Research integrity practices and environmental impact of research: Questionnaire of the survey conducted at two French institutions (original) (raw)
Related papers
Researchers on research integrity: a survey of European and American researchers
Reports of questionable or detrimental research practices (QRPs) call into question the reliability of scientific evidence. The International Research Integrity Survey (IRIS) maps the opinions and behaviors of 2,300 researchers based in the US and 45,000 in Europe (including UK, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland)., and how they assess their institutions’ support for research integrity (RI). In comparison to researchers in the US, European researchers admit to more QRPs and are less confident in maintaining high 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.
Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity.pdf
The World Conferences were established as global forums for discussion of ideas, policies and empirical findings related to the responsible conduct of research. The Conferences aim to galvanise the global effort to strengthen the trustworthiness and reliability of research and encourage researchers worldwide to be accountable for their findings. Earlier conferences were held in Lisbon , Singapore (2010) and Montréal . The Rio conference attracted over 470 delegates from 42 countries, including leaders of research institutions and funding agencies, policy makers, editors and publishers, legal experts, researchers and graduate students. The theme of the conference was Research Rewards and Integrity: Improving Systems to Promote Responsible Research. These Proceedings contain the abstracts of the presentations given at the 4th World Conference in concurrent sessions, partner symposia, and poster sessions. Also included are summaries of the discussions in three focus tracks, which allowed delegates to consider and work on questions about the roles of funders, institutions, and countries in improving research systems and strengthening research integrity. Videos of the plenary presentations are available at the conference website (www.wcri2015.org).
2021
Background While substantial attention has been paid to research misbehaviors, responsible research practices (RRPs) and their potential explanatory factors have not been studied extensively. Methods The National Survey on Research Integrity (NSRI) is an online survey targeting all disciplines and academic ranks in The Netherlands. Data was collected on 11 RRPs and 12 explanatory factor scales. Results were controlled for explanatory factor scales, academic rank, disciplinary field, gender, doing empirical research and if respondents belonged to a NSRI supporting institution or not. Results 6,813 respondents completed the survey. The RRPs with the highest prevalence were avoiding plagiarism (99%), disclosing conflicts of interest (96.5%) and checking for errors before publication (94.3%). Preregistration of study protocols (42.8%), making accessible underlying data and syntaxes (47.2%), and keeping comprehensive research records (56.3%) had the lowest prevalence. Arts and humanities scholars, PhD candidates and junior researchers were associated with a lower RRP mean (-0.51 and-0.31 respectively) as was publication pressure (-0.05; 95% CI-0.08,-0.02). Mentoring (0.15; 95% CI 0.12, 0.17), scientific norm subscription (0.13; 95% CI 0.1, 0.15) and funding pressure (0.13; 95% CI0.10, 0.17) were significantly associated with a higher RRP mean. Conclusions We found publication pressure to affect RRPs negatively. Mentoring, scientific norm subscription and funding pressure may help foster RRPs. Arts and humanities scholars, PhD candidates and junior researchers require increased awareness on RRPs. Further research on these groups is warranted in order to understand research integrity challenges that may be unique to them.
Journal of Academic Ethics
Research integrity is fundamental to the validity and reliability of scientific findings, and for ethical conduct of research. As part of PRINTEGER (Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research), this study explores the views of researchers, research managers, administrators, and governance advisors in Estonia, Italy, Norway and UK, focusing specifically on their understanding of institutional and organisational influences on research integrity.A total of 16 focus groups were conducted. Thematic analysis of the data revealed that competition is pervasive and appeared in most themes relating to integrity. The structural frameworks for research such as funding, evaluation and publication were thought to both protect and, more commonly, undermine integrity. In addition, institutional systems, including workload and research governance, shaped participants’ day-to-day work environment, also affecting research integrity. Participants also provided ideas for prom...
PLOS ONE, 2019
Breaches of research integrity have shocked the academic community. Initially explanations were sought at the level of individual researchers but over time increased recognition emerged of the important role that the research integrity climate may play in influencing researchers' (mis)behavior. In this study we aim to assess whether researchers from different academic ranks and disciplinary fields experience the research integrity climate differently. We sent an online questionnaire to academic researchers in Amsterdam using the Survey of Organizational Research Climate. Bonferroni corrected mean differences showed that junior researchers (PhD students, postdocs and assistant professors) perceive the research integrity climate more negatively than senior researchers (associate and full professors). Junior researchers note that their supervisors are less committed to talk about key research integrity principles compared to senior researchers (MD =-.39, CI =-.55,-.24). PhD students perceive more competition and suspicion among colleagues (MD =-.19, CI =-.35,-.05) than associate and full professors. We found that researchers from the natural sciences overall express a more positive perception of the research integrity climate. Researchers from social sciences as well as from the humanities perceive less fairness of their departments' expectations in terms of publishing and acquiring funding compared to natural sciences and biomedical sciences (MD =-.44, CI =-.74,-.15; MD =-.36, CI =-.61,-.11). Results suggest that department leaders in the humanities and social sciences should do more to set fairer expectations for their researchers and that senior scientists should ensure junior researchers are socialized into research integrity practices and foster a climate in their group where suspicion among colleagues has no place.
Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity
Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2016
The World Conferences were established as global forums for discussion of ideas, policies and empirical findings related to the responsible conduct of research. The Conferences aim to galvanise the global effort to strengthen the trustworthiness and reliability of research and encourage researchers worldwide to be accountable for their findings. Earlier conferences were held in Lisbon , Singapore (2010) and Montréal . The Rio conference attracted over 470 delegates from 42 countries, including leaders of research institutions and funding agencies, policy makers, editors and publishers, legal experts, researchers and graduate students. The theme of the conference was Research Rewards and Integrity: Improving Systems to Promote Responsible Research. These Proceedings contain the abstracts of the presentations given at the 4th World Conference in concurrent sessions, partner symposia, and poster sessions. Also included are summaries of the discussions in three focus tracks, which allowed delegates to consider and work on questions about the roles of funders, institutions, and countries in improving research systems and strengthening research integrity. Videos of the plenary presentations are available at the conference website (www.wcri2015.org).
Organizational structures and processes for research ethics and integrity
St open
Aim: To explore the structures and processes for research ethics and integrity among the universities that are a part of the European University of the Seas (SEA-EU) Alliance.Methods: Data from the public websites or experts from the six universities of the European University of the Seas (SEA-EU) Alliance: University of Cádiz (Spain), University of Western Brittany in Brest (France), University of Kiel (Germany), University of Gdańsk (Poland), University of Split (Croatia) and University of Malta (Malta) were collected. We followed the approach of the EC Mutual Learning Exercise on Research Integrity and the country report cards at The Embassy of Good Science.Results: We identified similarities and differences regarding research infrastructure, funding, strategy, research governance, compliance, integrity, regulations, and measures to promote good scientific practices and open science at the country level. The universities that are partners in the SEA-EU Alliance differed in the re...