Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions

Abstract

Over the last 25 years, a small but growing body of research on research behavior has slowly provided a more complete and critical understanding of research practices, particularly in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. The results of this research suggest that some earlier assumptions about irresponsible conduct are not reliable, leading to the conclusion that there is a need to change the way we think about and regulate research behavior. This paper begins with suggestions for more precise definitions of the terms "responsible conduct of research," "research ethics," and "research integrity." It then summarizes the findings presented in some of the more important studies of research behavior, looking first at levels of occurrence and then impact. Based on this summary, the paper concludes with general observations about priorities and recommendations for steps to improve the effectiveness of efforts to respond to misconduct and foster higher standards for integrity in research.Researchers should practice research responsibly. Unfortunately, some do not. For the past 25 years, following public reports of major cases of irresponsible conduct, policy makers and the research community have been debating how to label, study, and respond to research behaviors that fall short of responsible conduct.The consensus that emerged from these debates broadly separated research behaviors in to three categories: deliberate misconduct, commonly defined as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP); questionable research practices (QRP);

Trustworthiness and authority of scholarly information in a digital age: Results of an international questionnaire

“…If such research misconduct is occurring in the peerreviewed literature (Carey, 2011;Fanelli, 2009;Lacetera & Zirulia, 2011;Steneck, 2006), then what does this say for nonpeer-reviewed outlets such as social media? Lankes (2008) and Metzger and Flanagin (2013) suggest that the use of social media in the research context has necessitated a different method of evaluation.…”

Ethical Shades of Gray: Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

“…-Nicholas H. Steneck, 2006 1 The responsible conduct of research is the foundation of sound scientific practice. 1,2 The need to conduct research in a responsible manner is self-evident-if science is to inform our understanding of how the world works, it must be done in an honest, accurate, and unbiased way. 3 Whereas behaviors like data fabrication are clearly irresponsible and highly unethical, other forms of research misconduct exploit the ethical shades of gray that color acceptable research practice.…”

Detecting Duplication in Students’ Research Data: A Method and Illustration

“…Similarly, Fang, Steen, and Casadevall (2012) reported 67.4% of 2047 retractions of articles indexed by PubMed were attributable to misconduct, with 43.4% identified or suspected as fraudulent. Although troubling, these figures almost certainly underestimate the true scope of the problem, considering that rates of confirmed misconduct are a poor proxy for actual rates of misconduct, and cases that are reported and investigated likely only represent 'the tip of the iceberg' (Steneck, 2006). When self-report data are used to estimate research misconduct rates, the figures are somewhat higher.…”