Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices: Recommendations from a Scientific Integrity Consortium.
Culture of integrity
Detrimental research practices
Open science
Quality of research
Research misconduct
Responsible conduct of research (RCR)
Journal
Science and engineering ethics
ISSN: 1471-5546
Titre abrégé: Sci Eng Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9516228
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2019
04 2019
Historique:
received:
01
02
2018
accepted:
12
02
2019
pubmed:
28
2
2019
medline:
26
11
2019
entrez:
28
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A Scientific Integrity Consortium developed a set of recommended principles and best practices that can be used broadly across scientific disciplines as a mechanism for consensus on scientific integrity standards and to better equip scientists to operate in a rapidly changing research environment. The two principles that represent the umbrella under which scientific processes should operate are as follows: (1) Foster a culture of integrity in the scientific process. (2) Evidence-based policy interests may have legitimate roles to play in influencing aspects of the research process, but those roles should not interfere with scientific integrity. The nine best practices for instilling scientific integrity in the implementation of these two overarching principles are (1) Require universal training in robust scientific methods, in the use of appropriate experimental design and statistics, and in responsible research practices for scientists at all levels, with the training content regularly updated and presented by qualified scientists. (2) Strengthen scientific integrity oversight and processes throughout the research continuum with a focus on training in ethics and conduct. (3) Encourage reproducibility of research through transparency. (4) Strive to establish open science as the standard operating procedure throughout the scientific enterprise. (5) Develop and implement educational tools to teach communication skills that uphold scientific integrity. (6) Strive to identify ways to further strengthen the peer review process. (7) Encourage scientific journals to publish unanticipated findings that meet standards of quality and scientific integrity. (8) Seek harmonization and implementation among journals of rapid, consistent, and transparent processes for correction and/or retraction of published papers. (9) Design rigorous and comprehensive evaluation criteria that recognize and reward the highest standards of integrity in scientific research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30810892
doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00094-3
pii: 10.1007/s11948-019-00094-3
pmc: PMC6450850
doi:
Types de publication
Consensus Development Conference
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
327-355Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 13;115(11):2561-2562
pubmed: 29531033
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017 Jan 2;57(1):163-180
pubmed: 27748637
Psychol Sci. 2012 May 1;23(5):524-32
pubmed: 22508865
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2017 May 05;2:4
pubmed: 29451561
Swiss Med Wkly. 2015 Feb 21;145:w14108
pubmed: 25701667
Nat Hum Behav. 2017 Jan 10;1:0021
pubmed: 33954258
Nature. 2015 Sep 3;525(7567):25-7
pubmed: 26333454
JAMA. 2018 Apr 3;319(13):1315-1316
pubmed: 29532069
Sci Eng Ethics. 2008 Sep;14(3):323-36
pubmed: 18615274
Nature. 2016 Feb 4;530(7588):27-9
pubmed: 26842041
Lancet. 2016 Apr 9;387(10027):1573-1586
pubmed: 26423180
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Jan 7;97(1):e2
pubmed: 25568400
F1000Res. 2017 May 2;6:604
pubmed: 28620458
Cancer Res. 2014 Aug 1;74(15):4024-9
pubmed: 25035389
mBio. 2016 Aug 30;7(4):
pubmed: 27578756
PLoS Biol. 2015 Mar 13;13(3):e1002106
pubmed: 25768323
J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014 Dec 15;15(2):165-8
pubmed: 25574271
Science. 2017 Aug 11;357(6351):531
pubmed: 28798106
Science. 2017 Apr 14;356(6334):123
pubmed: 28408553