Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 1) — A multi-actor qualitative study on success in science

Bonn, Noémie Aubert; Pinxten, Wim

doi:10.1101/2020.02.12.945733

Cited by 9 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present paper reveals a rich account of various stakeholders' perspectives on misconduct and other problems of research and complements our associated findings on definitions and attribution of success in science (34). While it is technically impossible to integrate all diverse and sometimes inconsistent responses in a well-structured discussion, we would like to highlight three main findings from our paper series which provide insights for the next steps towards better science.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…First, the revision of research assessment needs to become central to the integrity discourse. Our respondents clearly indicate that definitions and assessments of success in science are not innocent, and that they impact research practices (34). While we understand the strong emphasis on metrics from a pragmatic point of view, in practice, our participants considered reductionistic metrics as imprecise, disruptive, and at the very heart of most problems afflicting science.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…This paper is part of a two-paper series. The full methods, materials, and participants are detailed in the associated open access paper (34).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But a few points raised conflicting dualities with what was believed essential to success. For instance, interviewees supported that ambition, passion, and tenacity were key elements of success (34).…”

Section: Issues Related To the Personality And Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another relational component raised as a problem from the scientific culture was the issue of unfair advantages from the research network. Networking is an inherent part of science and was mentioned many times as an essential factor for success (34). Many researcher and students provided examples in which networking could help them get ahead, and some mentioned that there was comfort in knowing that good relations could bring 'favours' in case of need.…”

Section: Competition Hierarchy and Advantaged Due To Networkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Bonn

Pinxten

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vries for sharing their focus group guides which constituted the foundation of ours (Resources). We also wish to thank Ines Steffens, Inge Thijs, and Igna Rutten who were essential in helping us organise focus groups and recruit participants (Resources).Finally, and most importantly, we want to thank all those who participated in our interviews and focus groups. We know that we forced ourselves in the very busy schedules of many a participant, and we are sincerely grateful for the time, efforts, and precious thoughts that participants generously shared with us. SubmissionABSTRACT 3 KEYWORDS 3 BACKGROUND 4

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…This paper is part of a two-paper series. The full methods, materials, and participants are detailed in the associated open access paper (34).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Issues Related To the Personality And Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Competition Hierarchy and Advantaged Due To Networkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Bonn

Pinxten

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers’ opinions on success indicators

Bonn

Pinxten

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractThe way in which we assess researchers has been under the radar in the past few years. Critics argue that current research assessments focus on productivity and that they increase unhealthy pressures on scientists. Yet, the precise ways in which assessments should change is still open for debate. We circulated a survey with Flemish researchers to understand how they work, and how they would rate the relevance of specific indicators used in research assessments. We found that most researchers worked far beyond their expected working schedule. We also found that, although they spent most of their time doing research, respondents wished they could dedicate more time to it and less time to other activities such as administrative duties and meetings. When looking at success indicators, we found that indicators related to openness, transparency, quality, and innovation were perceived as highly important in advancing science, but as relatively overlooked in career advancement. Conversely, indicators which denoted of prestige and competition were generally rated as important to career advancement, but irrelevant or even detrimental in advancing science. Open comments from respondents further revealed that, although indicators which indicate openness, transparency, and quality (e.g., publishing open access, publishing negative findings, sharing data, etc.) should ultimately be valued more in research assessments, the resources and support currently in place were insufficient to allow researchers to endorse such practices. In other words, current research assessments are inadequate and ignore practices which are essential in contributing to the advancement of science. Yet, before we change the way in which researchers are being assessed, supporting infrastructures must be put in place to ensure that researchers are able to commit to the activities that may benefit the advancement of science.CRediT ContributionsConceptualizationNoémie Aubert Bonn1, Wim Pinxten1Funding acquisitionWim Pinxten. Funding granted by the Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds (BOF) 15NI05Project administrationNoémie Aubert Bonn, Wim PinxtenMethodologyNoémie Aubert Bonn and Wim Pinxten built the survey; Vincent Larivière2 provided guidance on the survey content, terminology, and recruitment methods; Patricia Tielens3 helped us understand how to distribute the survey in respect with GDPR; Raymond De Vries4, Søren Holm5 and Daniele Fanelli6 provided feedback on earlier versions of the survey; Dana Hawwash7, Paolo Corsico5, and Audrey Wolff8 provided feedback on final versions of the survey.ResourcesMany people helped share the survey, thereby helping us find participants. These include Deans, Directors of doctoral school, and secretaries of the universities we contacted, Raffaella Ravinetto9, Hannelore Storms1, Carl Lachat7, Stefanie Van der Burght10, and many more people who shared, re-tweeted, or talked about our survey to colleagues. We also wish to thank the participants themselves for their time, efforts, and for their willingness to share their thoughts!InvestigationNoémie Aubert BonnData curationNoémie Aubert BonnFormal analysisGeert Molenberghs11 provided guidance and continued support on the appropriate statistical analyses to use; Noémie Aubert Bonn performed the analysis.VisualizationNoémie Aubert BonnValidationNoémie Aubert Bonn, Wim PinxtenSupervisionWim PinxtenWriting – original draftNoémie Aubert BonnWriting – review & editingNoémie Aubert Bonn, Wim Pinxten Research Group of Healthcare and Ethics, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, CanadaJurist Data Protection Officer, Hasselt University, Hasselt, BelgiumCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor (MI), USACentre for Social Ethics and Policy, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKDepartment of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Sciences, London, UKDepartment of Food technology, Safety and Health, Universiteit Gent, Ghent, BelgiumGIGA Consciousness - Coma Science Group, Université de Liège, Liège, BelgiumPublic Health Department, Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp, Antwerp, BelgiumResearch Co-ordination Office, Universiteit Gent, Ghent, BelgumL-BioStat, KU Leuven, Leuven, and Data Science Institute, Hasselt University, Belgium

show abstract

Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) statement: guidelines for good epidemiological practice

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundResearch integrity and research fairness have gained considerable momentum in the past decade and have direct implications for global health epidemiology. Research integrity and research fairness principles should be equally nurtured to produce high-quality impactful research—but bridging the two can lead to practical and ethical dilemmas. In order to provide practical guidance to researchers and epidemiologist, we set out to develop good epidemiological practice guidelines specifically for global health epidemiology, targeted at stakeholders involved in the commissioning, conduct, appraisal and publication of global health research.MethodsWe developed preliminary guidelines based on targeted online searches on existing best practices for epidemiological studies and sought to align these with key elements of global health research and research fairness. We validated these guidelines through a Delphi consultation study, to reach a consensus among a wide representation of stakeholders.ResultsA total of 45 experts provided input on the first round of e-Delphi consultation and 40 in the second. Respondents covered a range of organisations (including for example academia, ministries, NGOs, research funders, technical agencies) involved in epidemiological studies from countries around the world (Europe: 19; Africa: 10; North America: 7; Asia: 5; South-America: 3 Australia: 1). A selection of eight experts were invited for a face-to-face meeting. The final guidelines consist of a set of 6 standards and 42 accompanying criteria including study preparation, protocol development, data collection, data management, data analysis, dissemination and communication.ConclusionWhile guidelines will not by themselves guard global health from questionable and unfair research practices, they are certainly part of a concerted effort to ensure not only mutual accountability between individual researchers, their institutions and their funders but most importantly their joint accountability towards the communities they study and society at large.

show abstract

Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 1) — A multi-actor qualitative study on success in science

Cited by 9 publications

References 16 publications

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

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

Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers’ opinions on success indicators

Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) statement: guidelines for good epidemiological practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About