Development and Implementation of a National Research Integrity System: The Case of the Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

Parder, Mari-Liisa; Juurik, Marten; Lõuk, Kristi; Velbaum, Katrin; Simm, Kadri; Sutrop, Margit

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_57

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As elsewhere, the national research integrity infrastructure (e.g. the existence of guidelines, procedures, institutional support systems) in Estonia is continuously developing (see more in Parder et al, 2022 and the Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 2017). The fact that Estonia is a small country (1.3 million inhabitants) raises additional challenges for the study – from dealing with conflicts of roles and interests to ensuring anonymity of research participants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National cross-disciplinary research ethics and integrity study: methodology and results from Estonia

Simm,

Parder,

Tammeleht

et al. 2024

Research Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While empirical studies of research ethics and integrity are increasingly common, few have aimed at national scope, and even fewer at current results from Central and Eastern Europe. This article introduces the results of the first national research integrity survey in Estonia, which included all research-performing organisations in Estonia, was inclusive of all disciplines and all levels of experience. A web-based survey was developed and carried out in Estonia with a call sent to all accredited Estonian research institutions. The results indicate that the vast majority (89%) of respondents consider research ethics and integrity issues important and view falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFPs) as the most severe forms of misconduct. Self-reporting of FFPs is generally comparable to levels published in other studies (6.2%). Gift authorship (41%) and hampering the work of a colleague (32%) were problematic practices most noticed among colleagues. At the same time, two of the noticed questionable research practices (QRPs) – salami-slicing and misuse of research funding – were seen as less severe, hinting at the existence of counter-norms that career advancement rules and structural factors like funding policies may encourage. The availability of research ethics and integrity guidelines was considered good. Ethical aspects of studying potentially stigmatising data in a very small research community are discussed in the article and results are analysed through counter-norms and normative dissonance frames.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National cross-disciplinary research ethics and integrity study: methodology and results from Estonia

Simm,

Parder,

Tammeleht

et al. 2024

Research Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results showed that RECs gave limited or no guidance on how to debrief, rarely defined it or stated its purposes, made various and wide-ranging statements concerning debriefing and generally did not require a detailed debriefing script. Parder et al (2019) conducted a brief analysis of nine research ethics guidelines on the topic of covert research. Whereas some of these documents required debriefing or being truthful about aspects that might have an influence on participants’ consent decision, this was not mentioned by others.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informed Consent and Debriefing When Deceiving Participants: A Systematic Review of Research Ethics Guidelines

Verbeke

Krawczyk

Baeyens

et al. 2023

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Informed consent and debriefing of research participants in studies that use deception are ethical safeguards for which existing scholarly work on their implementation remains variable and insufficiently clear. A systematic review of research ethics guidelines was conducted to sketch a picture of whether, why and how informed consent and debriefing are recommended when using deception. Documents roughly agreed on several general principles, but varied significantly in the specifics of why and whether these safeguards are necessary, in which conditions and how they should be implemented. Various aspects that appear in the literature could not be found in the guidelines. In our review, guidance was integrated and showed a variation of implementation strategies that could help in contextualizing these safeguards.

show abstract

“…However, several of these guidelines have been criticized for providing rather unspecific or ambiguous assistance with assessing the acceptability of deception (Kimmel, Smith, and Klein 2011;Pittenger 2002). A more mixed interpretation came from an analysis of nine research ethics guidelines on covert research, where Parder et al (2019) found five documents requiring a study to pose no more than minimal risk to participants, a sufficient scientific or social value, and a lack of an equally good non-deceptive alternative. Three guidelines merely needed covert research to be justified and one document was generally against this kind of research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the acceptability of individual studies that use deception: A systematic review of normative guidance documents

Verbeke

Krawczyk

Baeyens

et al. 2022

Accountability in Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Development and Implementation of a National Research Integrity System: The Case of the Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

Cited by 3 publications

References 24 publications

National cross-disciplinary research ethics and integrity study: methodology and results from Estonia

National cross-disciplinary research ethics and integrity study: methodology and results from Estonia

Informed Consent and Debriefing When Deceiving Participants: A Systematic Review of Research Ethics Guidelines

Assessing the acceptability of individual studies that use deception: A systematic review of normative guidance documents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About