1,721,003 research outputs found
A decade of empirical research on research integrity: what have we (not) looked at?
No full textResearch on research integrity has become a field of its own; yet, a comprehensive overview the field is still missing. We systematically
searched SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed for relevant articles published between 2005 and 2015. We extracted the topic,
methodology, focus, and citations from each articles. From the 986 articles included, only 342 report empirical data. Empirical
papers predominantly targeted researchers and students. Although empirical articles questioning causes for misconduct mostly
blamed research systems (e.g., pressure, competition) for detrimental research practices, articles proposing approaches to
foster integrity focused on researchers’ awareness and compliance rather than on system changes. Involving nonresearchers and
reconnecting what is known to what is proposed may help research on research integrity move forwardThe author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project is funded by internal funding from Hasselt University through the Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds (BOF), grant number 15NI05. NAB has received an award with financial reward from the World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) at the Fifth WCRI in 2017 for the present work.
The authors would like to thank professor Raymond De Vries for his help in revising the manuscript. They would also like to thank the organisers of the Doctoral Forum of the 5th World Conference of Research Integrity (Nicholas H. Steneck, Elizabeth Heitman, and Nils Holger Axelsen) as well as its participants for their comments and recommendations regarding this work. Finally, the authors would like to thank the peer-reviewers from PLOS One and Science and Engineering Ethics for their useful comments which helped improve earlier version of our manuscript
Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 1) — A multi-actor qualitative study on success in science
No full textBackground: Success shapes the life and careers of scientists. But success in science is difficult to
define, let alone to translate in indicators that can be used for assessment. In the past few years,
several groups expressed their dissatisfaction with the indicators currently used for assessing
researchers. But given the lack of agreement on what should constitute success in science, most
propositions remain unanswered. This paper aims to complement our understanding of success in
science and to document areas of tension and conflict in research assessments.
Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders,
institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity
community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and formerresearchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in
science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of
interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.
Results: Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series, with the
current paper focusing on what defines and determines success in science. Respondents depicted
success as a multi-factorial, context-dependent, and mutable factor. Success appeared to be an
interaction between characteristics from the researcher (Who), research outputs (What), processes
(How), and luck. Interviewees noted that current research assessments overvalued outputs but
largely ignored the processes deemed essential for research quality and integrity. Interviewees
sustained that we need a diversity of indicators to allow a balanced and diverse view of success;
that assessments should not blindly depend on metrics but also value human input; that we must
value quality over quantity; and that any indicators used must be transparent, robust, and valid.
Conclusions: The objective of research assessments may be to encourage good researchers, to
benefit society, or simply to advance science. Yet we show that current assessments fall short on
each of these objectives. Open and transparent inter-actor dialogue is needed to understand what
research assessments aim for and how they can best achieve their objective.Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Raymond De Vries, who substantially contributed to the Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, and Validation of the present project. The
authors also wish to thank Melissa S. Anderson and Brian C. Martinson and Raymond De Vries for sharing their focus group guides which constituted the foundation of ours
(Resources). We also wish to thank Ines Steffens, Inge Thijs, and Igna Rutten who were essential in helping us organise focus groups and recruit participants (Resources).Finally,
and most importantly, we want to thank all those who participated in our interviews and focus groups. We know that we forced ourselves in the very busy schedules of many a
participant, and we are sincerely grateful for the time, efforts, and precious thoughts that participants generously shared with us.
Funding
The project is funded by internal funding from Hasselt University through the Bijzonder
Onderzoeksfonds (BOF), grant number 15NI05 (recipient WP)
Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (Part 2) — A multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science
No full textBackground: Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of
increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few
empirical works provide the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders.
Methods: To capture some of the forgotten voices, we conducted semi-structured interviews and
focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity
office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers,
research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success,
integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to
be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.
Results: Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the
current paper focusing on the problems that affect the quality and integrity of science. We first
discovered that perspectives on misconduct, including the core reasons for condemning misconduct,
differed between individuals and actor groups. Beyond misconduct, interviewees also identified
numerous problems which affect the integrity of research. Issues related to personalities and
attitudes, lack of knowledge of good practices, and research climate were mentioned. Elements that
were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate
the problems of research climates by disrupting research cultures and research environments. Even
though everyone agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, no one felt responsible
nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust
between actor groups.
Conclusions: Our findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which
might help advance the discussion. First, we must tackle how research is assessed. Second,
approaches to promote better science should be revisited: not only should they directly address the
impact of climates on research practices, but they should also redefine their objective to empower
and support researchers rather than to capitalize on their compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues
and shared decision making are crucial to building joint objectives for change.Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Raymond De Vries, who substantially contributed to the Conceptualization,
Methodology, Resources, and Validation of the present project. The authors also wish to thank Melissa S. Anderson and Brian C. Martinson and Raymond De Vries for sharing their focus group guides which constituted the foundation of ours (Resources). We also wish to thank Ines Steffens,
Inge Thijs, and Igna Rutten who were essential in helping us organise focus groups and recruit participants (Resources).Finally, and most importantly, we want to thank all those who participated in our interviews and focus groups. We know that we forced ourselves in the very busy schedules of
many a participant, and we are sincerely grateful for the time, efforts, and precious thoughts that participants generously shared with us.
Funding
The project is funded by internal funding from Hasselt University through the Bijzonder
Onderzoeksfonds (BOF), grant number 15NI05 (recipient WP)
A decade of empirical research on research integrity: what have we (not) looked at?
No full textIn the past decades, increasing visibility of research misconduct scandals created momentum for discourses on research integrity to such an extent that the topic became a field of research itself. Yet, a comprehensive overview of research in the field is still missing. Here we describe methods, trends, publishing patterns, and impact of a decade of research on research integrity.
To give a comprehensive overview of research on research integrity, we first systematically searched SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed for relevant articles published in English between 2005 and 2015. We then classified each relevant article according to its topic, several methodological characteristics, its general focus and findings, and its citation impact.
We included 986 articles in our analysis. We found that the body of literature on research integrity is growing in importance, and that the field is still largely dominated by non-empirical publications. Within the bulk of empirical records (N=342), researchers and students are most often studied, but other actors and the social context in which they interact, seem to be overlooked. The few empirical articles that examined determinants of misconduct found that problems from the research system (e.g., pressure, competition) were most likely to cause inadequate research practices. Paradoxically, the majority of empirical articles proposing approaches to foster integrity focused on techniques to build researchers’ awareness and compliance rather than techniques to change the research system.
Our review highlights the areas, methods, and actors favoured in research on research integrity, and reveals a few blindspots. Involving non-researchers and reconnecting what is known to the approaches investigated may be the first step to generate executable knowledge that will allow us to increase the success of future approaches.BOF Nieuwe Initiatie
Content Analysis of Informed Consent for Whole Genome Sequencing Offered by Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Companies
No full textWhole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) have become increasingly available in the research and clinical settings and are now also being offered by direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing (GT) companies. This offer can be perceived as amplifying the already identified concerns regarding adequacy of informed consent (IC) for both WES/WGS and the DTC GT context. We performed a qualitative content analysis of Websites of four companies offering WES/WGS DTC regarding the following elements of IC: pre-test counseling, benefits and risks, and incidental findings (IFs). The analysis revealed concerns, including the potential lack of pre-test counseling in three of the companies studied, missing relevant information in the risks and benefits sections, and potentially misleading information for consumers. Regarding IFs, only one company, which provides opportunistic screening, provides basic information about their management. In conclusion, some of the information (and related practices) present on the companies' Web pages salient to the consent process are not adequate in reference to recommendations for IC for WGS or WES in the clinical context. Requisite resources should be allocated to ensure that commercial companies are offering high-throughput sequencing under responsible conditions, including an adequate consent process
The failure of success: four lessons learned in five years of research on research integrity and research assessments
No full textIn the past 5 years, we captured the perspectives from a broad array of research stakeholders to better understand the impact that current approaches to success and research assessment may have on the integrity and the quality of research. Here, we translate our findings in four actions that are urgently needed to foster better research. First, we need to address core research structures to overcome systemic problems of the research enterprise; second, we must realign research assessments to value elements that advance and strengthen science; third, we need to remodel, diversify, and secure research careers; and finally, we need to unite and coordinate efforts for change
Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers' opinions on success indicators
No full textThe way in which we assess researchers has been under the radar in the past few years. Critics argue that current research assessments focus on productivity and that they increase unhealthy pressures on scientists. Yet, the precise ways in which assessments should change is still open for debate. We circulated a survey with Flemish researchers to understand how they work, and how they would rate the relevance of specific indicators used in research assessments. We found that most researchers worked far beyond their expected working schedule. We also found that, although they spent most of their time doing research, respondents wished they could dedicate more time to it and spend less time writing grants and performing other activities such as administrative duties and meetings. When looking at success indicators, we found that indicators related to openness, transparency, quality, and innovation were perceived as highly important in advancing science, but as relatively overlooked in career advancement. Conversely, indicators which denoted of prestige and competition were generally rated as important to career advancement, but irrelevant or even detrimental in advancing science. Open comments from respondents further revealed that, although indicators which indicate openness, transparency, and quality (e.g., publishing open access, publishing negative findings, sharing data, etc.) should ultimately be valued more in research assessments, the resources and support currently in place were insufficient to allow researchers to endorse such practices. In other words, current research assessments are inadequate and ignore practices which are essential in contributing to the advancement of science. Yet, before we change the way in which researchers are being assessed, supporting infrastructures must be put in place to ensure that researchers are able to commit to the activities that may benefit the advancement of science.This work was supported by internal funding from Hasselt University Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds (BOF), grant number 15NI05.The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Bonn, NA (corresponding author), Hasselt Univ, Healthcare & Ethics Res Grp, Fac Med & Life Sci, Hasselt, Belgium.
[email protected]
Uptake and impact of priority setting exercises in nutrition research publications
Full text linkObjective To assess how priority setting exercises for nutrition research are considered in publication. Design Cross-sectional design. Settings First, a citation analysis of priority setting exercises found in nutrition research until 2019 was conducted. The reasons for citation were extracted from the text of citing papers and the reasons were defined as: (i) acting on the research questions identified as priorities, (ii) acknowledging the priority setting exercise, (iii) using the same method, or (iv) previous knowledge to support evidence. Second, a survey with authors of the priority setting exercises was done to understand priority setters' perspectives on the impact and satisfaction of their work. Participants Twenty-one priority setting exercise papers were included. In all, 434 citing papers were found, of which 338 were considered in the citation analysis. A sample of 17 authors representing 13 priority setting exercise papers completed the impact and satisfaction survey. Results Half of the priority setting exercise papers were published by 2013. After excluding self-citations (n = 60), the priority setting papers had on average 18 citations. Priority setting exercises had a median of 1 (IQR = 0-1) citing manuscript that acted on the recommendations produced from priority setting exercises. Authors of the priority setting exercises expressed a desire for increased uptake of the results of the priority setting exercises by funding agencies. Key barriers for uptake were identified as challenges in involving stakeholders and the general public for participation in the priority setting exercise. Conclusions Priority settings exercises are important efforts to guide nutrition research toward effective allocation of resources. However, there seems to be a limited consideration of these priority setting exercises in research papers
Neuroblastoma: The basis for cure in limited‐resource settings
No full textBackground Neuroblastoma (NB) contributes the most to the mortality of childhood malignancies worldwide. The disease spectrum is heterogenous and the management complex and costly, especially in advanced disease or disease with adverse biology. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) the majority of NB presents in advanced stages. Therefore, with limited resources and poor prognosis the treatment of NB is often not a priority. The aim of the study was to evaluate the research activities and perceptions of the management of NB that determine the research and treatment approaches in LMICs. Methods Data were sourced from identifying NB trials open to LMIC. s on NB research presented at the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) Congresses between 2014 and 2020 were evaluated according to income status. An online survey evaluating medical views on NB in LMICs and the effect on the management was conducted. Descriptive analysis was done. Where appropriate categorical association between covariates was assessed using the Pearson chi-square (chi(2)) test or Fishers exact test. Results There were 15/562 (2.7%) trials open to LMIC. Only six of 138 (4.3%) LMIC participated in NB trials. Of the 688 abstracts presented between 2014 and 2020 at the SIOP International Congress on NB as primary subject, 297 (42.7%) were from LMICs. Only two were from low-income countries (LICs). Sixty-one countries responded to the NB survey. Positive views towards NB management were present when treatment was based on a national protocol, the availability of trimodal or advanced treatment options were present, and when a balance of metastatic or local disease were treated. Conclusion Management of NB in LMICs should include increased advocacy and research as well as implementation of national management strategies.We appreciate the support offered by Profs Kate Matthey, Guillermo Chantada and Scott Howard on behalf of the Global Neuroblastoma Network, Profs Laila Heississen and Lorna Renner on behalf of SIOPAfrica, Dr Joyce Balagadde-Kambugu on behalf of POGEA in the distribution of the survey. Our gratitude extends to all the participants of the survey. Dr van Heerden, as staff member of the Department of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, Antwerp University Hospital, University of Antwerp acknowledges theDepartment for Research Support as well as the vzw Kinderkankerfonds, Belgium for the initial research grants. We acknowledge the Spanish and French translation services done by Mr Jorge Luis Rentaria, Mr Steve Populaire and Mrs Gaelle DuFour.van Heerden, J (corresponding author), Stellenbosch Univ, Tygerberg Hosp, Dept Paediat & Child Hlth, Paediat Haematol & Oncol,Fac Med & Hlth Sci, Cape Town, South Africa.
[email protected]
A qualitative study to evaluate strategies for changes in the assistive technology service delivery in Flanders
No full textVlaams Agentschap voor Personen met een Handicap (VAPH
- …
