London now shuns journal-based metrics in staff assessment; it relies more on peer judgement of research quality. At Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand, all staff sign the university's code of good governance, agreeing to uphold integrity, impartiality and social responsibility, for example. These are just three of dozens of efforts we found when investigating how institutions worldwide are working to improve research integrity. They form part of our long-term study on this topic, a project that is funded by the European Commission (see Table S2 in Supplementary information for more examples).
Research integrity (RI) is a continuously developing concept, and increasing emphasis is put on creating RI promotion practices. This study aimed to map the existing RI guidance documents at research performing organisations (RPOs) and research funding organisations (RFOs). A search of bibliographic databases and grey literature sources was performed, and retrieved documents were screened for eligibility. The search of bibliographical databases and reference lists of selected articles identified a total of 92 documents while the search of grey literature sources identified 118 documents for analysis. The retrieved documents were analysed based on their geographical origin, research field and organisational origin (RPO or RFO) of RI practices, types of guidance presented in them, and target groups to which RI practices are directed. Most of the identified practices were developed for research in general, and are applicable to all research fields (n = 117) and medical sciences (n = 78). They were mostly written in the form of guidelines (n = 136) and targeted researchers (n = 167). A comprehensive search of the existing RI promotion practices showed that initiatives mostly come from RPOs while only a few RI practices originate from RFOs. This study showed that more RI guidance documents are needed for natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities since only a small number of documents was developed specifically for these research fields. The explored documents and the gaps in knowledge identified in this study can be used for further development of RI promotion practices in RPOs and RFOs.
Education is important for fostering research integrity (RI). Although RI training (a formal element of RI education) is increasingly provided, there is little knowledge on how research stakeholders view institutional RI education and training policies. Here, we present insights about research stakeholders’ views on what research institutions should take into account when developing and implementing RI education and training policies. We conducted 30 focus groups, engaging 147 participants in 8 European countries. Using a mixed deductive-inductive thematic analysis, we identified five themes: 1) RI education should be available to all; 2) education and training approaches and goals should be tailored; 3) motivating trainees is essential; 4) both formal and informal educational formats are necessary; and 5) institutions should take into account various individual, institutional, and system-of-science factors when implementing RI education. Our findings suggest that institutions should make RI education attractive for all, and tailor training to disciplinary-specific contexts.
14Background: To foster research integrity (RI), it is necessary to address the institutional and system-15 of-science factors that influence researchers ' behavior. Consequently, research performing and 16 research funding organizations (RPOs and RFOs) should develop RI promotion plans (RIPPs) outlining 17 the concrete steps they will take to foster RI. So far, there is no consensus on which topics are 18 important to address in RIPPs. This study aimed to explore which RI topics to address in RIPPs by 19 seeking consensus from research policy experts and institutional leaders. Additionally, we aimed to 20 rank the identified RI topics in priority. 21 Methods:We employed a three round Delphi study to reach our objectives. Delphi studies include a 22 series ('rounds') of questionnaires. To achieve consensus, results are fed back to respondents between 23 subsequent rounds. In Round 1, we asked research policy experts to rate the importance of RI topics 24 on a 1-5 scale. In Round 2, they were asked to rank the topics, which received consensus on 25 importance, in order of priority to be included in RIPPs. In Round 3, experts were asked to provide 26 answers to open-ended questions about the rationale behind the rankings in the previous round. 27Results: A total of 68 RPO and 52 RFO experts, representing different disciplines, countries and 28 genders, completed one, two or all rounds of the Delphi study. There was consensus among the 29 experts on the importance of 12 RI topics for RPOs and 11 for RFOs (67% agreement on ratings 4-5). 30The topics that ranked highest for RPOs concerned education and training, supervision and 31 mentoring, supporting a responsible research process (e.g. through quality assurance), and dealing 32 with RI breaches. The highest ranked RFO topics concerned dealing with breaches of RI, conflicts of 33 interest and setting expectations on RPOs (e.g. about educating researchers about RI). 34 Conclusions: Together with research policy experts and institutional leaders, we developed a 35 comprehensive overview of topics important for inclusion in RIPPs of RPOs and RFOs. The topics 36 reflect a clear preference for a preventative approach to RI, coupled with fair procedures for dealing 37 with RI breaches. 38 Study pre-registration: https://osf.io/saj4u 39 40 41 Key words: research integrity, research integrity promotion plan, research performing organizations, 42 research funding organizations, institutional policies 43
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.