Promoting research integrity in funding: Co-creating guidelines for research funding organizations.

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2024.2388232
Roshni Jegan, Krishma Labib, Kris Dierickx, Noémie Aubert Bonn, Joeri Tijdink, Ana Marušić, Daniel Pizzolato
{"title":"Promoting research integrity in funding: Co-creating guidelines for research funding organizations.","authors":"Roshni Jegan, Krishma Labib, Kris Dierickx, Noémie Aubert Bonn, Joeri Tijdink, Ana Marušić, Daniel Pizzolato","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2388232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research Funding Organizations (RFOs) play an important role in promoting research integrity (RI). Not only do they allocate resources to research institutions and researchers, but they also set and monitor research standards in their funded projects. In spite of their crucial role, there is a paucity of guidance on how RFOs can promote research integrity. As part of the EU-Funded SOPs4RI project, we aimed to address this gap by co-creating guidelines to help RFOs promote RI, engaging a diverse group of stakeholders. Based on a Delphi survey, reviews of evidence and stakeholder interviews, three guideline topics were identified: 1) the selection and evaluation of proposals; 2) monitoring of funded projects; and 3) prevention of unjustified interference. Four sets of co-creation workshops were conducted for each guideline topic, and the input revised and finalized. Understanding these debates could help RFOs from diverse cultural and organizational backgrounds who are developing their own RI guidelines. Therefore, in this paper, we summarize the key results and emphasize the final recommendations. Further, we provide the main points of discussion that occurred during the workshops and explain how they were addressed or resolved in the final guidelines and how they can help in future endeavors to improve funders' practices to foster RI.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2388232","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research Funding Organizations (RFOs) play an important role in promoting research integrity (RI). Not only do they allocate resources to research institutions and researchers, but they also set and monitor research standards in their funded projects. In spite of their crucial role, there is a paucity of guidance on how RFOs can promote research integrity. As part of the EU-Funded SOPs4RI project, we aimed to address this gap by co-creating guidelines to help RFOs promote RI, engaging a diverse group of stakeholders. Based on a Delphi survey, reviews of evidence and stakeholder interviews, three guideline topics were identified: 1) the selection and evaluation of proposals; 2) monitoring of funded projects; and 3) prevention of unjustified interference. Four sets of co-creation workshops were conducted for each guideline topic, and the input revised and finalized. Understanding these debates could help RFOs from diverse cultural and organizational backgrounds who are developing their own RI guidelines. Therefore, in this paper, we summarize the key results and emphasize the final recommendations. Further, we provide the main points of discussion that occurred during the workshops and explain how they were addressed or resolved in the final guidelines and how they can help in future endeavors to improve funders' practices to foster RI.

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
促进科研诚信资助:共同制定研究资助组织准则。
研究资助组织 (RFO) 在促进研究诚信 (RI) 方面发挥着重要作用。它们不仅向研究机构和研究人员分配资源,而且还制定并监督其资助项目的研究标准。尽管 RFO 发挥着至关重要的作用,但关于 RFO 如何促进研究诚信的指导却很少。作为欧盟资助的 "SOPs4RI "项目的一部分,我们的目标是通过与不同的利益相关者共同制定指导方针,帮助 RFO 促进 RI,从而填补这一空白。在德尔菲调查、证据审查和利益相关者访谈的基础上,确定了三个指南主题:1) 筛选和评估提案;2) 监督受资助项目;3) 防止不合理干预。针对每个准则主题举办了四次共同创造研讨会,并对意见进行了修订和定稿。了解这些辩论有助于来自不同文化和组织背景的 RFO 制定自己的 RI 准则。因此,我们在本文中总结了主要成果,并强调了最终建议。此外,我们还提供了研讨会期间的讨论要点,并解释了这些要点是如何在最终指南中得到处理或解决的,以及这些要点如何有助于今后改进资助者促进 RI 的做法。
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
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
期刊最新文献
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity. A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia. A randomized trial alerting authors, with or without coauthors or editors, that research they cited in systematic reviews and guidelines has been retracted. Citation bias, diversity, and ethics. Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics.
×
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