Perceptions and Attitudes about Research Integrity and Misconduct: a Survey among Young Biomedical Researchers in Italy
TL;DR: In this paper, a study was conducted to map the perceptions and attitudes about research misconduct in a sample of young researchers attending a one-week intensive course on methodology, ethics and integrity in biomedical research, held at the University of Insubria (Italy).
Abstract: Research misconduct (RM) is an alarming concern worldwide, and especially in Italy, where there is no formal training of young researchers in responsible research practices. The main aim of this study was to map the perceptions and attitudes about RM in a sample of young researchers attending a one-week intensive course on methodology, ethics and integrity in biomedical research, held at the University of Insubria (Italy). To this end, we administered the Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire (SMQ-R) to all attendees at the beginning of the course. Thereafter, SMQ-R was re-administered at the end, to assess the impact of the course on the responsiveness of study participants, which is intended as the frequency of responses other than “don’t know”. Results show that respondents rate as high their own understanding about rules and procedures related to scientific misconduct (49.2% of respondents), as well as the effectiveness of their institution’s measures for reducing it (40%). Most of them (44.6%) perceive as low the chances of getting caught for RM. Some respondents believe that cases of misconduct occur in their workplace (20%–46.2%) and that the integrity of a research is not solely the responsibility of the principal investigator (73.8%). Among the main factors contributing to research misconduct, the need for publications, unclear definition of what constitutes misconduct and pressure for external funding do stand out. Respondents are concerned about the amount of misconduct and express a pressing need for training on research ethics. Remarkably, the responsiveness of participants tends to increase with course attendance. This finding may be useful to support education programmes devoted to research methodology, ethics and integrity among young researchers.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors conducted a scoping review and analyzed 236 research articles and grey literature publications from biomedical sciences, social sciences, natural sciences (including engineering), and humanities that dealt with the factors that may positively or negatively impact the promotion and implementation of research integrity.
Abstract: Promoting and implementing research integrity is considered the joint responsibility and effort of multiple stakeholders in the research community. We conducted a scoping review and analyzed 236 research articles and grey literature publications from biomedical sciences, social sciences, natural sciences (including engineering), and humanities that dealt with the factors that may positively or negatively impact the promotion and implementation of research integrity. Critical appraisal of evidence was performed for studies describing interventions aimed at research integrity promotion in order to provide insight into the effectiveness of these interventions. The results of this scoping review provide a comprehensive taxonomy of factors with positive or negative impact and their relatedness to individual researchers, research performing and funding organizations, and the system of science. Moreover, the results show that efforts for fostering and promoting research integrity should be implemented at all three levels (researcher, institution, system) simultaneously to deliver greater adherence and implementation of research integrity practices. Although various educational interventions aiming at research integrity promotion exist, we were not able to conclude on the effectiveness of explored interventions due to the methodological quality issues in the studies.
4 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigated the relationship between character strengths and ethical engagement in online faculty and found that interpersonal and emotional character strengths were positively and moderately related to ethical engagement, whereas intellectual character strengths are weakly related.
Abstract: In this study, the researchers investigated the relationships between character strengths and ethical engagement in online faculty. One of the ethical duties for higher education faculty is to engage in effective teaching practices. As online higher education becomes increasingly popular, online faculty also bear this duty. Numerous studies have shown that character strengths cultivate ethical behavior. Hence, we sought to determine the relationship between character strengths and ethical engagement in online faculty. Specifically, we focused on intellectual character strengths, interpersonal character strengths, and emotional character strengths because of their relevance to online faculty’s teaching practices. Through correlational analyses, we learned that interpersonal and emotional character strengths were positively and moderately related to ethical engagement, whereas intellectual character strengths were weakly related to ethical engagement. The findings of this study provide insight into online faculty’s character strengths and ethical engagement. However, further research is needed to understand the role of character strengths and ethical engagement in promoting effective teaching practices in online higher education classrooms.
2 citations
2 citations
References
More filters
15 Aug 2006
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research and suggest that claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.
Abstract: There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser pre-selection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
5,003 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research and conclude that the probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientifi c fi eld.
Abstract: Summary There is increasing concern that most current published research fi ndings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientifi c fi eld. In this framework, a research fi nding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a fi eld are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater fl exibility in designs, defi nitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater fi nancial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientifi c fi eld in chase of statistical signifi cance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientifi c fi elds, claimed research fi ndings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research. It can be proven that most claimed research fi ndings are false.
4,999 citations
2,609 citations
TL;DR: It is indicated that the limitations of the predictivity of disease models and also that the validity of the targets being investigated is frequently questionable, which is a crucial issue to address if success rates in clinical trials are to be improved.
Abstract: 1. This indicates the limitations of the predictivity of disease models and also that the validity of the targets being investigated is frequently questionable, which is a crucial issue to address if success rates in clinical trials are to be improved. Candidate drug targets in industry are derived from various sources, including inhouse target identification campaigns, inlicensing and public sourcing, in particular based on reports published in the literature and presented at conferences. During the transfer of projects from an academic to a company setting, the focus changes from ‘interesting’ to ‘feasible/marketable’, and the financial costs of pursuing a full-blown drug discovery and development programme for a particular target could ultimately be hundreds of millions of Euros. Even in the earlier stages, investments in activities such as high-throughput screening programmes are substantial, and thus the validity of published data on potential targets is crucial for companies when deciding to start novel projects. To mitigate some of the risks of such investments ultimately being wasted, most pharmaceutical companies run in-house target validation programmes. However, validation projects that were started in our company based on exciting published data have often resulted in disillusionment when key data could not be reproduced. Talking to scientists, both in academia and in industry, there seems to be a general impression that many
1,549 citations
TL;DR: Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct, and when these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.
Abstract: The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, "cooking" of data, etc... Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86-4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once--a serious form of misconduct by any standard--and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91-19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words "falsification" or "fabrication", and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.
1,387 citations