Perceptions of research integrity and open science practices: a survey of Brazilian dental researchers.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Brazilian oral research Pub Date : 2024-12-20 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0135
Jaisson Cenci, Marina Christ Franco, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Marcos Britto Correa, Lucas Helal, David Moher, Lex Bouter, Marie Charlotte Huysmans, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci
{"title":"Perceptions of research integrity and open science practices: a survey of Brazilian dental researchers.","authors":"Jaisson Cenci, Marina Christ Franco, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Marcos Britto Correa, Lucas Helal, David Moher, Lex Bouter, Marie Charlotte Huysmans, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci","doi":"10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to evaluate Brazilian dental researchers' perceptions of research integrity and open science practices, as well as their perceptions of the way researchers are evaluated for promotion, hiring, and receiving grants. In a self-administered online survey, the respondents were presented with 3 questions on researcher evaluation in Brazil. Additionally, for 25 academic activities or characteristics, researchers rated their perceived importance for a) career advancement, b) science advancement, c) personal satisfaction, and d) social impact. The questionnaire was sent to a total of 2,179 dental researchers working in graduate programs in dentistry in Brazil. Multilevel regressions were performed to statistically confirm the differences between the predefined subgroups. Three hundred and fifty-five (16%) researchers completed the survey. Most respondents (96.1%) considered the current evaluation system to be flawed and indicated the need for improvement. Non-traditional activities were considered more important than traditional ones for science advancement (p < 0.01), and social impact (p < 0.01), whereas traditional activities were perceived to be more important only for career advancement (p < 0.01). Although Brazilian dental researchers recognize the value of open science and research integrity practices for science advancement and impact on society, they perceive that the current evaluation system emphasizes traditional activities, such as publishing many papers in well-recognized journals as criteria for advancing their careers.</p>","PeriodicalId":9240,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian oral research","volume":"38 ","pages":"e135"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian oral research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0135","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate Brazilian dental researchers' perceptions of research integrity and open science practices, as well as their perceptions of the way researchers are evaluated for promotion, hiring, and receiving grants. In a self-administered online survey, the respondents were presented with 3 questions on researcher evaluation in Brazil. Additionally, for 25 academic activities or characteristics, researchers rated their perceived importance for a) career advancement, b) science advancement, c) personal satisfaction, and d) social impact. The questionnaire was sent to a total of 2,179 dental researchers working in graduate programs in dentistry in Brazil. Multilevel regressions were performed to statistically confirm the differences between the predefined subgroups. Three hundred and fifty-five (16%) researchers completed the survey. Most respondents (96.1%) considered the current evaluation system to be flawed and indicated the need for improvement. Non-traditional activities were considered more important than traditional ones for science advancement (p < 0.01), and social impact (p < 0.01), whereas traditional activities were perceived to be more important only for career advancement (p < 0.01). Although Brazilian dental researchers recognize the value of open science and research integrity practices for science advancement and impact on society, they perceive that the current evaluation system emphasizes traditional activities, such as publishing many papers in well-recognized journals as criteria for advancing their careers.

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
对研究诚信和开放科学实践的看法:对巴西牙科研究人员的调查。
本研究的目的是评估巴西牙科研究人员对研究诚信和开放科学实践的看法,以及他们对研究人员在晋升、雇用和获得资助方面的评估方式的看法。在一项自我管理的在线调查中,受访者被提出了3个关于巴西研究人员评估的问题。此外,对于25项学术活动或特征,研究人员对其在以下方面的重要性进行了评级:a)职业发展,b)科学进步,c)个人满意度,d)社会影响。这份调查问卷被发送给了2179名在巴西牙科研究生项目工作的牙科研究人员。进行多水平回归以统计确认预定义子组之间的差异。355名(16%)研究人员完成了调查。大多数受访者(96.1%)认为目前的评估体系存在缺陷,需要改进。在科学进步(p < 0.01)和社会影响(p < 0.01)方面,非传统活动比传统活动更重要,而在职业发展方面,传统活动比传统活动更重要(p < 0.01)。尽管巴西牙科研究人员认识到开放科学和研究诚信实践对科学进步和对社会的影响的价值,但他们认为目前的评估体系强调传统活动,例如在知名期刊上发表许多论文作为推进其职业生涯的标准。
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
3.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Application of artifact suppression algorithm of post-processing CBCT software in root canal filling materials. Is sleep bruxism associated with smartphone use, neck pain, and sleep features among adolescents? Oral condition of patients hospitalized for Covid-19 and its impact on quality of life. A 4-year follow-up of the need for orthodontic treatment using the Dental Aesthetic Index-DAI: an exploratory analysis. Brazilian version of the OHIP 14 Periodontal Disease Questionnaire: cross cultural adaptation and validation.
×
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