Global Research Integrity Training

Steneck, Nicholas H.

doi:10.1126/science.1236373

Cited by 50 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The provision of adequate training is probably the most frequently explored and discussed topic in different contexts (Kalichman 2007;Steneck 2013). The relationship between supervisors and post-graduate students, as well as the role of mentors, supervisors and advisors in shaping integrity culture has been frequently discussed (Anderson et al 2007;Bird 2001;Wright et al 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Integrity Practices from the Perspective of Early-Career Researchers

Krstić¹

2014

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unavailability of published data and studies focused on young researchers in Europe and research integrity issues reveals that clear understanding and stance on this subject within European area is lacking. Our study provides information on attitudes and experiences of European researchers at early career stages (doctoral and postdoctoral level), based on a limited sample of respondents (n = 27). The study provides both quantitative and qualitative results for the examined issues. The data suggest that awareness and interest of the younger researchers surveyed in research integrity issues is high, however, it is often based on self-initiatives, with many of the respondents not having adequate training or any possibility to obtain it. Our attitude survey conducted within the European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers indicates that only 22 % of respondents had an opportunity to obtain relevant training (significantly less than in a study conducted in the U.S.), and that only one third believed that institutions and supervisors regularly paid attention to it. Further, we noted certain differences between disciplines. The study also reveals that many younger researchers felt they faced problems due to the misconduct of their senior colleagues and the existing institutional culture. The results of the study indicate a need for better prevention mechanisms, training and raising awareness activities. Preferably, junior researchers should be given an active role in shaping the integrity culture. It should be noted that the presented results should be considered in the context of the limitations stemming from the small-scale survey. This paper encourages further research activities on research integrity practices to provide stronger evidence on the attitudes and experiences of young researchers in Europe and other parts of the world.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Integrity Practices from the Perspective of Early-Career Researchers

Krstić¹

2014

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years, mounting retractions due to scientific misconduct and error (Zimmer) and increasing doubts about the reproducibility of findings in many scientific fields (Ioannidis, 2005b(Ioannidis, , 2012Open Science Collaboration, 2015) have evoked numerous proposals for methods to help us stop 'fooling ourselves' (Nuzzo, 2015): new ways to reduce error, bias, and dishonesty in science. Examples include initiatives that promote transparency in the research process, publication and peer review (Nosek et al, 2015;Nosek & Bar-Anan, 2012), pre-registration of hypotheses and data analysis plans (Chambers & Munafo, 2013;de Groot, 1956de Groot, /2014Nosek & Lakens, 2015;Wagenmakers et al, 2012), collaboration on statistical analysis Wicherts, 2011), blind data analysis (MacCoun & Perlmutter, 2015), reforms in incentive structures (Chambers, 2015;, training in research integrity (Steneck, 2013), and modifications of reward systems (Ioannidis, 2014). However, the question that arises from our results is then: are scientists willing to adopt these practices if they believe that the typical scientist is mostly immune to human fallibility?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Doctoral thesis: The human fallibility of scientists - dealing with error and bias in academic research

Veldkamp¹

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

THE HUMAN FALLIBILITY OF SCIENTISTSDealing with error and bias in academic researchRecent studies have highlighted that not all published findings in the scientific literature are trustworthy, suggesting that currently implemented control mechanisms such as high standards for the reporting of research methods and results, peer review, and replication, are not sufficient. In psychology in particular, solutions are sought to deal with poor reproducibility and replicability of research results. In this dissertation project I considered these problems from the perspective that the scien¬tific enterprise must better recognize the human fallibility of scientists, and I examined potential solutions aimed at dealing with human error and bias in psychological science. First, I studied whether the human fallibility of scientists is actually recognized (Chapter 2). I examined the degree to which scientists and lay people believe in the storybook image of the scientist: the image that scientists are more objective, rational, open-minded, intelligent, honest and communal than other human beings. The results suggested that belief in this storybook image is strong, particularly among scientists themselves. In addition, I found indications that scientists believe that scientists like themselves fit the storybook image better than other scientists. I consider scientist’s lack of acknowledgement of their own fallibility problematic, because I believe that critical self-reflection is the first line of defense against potential human error aggravated by confirmation bias, hindsight bias, motivated reasoning, and other human cognitive biases that could affect any professional in their work. Then I zoomed in on psychological science and focused on human error in the use of null the most widely used statistical framework in psychology: hypothesis significance testing (NHST). In Chapters 3 and 4, I examined the prevalence of errors in the reporting of statistical results in published articles, and evaluated a potential best practice to reduce such errors: the so called ‘co-pilot model of statistical analysis’. This model entails a simple code of conduct prescribing that statistical analyses are always conducted independently by at least two persons (typically co-authors). Using statcheck, a software package that is able to quickly retrieve and check statistical results in large sets of published articles, I replicated the alarmingly high error rates found in earlier studies. Although I did not find support for the effectiveness of the co-pilot model in reducing these errors, I proposed several ways to deal with human error in (psychological) research and suggested how the effectiveness of the proposed practices might be studied in future research. Finally, I turned to the risk of bias in psychological science. Psychological data can often be analyzed in many different ways. The often arbitrary choices that researchers face in analyzing their data are called researcher degrees of freedom. Researchers might be tempted to use these researcher degrees of freedom in an opportunistic manner in their pursuit of statistical significance (often called p-hacking). This is problematic because it renders research results unreliable. In Chapter 5 I presented a list of researcher degrees of freedom in psychological studies, focusing on the use of NHST. This list can be used to assess the potential for bias in psychological studies, it can be used in research methods education, and it can be used to examine the effectiveness of a potential solution to restrict oppor¬tunistic use of RDFs: study pre-registration. Pre-registration requires researchers to stipulate in advance the research hypothesis, data collection plan, data analyses, and what will be reported in the paper. Different forms of pre-registration are currently emerging in psychology, mainly varying in terms of the level of detail with respect to the research plan they require researchers to provide. In Chapter 6, I assessed the extent to which current pre-registrations restricted opportunistic use of the researcher degrees of freedom on the list presented in Chapter 5. We found that most pre-registrations were not sufficiently restrictive, but that those that were written following better guidelines and requirements restricted opportunistic use of researcher degrees of freedom considerably better than basic pre-registrations that were written following a limited set of guidelines and requirements. We concluded that better instructions, specific questions, and stricter requirements are necessary in order for pre-registrations to do what they are supposed to do: to protect researchers from their own biases.

show abstract

“…Differences in actions that constitute unethical conduct vary considerably across the globe; therefore, standards that are used to assess responsible research need to be agreed upon [14]. A universal code would help bring these disparate standards into a more agreeable form and help eliminate the when-in-Rome culture that allows research fraud to be tolerated.…”

Section: A Code Of Publishing Conductmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing Scientific Knowledge: Ethical Issues in the Journal Publication Process

McCuen

2017

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The goal of this paper is to assess the journal publication process from value and ethical perspectives. The specific objectives are: (1) To define fundamental values relevant to scientific journal publication; (2) To identify stakeholders involved in professional journals and their value rights and responsibilities; (3) To discuss the steps of the journal publication process where ethical dilemmas arise and the potential influences of such dilemmas on the advancement of knowledge; and (4) To summarize actions that can minimize unethical practices throughout the steps of the publication process. Values such as honesty, efficiency, accountability, and fairness will be discussed. Issues related to the various stakeholders such as self-citation, plagiarism, dual publication, a lack of timeliness, and issues related to authorship will be a primary focus.

show abstract

Global Research Integrity Training

Abstract: Globalization of responsible conduct of research training should be grounded on shared professional standards.

Cited by 50 publications

References 19 publications

Research Integrity Practices from the Perspective of Early-Career Researchers

Research Integrity Practices from the Perspective of Early-Career Researchers

Doctoral thesis: The human fallibility of scientists - dealing with error and bias in academic research

Advancing Scientific Knowledge: Ethical Issues in the Journal Publication Process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About