Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct

Ong, Yi Kai; Double, Kay L; Bero, Lisa; Diong, Joanna

doi:10.1186/s41073-023-00129-1

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second approach has become the basis for drafting principles for responsible research -the implementation of responsible research assessment has been promoted by national recommendations in three European countries (Netherlands, 2019, Finland, 2020and Norway, 2021. Also, the European Commission intends to facilitate and accelerate change through a European agreement on the reform of the research conduct-evaluation system (Yi Kai Ong et al, 2023). Mariusz Chmielewski, Joanna Pioch…”

Section: U Ni Ver Si T Ies' Responsi Ble Resea Rch An D I Nnovat Ion ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible research and innovation transfer: The perspective of universities

Chmielewski,

Śledzik,

Płoska

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to answer the research question: Which issues play crucial roles in universities’ responsible research and the innovation transfer process? The tool used to achieve the aim of the study was analysis of the specific role of the concept of responsible research and innovation transfer from universities to the economy. THE RESEARCH PROBLEMS AND METHODS: The research results can generate innovations that can be transferred to the economy. Considering all stakeholders of innovations transferred from universities to the economy, the criteria of evaluating innovations in terms of responsibility should be studied. The research method is based on literature analysis. THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The article begins with a literature review in the area of research and responsible innovation. Then, an attempt is made to synthetically analyze the dimensions of responsible innovation in order to formulate a basis for further inference. In the next part of the study, we used six dimensions of responsibility to explore the process of innovation transfer from universities to the economy. RESEARCH RESULTS: The article shows that on the basis of the assumptions of the concept of responsible research and technology transfer, it is possible to create a framework that is the basis for evaluating the activity of a university in relation to the economic environment. Moreover, the Quadruple Helix framework of innovation is the most relevant tool to analyze actors and their interactions in an innovation ecosystem. CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Responsible innovation dimensions such as inclusion, anticipation, responsiveness, reflexivity, sustainability, care could be considered as a basis for evaluating universities’ technology transfer process.

show abstract

Section: U Ni Ver Si T Ies' Responsi Ble Resea Rch An D I Nnovat Ion ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible research and innovation transfer: The perspective of universities

Chmielewski,

Śledzik,

Płoska

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Are Schumpeter’s Innovations Responsible? A Reflection on the Concept of Responsible (Research and) Innovation from a Neo-Schumpeterian Perspective

Śledzik,

Szmelter-Jarosz,

Schmidt

et al. 2023

J Knowl Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has gained significant traction in recent decades. However, the previous discussions on RRI have overlooked the economic dimension of innovation, which is encompassed by the perspective of Neo-Schumpeterian economics (N-SE). This paper aims to bridge the gap between the theories of responsible innovation (RI) and RRI and the underlying assumptions of N-SE. We seek to clarify the concept of responsible (research and) innovation — R(R)I. N-SE inherently recognizes the involvement of diverse stakeholders, including society and the public sector, as entrepreneurs driving and implementing innovation while assuming responsibility for its effects and consequences. In this respect, N-SE aligns with the responsible innovation concept discussed within the R(R)I framework. The paper addresses the fundamental question: What are the shared areas of interest between R(R)I and N-SE? This exploration enhances our understanding and facilitates the practical implementation of R(R)I in the context of N-SE, thereby promoting ethical, socially beneficial, and sustainable technological advancements.

show abstract

Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct

Ong,

Double,

Bero

et al. 2023

Res Integr Peer Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study aimed to investigate how strongly Australian university codes of research conduct endorse responsible research practices. Methods Codes of research conduct from 25 Australian universities active in health and medical research were obtained from public websites, and audited against 19 questions to assess how strongly they (1) defined research integrity, research quality, and research misconduct, (2) required research to be approved by an appropriate ethics committee, (3) endorsed 9 responsible research practices, and (4) discouraged 5 questionable research practices. Results Overall, a median of 10 (IQR 9 to 12) of 19 practices covered in the questions were mentioned, weakly endorsed, or strongly endorsed. Five to 8 of 9 responsible research practices were mentioned, weakly, or strongly endorsed, and 3 questionable research practices were discouraged. Results are stratified by Group of Eight (n = 8) and other (n = 17) universities. Specifically, (1) 6 (75%) Group of Eight and 11 (65%) other codes of research conduct defined research integrity, 4 (50%) and 8 (47%) defined research quality, and 7 (88%) and 16 (94%) defined research misconduct. (2) All codes required ethics approval for human and animal research. (3) All codes required conflicts of interest to be declared, but there was variability in how strongly other research practices were endorsed. The most commonly endorsed practices were ensuring researcher training in research integrity [8 (100%) and 16 (94%)] and making study data publicly available [6 (75%) and 12 (71%)]. The least commonly endorsed practices were making analysis code publicly available [0 (0%) and 0 (0%)] and registering analysis protocols [0 (0%) and 1 (6%)]. (4) Most codes discouraged fabricating data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], selectively deleting or modifying data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], and selective reporting of results [3 (38%) and 15 (88%)]. No codes discouraged p-hacking or hypothesising after results are known. Conclusions Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct. Our findings may not be generalisable to smaller universities, or those not active in health and medical research.

show abstract

Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct

Cited by 3 publications

References 16 publications

Responsible research and innovation transfer: The perspective of universities

Responsible research and innovation transfer: The perspective of universities

Are Schumpeter’s Innovations Responsible? A Reflection on the Concept of Responsible (Research and) Innovation from a Neo-Schumpeterian Perspective

Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About