Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) - a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science.
Flanders
Inter-actor dialogue
Misconduct
Pressure to publish
Questionable research practices
Research assessment
Research culture
Research evaluation
Research integrity
Success in science
Journal
Research integrity and peer review
ISSN: 2058-8615
Titre abrégé: Res Integr Peer Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676020
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Jan 2021
14 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
20
02
2020
accepted:
19
11
2020
entrez:
14
1
2021
pubmed:
15
1
2021
medline:
15
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders. We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting. Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture. We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research. Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity. Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups. Our findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers' compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured. Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science. https://osf.io/33v3m.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture. We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research. Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity. Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers' compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured. Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science.
STUDY REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
https://osf.io/33v3m.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33441167
doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00105-z
pii: 10.1186/s41073-020-00105-z
pmc: PMC7807493
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3Subventions
Organisme : Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds
ID : 15NI05
Références
Sci Eng Ethics. 2011 Mar;17(1):75-107
pubmed: 19898994
Med Educ. 2006 Mar;40(3):269-77
pubmed: 16483330
Science. 2011 Aug 5;333(6043):702-3
pubmed: 21817035
N Am J Med Sci. 2014 Jan;6(1):6-11
pubmed: 24678470
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 May 29;15:43
pubmed: 24885991
Sci Eng Ethics. 2008 Sep;14(3):323-36
pubmed: 18615274
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Oct;21(5):1331-52
pubmed: 25352123
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014 Dec;9(5):64-71
pubmed: 25747691
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
Account Res. 2018;25(4):220-238
pubmed: 29637796
Ethics Behav. 2011 Jan;21(1):1-12
pubmed: 21503267
PLoS Biol. 2020 Jul 16;18(7):e3000737
pubmed: 32673304
PLoS One. 2010 Apr 21;5(4):e10271
pubmed: 20422014
Int J Nurs Stud. 2012 Mar;49(3):360-71
pubmed: 21996649
mBio. 2013 Jan 22;4(1):e00640-12
pubmed: 23341553
Account Res. 2013;20(5-6):320-38
pubmed: 24028480
Int J Obes (Lond). 2012 Jul;36(7):977-81
pubmed: 22064159
Nature. 2015 Apr 23;520(7548):429-31
pubmed: 25903611
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2012 Dec;7(5):15-24
pubmed: 23324199
Dev World Bioeth. 2013 Dec;13(3):149-57
pubmed: 22994914
Health Educ Behav. 2015 Jun;42(3):393-401
pubmed: 25588933
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2019 Oct;14(4):338-352
pubmed: 31359820
Sci Eng Ethics. 2013 Sep;19(3):813-34
pubmed: 23096775
Nature. 2005 Jun 9;435(7043):737-8
pubmed: 15944677
Trials. 2012 Aug 24;13:146
pubmed: 22920226
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016 Nov 21;1:17
pubmed: 29451551
Sci Eng Ethics. 2007 Dec;13(4):395-414
pubmed: 18038194
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2007 Dec;2(4):15-34
pubmed: 19385805
Nature. 2019 Oct;574(7776):5-6
pubmed: 31576053
Sci Eng Ethics. 2007 Dec;13(4):437-61
pubmed: 18030595
PLoS One. 2009 May 29;4(5):e5738
pubmed: 19478950
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Aug;25(4):1235-1253
pubmed: 30251235
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 17;10(6):e0127556
pubmed: 26083381