Stakeholders' Experiences of Research Integrity Support in Universities: A Qualitative Study in Three European Countries.
Research ethics
Research governance
Research integrity guidelines
Research quality
Responsible conduct of research
Journal
Science and engineering ethics
ISSN: 1471-5546
Titre abrégé: Sci Eng Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9516228
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 08 2022
30 08 2022
Historique:
received:
24
03
2021
accepted:
22
06
2022
entrez:
30
8
2022
pubmed:
31
8
2022
medline:
3
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fostering research integrity (RI) increasingly focuses on normative guidance and supportive measures within institutions. To be successful, the implementation of support should be informed by stakeholders' experiences of RI support. This study aims to explore experiences of RI support in Dutch, Spanish and Croatian universities. In total, 59 stakeholders (Netherlands n = 25, Spain n = 17, Croatia n = 17) participated in 16 focus groups in three European countries. Global themes on RI support experiences were identified by thematic analysis. Themes identified were: 'RI governance and institutional implementation', 'RI roles and structures', 'RI education and supervision', and 'Infrastructure, technology and tools supporting daily practice'. Experiences of support differed between countries in relation to: the efforts to translate norms into practice; the extent to which RI oversight was a responsibility of RE structures, or separate RI structures; and the availability of support close to research practice, such as training, responsible supervision, and adequate tools and infrastructure. The study reinforces the importance of a whole institutional approach to RI, embedded within local jurisdictions, rules, and practices. A whole institutional approach puts the emphasis of responsibility on institutions rather than individual researchers. When such an approach is lacking, some stakeholders look for intervention by authorities, such as funders, outside of the university.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36042054
doi: 10.1007/s11948-022-00390-5
pii: 10.1007/s11948-022-00390-5
pmc: PMC9427880
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
43Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Agency for Science and Higher Education. (2015). Croatian ethical code of the board of ethics in science and higher education. Retrieved June 2017, from https://www.azvo.hr/en/ethics-committee-in-science-and-higher-education .
Anderson, M. S. (2014). Global research integrity in relation to the United States’ research-integrity infrastructure. Accountability in Research, 21(1), 1–8.
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822262
Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853–860.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c
Aubert Bonn, N., Godecharle, S., & Dierickx, K. (2017). European universities’ guidance on research integrity and misconduct: Accessibility, approaches, and content. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(1), 33–44.
doi: 10.1177/1556264616688980
Ayres, L., Kavanaugh, K., & Knafl, K. A. (2003). Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13(6), 871–883.
doi: 10.1177/1049732303013006008
Bendiscioli, S., & Garfinkel, M. (2020). Governance of research integrity: Options for a coordinated approach in Europe. Accessed via: https://www.embo.org/documents/science_policy/governance_of_ri.pdf . European Molecular Biology Organization
Buljan, I., Barać, L., & Marušić, A. (2018). How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community. Accountability in Research, 25(4), 220–238.
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1463162
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research. Sage.
Click, J. L. (1989). On the potential cost effectiveness of scientific audits. Accountability in Research, 1(1), 77–83.
doi: 10.1080/08989628908573776
COSCE-CRUE-CSIC. (2015). Declaracion Nacional sobre Integridad Cientifica. Retrieved June 2017, from https://www.crue.org/Documentos%20compartidos/Informes%20y%20Posicionamientos/Declaraci%C3%B3n%20Nacional%20Integridad%20Cient%C3%ADfica_.pdf .
Davies, S. R. (2019). An ethics of the system: Talking to scientists about research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(4), 1235–1253.
doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0064-y
Dawson, A., Lignou, S., Siriwardhana, C., & O’Mathúna, D. P. (2019). Why research ethics should add retrospective review. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 1–8.
doi: 10.1186/s12910-019-0399-1
De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43–50.
doi: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43
Editorial, N. (2019). When it comes to good practice in science, we need to think global but act local International codes of conduct are important, but grass-roots efforts are the key to embedding research integrity. Nature, 576, 181.
doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03782-z
ESF-ALLEA (2017). The European code of conduct for research integrity. Retrieved June 2018, from http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf . European Science Foundation and All European Academies.
European Commission. (2015). Open innovation, open science, open to the world. European Commission.
European Commission. (2017). European innovation scoreboard. Retrieved January 2017, from http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards_en .
Fanelli, D. (2019). Mutual learning exercise on research integrity: Training and education (Vol. Thematic Report No 4).
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.
doi: 10.1177/160940690600500107
Foltýnek, T., & Dlabolová, D. (2020). Academic integrity in Eastern Europe: Beyond corruption and plagiarism. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Forsberg, E.-M., Anthun, F. O., Bailey, S., Birchley, G., Bout, H., Casonato, C., et al. (2018). Working with research integrity—Guidance for research performing organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER statement. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(4), 1023–1034.
doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4
Geller, G., Boyce, A., Ford, D. E., & Sugarman, J. (2010). Beyond “compliance”: The role of institutional culture in promoting research integrity. Academic Medicine, 85(8), 1296–1302.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181e5f0e5
Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2014). Heterogeneity in European research integrity guidance: Relying on values or norms? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(3), 79–90.
doi: 10.1177/1556264614540594
Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2018). Differing perceptions concerning research integrity between universities and industry: A qualitative study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5), 1421–1436.
doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9965-4
Godlee, F., Smith, J., & Marcovitch, H. (2011). Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent: Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 342(7788), 64–66.
Haven, T., Pasman, H. R., Widdershoven, G., Bouter, L., & Tijdink, J. (2020). Researchers’ perceptions of a responsible research climate: A multi focus group study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 3017–3036.
doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00256-8
Hyytinen, H., & Löfström, E. (2017). Reactively, proactively, implicitly, explicitly? Academics’ pedagogical conceptions of how to promote research ethics and integrity. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(1), 23–41.
doi: 10.1007/s10805-016-9271-9
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2(8), e124.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
ISE (2017). Initiative for Science Europe list of associated societies [available in 2017]. Retrieved June 2017, from http://www.initiative-science-europe.org/voires/prop.html
Kakuk, P. (2009). The legacy of the Hwang case: Research misconduct in biosciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(4), 545.
doi: 10.1007/s11948-009-9121-x
Kalichman, M. (2014). Rescuing responsible conduct of research (RCR) education. Accountability in Research, 21(1), 68–83.
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822271
Labib, K., Scepanovic, R., Bouter, L., Widdershoven, G., Evans, N., Marusic, A., et al. (2020). Important topics for fostering research integrity by research performing and research funding organizations–A Delphi consensus study. OSFPreprints, Accessed June 2020. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/msp7e .
LERU. (2020). Towards a research integrity culture at universities: League of European research universities. Retrieved May 2020, from https://www.leru.org/files/Towards-a-Research-Integrity-Culture-at-Universities-full-paper.pdf
Marusic, A. (2019). MLE on research integrity: Processes and structures—thematic report no 1. Available at: https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/report/MLE%20RI%20-%20Thematic%20Report%201.pdf . European Commission.
Marusic, A., Wager, E., Utrobicic, A., Rothstein, H. R., & Sambunjak, D. (2016). Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4).
Mecca, J. T., Giorgini, V., Medeiros, K., Gibson, C., Devenport, L., Connelly, S., et al. (2014). Perspectives on whistleblowing: Faculty member viewpoints and suggestions for organizational change. Accountability in Research, 21(3), 159–175.
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.847735
MEFST. (2020). Research integrity advisor. Retrieved November 23, 2020 from http://www.mefst.unist.hr/studies/graduate-school/tribe/research-integrity-advisor/10971
Mejlgaard, N., Bouter, L. M., Gaskell, G., Kavouras, P., Allum, N., Bendtsen, A. K., et al. (2020). Research integrity: Nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature, 586, 358–360.
doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02847-8
Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., Coriat, A. M., Foeger, N., & Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLOS Biology, 18(7), e3000737.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737
NIH. (2009). Notice File number NOT-OD-10-019: Update on the requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research (nih.gov). Retrieved March 3, 2021 from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-10-019.html
Olesen, A. P., Amin, L., & Mahadi, Z. (2017). Malaysian researchers talk about the influence of culture on research misconduct in higher learning institutions. Accountability in Research, 24(8), 469–482.
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2017.1399358
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Psychology: Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.
Resnik, D. B., Rasmussen, L. M., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). An international study of research misconduct policies. Accountability in Research, 22(5), 249–266.
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.958218
Resnik, D. B., & Shamoo, A. E. (2017). Reproducibility and research integrity. Accountability in Research, 24(2), 116–123.
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2016.1257387
Resnik, D. B., & Stewart, C. N., Jr. (2014). Expanding the scope of responsible conduct of research instruction. Accountability in Research, 21(5), 321–327.
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.848802
Sarauw, L. L., Degn, L., & Ørberg, J. W. (2019). Researcher development through doctoral training in research integrity. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(2), 178–191.
doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2019.1595626
Satalkar, P., & Shaw, D. (2018). Is failure to raise concerns about misconduct a breach of integrity? Researchers’ reflections on reporting misconduct. Accountability in Research, 25(6), 311–339.
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1493577
Shamoo, A. E. (2013). Data audit as a way to prevent/contain misconduct. Accountability in Research, 20(5–6), 369–379.
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822259
Simera, I., Moher, D., Hirst, A., Hoey, J., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: Reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Medicine, 8(1), 1–6.
doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-24
Spanish Ministry of Health and Social Services. (2009). Order from the Ministry of Health and Social Services/3470/2009, of December 16, which publishes the guidelines on observational post-authorization studies for medicinal products for human use [Orden SAS/3470/2009, de 16 de diciembre, por la que se publican las directrices sobre estudios posautorización de tipo observacional para medicamentos de uso humano]
Spanish Royal Decree. (2015). Royal Decree 1090/2015, of December 4, which regulates clinical trials with drugs, the Ethics Committees for Drug Research and the Spanish Registry of Clinical Studies [Real Decreto 1090/2015, de 4 de diciembre, por el que se regulan los ensayos clínicos con medicamentos, los Comités de Ética de la Investigación con medicamentos y el Registro Español de Estudios Clínicos].
Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74.
Tijdink, J. K., Horbach, S. P., Nuijten, M. B., & O’Neill, G. (2021). Towards a research agenda for promoting responsible research practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 16(4), 450–460.
VSNU. (2018). The Netherlands code of conduct for research integrity. Retrieved October 2020 from https://www.vsnu.nl/files/documents/Netherlands%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20for%20Research%20Integrity%202018.pdf
WCRI. (2020). What do we mean when we talk about research integrity? Retrieved January 12, 2020 from https://wcrif.org/foundation/mission