Ensuring Research Integrity

2021 ◽  
pp. 192-201
Author(s):  
A. J. Quintana
Keyword(s):  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Academic Institutions ◽  
Quality Research ◽  
Clear And Present Danger

In the field of research, integrity and trust are two of the essential attributes of quality research. Any report of research misconduct creates a clear and present danger to the research field, academic institutions, and their faculty, residents, students, and staff. We can see the rise in research misconduct, most simply through the rising number of article retractions. Throughout this chapter, the authors go into the various methods with which researchers overtly fabricate, falsify, and plagiarize their research and the more covert methods of research misconduct, including reshaping data, withholding unfavorable analyses, and other situations that toe the line.

scholarly journals On Research Integrity in Arboriculture and (Urban) Forestry: a qualitative systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Sterken
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Urban Forestry ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Qualitative Systematic Review ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Predatory Publishers

According to Nature, irresponsible research practices (IRP) in science seem to have become a major concern. And also Science has reported retractions of corona virus (COVID-19) papers due to research misconduct. Hence, scientific integrity is becoming widely scrutinised in many fields, but open and public debate on this subject has not started yet in the field of arboriculture and (urban) forestry. IRP can cause long-lasting damage, as they can generate flawed methodologies. This qualitative, systematic review addresses the question whether IRP and Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism (FFP) could have pervaded arboriculture and (urban) forestry. More than 600 publications were reviewed for potential inclusion. Relevant examples of IRP/FFP, were taken from literature that offered innovative concepts and new ideas, allegedly scientific and solid results or have made a great impact in the research field and beyond. More than one hundred publications were finally included to support the arguments. Many claims currently seem to have the quality of unsupported suggestions, against which contrary evidence can easily be found. Also IRP/FFP could widely be found regarding commercial tools and methods, predatory publishers and obscure editorial and citational practices, among others. Moreover, voices have been raised in favour of criminalising research misconduct and the observations made herein may thus be of interest to a wider public.

Editorial

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
João José Pinto Ferreira ◽  
Anne-Laure Mention ◽  
Marko Torkkeli
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Education Research ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Human Knowledge ◽  
Academic Institutions ◽  
Current State ◽  
State Of Research ◽  
Successive Generations

The expansion of human knowledge in all areas is largely the outcome of the activity of academic institutions and the result of their mission to contribute to the cultural, intellectual and economic development of the society, involving education, research and university extension activities. For many years, the academic community has been organizing itself in all different ways to respond to current and future needs, ensuring research integrity and recognition, and building on successive generations of peers to validate and support the launching and development of novel research streams. We owe the current state of research and development of our society to generations of scholars and scientists that have brought all of us here.(...)

scholarly journals Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) — a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Aubert Bonn ◽  
Wim Pinxten
Keyword(s):  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Culture ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Research Problems ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Research Students ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting. Results Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture. We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research. Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity. Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups. Conclusions Our findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers’ compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured. Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science. Study registration https://osf.io/33v3m

scholarly journals Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (Part 2) — A multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Aubert Bonn ◽  
Wim Pinxten
Keyword(s):  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Research Issues ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Research Students ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTBackgroundResearch misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works provide the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders.MethodsTo capture some of the forgotten voices, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.ResultsGiven the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the quality and integrity of science. We first discovered that perspectives on misconduct, including the core reasons for condemning misconduct, differed between individuals and actor groups. Beyond misconduct, interviewees also identified numerous problems which affect the integrity of research. Issues related to personalities and attitudes, lack of knowledge of good practices, and research climate were mentioned. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research cultures and research environments. Even though everyone agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, no one felt responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups.ConclusionsOur findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, we must tackle how research is assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science should be revisited: not only should they directly address the impact of climates on research practices, but they should also redefine their objective to empower and support researchers rather than to capitalize on their compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making are crucial to building joint objectives for change.Trial registrationosf.io/33v3m

scholarly journals Peer Review in Law Journals

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jadranka Stojanovski ◽  
Elías Sanz-Casado ◽  
Tommaso Agnoloni ◽  
Ginevra Peruginelli
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Traditional Approach ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Chi Square

The field of law has retained its distinctiveness regarding peer review to this day, and reviews are often conducted without following standardized rules and principles. External and independent evaluation of submissions has recently become adopted by European law journals, and peer review procedures are still poorly defined, investigated, and attuned to the legal science publishing landscape. The aim of our study was to gain a better insight into current editorial policies on peer review in law journals by exploring editorial documents (instructions, guidelines, policies) issued by 119 Croatian, Italian, and Spanish law journals. We relied on automatic content analysis of 135 publicly available documents collected from the journal websites to analyze the basic features of the peer review processes, manuscript evaluation criteria, and related ethical issues using WordStat8. Differences in covered topics between the countries were compared using the chi-square test. Our findings reveal that most law journals have adopted a traditional approach, in which the editorial board manages mostly anonymized peer review (104, 77%) engaging independent/external reviewers (65, 48%). Submissions are evaluated according to their originality and relevance (113, 84%), quality of writing and presentation (94, 70%), comprehensiveness of literature references (93, 69%), and adequacy of methods (57, 42%). The main ethical issues related to peer review addressed by these journals are reviewer’s competing interests (42, 31%), plagiarism (35, 26%), and biases (30, 22%). We observed statistically significant differences between countries in mentioning key concepts such as “Peer review ethics”, “Reviewer”, “Transparency of identities”, “Publication type”, and “Research misconduct”. Spanish journals favor reviewers’ “Independence” and “Competence” and “Anonymized” peer review process. Also, some manuscript types popular in one country are rarely mentioned in other countries. Even though peer review is equally conventional in all three countries, high transparency in Croatian law journals, respect for research integrity in Spanish ones, and diversity and inclusion in Italian are promising indicators of future development.

scholarly journals Survey study of research integrity officers' perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Kalichman
Keyword(s):  
American Association ◽  
Causal Effect ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
Research On Research ◽  
Definitive Answer ◽  
Research Environments ◽  
Good Research

Abstract Background: Research on research integrity has tended to focus on frequency of research misconduct and factors that might induce someone to commit research misconduct. A definitive answer to the first question has been elusive, but it remains clear that any research misconduct is too much. Answers to the second question are so diverse, it might be productive to ask a different question: What about how research is done allows research misconduct to occur?Methods: With that question in mind, research integrity officers (RIOs) of the 62 members of the American Association of Universities were invited to complete a brief survey about their most recent instance of a finding of research misconduct. Respondents were asked whether one or more good practices of research (e.g., openness and transparency, keeping good research records) were present in their case of research misconduct.Results: Twenty-four (24) of the respondents (39% response rate) indicated they had dealt with at least one finding of research misconduct and answered the survey questions. Over half of these RIOs reported that their case of research misconduct had occurred in an environment in which at least nine of the ten listed good practices of research were deficient.Conclusions: These results are not evidence for a causal effect of poor practices, but it is arguable that committing research misconduct would be more difficult if not impossible in research environments adhering to good practices of research.

scholarly journals Research misconduct complaints and institutional logics: The case of Hans Eysenck and the British Psychological Society

2020 ◽  
pp. 135910532096354
Author(s):  
Russell Craig ◽  
Anthony Pelosi ◽  
Dennis Tourish
Keyword(s):  
Heart Disease ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Institutional Logics ◽  
British Psychological Society ◽  
Prevention And Treatment ◽  
Formal Complaint

A formal complaint was lodged with the British Psychological Society in 1995 that alleged serious scientific misconduct by Hans J Eysenck. The complaint referred to research into the links between personality traits and the causes, prevention and treatment of cancer and heart disease. Using a framework of institutional logics, we criticise the Society’s decision not to hear this complaint at a full disciplinary hearing. We urge the BPS to investigate this complaint afresh. We also support calls for the establishment of an independent National Research Integrity Ombudsperson to deal more effectively with allegations of research misconduct.

scholarly journals RETRACTED: Polymorphisms in the 5-HTTLPR Gene Mediate Storage Capacity of Visual Working Memory

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 1069-1076 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. Anderson ◽  
Theodore A. Bell ◽  
Edward Awh
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Visual Working Memory ◽  
Cognitive Neuroscience ◽  
Storage Capacity ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Data Points ◽  
The University

By the request of the authors, the following two research articles will be retracted from the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience: 1. Anderson, D. E., Ester, E. F., Klee, D., Vogel, E. K., & Awh, E. (2014). Electrophysiological evidence for failures of item individuation in crowded visual displays. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(10), 2298– 2309. https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00649 . 2. Anderson, D. E., Bell, T. A., & Awh, E. (2012). Polymorphisms in the 5-HTTLPR gene mediate storage capacity of visual working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(5), 1069–1076. https://dx.doi. org/10.1162/jocn_a_00207 . On August 1, 2015, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) announced a settlement agreement with David E. Anderson, the Respondent ( http://ori.hhs.gov/content/ case-summary-anderson-david ). On the basis of the Respondent’s admission and an analysis by the University of Oregon, ORI concluded that the Respondent had engaged in research misconduct by falsifying and/or fabricating data in four publications. Those publications were retracted immediately after the release of the ORI findings. Since that time, additional problems have been discovered with Article 1 above. Data points shown in Figure 8 were removed without justification and in contradiction to the analytic approach described in the methods and results. In light of this discovery and of the previous ORI findings, authors Bell and Awh no longer have confidence in the integrity of the data in Article 2. For these reasons, all authors on both articles (including the Respondent) have agreed to the retraction of Articles 1 and 2 above.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document