Dataset Information

Researchers' perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam.

ABSTRACT: Background:There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields. Methods:We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental. Results:In total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher. Conclusion:We found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted 'insufficient supervision'. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.

SUBMITTER: Haven TL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6886174 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Researchers' perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam.

Haven Tamarinde L TL Tijdink Joeri K JK Pasman H Roeline HR Widdershoven Guy G Ter Riet Gerben G Bouter Lex M LM

Research integrity and peer review 20191202

<h4>Background</h4>There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields.<h4>Methods</h4>We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, surve ...[more]

PMID: 31819806

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTraditionally, menstrual education has consisted of lectures directed toward women. The objective of this study was to design an innovative menstrual education (ME) program that reflects the needs of both young women and men, and verify its effectiveness.MethodsA mixed-method design was used to determine the program needs and assess young adults' knowledge and perceptions of menstruation and menstrual products. Focus group interviews were conducted with 14 young adults, and 150 young adults participated in an online survey. After developing the ME program, 10 young adults participated in a study to verify its effectiveness.ResultsInterview results showed young adults wanted more information about menstrual products. The online survey revealed significant differences in knowledge based on participants' general characteristics and experience; exposure to menstruation and menstrual products positively impacted knowledge and perception. In addition, the results indicated young adults wanted ME content access via mobile and in-person modalities, designed for both genders, drawing on menstrual experts' knowledge. Based on these results, a multi-experimental menstrual education (MEME) program was designed and included: hands-on exposure to 60 menstrual products, product demonstrations with a female perineal model, a YouTube video created by the researchers, a true-or-false quiz, and question-and-answer sessions with menstrual experts.ConclusionsThis study clarified the requirements of an innovative menstrual education program. It led to high satisfaction among participants, and improved knowledge and perceptions of menstruation and menstrual products. The online survey showed a correlation between the extent of received ME, and respondents' perception of menstrual products. This implied that a MEME program could change perceptions when conducted systematically; by extension it could ameliorate menstruation challenges attributed to poverty. Future research could further verify the effectiveness of the MEME program, using a larger sample, and examine its suitability for incorporation into official ME curricula at universities and companies.Trial registrationThis trial was registered in a Clinical Research Information Service in Korea linked with the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO's ICTRP) (no. KCT0004715 ), Registered 07 Feb 2020.

Project description:ObjectiveThere is a growing need for researchers to demonstrate impact, which is reliant on successful research translation. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council funded a Centre of Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke) to enhance collaborations between researchers conducting different types of stroke rehabilitation research. The purpose of this study was to explore opinions about research translation held by CRE-Stroke researchers conducting preclinical and clinical research, in terms of scope, importance, responsibility and perceived skills and knowledge.DesignMixed-methods study, comprising a paper-based survey and semistructured interviews. Interview data were inductively coded and thematically analysed. Survey and interview data were compared and synthesised.Participants55 (7 preclinical, 48 clinical) researchers attending a CRE-Stroke research forum completed a paper-based survey. Semistructured interviews with 22 CRE-Stroke (5 preclinical, 17 clinical) researchers were conducted.ResultsResearch translation was described as translating to other research and translating to clinical practice and policy. Most researchers (n=54, 98%) reported that research translation was important, particularly in terms of generating research impact, but the most common sign of project completion reported by researchers (n=7, 100% preclinical; n=37, 77% clinical) was publication. Most researchers (preclinical n=4, 57%; clinical n=37, 77%) reported having responsibility for translating research, but less than half reported having the necessary skills (n=1, 14% preclinical; n=17, 35% clinical) and knowledge (n=3, 43% preclinical; n=19, 40% clinical). Differing opinions about who should be responsible for translating findings to clinical practice were expressed.ConclusionsStroke rehabilitation researchers appear confident to translate their research via the traditional mechanism of publications. To optimise impact, clarity is needed regarding who is best placed to translate research findings to clinical practice and policy. Education and skills development to apply broader translation processes are needed to maximise the use of research at all stages.

Dataset Information

Researchers' perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam.

Publications

Researchers' perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets