Why research integrity matters and how it can be improved

Bouter, Lex M.

doi:10.1080/08989621.2023.2189010

Cited by 17 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7,38 Further, journal editors and publishers have a responsibility to uphold integrity by ensuring that they only publish research that has been conducted in accordance with internationally accepted guidelines. 39 To achieve this, they should routinely screen manuscripts for integrity issues, 40 and we support arguments to require sharing of raw data prior to publication. 10,31 Among journal readers and reviewers, a healthy scepticism is also encouraged; while publications were commonly accepted as truth in the past, as Moore et al argue “the biggest mistake of all, then, is taking evidence on trust and without checking it.” 41…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Development of the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data

Hunter,

Aberoumand,

Libesman

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIncreasing concerns about integrity in medical research have prompted the development of tools to detect untrustworthy studies. Existing tools focus on evaluating aggregate or published data, though some trustworthiness issues may only be detected upon scrutiny of individual participant data (IPD). To address this, we developed the IPD Integrity Tool for detecting integrity issues in randomised controlled trials with IPD available. This manuscript describes the development of this tool.MethodsWe conducted a literature review to collate and map existing integrity items. These were discussed with an expert advisory group, and agreed items were included in a standardised tool and automated where possible. We piloted this tool in two IPD meta-analyses, and conducted preliminary validation checks on 13 datasets with and without known integrity issues in a blinded manner.ResultsThe literature review identified 120 integrity items: 54 could be conducted at the publication or aggregate data (AD) level, 48 required IPD, and 18 were possible with aggregate data, but more comprehensive with IPD. Based on these items, an initial reduced tool was developed in a consensus process involving 13 advisors with different backgrounds (countries, profession, education). This initial tool included 11 items across four domains for AD, and 12 items across 8 domains requiring IPD. The tool was iteratively refined throughout piloting on two IPD meta-analyses including a total of 116 trials (73 with IPD, and 43 with only AD available), and preliminary validation using an additional 13 datasets. All five studies with known integrity issues were accurately identified during validation. The final version of the tool included seven domains with 13 items for AD and eight domains with 18 items requiring IPD.ConclusionsThe quality of evidence informing health care relies on trustworthy data. This manuscript describes the development of a tool to enable researchers, editors, and other stakeholders to detect integrity issues in randomised trials using IPD. Detailed instructions on the application of this tool will be published subsequently.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Development of the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data

Hunter,

Aberoumand,

Libesman

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regardless of whether humans or animals are recruited as participants in a research endeavour, researchers must conform to a set of agreed-upon practices that communicate the integrity of the published work. Research integrity gains importance within a research community by allowing its members to trust and build on previous work while also developing confidence in their scholarly outputs within society (Bouter, 2023 ). Trust in the research system is thus a result of research integrity.…”

Section: Research Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, their variation across disciplines and cultures leads to a more significant variation in regulatory responses. Research documenting the frequency of research misconduct provides different numbers but generally agrees that its prevalence among researchers deserves careful attention (Bouter, 2023 ; Fanelli & Tregenza, 2009 ; Reisig et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Research Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%

A model of the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity

Muthanna,

Chaaban,

Qadhi

2023

International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity with a focus on the primary forms of research misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. It also details the main factors for their occurrence, and the possible ways for mitigating their use among scholars. Methods: The method employed a detailed examination of the main ethical dilemmas, as delineated in literature, as well as the factors leading to these ethical breaches and the strategies to mitigate them. Further, the teaching experiences of the primary author are reflected in the development of the model. Results: The results of this article are represented in a model illustrating the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity. Further, a significant aspect of our article is the identification of novel forms of research misconduct concerning the use of irrelevant or forced citations or references. Conclusion: In conclusion, the article highlights the substantial positive effects that adherence to research ethics and integrity have on the academic well-being of scholars.

show abstract

“…There is growing consensus that preregistration facilitates transparent, credible, and reproducible research ( [1]; for critical comments see, e.g., [6,7]). Entertaining open methods such as preregistration, but also sharing code and data, are part of a wider range of responsible research practices (RRPs), which collectively aim at optimizing the validity and trustworthiness of research (e.g., [8,9]). RRPs also include, for example, careful data management, accurate documentation of all research steps and decisions, appropriately acknowledging other people's work and ideas, and correcting errors if there are reasons to do so [10].…”

Section: Findings From the Abstracts Accepted For The 7th World Confe...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it is also recognized that researchers often experience various barriers to preregister their study (e.g., [3,12,13]. These barriers may, for example, include perceived bureaucratic burden, In recent years, several studies have examined the extent to which published studies were preregistered [9,12,14,15]. These studies reported a substantial increase of preregistrations, at least as measured by the absolute number of preregistered studies in, for example, the OSF.…”

Section: Findings From the Abstracts Accepted For The 7th World Confe...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pre-registration of study protocols by paper and poster presenters at 7th WCRI World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) in Cape Town SA, 2022

Emons¹,

Sijtsma²,

Bouter³

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In their fifth meeting at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in 2017 (5th WCRI), the World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) adopted the Amsterdam Agenda (AA). The AA is a policy statement stipulating six key elements that researchers doing research on aspects of research integrity preferably should use when preregistering their empirical research projects (https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/amsterdam-agenda). The applicants of this submission form performed an ad hoc study in 2019 using data supplied by paper and poster presenters of the 6th WCRI in Hong Kong, 2019, to find out to which degree researchers had pre-registered the study they were going to present at the 6th WCRI, using either the recommendations of the AA or other recommendations. The first applicant (Sijtsma) presented the results in the final plenary session of 6th WCRI. The pilot study showed that 19% of the 308 presenters had preregistered their research. Of the 56 usable cases, less than half of them provided information on one or more of the six key elements of the AA. Others provided information that invalidated their data, such as an uninformative URL. There was no discernable difference between qualitative and quantitative research. We published our results in the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review (Sijtsma et al., 2021).Our study suffered from two limitations. First, we did no plan our research a priori but used the raw data the 6th WCRI organizers made available on an ad hoc basis. These raw data came from the information 6th WCRI participants provided while registering and submitting their paper and poster proposals. This implied that we had to work with data that were not collected with our study questions in mind. Second, given highly restrictive time limits, the WCRI organizers were unable to receive participants’ consent for using their data once we planned our research, and we were unable to receive timely consent of an ethics committee and to preregister our research.The present proposal continues the 2019 research, but improves both its content and fully obeys procedural requirements. That is, we plan the data collection a priori, ask participants for their consent to use their anonymized data, request consent by an ethics committee, and pre-register the study. Sijtsma, K., Emons, W. H. M., Steneck, N. H., & Bouter, L. M. (2021). Steps toward preregistration of research on research integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00108-4

show abstract

Why research integrity matters and how it can be improved

Cited by 17 publications

References 35 publications

Development of the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data

Development of the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data

A model of the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity

Pre-registration of study protocols by paper and poster presenters at 7th WCRI World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) in Cape Town SA, 2022

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About