Educating and Training in Research Integrity (RI): A Study on the Perceptions and Experiences of Early Career Researchers Attending an Institutional RI Course

IF 2.2 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Academic Ethics Pub Date : 2023-12-05 DOI:10.1007/s10805-023-09497-1
Greco Francesca, Silvia Ceruti, Stefano Martini, Mario Picozzi, Marco Cosentino, Franca Marino
{"title":"Educating and Training in Research Integrity (RI): A Study on the Perceptions and Experiences of Early Career Researchers Attending an Institutional RI Course","authors":"Greco Francesca, Silvia Ceruti, Stefano Martini, Mario Picozzi, Marco Cosentino, Franca Marino","doi":"10.1007/s10805-023-09497-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Research integrity (RI) is defined as adherence to ethical principles, deontological duties, and professional standards necessary for responsible conduct of scientific research. Early training on RI, especially for early-career researchers, could be useful to help develop good standards of conduct and prevent research misconduct (RM).</p><p>The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of a training course on RI, by mapping the attitudes of early-career researchers on this topic through a questionnaire built upon the revised version of the Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire and administered to all participants at the beginning and at the end of the course.</p><p>Results show that after the course, participants reporting a high understanding of the rules and procedures related to RM significantly increased (pre-course: 38.5%, post-course: 61.5%), together with the percentage of those reporting a lack of awareness on the extent of misconduct (pre-course: 46.2%, post-course: 69.2%), and of those who believe that the lack of research ethics consultation services strongly affects RM (pre-course: 15.4%, post-course: 61.5%). Early-career researchers agree on the importance to share with peers and superiors any ethical concern that may arise in research, and to create a work environment that fosters RI awareness.</p><p>As a whole, results suggest the effectiveness of the course. Institutions should introduce RI training for early-career researchers, together with research methodology, integrity and ethics consultation services to support them. Senior scientists should promote RI into their research practices, and should stimulate engagement in peer-to-peer dialogue to develop good practices based on RI principles.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09497-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research integrity (RI) is defined as adherence to ethical principles, deontological duties, and professional standards necessary for responsible conduct of scientific research. Early training on RI, especially for early-career researchers, could be useful to help develop good standards of conduct and prevent research misconduct (RM).

The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of a training course on RI, by mapping the attitudes of early-career researchers on this topic through a questionnaire built upon the revised version of the Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire and administered to all participants at the beginning and at the end of the course.

Results show that after the course, participants reporting a high understanding of the rules and procedures related to RM significantly increased (pre-course: 38.5%, post-course: 61.5%), together with the percentage of those reporting a lack of awareness on the extent of misconduct (pre-course: 46.2%, post-course: 69.2%), and of those who believe that the lack of research ethics consultation services strongly affects RM (pre-course: 15.4%, post-course: 61.5%). Early-career researchers agree on the importance to share with peers and superiors any ethical concern that may arise in research, and to create a work environment that fosters RI awareness.

As a whole, results suggest the effectiveness of the course. Institutions should introduce RI training for early-career researchers, together with research methodology, integrity and ethics consultation services to support them. Senior scientists should promote RI into their research practices, and should stimulate engagement in peer-to-peer dialogue to develop good practices based on RI principles.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究诚信的教育与训练:早期职业研究人员参加机构研究诚信课程的认知与经验研究
研究诚信(Research integrity, RI)被定义为遵守负责任的科学研究行为所必需的道德原则、道义责任和专业标准。早期对科研不端行为的培训,特别是对早期职业研究人员的培训,可能有助于制定良好的行为标准和防止科研不端行为(RM)。本研究的目的是通过在科学不端行为问卷的修订版基础上编制的问卷,绘制早期职业研究人员对该主题的态度,并在课程开始和结束时向所有参与者发放问卷,以评估RI培训课程的有效性。结果表明,课程结束后,报告对RM相关规则和程序的高度理解的参与者显著增加(课程前:38.5%,课程后:61.5%),报告对不当行为程度缺乏认识的参与者比例(课程前:46.2%,课程后:69.2%),以及认为缺乏研究伦理咨询服务强烈影响RM的参与者比例(课程前:15.4%,课程后:61.5%)。早期职业研究人员同意与同级及上级分享研究中可能出现的任何伦理问题的重要性,并同意创造一个培养国际扶轮意识的工作环境。总体而言,结果表明该课程的有效性。机构应该为职业生涯早期的研究人员引入国际扶轮培训,以及研究方法、诚信和伦理咨询服务来支持他们。资深科学家应该促进国际扶轮进入他们的研究实践,并且应该鼓励参与对等对话以发展基于国际扶轮原则的良好实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Journal of Academic Ethics is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, peer reviewed journal which examines all ethical issues which arise within the scope of university purposes. The journal publishes original research in the ethics of research production and publication; teaching and student relations; leadership; management and governance. The journal offers sustained inquiry into such topics as the ethics of university strategic directions; ethical investments; sustainability practices; the responsible conduct of research and teaching; collegiality and faculty relations; and the appropriate models of ethical and accountable governance for universities in the 21st century.
期刊最新文献
Developing Student Agency Towards Academic Integrity Through an Educative Approach: Exploring Students’ Experiences and Perspectives Fabricating Citations: The Policies of New Jersey Public Institutions of Higher Education Developing Surveys on Questionable Research Practices: Four Challenging Design Problems Testing a Psychological Model of Post-Pandemic Academic Cheating Why Student Ratings of Faculty Are Unethical
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1