense of these accounts, I explore the relationship between research integrity and research fairness. I argue that dominant research integrity initiatives are currently at odds with research fairness. This is because these initiatives largely ignore anticolonial views about research and thereby perpetuate coloniality in research. Furthermore, dominant initiatives only engage superficially with aspects of fairness that are least controversial and current. Moreover, these research integrity initiatives impose Eurocentric ideals about responsible research to other countries, thereby contributing to “ethical imperialism”. Considering the wide reach of dominant research integrity initiatives and their influence on research, it is therefore urgent to develop an anticolonial research integrity agenda that takes fairness seriously.Les initiatives dominantes axées sur l’intégrité de la recherche modifient le paysage de la recherche en conduisant à l’élaboration et à l’application de règles, de lignes directrices et de normes auxquelles les chercheurs doivent se conformer au-delà des frontières. Ces initiatives accordent une attention croissante à l’importance de l’équité dans la recherche pour mener une recherche responsable. Toutefois, certaines parties prenantes considèrent que l’équité dans la recherche est distincte de l’intégrité de la recherche et qu’elle entre parfois en conflit avec elle. Afin de donner un sens à ces comptes rendus, j’explore la relation entre l’intégrité et l’équité de la recherche. Je soutiens que les initiatives dominantes en matière d’intégrité de la recherche sont actuellement en contradiction avec l’équité de la recherche. En effet, ces initiatives ignorent largement les points de vue anticoloniaux sur la recherche et perpétuent ainsi la colonialité dans la recherche. En outre, les initiatives dominantes ne s’engagent que superficiellement dans les aspects de l’équité qui sont les moins controversés et les moins actuels. En outre, ces initiatives d’intégrité de la recherche imposent à d’autres pays des idéaux eurocentriques sur la recherche responsable, contribuant ainsi à l’« impérialisme éthique ». Compte tenu de la vaste portée des initiatives dominantes en matière d’intégrité de la recherche et de leur influence sur la recherche, il est donc urgent d’élaborer un programme d’intégrité de la recherche anticolonial qui prenne l’équité au sérieux
Developing guidelines for research institutions:Journey towards research integrity
Get PDFAs introduced in Chapter 1, in this thesis, I developed guidelines to research institutions on how to foster research integrity. I did this by exploring how research institutions can develop policies to foster, and raise awareness about, research integrity. In Section 1 of the thesis, my goal was to set the research agenda by investigating current practices of research integrity promotion at research institutions (the descriptive step), and exploring which topics should be addressed in institutional research integrity policies (the normative step). I addressed the descriptive step of looking at current practices, through a scoping review (Chapter 2). In this chapter, I found that while there are already many institutional practices for research integrity promotion globally, most of them focus on researchers’, rather than institutions’ responsibilities for fostering research integrity. In Chapter 3, I tackled the normative question of which topics should be included in institutional research integrity policies. Using a Delphi study that included a number of research policy experts and research leaders, I developed a comprehensive list of 12 topics that research institutions should address to foster research integrity. Section 2 of the thesis focused on developing guidelines for research institutions on research integrity. I specifically zoomed in further into ‘Research integrity education and training’ as the topic of the guidelines here. The first step to developing the guidelines was to examine researchers’ and other research stakeholders’ views and preferences regarding how research institutions can develop and implement better research integrity education and training policies (Chapter 4). Using focus groups, I found that researchers and other research stakeholders support the provision of continuous research integrity education which targets all researchers (across ranks), and other institutional stakeholders (such as research integrity officers and institutional leaders). Next, I proceeded to co-creating institutional guidelines on research integrity education and training together with users. In Chapter 5, I discussed how research integrity guidelines can be jointly developed with users using co-creation methods – methods engaging participants in interactive exercises aimed at jointly developing user centered outputs. The resulting RI education and training guidelines are presented in detail Chapter 6. The guidelines address the research integrity education of a) bachelor, master and PhD students; b) post-doctorate and senior researchers; c) other research integrity stakeholders; as well as d) continuous research integrity education. In the guidelines, I recommend the implementation of mandatory research integrity training (for all academic ranks); follow-up refresher training; informal discussions about research integrity; appropriate rewards and incentives for active participation in research education; and evaluation of research integrity educational events across target groups. In Section 3 of this dissertation, I reflected on an implementation concern regarding the guidelines developed. I explored the question of how research institutions can combine the implementation of research integrity rules with fostering researchers’ commitment to engage in responsible research practices (Chapter 7). I argued that institutions can use and combine market (governance through incentives), bureaucracy (governance through rules) and network (cooperative governance) mechanisms to foster research integrity. Using Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action, I discussed that institutions can use bureaucratic and market mechanisms to foster research integrity (such as rules and incentives, respectively), as long as these are rooted in network processes (e.g. involvement of stakeholders in the development and improvement of rules or incentives). In Chapter 8, I concluded that: 1) the framing of research integrity matters for institutional policies; 2) research integrity guidelines should be tailored to the local context at hand; 3) it is important to be aware of and countervail the danger of creating a box-checking mentality when implementing institutional research integrity policies; and 4) research integrity is a journey
Promoting research integrity in funding: Co-creating guidelines for research funding organizations
No full textResearch Funding Organizations (RFOs) play an important role in promoting research integrity (RI). Not only do they allocate resources to research institutions and researchers, but they also set and monitor research standards in their funded projects. In spite of their crucial role, there is a paucity of guidance on how RFOs can promote research integrity. As part of the EU-Funded SOPs4RI project, we aimed to address this gap by co-creating guidelines to help RFOs promote RI, engaging a diverse group of stakeholders. Based on a Delphi survey, reviews of evidence and stakeholder interviews, three guideline topics were identified: 1) the selection and evaluation of proposals; 2) monitoring of funded projects; and 3) prevention of unjustified interference. Four sets of co-creation workshops were conducted for each guideline topic, and the input revised and finalized. Understanding these debates could help RFOs from diverse cultural and organizational backgrounds who are developing their own RI guidelines. Therefore, in this paper, we summarize the key results and emphasize the final recommendations. Further, we provide the main points of discussion that occurred during the workshops and explain how they were addressed or resolved in the final guidelines and how they can help in future endeavors to improve funders' practices to foster RI.This study was funded by the European Commission HORIZON 2020 framework program for Research and Innovation under Grant Agreement Νo 824481. The funder was not involved in the design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the study
Oral Presentations Abstracts: CO-CREATION: A NOVEL APPROACH TO DEVELOPING GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH INTEGRITY POLICY – LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE SOPS4RI PROJECT
No full textView of Volume 66, Special Issue, September 2021
Co-creation is a qualitative research methodology that engages stakeholders in playful activities to produce user-centered outputs. Through an interactive and open approach, co-creation explores stakeholders’ latent values, generates innovative ideas, and captures minority views, allowing for in-depth understanding of how stakeholders are affected by various factors. Therefore, co-creation is a promising methodology for developing guidelines on research integrity (RI), although there is no literature available about co-creation in this context.
In our presentation, we share experiences of using co-creation to design institutional guidelines on RI together with research managers, funders and researchers across Europe. We conducted 24 co-creation workshops on topics ranging from RI education, to creating a responsible research environment, resulting in concrete guidelines that research institutions and funders can implement to foster RI. Our experience has provided us with valuable insights on using co-creation for RI guideline development. While motivating research stakeholders – often serious and analytically oriented people – to engage in creative exercises can be a challenge, particularly in the online setting, it is possible to achieve when ‘play’ and ‘work’ are carefully balanced.
Additionally, to ensure the concreteness of guidelines while accounting for differences among institutions and countries, best practice examples can be used to show different approaches to implementing more general guidance.
We have also learned that it is valuable to explore stakeholders’ preferences regarding the guideline format, since implementability is not only influenced by the content.
These insights provide practical considerations that other researchers can use when co-creating RI guidelines
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
