10 research outputs found
Heterogeneity in European Research Integrity Guidance: Relying on Values or Norms?
No full textSimilar forms of misconduct are perceived differently throughout Europe. There are no extensive surveys on the guidance on research integrity in the different countries of Europe. Therefore, we performed a systematic content analysis of (biomedical) research integrity guidance documents from all the countries of the European Economic Area. We show that there is strong heterogeneity concerning research integrity guidance on crucial aspects, for example, the defining of research misconduct, at both an international and a national level. We also sought to explain why the guidance documents differ by distinguishing the approaches that underlie them. We distinguished a value-based and a norm-based approach, as well as different perspectives on trust. The current confusing situation concerning research integrity guidance hampers international research and possibly wastes research funds. We risk talking past each other, if we do not take the distinction between these underlying approaches into account.sponsorship: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Research Foundation-Flanders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen), PhD Fellowship: 11U8214N. (Research Foundation-Flanders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen)|11U8214N)status: Publishe
European Universities’ Guidance on Research Integrity and Misconduct
No full text Research integrity is imperative to good science. Nonetheless, many countries and institutions develop their own integrity guidance, thereby risking incompatibilities with guidance of collaborating institutions. We retrieved guidance for academic integrity and misconduct of 18 universities from 10 European countries and investigated accessibility, general content, principles endorsed, and definitions of misconduct. Accessibility and content differ substantially between institutions. There are general trends of common principles of integrity and definitions of misconduct, yet differences remain. Parallel with previous research, we distinguish different approaches in integrity guidance; one emphasizes broad values of integrity, and the other details negative behaviors of misconduct. We propose that a balance between both approaches is necessary to preserve trust, meaning, and realism of guidance on research integrity. </jats:p
Differing Perceptions Concerning Research Integrity Between Universities and Industry: A Qualitative Study
No full textScientists Still Behaving Badly? A Survey Within Industry and Universities
No full textLittle is known about research misconduct within industry and how it compares to universities, even though a lot of biomedical research is performed by-or in collaboration with-commercial entities. Therefore, we sent an e-mail invitation to participate in an anonymous computer-based survey to all university researchers having received a biomedical research grant or scholarship from one of the two national academic research funders of Belgium between 2010 and 2014, and to researchers working in large biomedical companies or spin-offs in Belgium. The validated survey included questions about various types of research misconduct committed by respondents themselves and observed among their colleagues in the last three years. Prevalences of misconduct were compared between university and industry respondents using binary logistic regression models, with adjustments for relevant personal characteristics, and with significance being accepted for p < 0.01. The survey was sent to 1766 people within universities and an estimated 255 people from industry. Response rates were 43 (767/1766) and 48% (123/255), and usable information was available for 617 and 100 respondents, respectively. In general, research misconduct was less likely to be reported by industry respondents compared to university respondents. Significant differences were apparent for one admitted action (gift authorship) and three observed actions (plagiarism, gift authorship, and circumventing animal-subjects research requirements), always with lower prevalences for industry compared to universities, except for plagiarism. This survey, based on anonymous self-report, shows that research misconduct occurs to a substantial degree among biomedical researchers from both industry and universities.sponsorship: This research was funded by Research Foundation-Flanders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen), Ph.D. Fellowship: 11U8214 N. (Research Foundation-Flanders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen)|11U8214 N.)status: Publishe
Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity
No full textFor a complete list of authors, please look at article.Table of contents
I1 Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity
Concurrent Sessions:
1. Countries' systems and policies to foster research integrity
CS01.1 Second time around: Implementing and embedding a review of responsible conduct of research policy and practice in an Australian research-intensive university
Susan Patricia O'Brien
CS01.2 Measures to promote research integrity in a university: the case of an Asian university
Danny Chan, Frederick Leung
2. Examples of research integrity education programmes in different countries
CS02.1 Development of a state-run “cyber education program of research ethics” in Korea
Eun Jung Ko, Jin Sun Kwak, TaeHwan Gwon, Ji Min Lee, Min-Ho Lee
CS02.3 Responsible conduct of research teachers’ training courses in Germany: keeping on drilling through hard boards for more RCR teachers
Helga Nolte, Michael Gommel, Gerlinde Sponholz
3. The research environment and policies to encourage research integrity
CS03.1 Challenges and best practices in research integrity: bridging the gap between policy and practice
Yordanka Krastev, Yamini Sandiran, Julia Connell, Nicky Solomon
CS03.2 The Slovenian initiative for better research: from national activities to global reflections
Ursa Opara Krasovec, Renata Sribar
CS03.3 Organizational climate assessments to support research integrity: background of the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SOuRCe) and the experience with its use at Michigan State University
Brian C. Martinson, Carol R. Thrush, C.K. Gunsalus
4. Expressions of concern and retractions
CS04.1 Proposed guidelines for retraction notices and their dissemination
Ivan Oransky, Adam Marcus
CS04.2 Watching retractions: analysis of process and practice, with data from the Wiley retraction archives
Chris Graf, Verity Warne, Edward Wates, Sue Joshua
CS04.3 An exploratory content analysis of Expressions of Concern
Miguel Roig
CS04.4 An ethics researcher in the retraction process
Michael Mumford
5. Funders' role in fostering research integrity
CS05.1 The Fonds de Recherche du Québec’s institutional rules on the responsible conduct of research: introspection in the funding agency activities
Mylène Deschênes, Catherine Olivier, Raphaëlle Dupras-Leduc
CS05.2 U.S. Public Health Service funds in an international setting: research integrity and compliance
Zoë Hammatt, Raju Tamot, Robin Parker, Cynthia Ricard, Loc Nguyen-Khoa, Sandra Titus
CS05.3 Analyzing decision making of funders of public research as a case of information asymmetry
Karsten Klint Jensen
CS05.4 Research integrity management: Empirical investigation of academia versus industry
Simon Godecharle, Ben Nemery, Kris Dierickx
5A: Education: For whom, how, and what?
CS05A.1 Research integrity or responsible conduct of research? What do we aim for?
Mickey Gjerris, Maud Marion Laird Eriksen, Jeppe Berggren Hoej
CS05A.2 Teaching and learning about RCR at the same time: a report on Epigeum’s RCR poll questions and other assessment activities
Nicholas H. Steneck
CS05A.4 Minding the gap in research ethics education: strategies to assess and improve research competencies in community health workers/promoteres
Camille Nebeker, Michael Kalichman, Elizabeth Mejia Booen, Blanca Azucena Pacheco, Rebeca Espinosa Giacinto, Sheila Castaneda
6. Country examples of research reward systems and integrity
CS06.1 Improving systems to promote responsible research in the Chinese Academy of Sciences
Ding Li, Qiong Chen, Guoli Zhu, Zhonghe Sun
CS06.4 Exploring the perception of research integrity amongst public health researchers in India
Parthasarathi Ganguly, Barna Ganguly
7. Education and guidance on research integrity: country differences
CS07.1 From integrity to unity: how research integrity guidance differs across universities in Europe.
Noémie Aubert Bonn, Kris Dierickx, Simon Godecharle
CS07.2 Can education and training develop research integrity? The spirit of the UNESCO 1974 recommendation and its updating
Daniele Bourcier, Jacques Bordé, Michèle Leduc
CS07.3 The education and implementation mechanisms of research ethics in Taiwan's higher education: an experience in Chinese web-based curriculum development for responsible conduct of research
Chien Chou, Sophia Jui-An Pan
CS07.4 Educating principal investigators in Swiss research institutions: present and future perspectives
Louis Xaver Tiefenauer
8. Measuring and rewarding research productivity
CS08.1 Altimpact: how research integrity underpins research impact
Daniel Barr, Paul Taylor
CS08.2 Publication incentives: just reward or misdirection of funds?
Lyn Margaret Horn
CS08.3 Why Socrates never charged a fee: factors contributing to challenges for research integrity and publication ethics
Deborah Poff
9. Plagiarism and falsification: Behaviour and detection
CS09.1 Personality traits predict attitude towards plagiarism of self and others in biomedicine: plagiarism, yes we can?
Martina Mavrinac, Gordana Brumini, Mladen Petrovečki
CS09.2 Investigating the concept of and attitudes toward plagiarism for science teachers in Brazil: any challenges for research integrity and policy?
Christiane Coelho Santos, Sonia Vasconcelos
CS09.3 What have we learnt?: The CrossCheck Service from CrossRef
Rachael Lammey
CS09.4 High p-values as a sign of data fabrication/falsification
Chris Hartgerink, Marcel van Assen, Jelte Wicherts
10. Codes for research integrity and collaborations
CS10.1 Research integrity in cross-border cooperation: a Nordic example
Hanne Silje Hauge
CS10.3 Research integrity, research misconduct, and the National Science Foundation's requirement for the responsible conduct of research
Aaron Manka
CS10.4 A code of conduct for international scientific cooperation: human rights and research integrity in scientific collaborations with international academic and industry partners
Raffael Iturrizaga
11. Countries' efforts to establish mentoring and networks
CS11.1 ENRIO (European Network of Research Integrity Offices): a network facilitating common approaches on research integrity in Europe
Nicole Foeger
CS11.2 Helping junior investigators develop in a resource-limited country: a mentoring program in Peru
A. Roxana Lescano, Claudio Lanata, Gissella Vasquez, Leguia Mariana, Marita Silva, Mathew Kasper, Claudia Montero, Daniel Bausch, Andres G Lescano
CS11.3 Netherlands Research Integrity Network: the first six months
Fenneke Blom, Lex Bouter
CS11.4 A South African framework for research ethics and integrity for researchers, postgraduate students, research managers and administrators
Laetus OK Lategan
12. Training and education in research integrity at an early career stage
CS12.1 Research integrity in curricula for medical students
Gustavo Fitas Manaia
CS12.2 Team-based learning for training in the responsible conduct of research supports ethical decision-making
Wayne T. McCormack, William L. Allen, Shane Connelly, Joshua Crites, Jeffrey Engler, Victoria Freedman, Cynthia W. Garvan, Paul Haidet, Joel Hockensmith, William McElroy, Erik Sander, Rebecca Volpe, Michael F. Verderame
CS12.4 Research integrity and career prospects of junior researchers
Snezana Krstic
13. Systems and research environments in institutions
CS13.1 Implementing systems in research institutions to improve quality and reduce risk
Louise Handy
CS13.2 Creating an institutional environment that supports research integrity
Debra Schaller-Demers
CS13.3 Ethics and Integrity Development Grants: a mechanism to foster cultures of ethics and integrity
Paul Taylor, Daniel Barr
CS13.4 A culture of integrity at KU Leuven
Inge Lerouge, Gerard Cielen, Liliane Schoofs
14. Peer review and its role in research integrity
CS14.1 Peer review research across disciplines: transdomain action in the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) “New Frontiers of Peer Review (PEERE)”
Ana Marusic, Flaminio Squazzoni
CS14.2 Using blinding to reduce bias in peer review
David Vaux
CS14.3 How to intensify the role of reviewers to promote research integrity
Khalid Al-Wazzan, Ibrahim Alorainy
CS14.4 Credit where credit’s due: professionalizing and rewarding the role of peer reviewer
Chris Graf, Verity Warne
15. Research ethics and oversight for research integrity: Does it work?
CS15.1 The psychology of decision-making in research ethics governance structures: a theory of bounded rationality
Nolan O'Brien, Suzanne Guerin, Philip Dodd
CS15.2 Investigator irregularities: iniquity, ignorance or incompetence?
Frank Wells, Catherine Blewett
CS15.3 Academic plagiarism
Fredric M. Litto
16. Research integrity in Europe
CS16.1 Whose responsibility is it anyway?: A comparative analysis of core concepts and practice at European research-intensive universities to identify and develop good practices in research integrity
Itziar De Lecuona, Erika Löfstrom, Katrien Maes
CS16.2 Research integrity guidance in European research universities
Kris Dierickx, Noémie Bonn, Simon Godecharle
CS16.3 Research Integrity: processes and initiatives in Science Europe member organisations
Tony Peatfield, Olivier Boehme, Science Europe Working Group on Research Integrity
CS16.4 Promoting research integrity in Italy: the experience of the Research Ethics and Bioethics Advisory Committee of the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)
Cinzia Caporale, Daniele Fanelli
17. Training programs for research integrity at different levels of experience and seniority
CS17.1 Meaningful ways to incorporate research integrity and the responsible conduct of research into undergraduate, graduate, postdoctoral and faculty training programs
John Carfora, Eric Strauss, William Lynn
CS17.2 "Recognize, respond, champion": Developing a one-day interactive workshop to increase confidence in research integrity issues
Dieter De Bruyn, Bracke Nele, Katrien De Gelder, Stefanie Van der Burght
CS17.4 “Train the trainer” on cultural challenges imposed by international research integrity conversations: lessons from a project
José Roberto Lapa e Silva, Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos
18. Research and societal responsibility
CS18.1 Promoting the societal responsibility of research as an integral part of research integrity
Helene Ingierd
CS18.2 Social responsibility as an ethical imperative for scientists: research, education and service to society
Mark Frankel
CS18.3 The intertwined nature of social responsibility and hope in science
Daniel Vasgird, Stephanie Bird
CS18.4 Common barriers that impede our ability to create a culture of trustworthiness in the research community
Mark Yarborough
19. Publication ethics
CS19.1 The authors' forum: A proposed tool to improve practices of journal editors and promote a responsible research environment
Ibrahim Alorainy, Khalid Al-Wazzan
CS19.2 Quantifying research integrity and its impact with text analytics
Harold Garner
CS19.3 A closer look at authorship and publication ethics of multi- and interdisciplinary teams
Lisa Campo-Engelstein, Zubin Master, Elise Smith, David Resnik, Bryn Williams-Jones
CS19.4 Invisibility of duplicate publications in biomedicine
Mario Malicki, Ana Utrobicic, Ana Marusic
20. The causes of bad and wasteful research: What can we do?
CS20.1 From countries to individuals: unravelling the causes of bias and misconduct with multilevel meta-meta-analysis
Daniele Fanelli, John PA Ioannidis
CS20.2 Reducing research waste by integrating systems of oversight and regulation
Gerben ter Riet, Tom Walley, Lex Marius Bouter
CS20.3 What are the determinants of selective reporting?: The example of palliative care for non-cancer conditions
Jenny van der Steen, Lex Bouter
CS20.4 Perceptions of plagiarism, self-plagiarism and redundancy in research: preliminary results from a national survey of Brazilian PhDs
Sonia Vasconcelos, Martha Sorenson, Francisco Prosdocimi, Hatisaburo Masuda, Edson Watanabe, José Carlos Pinto, Marisa Palácios, José Lapa e Silva, Jacqueline Leta, Adalberto Vieyra, André Pinto, Mauricio Sant’Ana, Rosemary Shinkai
21. Are there country-specific elements of misconduct?
CS21.1 The battle with plagiarism in Russian science: latest developments
Boris Yudin
CS21.2 Researchers between ethics and misconduct: A French survey on social representations of misconduct and ethical standards within the scientific community
Etienne Vergès, Anne-Sophie Brun-Wauthier, Géraldine Vial
CS21.3 Experience from different ways of dealing with research misconduct and promoting research integrity in some Nordic countries
Torkild Vinther
CS21.4 Are there specifics in German research misconduct and the ways to cope with it?
Volker Bähr, Charité
22. Research integrity teaching programmes and their challenges
CS22.1 Faculty mentors and research integrity
Michael Kalichman, Dena Plemmons
CS22.2 Training the next generation of scientists to use principles of research quality assurance to improve data integrity and reliability
Rebecca Lynn Davies, Katrina Laube
CS22.3 Fostering research integrity in a culturally-diverse environment
Cynthia Scheopner, John Galland
CS22.4 Towards a standard retraction form
Hervé Maisonneuve, Evelyne Decullier
23. Commercial research and integrity
CS23.1 The will to commercialize: matters of concern in the cultural economy of return-on-investment research
Brian Noble
CS23.2 Quality in drug discovery data reporting: a mission impossible?
Anja Gilis, David J. Gallacher, Tom Lavrijssen, Malwitz David, Malini Dasgupta, Hans Mols
CS23.3 Instituting a research integrity policy in the context of semi-private-sector funding: an example in the field of occupational health and safety
Paul-Emile Boileau
24. The interface of publication ethics and institutional policies
CS24.1 The open access ethical paradox in an open government effort
Tony Savard
CS24.2 How journals and institutions can work together to promote responsible conduct
Eric Mah
CS24.3 Improving cooperation between journals and research institutions in research integrity cases
Elizabeth Wager, Sabine Kleinert
25. Reproducibility of research and retractions
CS25.1 Promoting transparency in publications to reduce irreproducibility
Veronique Kiermer, Andrew Hufton, Melanie Clyne
CS25.2 Retraction notices issued for publications by Latin American authors: what lessons can we learn?
Sonia Vasconcelos, Renan Moritz Almeida, Aldo Fontes-Pereira, Fernanda Catelani, Karina Rocha
CS25.3 A preliminary report of the findings from the Reproducibility Project: Cancer biology
Elizabeth Iorns, William Gunn
26. Research integrity and specific country initiatives
CS26.1 Promoting research integrity at CNRS, France
Michèle Leduc, Lucienne Letellier
CS26.2 In pursuit of compliance: is the tail wagging the dog?
Cornelia Malherbe
CS26.3 Newly established research integrity policies and practices: oversight systems of Japanese research universities
Takehito Kamata
27. Responsible conduct of research and country guidelines
CS27.1 Incentives or guidelines? Promoting responsible research communication through economic incentives or ethical guidelines?
Vidar Enebakk
CS27.3 Responsible conduct of research: a view from Canada
Lynn Penrod
CS27.4 The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: a national initiative to promote research integrity in Denmark
Thomas Nørgaard, Charlotte Elverdam
28. Behaviour, trust and honesty
CS28.1 The reasons behind non-ethical behaviour in academia
Yves Fassin
CS28.2 The psychological profile of the dishonest scholar
Cynthia Fekken
CS28.3 Considering the implications of Dan Ariely’s keynote speech at the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity in Montréal
Jamal Adam, Melissa S. Anderson
CS28.4 Two large surveys on psychologists’ views on peer review and replication
Jelte Wicherts
Brett Buttliere
29. Reporting and publication bias and how to overcome it
CS29.1 Data sharing: Experience at two open-access general medical journals
Trish Groves
CS29.2 Overcoming publication bias and selective reporting: completing the published record
Daniel Shanahan
CS29.3 The EQUATOR Network: promoting responsible reporting of health research studies
Iveta Simera, Shona Kirtley, Eleana Villanueva, Caroline Struthers, Angela MacCarthy, Douglas Altman
30. The research environment and its implications for integrity
CS30.1 Ranking of scientists: the Russian experience
Elena Grebenshchikova
CS30.4 From cradle to grave: research integrity, research misconduct and cultural shifts
Bronwyn Greene, Ted Rohr
PARTNER SYMPOSIA
Partner Symposium A
Organized by EQUATOR Network, Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research
P1 Can we trust the medical research literature?: Poor reporting and its consequences
Iveta Simera
P2 What can BioMed Central do to improve published research?
Daniel Shanahan, Stephanie Harriman
P3 What can a "traditional" journal do to improve published research?
Trish Groves
P4 Promoting good reporting practice for reliable and usable research papers: EQUATOR Network, reporting guidelines and other initiatives
Caroline Struthers
Partner Symposium C
Organized by ENRIO, the European Network of Research Integrity Officers
P5 Transparency and independence in research integrity investigations in Europe
Krista Varantola, Helga Nolte, Ursa Opara, Torkild Vinther, Elizabeth Wager, Thomas Nørgaard
Partner Symposium D
Organized by IEEE, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Re-educating our author community: IEEE's approach to bibliometric manipulation, plagiarism, and other inappropriate practices
P6 Dealing with plagiarism in the connected world: An Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) perspective
Jon Rokne
P7 Should evaluation of raises, promotion, and research proposals be tied to bibliometric indictors? What the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) is doing to answer this question
Gianluca Setti
P8 Recommended practices to ensure conference content quality
Gordon MacPherson
Partner Symposium E
Organized by the Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of Science of ICSU, the International Council for Science
Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity
No full textThis article presents an insightful meta-analysis of existing research on ethical adherence and non-adherence among post-graduate students. It further provides an ethical considerations perspective that is pivotal in the integrity of academic research and professional practice. The study delves into various factors that influence ethical behavior, highlighting the interplay between institutional culture, peer influence, academic pressure and personal values among post-graduate students. It also examines the far-reaching consequences of ethical lapses, which can undermine individual reputations, distort research outcomes and damage the credibility of academic institutions. Through a thorough review of empirical studies, this meta-analysis identifies effective strategies for promoting ethical conduct in post-graduate education, emphasizing the need for institutions to implement comprehensive ethics training programs, foster an open dialogue on ethical issues, and establish clear institutional policies and guidelines. The findings underscore the importance of creating a supportive environment that encourages ethical behavior and decision-making among post-graduate students, ultimately contributing to a more ethical academic landscape. By addressing the complexities surrounding ethical adherence, this article provides valuable insights and recommendations for educators, administrators, and policymakers aiming to enhance the ethical climate within higher education. Key words: Higher Education Institution, Ethical Adherence, Non-Adherence, Meta-Analysis, Post-Gradate DOI: 10.7176/JEP/15-13-02 Publication date: December 30th 20
