Research integrity throughout the research lifecycle and stakeholders: Part 2 - From idea conceptualization to data collection.

As introduced in Chapter 1, in this thesis, I developed guidelines to research institutions on how to foster research integrity. I did this by exploring how research institutions can develop policies to foster, and raise awareness about, research integrity. In Section 1 of the thesis, my goal was to set the research agenda by investigating current practices of research integrity promotion at research institutions (the descriptive step), and exploring which topics should be addressed in institutional research integrity policies (the normative step). I addressed the descriptive step of looking at current practices, through a scoping review (Chapter 2). In this chapter, I found that while there are already many institutional practices for research integrity promotion globally, most of them focus on researchers’, rather than institutions’ responsibilities for fostering research integrity. In Chapter 3, I tackled the normative question of which topics should be included in institutional research integrity policies. Using a Delphi study that included a number of research policy experts and research leaders, I developed a comprehensive list of 12 topics that research institutions should address to foster research integrity. Section 2 of the thesis focused on developing guidelines for research institutions on research integrity. I specifically zoomed in further into ‘Research integrity education and training’ as the topic of the guidelines here. The first step to developing the guidelines was to examine researchers’ and other research stakeholders’ views and preferences regarding how research institutions can develop and implement better research integrity education and training policies (Chapter 4). Using focus groups, I found that researchers and other research stakeholders support the provision of continuous research integrity education which targets all researchers (across ranks), and other institutional stakeholders (such as research integrity officers and institutional leaders). Next, I proceeded to co-creating institutional guidelines on research integrity education and training together with users. In Chapter 5, I discussed how research integrity guidelines can be jointly developed with users using co-creation methods – methods engaging participants in interactive exercises aimed at jointly developing user centered outputs. The resulting RI education and training guidelines are presented in detail Chapter 6. The guidelines address the research integrity education of a) bachelor, master and PhD students; b) post-doctorate and senior researchers; c) other research integrity stakeholders; as well as d) continuous research integrity education. In the guidelines, I recommend the implementation of mandatory research integrity training (for all academic ranks); follow-up refresher training; informal discussions about research integrity; appropriate rewards and incentives for active participation in research education; and evaluation of research integrity educational events across target groups. In Section 3 of this dissertation, I reflected on an implementation concern regarding the guidelines developed. I explored the question of how research institutions can combine the implementation of research integrity rules with fostering researchers’ commitment to engage in responsible research practices (Chapter 7). I argued that institutions can use and combine market (governance through incentives), bureaucracy (governance through rules) and network (cooperative governance) mechanisms to foster research integrity. Using Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action, I discussed that institutions can use bureaucratic and market mechanisms to foster research integrity (such as rules and incentives, respectively), as long as these are rooted in network processes (e.g. involvement of stakeholders in the development and improvement of rules or incentives). In Chapter 8, I concluded that: 1) the framing of research integrity matters for institutional policies; 2) research integrity guidelines should be tailored to the local context at hand; 3) it is important to be aware of and countervail the danger of creating a box-checking mentality when implementing institutional research integrity policies; and 4) research integrity is a journey.

Research integrity throughout the research lifecycle and stakeholders: Part 1 - A broad concept broken down.

Research integrity throughout the research lifecycle and stakeholders: Part 3 - From data analysis to post-publication.

The evidence base relating to interventions to improve research integrity is incomplete and the studies that have been done are heterogeneous, inappropriate for meta-analyses and their applicability to other settings and population is uncertain. Many studies had a high risk of bias because of the choice of study design and interventions were often inadequately reported. Even when randomized designs were used, findings were difficult to generalize. Due to the very low quality of evidence, the effects of training in responsible conduct of research on reducing research misconduct are uncertain. Low quality evidence indicates that training about plagiarism, especially if it involves practical exercises and use of text-matching software, may reduce the occurrence of plagiarism.

Research ethics and integrity codes lay the foundation for ethical research. However, stakeholders in research may struggle to move from reading codes to applying them, especially during times of crisis when there is increased uncertainty and risk. To bridge this gap, the PREPARED project team has developed adaptable tools to support implementation of the PREPARED Code for research ethics and research integrity during pandemics. These include training clips to accompany each code article, an experiential learning app, and how-to style guidelines for enhancing the resilience of stakeholder-specific processes. In this chapter, we summarise PREPARED’s approach to code implementation, elaborate on each tool developed, and provide tips for future initiatives seeking to improve the practical application of ethics codes. We also present an example of how our tools were utilised during an African Vaccine Regulatory Forum (AVAREF) training session and provide a resource bank to support the integration of our materials into ethics training programmes.

The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report in April that should give all scientists-young and old-a reason to pause and reflect on their chosen profession.The report, titled "Fostering Integrity in Research" [1] describes several practices that, if not executed thoughtfully and with care, can have a potentially lasting and detrimental impact on a professional career and the reputation of the supporting institution.The issue is scientific integrity.While the emphasis may vary depending on stakeholder, scientific integrity embodies behaviors and practices free of personal and institutional bias and other forms of research misconduct.Rigorous adherence to the scientific method is fundamental to sound science and is founded on observation data collection, hypothesis testing, and culminating in the publication of quality science in peer-reviewed journals.The erosion of scientific integrity, rightly noted by NAS, places the future in jeopardy.Scientific integrity appears to be eroding at such an alarming rate in several disciplines that NAS is recommending the creation of a US Research Integrity Advisory Board.The approach is similar to that adopted by the Swedish government in 2010 following controversial claims of scientific misconduct at reputable institutions, several of which have yet to be resolved.The NAS has put forth additional recommendations, including a call to scientific enterprises and publishers such as SETAC Publications, to more aggressively ensure that the peerreview process and resulting publications are founded on "reliable knowledge."At Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (ET&C) and Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) we rarely encounter the 3 most often cited examples of research misconduct-data fabrication, research falsification, and plagiarism.On the rare occasions when reviewers, senior editors, or members of our dedicated editorial boards raise concerns, plagiarism is the most common form of misconduct.That said, the instances of plagiarism are more a lack of awareness on the part of authors of what constitutes plagiarism.Self-plagiarism is the most common form of this, particularly with authors whose native language is not English; they tend to reuse text that was deemed acceptable in a prior publication.Other transgressions, however, are not so easily identified and resolved.The NAS points to several research falsehoods similarly detrimental to careers, institutions, and the integrity of the entire scientific community:

The Important Role of CRIS's for Registering and Archiving Research Data. The RDS-project at Radboud University (the Netherlands) in Cooperation with Data-archive DANS

This chapter is concerned with setting up practical guardrails within the research activities and environments of Computational Social Science (CSS). It aims to provide CSS scholars, as well as policymakers and other stakeholders who apply CSS methods, with the critical and constructive means needed to ensure that their practices are ethical, trustworthy, and responsible. It begins by providing a taxonomy of the ethical challenges faced by researchers in the field of CSS. These are challenges related to (1) the treatment of research subjects, (2) the impacts of CSS research on affected individuals and communities, (3) the quality of CSS research and to its epistemological status, (4) research integrity, and (5) research equity. Taking these challenges as motivation for cultural transformation, it then argues for the incorporation of end-to-end habits of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) into CSS practices, focusing on the role that contextual considerations, anticipatory reflection, impact assessment, public engagement, and justifiable and well-documented action should play across the research lifecycle. In proposing the inclusion of habits of RRI in CSS practices, the chapter lays out several practical steps needed for ethical, trustworthy, and responsible CSS research activities. These include stakeholder engagement processes, research impact assessments, data lifecycle documentation, bias self-assessments, and transparent research reporting protocols.

This chapter explores the role of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in academic research. As AI tools become embedded across the research lifecycle—from idea generation to writing—researchers must weigh their benefits against ethical risks. The chapter focuses on large language models (LLMs), examining their use in translation, literature synthesis, hypothesis development, and editing, while addressing concerns around hallucinations and research integrity. Through workflow mappings, prompt strategies, and real-world examples, it offers practical guidance for using GenAI without compromising critical thinking or scholarly voice. Researchers are urged to maintain transparency, verify outputs, and treat prompting as an intellectual task. While GenAI can enhance productivity and inclusion—particularly for non-native English speakers—it must be used as a scaffold, not a substitute, for rigorous research. The chapter emphasises the importance of human oversight, ethical reflection, and methodological care in navigating this evolving landscape.

This article is concerned with setting up practical guardrails within the research activities and environments of CSS. It aims to provide CSS scholars, as well as policymakers and other stakeholders who apply CSS methods, with the critical and constructive means needed to ensure that their practices are ethical, trustworthy, and responsible. It begins by providing a taxonomy of the ethical challenges faced by researchers in the field of CSS. These are challenges related to (1) the treatment of research subjects, (2) the impacts of CSS research on affected individuals and communities, (3) the quality of CSS research and to its epistemological status, (4) research integrity, and (5) research equity. Taking these challenges as a motivation for cultural transformation, it then argues for the end-to-end incorporation of habits of responsible research and innovation (RRI) into CSS practices, focusing on the role that contextual considerations, anticipatory reflection, impact assessment, public engagement, and justifiable and well-documented action should play across the research lifecycle. In proposing the inclusion of habits of RRI in CSS practices, the chapter lays out several practical steps needed for ethical, trustworthy, and responsible CSS research activities. These include stakeholder engagement processes, research impact assessments, data lifecycle documentation, bias self-assessments, and transparent research reporting protocols.

This study addresses critical gaps in public health graduate education where conventional teaching diverges from authentic research practice, and fragmented research integrity training fails to provide coherent guidance throughout the research lifecycle. We propose a pedagogical reform concept of "full-cycle research project embedding," centered on the core course "Public Health Theory and Practice" and synergistically aligned with methodological courses like "Epidemiology." The "Research Lifecycle-Embedded Model" structures research integrity education across four phases—design, implementation, analysis, and translation—cultivating competencies in risk identification, ethical adherence, critical reflection, and professional responsibility. Innovations include authentic sub-projects from national research programs, a "Fieldwork Integrity Log" for real-time ethical challenge documentation, peer-driven "integrity workshops," and a three-tiered portfolio-based assessment system evaluated through multi-stakeholder collaboration. The evaluation framework shifts focus from knowledge testing to behavioral observation, linking integrity performance to academic advancement. While limitations include subjective assessment methods and limited project repositories, this model offers a replicable framework for transforming public health graduate training from fragmented, post-hoc instruction to integrated, pre-emptive professional development—achieved through systematically embedding authentic research projects throughout the "Public Health Theory and Practice" curriculum—preparing graduates to competently navigate ethical complexities in research-to-policy translation.

CASRAI-UK: Using the CASRAI Approach to Develop Standards for Communicating and Sharing Research Information in the UK

Education is important for fostering research integrity (RI). Although RI training is increasingly provided, there is little knowledge on how research stakeholders view institutional RI education and training policies. Following a constructivist approach, we present insights about research stakeholders’ views and experiences regarding how research institutions can develop and implement RI education and training policies. We conducted thirty focus groups, engaging 147 participants in eight European countries. Using a mixed deductive-inductive thematic analysis, we identified five themes: (1) RI education should be available to all; (2) education and training approaches and goals should be tailored; (3) motivating trainees is essential; (4) both formal and informal educational formats are necessary; and (5) institutions should take into account various individual, institutional, and system-of-science factors when implementing RI education. Our findings suggest that institutions should make RI education attractive for all and tailor training to disciplinary-specific contexts.

Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to explore the character of scholars’ research-related personal information collections (PICs). Design/methodology/approach – The study was based on in-depth interviews and office tours of 17 scholars in Education and Health Sciences in a Kuwaiti Higher Education Institution. Findings – Scholars’ research-related PICs were added to throughout the research life-cycle. They were huge, diverse, hybrid and fragmented. Key factors shaping the collections were the pressure to do research, time pressure in general, quality of space available, technology opportunity, lack of support from central services, the need to collect Arabic material, self-presentation and self-management. Older scholars and non-Kuwaiti nationals experienced the pressures slightly differently. Research limitations/implications – The study was limited to scholars in two disciplines, in one institution in a developing world context. However the models produced are suggestive of factors involved in shaping of the research-related PICs of scholars in general. Practical implications – Failures in personal information management are a cause for concern in terms of data integrity and validity of research. Interventions could include training of early career researchers for a life time of collecting. Originality/value – This is the first study to examine the contents of scholars’ research-related PICs and to provide a model of factors shaping them.

Early integration of behavioral and social sciences research into clinical trials can improve trial conduct and facilitate future implementation of biomedical interventions. We sought to examine participants' experiences in clinical trials with broadly neutralizing antibodies and describe the development of educational materials for use in future broadly neutralizing antibody research. We conducted semi-structured interviews with trial participants in phase 1 trials evaluating safety and efficacy of broadly neutralizing antibodies for HIV prevention and treatment and key informants (i.e. trial staff involved in broadly neutralizing antibody research). Semi-structured interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically. Based on findings from the interviews, we developed educational materials addressing concerns and misconceptions identified among trial participants with input from community and research stakeholders. Educational materials were used in subsequent clinical trials with broadly neutralizing antibodies. We evaluated trial staff's experiences with newly developed educational materials in follow-up key informant interviews. Although most participants were concerned about long-term harms related to the investigational product upon enrollment, absence of severe side effects in the trial led to an underestimation of risks related to the study during trial participation. Participants showed a poor understanding of what broadly neutralizing antibodies are and the differences between broadly neutralizing antibodies and other HIV prevention and treatment products, such as antiretrovirals. Many trial participants overestimated the possible public health impact of the broadly neutralizing antibody trials in which they were enrolled, associating broadly neutralizing antibody research with the development of vaccine or cure for HIV in the near future. Based on these concerns and misconceptions among trial participants, we developed a frequently asked questions document and adapted an existing educational video about broadly neutralizing antibodies. In follow-up interviews, key informants reported that materials helped address trial participants' concerns and questions related to the trial. Key informants reported using the educational materials not only during informed consent but also throughout trial participation, which contributed to making informed consent an "ongoing" process. Integration of behavioral research into clinical trials with broadly neutralizing antibodies is key to identify and address key concerns among trial participants. Behavioral and social sciences research promotes communication between trial participants and biomedical researchers, facilitates engagement of participants and trial staff, and strengthens trial conduct. Development of educational materials collaboratively by behavioral and clinical scientists, trial staff, and community stakeholders is feasible and may help to address trial participants' concerns and misconceptions. Future research should evaluate the impact of educational materials in recruitment and retention of trial participants.