European Universities’ Guidance on Research Integrity and Misconduct

Bonn, Noémie Aubert; Godecharle, Simon; Dierickx, Kris

doi:10.1177/1556264616688980

Cited by 35 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The above claim is supported by looking at the content of the RI training program provided by institutions being part of the League of European Research Universities (LERU). The RI-related content provided by the LERU universities during their training sessions is focusing on providing knowledge related to RI and research misconduct without focusing on any aspect related to the researchers’ character [ 24 , 25 ]. Receiving RI-related knowledge seems to be no longer enough to promote a culture change within the scientific community and make scientists aware of their social responsibility [ 26 , 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Pizzolato

Dierickx

2021

BMC Med Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Even 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. Methods In 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. Results A 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. Conclusions This 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Pizzolato

Dierickx

2021

BMC Med Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The university policies used in this study belong to the norm-based approach raised by Godecharle et al (2014). It is argued that this approach is precise in giving clear and concrete courses of action and consequences (Aubert Bonn et al, 2017; Giorgini et al, 2015). Thus, its value and advantage should be used in full by carefully drafting the content and putting it in place.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is probably due to the limited availability of English documents because universities from Spain, for example, use Spanish on their websites, and documents cannot be located by using search engines. In addition, the fact that funders in France are responsible for establishing guidance on research integrity can explain why no policies could be retrieved from the selected French universities (Aubert Bonn et al, 2017). Second, the procedures for dealing with research misconduct is not compared in detail.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining and Handling Research Misconduct: A Comparison Between Chinese and European Institutional Policies

Cornelis

2020

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research institutions are responsible for promoting research integrity and handling allegations of research misconduct. Due to various cultural and social contexts, institutional policies from different cultural backgrounds exhibit many differences, such as their primary concern and mechanisms for dealing with allegations of research misconduct. This comparative study analyses research misconduct policies from 21 Chinese and 22 European universities. The results show that definitions of research misconduct from all retrieved policies go beyond fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism but include different types of questionable research practices. Their procedures for handling research misconduct differ in, for example, confidentiality and disclosure of conflict of interest. Differences can also be found in their governance approaches (“bottom-up” versus “top-down”).

show abstract

“…In summary, our queries screened titles, abstracts, and keywords of published literature for any mention of “academic misconduct,” “academic integrity,” “research misconduct,” “research integrity” (or any expression of six words or less containing such terms), “responsible research” (or any expression of four words or less containing these two terms), “scientific integrity,” “scientific misconduct,” “scientific fraud,” and “research fraud.” We chose these keywords after a few adaptations as we believed that they would provide a broad and yet specific enough overview of works that have been published on RI. Having worked in the field of RI in non-English-speaking countries for some time, we purposively included the expression “academic misconduct” despite its more direct relationship to student cheating to allow capturing articles that might have used the term differently to refer to research misconduct (Aubert Bonn et al, 2017).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We chose these keywords after a few adaptations as we believed that they would provide a broad and yet specific enough overview of works that have been published on RI. Having worked in the field of RI in non-English-speaking countries for some time, we purposively included the expression "academic misconduct" despite its more direct relationship to student cheating to allow capturing articles that might have used the term differently to refer to research misconduct (Aubert Bonn et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Decade of Empirical Research on Research Integrity: What Have We (Not) Looked At?

Bonn

Pinxten

2019

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past decades, increasing visibility of research misconduct scandals created momentum for discourses on research integrity to such an extent that the topic became a field of research itself. Yet, a comprehensive overview of research in the field is still missing. Here we describe methods, trends, publishing patterns, and impact of a decade of research on research integrity.To give a comprehensive overview of research on research integrity, we first systematically searched SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed for relevant articles published in English between 2005 and 2015.We then classified each relevant article according to its topic, several methodological characteristics, its general focus and findings, and its citation impact.We included 986 articles in our analysis. We found that the body of literature on research integrity is growing in importance, and that the field is still largely dominated by non-empirical publications. Within the bulk of empirical records (N=342), researchers and students are most often studied, but other actors and the social context in which they interact, seem to be overlooked. The few empirical articles that examined determinants of misconduct found that problems from the research system (e.g., pressure, competition) were most likely to cause inadequate research practices. Paradoxically, the majority of empirical articles proposing approaches to foster integrity focused on techniques to build researchers' awareness and compliance rather than techniques to change the research system.Our review highlights the areas, methods, and actors favoured in research on research integrity, and reveals a few blindspots. Involving non-researchers and reconnecting what is known to the approaches investigated may be the first step to generate executable knowledge that will allow us to increase the success of future approaches.

show abstract

European Universities’ Guidance on Research Integrity and Misconduct

Cited by 35 publications

References 26 publications

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

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

Defining and Handling Research Misconduct: A Comparison Between Chinese and European Institutional Policies

A Decade of Empirical Research on Research Integrity: What Have We (Not) Looked At?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About