Practices for Research Integrity Promotion in Research Performing Organisations and Research Funding Organisations: A Scoping Review.
Research ethics
Research funding organisations
Research integrity
Research integrity practices
Research integrity promotion
Research performing organisations
Journal
Science and engineering ethics
ISSN: 1471-5546
Titre abrégé: Sci Eng Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9516228
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 01 2021
27 01 2021
Historique:
received:
24
06
2020
accepted:
08
11
2020
entrez:
27
1
2021
pubmed:
28
1
2021
medline:
19
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Research integrity (RI) is a continuously developing concept, and increasing emphasis is put on creating RI promotion practices. This study aimed to map the existing RI guidance documents at research performing organisations (RPOs) and research funding organisations (RFOs). A search of bibliographic databases and grey literature sources was performed, and retrieved documents were screened for eligibility. The search of bibliographical databases and reference lists of selected articles identified a total of 92 documents while the search of grey literature sources identified 118 documents for analysis. The retrieved documents were analysed based on their geographical origin, research field and organisational origin (RPO or RFO) of RI practices, types of guidance presented in them, and target groups to which RI practices are directed. Most of the identified practices were developed for research in general, and are applicable to all research fields (n = 117) and medical sciences (n = 78). They were mostly written in the form of guidelines (n = 136) and targeted researchers (n = 167). A comprehensive search of the existing RI promotion practices showed that initiatives mostly come from RPOs while only a few RI practices originate from RFOs. This study showed that more RI guidance documents are needed for natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities since only a small number of documents was developed specifically for these research fields. The explored documents and the gaps in knowledge identified in this study can be used for further development of RI promotion practices in RPOs and RFOs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33502638
doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00281-1
pii: 10.1007/s11948-021-00281-1
pmc: PMC7840650
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4Références
PLoS Biol. 2020 Jul 16;18(7):e3000737
pubmed: 32673304
Sci Eng Ethics. 2006 Jan;12(1):53-74
pubmed: 16501647
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):141-6
pubmed: 26134548
Life Sci Soc Policy. 2019 Jun 10;15(1):5
pubmed: 31179512
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017 Feb;12(1):33-44
pubmed: 28220725
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Feb 09;16:15
pubmed: 26857112
Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Aug;24(4):1023-1034
pubmed: 29855866
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014 Jul;9(3):79-90
pubmed: 25746789
Account Res. 2013;20(5-6):380-94
pubmed: 24028484
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Apr;96:143-146
pubmed: 29275217
Circ Res. 2015 Jan 2;116(1):116-26
pubmed: 25552691
JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1435-7
pubmed: 2304221
Ethics Behav. 2004;14(4):383-95
pubmed: 16625734
Nature. 2015 Apr 23;520(7548):429-31
pubmed: 25903611
Account Res. 2017;24(6):367-372
pubmed: 28548866
Med Law. 2007 Sep;26(3):545-66
pubmed: 17970252
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Aug;26(4):2363-2369
pubmed: 31965429
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 20;10(7):e0133662
pubmed: 26192805