Researchers on research integrity: a survey of European and American researchers.

meta-research questionable research practices research integrity survey

Journal

F1000Research
ISSN: 2046-1402
Titre abrégé: F1000Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101594320

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
accepted: 06 01 2023
medline: 18 7 2023
pubmed: 17 7 2023
entrez: 17 7 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Reports of questionable or detrimental research practices (QRPs) call into question the reliability of scientific evidence and the trustworthiness of research. A critical component of the research ecosystem is the organization within which research takes place. We conducted a survey to explore the attitudes and beliefs of European and American researchers about the organisations in which they work, their own research practices and their attitudes towards research integrity and research integrity policies. We administered an online survey (International Research Integrity Survey (IRIS)) to 2,300 active researchers based in the US and 45,000 in Europe (including UK, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland).  We employed a stratified probability sample of the authors of research articles published between 2016 and 2020 included in Clarivate's Web of Science citation database. Coverage includes researchers in the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and medical sciences, who hold at least a master's level degree. In comparison to researchers in the US, European researchers admit to more QRPs and are less confident in maintaining high research integrity (RI) standards. In the US and Europe, many researchers judge their organization to fall short of best RI practice. All researchers recognize the benefits of RI, reliable knowledge and the trust of colleagues and the public, and there is support for RI training particularly among Europeans. To create and maintain a culture of integrity in scientific research, a collective commitment from researchers, their institutions and funders is needed. Researchers rely on many channels of communication about research integrity and thus the involvement of many different participants in the research system is required to make improvements. Policies must be developed to reinforce best practice rather than being seen as an irrelevance to the real business of research.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Reports of questionable or detrimental research practices (QRPs) call into question the reliability of scientific evidence and the trustworthiness of research. A critical component of the research ecosystem is the organization within which research takes place. We conducted a survey to explore the attitudes and beliefs of European and American researchers about the organisations in which they work, their own research practices and their attitudes towards research integrity and research integrity policies.
METHODS
We administered an online survey (International Research Integrity Survey (IRIS)) to 2,300 active researchers based in the US and 45,000 in Europe (including UK, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland).  We employed a stratified probability sample of the authors of research articles published between 2016 and 2020 included in Clarivate's Web of Science citation database. Coverage includes researchers in the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and medical sciences, who hold at least a master's level degree.
RESULTS
In comparison to researchers in the US, European researchers admit to more QRPs and are less confident in maintaining high research integrity (RI) standards. In the US and Europe, many researchers judge their organization to fall short of best RI practice. All researchers recognize the benefits of RI, reliable knowledge and the trust of colleagues and the public, and there is support for RI training particularly among Europeans.
CONCLUSION
To create and maintain a culture of integrity in scientific research, a collective commitment from researchers, their institutions and funders is needed. Researchers rely on many channels of communication about research integrity and thus the involvement of many different participants in the research system is required to make improvements. Policies must be developed to reinforce best practice rather than being seen as an irrelevance to the real business of research.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37455853
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.128733.1
pmc: PMC10349267
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

187

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2023 Allum N et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

No competing interests were disclosed.

Références

Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Jun 29;27(4):41
pubmed: 34189653
Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1097-8
pubmed: 23540852
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Dec 21;28(1):2
pubmed: 34932191
Nature. 2020 Nov;587(7834):505-508
pubmed: 33208965
Nature. 2008 Jun 19;453(7198):980-2
pubmed: 18563131
PLoS One. 2022 Feb 16;17(2):e0263023
pubmed: 35171921
Nature. 2020 Oct;586(7829):358-360
pubmed: 33041342
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014 Jul;9(3):79-90
pubmed: 25746789
PLoS One. 2009 May 29;4(5):e5738
pubmed: 19478950

Auteurs

Nick Allum (N)

Department of Sociology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.

Abigail Reid (A)

Department of Sociology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.

Miriam Bidoglia (M)

Department of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.

George Gaskell (G)

Department of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.

Noémie Aubert-Bonn (N)

Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Ivan Buljan (I)

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split, Split, Croatia.

Simon Fuglsang (S)

Department of Political Science, The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

Serge Horbach (S)

Department of Political Science, The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

Panagiotis Kavouras (P)

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece.

Ana Marušić (A)

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split, Split, Croatia.

Niels Mejlgaard (N)

Department of Political Science, The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

Daniel Pizzolato (D)

Centre for Bioethics and Law, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Rea Roje (R)

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split, Split, Croatia.

Joeri Tijdink (J)

Department of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Giuseppe Veltri (G)

Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH