Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk

Mejlgaard, Niels; Bouter, Lex M.; Gaskell, George; Kavouras, P.; Allum, Nick; Bendtsen, Anna-Kathrine; Charitidis, Costas A.; Claesen, Nik; Dierickx, Kris; Domaradzka, Anna; Elizondo, Andrea Reyes; Foeger, Nicole; Hiney, Maura; Kaltenbrunner, Wolfgang; Labib, Krishma; Marušić, Ana; Sørensen, Mads Peter; Ravn, Tine; Ščepanović, Rea; Tijdink, Joeri K.; Veltri, Giuseppe

doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02847-8

Cited by 131 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While existing documents provide RPOs and RFOs with aspirational principles to follow to foster RI (e.g. All European Academies, 2017 ), there is a lack of concrete guidance available on how to implement these principles in practice (Mejlgaard et al, 2020 ). An RI policy containing a comprehensive set of concrete infrastructures, trainings, and support systems aimed at fostering RI can provide RPOs and RFOs with the means to apply aspirational RI principles to practice (Bouter, 2020 ; Lerouge & Hol, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An RI policy containing a comprehensive set of concrete infrastructures, trainings, and support systems aimed at fostering RI can provide RPOs and RFOs with the means to apply aspirational RI principles to practice (Bouter, 2020 ; Lerouge & Hol, 2020 ). While many institutions globally have begun to implement various initiatives and policies on different aspects of RI (Mejlgaard et al, 2020 ), they often lack a comprehensive plan that addresses RI systematically. This is why the European Union’s next Horizon Framework program asks institutions receiving funding to state that they have a comprehensive RI plan (Mejlgaard et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While many institutions globally have begun to implement various initiatives and policies on different aspects of RI (Mejlgaard et al, 2020 ), they often lack a comprehensive plan that addresses RI systematically. This is why the European Union’s next Horizon Framework program asks institutions receiving funding to state that they have a comprehensive RI plan (Mejlgaard et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Important Topics for Fostering Research Integrity by Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations: A Delphi Consensus Study

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To foster research integrity (RI), it is necessary to address the institutional and system-of-science factors that influence researchers’ behavior. Consequently, research performing and research funding organizations (RPOs and RFOs) could develop comprehensive RI policies outlining the concrete steps they will take to foster RI. So far, there is no consensus on which topics are important to address in RI policies. Therefore, we conducted a three round Delphi survey study to explore which RI topics to address in institutional RI policies by seeking consensus from research policy experts and institutional leaders. A total of 68 RPO and 52 RFO experts, representing different disciplines, countries and genders, completed one, two or all rounds of the study. There was consensus among the experts on the importance of 12 RI topics for RPOs and 11 for RFOs. The topics that ranked highest for RPOs concerned education and training, supervision and mentoring, dealing with RI breaches, and supporting a responsible research process (e.g. through quality assurance). The highest ranked RFO topics concerned dealing with breaches of RI, conflicts of interest, and setting expectations on RPOs (e.g. about educating researchers about RI). Together with the research policy experts and institutional leaders, we developed a comprehensive overview of topics important for inclusion in the RI policies of RPOs and RFOs. The topics reflect preference for a preventative approach to RI, coupled with procedures for dealing with RI breaches. RPOs and RFOs should address each of these topics in order to support researchers in conducting responsible research.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Important Topics for Fostering Research Integrity by Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations: A Delphi Consensus Study

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In helping researchers to have a more stable salary, Sweden aims to reduce the hyper-competition and to lower the employment insecurity of researchers. The third initiative that is highly relevant when discussing research environments is the Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity (SOPs4RI) European Commission project that is ongoing until 2022 [146]. The SOPs4RI project is creating a toolbox of best practices and guidelines to help research and funding institutions build research integrity promotion plans.…”

Section: Research Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research assessments should recognize responsible research practices — Narrative review of a lively debate and promising developments

Bonn¹,

Bouter²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research assessments have been under growing scrutiny in the past few years. The way in which researchers are assessed has a tangible impact on decisions and practices in research. Yet, there is an emerging understanding that research assessments as they currently stand might hamper the quality and the integrity of research. In this chapter, we provide a narrative review of the shortcomings of current research assessments and showcase innovative actions that aim to address these. To discuss these shortcomings and actions, we target five different dimensions of research assessment. First, we discuss the content of research assessment, thereby introducing the common indicators used to assess researchers and the way these indicators are being used. Second, we address the procedure of research assessments, describing the resources needed for assessing researchers in an ever-growing research system. Third, we describe the crucial role of assessors in improving research assessments. Fourth, we present the broader environments in which researchers work, explaining that omnipresent competition and employment insecurity also need to be toned down substantially to foster high quality and high integrity research. Finally, we describe the challenge of coordinating individual actions to ensure that the problems of research assessments are addressed tangibly and sustainably.

show abstract

“…In the spotted owl case study, we reason that transparency on the parts of all scientists commenting on public policy would go a long way to revealing in the broad public when a value judgment has been made about a policy goal, when a fact claim has been made to justify action toward that goal, and when a fact claim is being evaluated scientifically. Training for such transparency has been taken up under the rubric of research integrity or scientific ethics, and we welcome the recent spread of such efforts (Mejlgaard et al, 2020). Our next case study raises questions about the internal domain of the conduct of science (observation, measurement, and inference) and specifically how sustainable use models and outputs might conceal value judgments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Transparency About Values and Assertions of Fact in Natural Resource Management

Treves¹,

Paquet²,

Artelle³

et al. 2021

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Worldwide, unsustainable use of nature threatens many ecosystems and the services they provide for a broad diversity of life, including humans. Yet, governments commonly claim that the best available science supports their policies governing extraction of natural resources. We confront this apparent paradox by assessing the complexity of the intersections among value judgments, fact claims, and scientifically verified facts. Science can only describe how nature works and predict the likely outcomes of our actions, whereas values influence which actions or objectives society ought to pursue. In the context of natural resource management, particularly of fisheries and wildlife, governments typically set population targets or use quotas. Although these are fundamentally value judgments about how much of a resource a group of people can extract, quotas are often justified as numerical guidance derived from abstracted, mathematical, or theoretical models of extraction. We confront such justifications by examining failures in transparency about value judgments, which may accompany unsupported assertions articulated as factual claims. We illustrate this with two examples. Our first case concerns protection and human use of habitats harboring the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), revealing how biologists and policy scholars have argued for divergent roles of scientists within policy debates, and how debates between scientists engaged in policy-relevant research reveal undisclosed value judgments about communication of science beyond its role as a source of description (observation, measurement, analysis, and inference). Our second case concerns protection and use of endangered gray wolves (Canis lupus) and shows how undisclosed value judgments distorted the science behind a government policy. Finally, we draw from the literature of multiple disciplines and wildlife systems to recommend several improvements to the standards of transparency in applied research in natural resource management. These recommendations will help to prevent value-based distortions of science that can result in unsustainable uses and eventual extinctions of populations. We describe methods for communicating about values that avoid commingling factual claims and discuss approaches to communicating science that do not perpetuate the misconception that science alone can dictate policy without consideration of values. Our remedies can improve transparency in both expert and public debate about preserving and using natural resources, and thereby help prevent non-human population declines worldwide.

show abstract

Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk

Cited by 131 publications

References 6 publications

Important Topics for Fostering Research Integrity by Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations: A Delphi Consensus Study

Important Topics for Fostering Research Integrity by Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations: A Delphi Consensus Study

Research assessments should recognize responsible research practices — Narrative review of a lively debate and promising developments

Transparency About Values and Assertions of Fact in Natural Resource Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About