Research Integrity Education Research Articles

Developing and Validating the Competency Profile for Teaching and Learning Research Integrity

Since research integrity is not external to research but an integral part of it, it should be integrated into research training. However, several hindrances regarding contemporary research integrity education exist. To address them, we have developed a competency profile for teaching and learning research integrity based on four assumptions: 1) to include all levels of study (BA, MA, and PhD); 2) to integrate research integrity into research education itself; 3) to address research integrity issues in context-specific practices; and 4) to pay particular attention to the ‘grey zone’ or questionable research practices. To assess the validity of the content of the competency profile and to determine if some adjustments to the profile are needed, we translated the competencies of the profile into items of a measurement instrument (a questionnaire) and conducted a survey amongst University of Ljubljana students that allowed us to 1) obtain information about students’ attitudes toward issues of integrity in research; 2) analyse differences in these attitudes among BA, MA, and PhD students; and 3) statistically validate the competency profile and suggest possible improvements. The results showed that 1) students are highly aware of research integrity issues, as scores were high on all items assessed. However, there were some deviations to lower scores, especially in relation to questionable research practises, confirming our assumption that the ‘grey zone’ issues are those that should be particularly addressed and given special attention in contemporary research integrity education. 2) The differences in the attitudes of BA, MA, and PhD students showed that higher-level students showed significantly more awareness of integrity issues than lower-level students did, suggesting that research integrity issues should be given special attention at the BA study level. 3) The measurement characteristics showed that the reliability of the questionnaire was very high, suggesting a good overall structure of the competency profile. The principal component analysis also confirmed the four-field structure of the Competency profile (Values and Principles, Research Practise, Publication and Dissemination, and Violations). However, the analysis also showed that the substructure of the four main areas of the profile did not fully match the results of the factor analysis, suggesting that the distribution of competencies in the competency profile could be reconsidered, especially in the area of Research Practice. The most recent developments in the field of research integrity also suggest that the competency profile should be updated with issues regarding the impact of artificial intelligence on research integrity.

Why and how to incorporate issues of race/ethnicity and gender in research integrity education

ABSTRACT With the increasing focus on issues of race/ethnicity and sex/gender 1 across the spectrum of human activity, it is past time to consider how instruction in research integrity should incorporate these topics. Until very recently, issues of race/ethnicity and sex/gender have not typically appeared on any conventional lists of research integrity or responsible conduct of research (RCR) topics in the United States or, likely, other countries as well. 2 However, I argue that not only can we incorporate these issues, we should do so to help accomplish some of the central goals of instruction in research integrity. I also offer some initial suggestions about where and how to incorporate them within familiar topics of instruction.

Evaluating empowerment towards responsible conduct of research in a small private online course

Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) has gained recognition in recent years, with various organizations emphasizing the need to take responsibility in training their researchers in RCR. However, differing perspectives on RCR education result in a variety of practices, making it unclear what approach is most effective. As part of two European projects on research integrity education, we have developed an empowerment perspective on RCR education and incorporated this in an online course design. This paper presents the design and qualitative evaluation of a Small Private Online Course (SPOC) that aims to empower participants towards RCR. Results show the course enhanced individual aspects of empowerment, but it proved difficult to stimulate social aspects of empowerment in researchers day-to-day work.

Co-creating Research Integrity Education Guidelines for Research Institutions

To foster research integrity (RI), research institutions should develop a continuous RI education approach, addressing various target groups. To support institutions to achieve this, we developed RI education guidelines together with RI experts and research administrators, exploring similarities and differences in recommendations across target groups, as well as recommendations about RI education using approaches other than formal RI training. We used an iterative co-creative process. We conducted four half-day online co-creation workshops with 16 participants in total, which were informed by the RI education evidence-base. In the first two workshops, participants generated ideas for guidelines’ content, focusing on different target groups and various approaches to RI education. Based on this content we developed first drafts of the guidelines. Participants in the third and fourth workshop refined those drafts. We next organized a working group which further prioritized, reorganized, and optimized the content of the guidelines. We developed four guidelines on RI education focusing on (a) bachelor, master and PhD students; (b) post-doctorate and senior researchers; (c) other RI stakeholders; as well as (d) continuous RI education. Across guidelines, we recommend mandatory RI training; follow-up refresher training; informal discussions about RI; appropriate rewards and incentives for active participation in RI education; and evaluation of RI educational events. Our work provides experience-based co-created guidance to research institutions on what to consider when developing a successful RI education strategy. Each guideline is offered as a distinct, publicly available tool in our toolbox (www.sops4ri.eu/toolbox) which institutions can access, adapt and implement to meet their institution-specific RI education needs.Trial registrationhttps://osf.io/zej5b.

A study on the content of integrity policies and research integrity management in Chinese universities.

This study outlines a comprehensive analysis of the primary characteristics of managing research integrity (RI) in domestic colleges and universities in China. RI education in China consists primarily of soft advocacy, with no hard requirements or continuous and systematic support. Together with other stakeholders, such as funders and publishers, higher education institutions (e.g., colleges and universities) are one of the vital actors that have a lot of influence on RI promotion and implementation among researchers. However, the literature on the regulation of RI policies in China's universities is limited. We investigate the top 50 colleges and universities in the 2021 Best Chinese Universities Ranking. Their guidance and policy documents on RI were collected via their official websites. By integrating the use of scientometrics analysis, including descriptive statistical analysis, inductive content analysis, and quantitative analysis, we examine whether and how these higher education institutions respond to national policies in a timely manner, especially in terms of their frequency of updates, topic clustering analysis, terms clustering analysis, content aggregation. To further understand the composition mechanism and the main working systems of university RI management organizations, we conducted in-depth research on the organizational functions, meeting system, staff composition mechanism, and scientific research misconduct acceptance and investigation mechanisms. The regulations on the treatment of RI in China's universities have, in response to the government's call to establish their own management policies and working mechanisms, maintained a zero-tolerance stance on research misconduct. The sampled universities listed the definition and principles of misconduct practices, investigation procedures, and sanctions of research misconduct in their own policy documents. Some of them listed inappropriate research practices All 50 sampled universities have formed relevant organizations responsible for RI management, they all provide the detailed regulations of the committees. Yet, there is still a need to further define Questionable Research Practice, foster higher standards for integrity in research and, establish and improve an efficient, authoritative, well-restrained and supervision working mechanism for organizations responsible for RI treatment.

Stakeholders’ Experiences of Research Integrity Support in Universities: A Qualitative Study in Three European Countries

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.

Perception and reaction of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) researchers to different forms of research integrity education modality

BackgroundResearch and academic institutions use various delivery channels to deliver Research Integrity (RI) education in their communities. Yet there is no consensus on the best delivery method and the effectiveness of these channels in inculcating a positive RI culture varies across institutions. Hence, this study aimed to understand the preferences of the research community in Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.MethodsAn online survey was conducted on NTU research community to understand their experience with, and preference for each RI education mode offered in NTU. The RI education modes surveyed in the general ranking question are Data Management Plan (DMP) workshops, Epigeum e-Learning, Compass e-newsletter (email), and NTU policy on Research Integrity and Responsible Conduct of Research. There were 242 responses, comprising 50% research students, 32.2% research staff and 17.8% faculty members. Non-parametric statistical techniques were used to analyse preferences across different RI education modes and within sub-groups (i.e., fields, age, native language, roles in research community).ResultsMore than 92% of respondents subscribed to the importance of RI education, but with different preferences for education modes. With respect to RI education in NTU, Compass e-newsletters were ranked the lowest (p < 0.05). Most felt that they were too wordy and unengaging, making it difficult to absorb information. Similarly, Epigeum e-Learning (p < 0.05) and ‘policy’ (p < 0.05) were found to be too lengthy in presentation. The compulsory NTU RI education modes (Epigeum e-learning and ‘policy’) enjoyed higher participation rates of 70–80% compared with 32–37% for the self-regulated modes (DMP workshop and e-newsletter). This suggests that regulatory mechanisms are still necessary to promote participation in RI education, and thus, core RI education content should be made compulsory in research/academic institutions. Although Epigeum is a compulsory course, some may not have participated in the programme due to technical issues or they might have forgotten to participate in the programme within the permissible timeframe. For all four RI education modes in NTU, the lack of awareness was among the top cited reasons for not participating.ConclusionsMost NTU researchers perceived RI education positively although they may have reservations for some approaches. Conversely, e-Learning is favored over all the other modes except for the mode of Policy. Findings from this study are useful for improving the design of RI education strategies to be more appealing to the research community by enhancing user experience in terms of user-friendliness, relevance to specialisation, providing concise information and better presentation of materials For institutions with similar modes of RI education as NTU, these results may be relevant in improving participation rates and presentation of RI education modes, such as the use of infographics and more concise information.

Do we achieve anything by teaching research integrity to starting PhD students?

Education of young researchers has been proposed as a way to promote research integrity. However, the effectiveness of research integrity education on PhD students is unknown. In a longitudinal design, we surveyed over 1000 starting PhD students from various disciplines regarding knowledge, attitude and behaviour before, immediately after and 3 months after a compulsory 3-h course given by a panel of experts. Compared with a control group who did not follow the course, the course recipients showed significant (multivariate analysis) but modest improvements in knowledge and attitude scores immediately after the course, but not after 3 months; a prolonged impact was apparent regarding behaviour. Moreover, the course spurred 93% of PhD students to have conversations about research integrity and 79% declared applying the content of the course. Among other interventions, formal education in research integrity may contribute to foster a climate of research integrity in academia.

Co-Creation: A Novel Approach to Developing Guidelines for Research Integrity Policy – Lessons Learned from the SOPS4RI Project

"Co-creation is a qualitative research methodology that engages stakeholders in playful activities to produce user-centered outputs. Through an interactive and open approach, co-creation explores stakeholders’ latent values, generates innovative ideas, and captures minority views, allowing for in-depth understanding of how stakeholders are affected by various factors. Therefore, co-creation is a promising methodology for developing guidelines on research integrity (RI), although there is no literature available about co-creation in this context. In our presentation, we share experiences of using co-creation to design institutional guidelines on RI together with research managers, funders and researchers across Europe. We conducted 24 co-creation workshops on topics ranging from RI education, to creating a responsible research environment, resulting in concrete guidelines that research institutions and funders can implement to foster RI. Our experience has provided us with valuable insights on using co-creation for RI guideline development. While motivating research stakeholders – often serious and analytically oriented people – to engage in creative exercises can be a challenge, particularly in the online setting, it is possible to achieve when ‘play’ and ‘work’ are carefully balanced. Additionally, to ensure the concreteness of guidelines while accounting for differences among institutions and countries, best practice examples can be used to show different approaches to implementing more general guidance. We have also learned that it is valuable to explore stakeholders’ preferences regarding the guideline format, since implementability is not only influenced by the content. These insights provide practical considerations that other researchers can use when co-creating RI guidelines. "

Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study

BackgroundEven though research integrity (RI) training programs have been developed in the last decades, it is argued that current training practices are not always able to increase RI-related awareness within the scientific community. Defining and understanding the capacities and lacunas of existing RI training are becoming extremely important for developing up-to-date educational practices to tackle present-day challenges. Recommendations on how to implement RI education have been primarily made by selected people with specific RI-related expertise. Those recommendations were developed mainly without consulting a broader audience with no specific RI expertise. Moreover, the academic literature lacks qualitative studies on RI training practices. For these reasons, performing in-depth focus groups with non-RI expert stakeholders are of a primary necessity to understand and outline how RI education should be implemented.MethodsIn this qualitative analysis, different focus groups were conducted to examine stakeholders’ perspectives on RI training practices. Five stakeholders' groups, namely publishers and peer reviewers, researchers on RI, RI trainers, PhDs and postdoctoral researchers, and research administrators working within academia, have been identified to have a broader overview of state of the art.ResultsA total of 39 participants participated in five focus group sessions. Eight training-related themes were highlighted during the focus group discussions. The training goals, timing and frequency, customisation, format and teaching approach, mentoring, compulsoriness, certification and evaluation, and RI-related responsibilities were discussed. Although confirming what was already proposed by research integrity experts in terms of timing, frequency, duration, and target audience in organising RI education, participants proposed other possible implementations strategies concerning the teaching approach, researchers' obligations, and development an evaluation-certification system.ConclusionsThis research aims to be a starting point for a better understanding of necessary, definitive, and consistent ways of structuring RI education. The research gives an overview of what has to be considered needed in planning RI training sessions regarding objectives, organisation, and teaching approach.

Path2Integrity Learning Cards: First Year Experiences of an Educational Programme to Foster Research Integrity

This article outlines the experience gained in the first twelve (12) months of the Path2Integrity (P2I) learning programme, an initiative designed to promote reliable research results and responsible research practices with all students, not only those destined to be researchers. Path2Integrity learning cards are student-centred instructions with a dialogical approach, using role-playing and storytelling aimed at fostering a culture of research integrity. This report shows that feedback gathered in this first year of the P2I programme supported the following three actions. First, the feedback informed distinctions between the different contexts of research education and citizen education. Second, a handbook was prepared to accompany the learning cards. And finally, students will be asked in the future to reflect on the competencies each learning card features. A review of the feedback and actions will be followed by an overview of the implications for the programme itself and for research integrity education in general.

The Effects of Anti-corruption Campaign on Research Grant Reimbursement: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from China.

Integrity and research ethics are cherished institutions in academic world. Although most societies have rules and codes that govern ethical conducts in research, few studies have provided quantitative evidence on the impacts of these regulations and codes on the behaviors of researchers. In the context of a nationwide anti-corruption campaign in China, this paper evaluates the changes of principal investigators' reimbursement behavior in a leading university when new reimbursement policies were introduced. Utilizing a novel grant dataset and a regression discontinuity design, we find that the new policies lowered PIs' monthly average amount of reimbursement from research grants by 35%, which can be interpreted as a reduction in grant misuse. Following speculations we argue that institutionalizing orchestrated efforts on grant management, payroll systems, and research integrity education is in the right direction toward building China into a true scientific power.

Strategies in planning research integrity training (evidence of Ukraine)

In recent years, much work has been done to promote integrity in academic community in Ukraine. Still, educational interventions introduced to the local level have not yet become an effective instrument to foster integrity in academia. Current research aims to discuss the key motivational factors that influence the effectiveness of integrity trainings for early-career researchers at Ukrainian universities in order to identify the possible gaps during implementation of research integrity education at the institutional level; highlights the role education plays in fostering research integrity; explores the key factors that influence early-career researcher’s professional development; proposes the possible content of integrity workshop for early-career researchers; analyzes the interview findings to better understand the impact of education interventions on research behavior; and offers recommendations that could help the academic community develop educational content that increases awareness on research misconduct and detrimental practices. The article is based on the experience of conducting the research integrity workshops at the regional institution of higher education. Data was carried out as qualitative face-to-face semi-structured interviews to learn about the sources of knowledge on research integrity. The results of the study have shown that integrity trainings at Ukrainian higher education institutions goal not only to introduce researchers to integrity knowledge, but also to engage them in discussion about responsibility in science. The findings of the study may help to identify key factors that influence the effectiveness of research integrity trainings and develop effective tools to promote research integrity at the Ukrainian higher educational institutions.

How Chinese scientific societies should promote the construction of research integrity

ABSTRACT Scientific societies play an important role in promoting and fostering research integrity. Through a comparative study between China and the United States based on information published over the internet, this article lays out some problems existing in Chinese scientific societies concerning the promotion of research integrity. Research integrity assumes only a minor presence in societies’ policy texts, terms that are incorporated tend to be too general, and concrete action often remains superficial. To remedy these problems, this article makes five recommendations for scientific societies to put more emphasis on research integrity: (1) formulating more professional and specific norms; (2) launching dedicated columns or adding related articles in journals; (3) holding seminars and briefings; (4) setting up specialized committees; and (5) strengthening research integrity education. To supplement the realization of these goals, the article also suggests possible incentive measures.

How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community

ABSTRACTThe aim of our study has been to use a qualitative approach to explore the potential motivations and drivers for unethical behaviors in biomedicine and determine the role of institutions regarding those issues in a small scientific community setting.Three focus groups were held---two with doctoral students and one with active senior researchers. Purposive sampling was used to reach participants at different stages of their scientific careers. Participants in all three focus groups were asked the same questions regarding the characteristics and behaviors of ethical/unethical scientists, ethical climate, role, and responsibility of institutions; they were also asked to suggest ways to improve research integrity. The data analysis included coding of the transcripts, categorization of the initial codes, and identification of themes and patterns.Three main topics were derived from the focus groups discussions. The first included different forms of unethical behaviors including increasing research “waste,” non-publication of negative results, authorship manipulation, data manipulation, and repression of collaborators. The second addressed the factors influencing unethical behavior, both external and internal, to the researchers. Two different definitions of ethics in science emerged; one from the categorical perspective and the other from the dimensional perspective. The third topic involved possible routes for improvement, one from within the institution through the research integrity education, research integrity bodies, and quality control, and the other from outside the institution through external supervision of institutions.Based on the results of our study, research misconduct in a small scientific community is perceived to be the consequence of the interaction of several social and psychological factors, both general and specific, for small research communities. Possible improvements should be systematic, aiming both for improvements in work environment and personal awareness in research ethics, and the implementation of those changes should be institutional responsibility.

Strengthening the detail management and improving the integrity of medical scientific research

Objective To help researchers to standardize and avoid the occurrence of scientific misconduct, promoting the scientific research integrity. Methods We retrospectively reviewed and summarized the practical experience of hospital scientific research management in recent past years. Results At present, the capacity of scientific research supervision still has a lot of space for further improvement, more effective and sound scientific research management mechanism are needed. Conclusions To improve the scientific research management mechanism, it is suggested to further develop the research integrity education, update and specify the management system of scientific research integrity, refine the scientific research management process, strengthen the monitoring of scientific research funds, reinforce medical ethics training and construct more systematic scientific research performance evaluation, as well as the construction of scientific research integrity of medical researchers. Key words: Detail management; Research integrity; Research misconduct

Retraction and Research Integrity Education in China

This article draws the attention of research managers and policy makers to the issue that to become a science power curtailing misconduct is the daunting challenge that emerging countries simply cannot ignore. Systematic and orchestrated efforts are needed to foster and institutionalize research integrity education among all stakeholders.