What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity
Tóm tắt
In many countries attention for fostering research integrity started with a misconduct case that got a lot of media exposure. But there is an emerging consensus that questionable research practices are more harmful due to their high prevalence. QRPs have in common that they can help to make study results more exciting, more positive and more statistically significant. That makes them tempting to engage in. Research institutions have the duty to empower their research staff to steer away from QRPs and to explain how they realize that in a Research Integrity Promotion Plan. Avoiding perverse incentives in assessing researchers for career advancement is an important element in that plan. Research institutions, funding agencies and journals should make their research integrity policies as evidence-based as possible. The dilemmas and distractions researchers face are real and universal. We owe it to society to collaborate and to do our utmost best to prevent QRPs and to foster research integrity.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Amsterdam Agenda. (2015). https://www.wcrif.org/documents/42-amsterdam-agenda/file. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Anderson, M. S. (2019). Shifting perspectives on research integrity. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13, 459–460.
Bagioli, M., Kenney, M., Martin, B. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2019). Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: A reassessment. Research Policy, 48, 401–413.
Bouter, L. M. (2018). Fostering responsible research practices is a shared responsibility of multiple stakeholders. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 96, 143–146.
Bouter, L. M., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N., Martinson, B. C., & ter Riet, G. (2016). Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: Results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1, 17.
Editorial. (2019). Integrity for all: Considering research integrity to be confined to misconduct stops scientists from improving. Nature, 570, 5.
European Network of Research Integrity Offices. (2019). Recommendations for the investigation for research misconduct. http://eneri.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/INV-Handbook_ENRIO_web_final.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2020.
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 organizations: The Bonn PRINTIGER statement. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 1023–1034.
Haven, T., Tijdink, J., Pasman, H. J., Widdershoven, G., ter Riet, G., & Bouter, L. (2019). Do research misbehaviours differ between disciplinary fields? A mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4, 25.
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429–431.
Lentsvelt-Mulders, G. J. L. M., Hox, J. J., van der Heijden, P. G. M., & Maas, C. J. M. (2005). Meta-analysis of randomized response research: Thirty-five years of validation. Sociological Methods and Research, 33, 319–348.
Levelt, Noort and Drenth Committees. (2012). Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. Tilburg University. https://www.rug.nl/about-us/news-and-events/news/news2012/stapel-eindrapport-eng.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Macleod, M., & Mohan, S. (2019). Reproducibility and rigor in animal-based research. ILAR Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilz015.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.mr000038.pub2.
Mayer, T., Bouter, L., & Steneck, N. (2017). Addressing scientific integrity scientifically. Science, 357, 1248–1249.
Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M.H., Barbour, V., Coriat, A.M., Foeger, N., & Dirnagl, U. (2019). The Hong Kong principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. OSF Preprints, https://osf.io/m9abx.
Moher, D., Naudet, F., Cristea, I. A., Miedema, F., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Goodman, S. N. (2018). Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLoS Biology, 16, e2004089.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Fostering integrity in research. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Netherlands code of conduct on research integrity. (2018). https://www.vsnu.nl/files/documents/Netherlands%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20for%20Research%20Integrity%202018.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Office of Research Integrity. (1995). Guidelines for institutes and whistleblowers: Responding to possible retaliation against whistle blowers in extramural research. https://ori.hhs.gov/ori-guidelines-institutions-and-whistleblowers-responding-possible-retaliation-against. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Penders, B., Shaw, D., Lutz, P., Townend, D., Akrong, L., & Zvonareva, O. (2018). ENERI Manual of research integrity and ethics. Maastricht University. http://eneri.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ENERI-e-Manual.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Sijtsma, K. (2017). Never waste a good crisis: Towards responsible data management. In Keynote lecture on the 5th world conference on research integrity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bddRx-LN8lo. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Singapore Statement. (2010). https://www.wcrif.org/documents/327-singapore-statement-a4size/file. Accessed January 3. 2020.
Webpage of 6th WCRI on World Conference on Research Integrity Foundation website. https://www.wcrif.org/wcri2019. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Webpage of Fostering Responsible Research Practices on ZonMw website. https://www.zonmw.nl/en/research-and-results/fundamental-research/programmas/programme-detail/fostering-responsible-research-practices/. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Webpage of Horizon 2020: Science with and for society (Swafs) on European Commission website. https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/index.cfm?pg=funding. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Webpage of Replication studies on NWO website. https://www.nwo.nl/en/funding/our-funding-instruments/sgw/replication-studies/replication-studies.html. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Website of Center for Open Science. https://cos.io/. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Website of European Quality In Preclinical Data Innovative Medicine Initiative. https://www.imi.europa.eu/projects-results/project-factsheets/eqipd. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Website of Quality, Ethics, Open Science, Translation Center. https://www.bihealth.org/en/research/quest-center/mission-approaches/. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Website of San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. https://sfdora.org/. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Website of Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity. https://www.sops4ri.eu/. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Website of UK Reproducibility Network. http://www.dcn.ed.ac.uk/camarades/ukrn/. Accessed January 3, 2020.
Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., Augusteijn, H. E. M., Bakker, M., van Aert, R. C. M., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2016). Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking. Frontiers of Psychology, 7, 1832.