Dataset Information

Survey study of research integrity officers' perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Research on research integrity has tended to focus on frequency of research misconduct and factors that might induce someone to commit research misconduct. A definitive answer to the first question has been elusive, but it remains clear that any research misconduct is too much. Answers to the second question are so diverse, it might be productive to ask a different question: What about how research is done allows research misconduct to occur?

Methods

With that question in mind, research integrity officers (RIOs) of the 62 members of the American Association of Universities were invited to complete a brief survey about their most recent instance of a finding of research misconduct. Respondents were asked whether one or more good practices of research (e.g., openness and transparency, keeping good research records) were present in their case of research misconduct.

Results

Twenty-four (24) of the respondents (39% response rate) indicated they had dealt with at least one finding of research misconduct and answered the survey questions. Over half of these RIOs reported that their case of research misconduct had occurred in an environment in which at least nine of the ten listed good practices of research were deficient.

Conclusions

These results are not evidence for a causal effect of poor practices, but it is arguable that committing research misconduct would be more difficult if not impossible in research environments adhering to good practices of research.

SUBMITTER: Kalichman M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7731550 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Survey study of research integrity officers' perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct.

Kalichman Michael M

Research integrity and peer review 20201211 1

<h4>Background</h4>Research on research integrity has tended to focus on frequency of research misconduct and factors that might induce someone to commit research misconduct. A definitive answer to the first question has been elusive, but it remains clear that any research misconduct is too much. Answers to the second question are so diverse, it might be productive to ask a different question: What about how research is done allows research misconduct to occur?<h4>Methods</h4>With that question ...[more]

PMID: 33303039

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Engaging in scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) is a noted problem across fields, including health professions education (HPE). To mitigate these practices, other disciplines have enacted strategies based on researcher characteristics and practice factors. Thus, to inform HPE, this study seeks to determine which researcher characteristics and practice factors, if any, might explain the frequency of irresponsible research practices. METHOD:In 2017, a cross-sectional survey of HPE researchers was conducted. The survey included 66 items adapted from three published surveys: two published QRP surveys and a publication pressure scale. The outcome variable was a self-reported misconduct score, which is a weighted mean score for each respondent on all misconduct and QRP items. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, reliability and correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression modelling. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:In total, 590 researchers completed the survey. Results from the final regression model indicated that researcher age had a negative association with the misconduct score (b = -0.01, β = -0.22, t = -2.91, p <0.05), suggesting that older researchers tended to report less misconduct. On the other hand, those with more publications had higher misconduct scores (b = 0.001, β = 0.17, t = 3.27, p < 0.05) and, compared with researchers in the region of North America, researchers in Asia tended to have higher misconduct scores (b = 0.21, β = 0.12, t = 2.84, p < 0.01). In addition, compared with those who defined their work role as clinician, those who defined their role as researcher tended to have higher misconduct scores (b = 0.12, β = 0.13, t = 2.15, p < 0.05). Finally, publication pressure emerged as the strongest individual predictor of misconduct (b = 0.20, β = 0.34, t = 7.82, p < 0.01); the greater the publication pressure, the greater the reported misconduct. Overall, the explanatory variables accounted for 21% of the variance in the misconduct score, with publication pressure accounting for 10% of the variance in the outcome, above and beyond the other explanatory variables. Although correlational, these findings suggest several researcher characteristics and practice factors that could be targeted to address scientific misconduct and QRPs in HPE.

Project description:BackgroundEven though research integrity (RI) training programs have been developed in the last decades, it is argued that current training practices are not always able to increase RI-related awareness within the scientific community. Defining and understanding the capacities and lacunas of existing RI training are becoming extremely important for developing up-to-date educational practices to tackle present-day challenges. Recommendations on how to implement RI education have been primarily made by selected people with specific RI-related expertise. Those recommendations were developed mainly without consulting a broader audience with no specific RI expertise. Moreover, the academic literature lacks qualitative studies on RI training practices. For these reasons, performing in-depth focus groups with non-RI expert stakeholders are of a primary necessity to understand and outline how RI education should be implemented.MethodsIn this qualitative analysis, different focus groups were conducted to examine stakeholders' perspectives on RI training practices. Five stakeholders' groups, namely publishers and peer reviewers, researchers on RI, RI trainers, PhDs and postdoctoral researchers, and research administrators working within academia, have been identified to have a broader overview of state of the art.ResultsA total of 39 participants participated in five focus group sessions. Eight training-related themes were highlighted during the focus group discussions. The training goals, timing and frequency, customisation, format and teaching approach, mentoring, compulsoriness, certification and evaluation, and RI-related responsibilities were discussed. Although confirming what was already proposed by research integrity experts in terms of timing, frequency, duration, and target audience in organising RI education, participants proposed other possible implementations strategies concerning the teaching approach, researchers' obligations, and development an evaluation-certification system.ConclusionsThis research aims to be a starting point for a better understanding of necessary, definitive, and consistent ways of structuring RI education. The research gives an overview of what has to be considered needed in planning RI training sessions regarding objectives, organisation, and teaching approach.

Project description:Few studies have attempted to determine the proportion of Canadian hospital pharmacists involved in clinical research, despite a general consensus that research should be an essential component of a pharmacist's professional role.The primary objective was to characterize the involvement in clinical pharmacy research of hospital pharmacists in the 4 health authorities of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia (collectively known as the Lower Mainland Pharmacy Services). The secondary objective was to identify perceived barriers to conducting research.Pharmacists employed within Lower Mainland Pharmacy Services were invited to participate in an online cross-sectional survey, for completion in August and September 2015. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results. Groups of survey participants were compared to examine differences in measured outcomes.A total of 534 pharmacists were surveyed, with a response rate of 16% (85/534). Overall, 77% (55/71) of the respondents reported having participated in research, and 87% (62/71) expressed interest in conducting future research. Chart reviews (78%, 36/46) and surveys (41%, 19/46) were the most common study designs used in prior research. Participants self-identified their research-related strengths as literature evaluation (46%, 27/59) and hypothesis generation (44%, 26/59). Conversely, 81% (48/59) of respondents self-identified statistical analysis as a weakness. Most respondents stated that personal satisfaction (82%, 49/60) and the opportunity to learn about disease states (78%, 47/60) were the driving factors for conducting research. The most commonly cited barrier to conducting research was lack of time (92%, 55/60). Opportunities to join existing teams (73%, 44/60) and mentorship programs (70%, 42/60) were identified as the most popular arrangements for encouraging future research.Most of the pharmacists who responded to this survey reported having participated in clinical pharmacy research, but a lack of dedicated time appears to be a major hurdle to greater research participation. A targeted program increasing exposure to existing research teams and mentorship opportunities is recommended for promoting future research.

Dataset Information

Survey study of research integrity officers' perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Survey study of research integrity officers' perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets