Open minds, tied hands: Awareness, behavior, and reasoning on open science and irresponsible research behavior.

IF 4 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-03 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2025.2457100

Wisnu Wiradhany, Farah M Djalal, Anique B H de Bruin

{"title":"Open minds, tied hands: Awareness, behavior, and reasoning on open science and irresponsible research behavior.","authors":"Wisnu Wiradhany, Farah M Djalal, Anique B H de Bruin","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2457100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Knowledge on Open Science Practices (OSP) has been promoted through responsible conduct of research training and the development of open science infrastructure to combat Irresponsible Research Behavior (IRB). Yet, there is limited evidence for the efficacy of OSP in minimizing IRB.Methods: We asked N=778 participants to fill in questionnaires that contain OSP and ethical reasoning vignettes, and report self-admission rates of IRB and personality traits.Results: We found that against our initial prediction, even though OSP was negatively correlated with IRB, this correlation was very weak, and upon controlling for individual differences factors, OSP neither predicted IRB nor was this relationship moderated by ethical reasoning. On the other hand, individual differences factors, namely dark personality triad, and conscientiousness and openness, contributed more to IRB than OSP knowledge.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that OSP knowledge needs to be complemented by the development of ethical virtues to encounter IRBs more effectively.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"693-716"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","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/10.1080/08989621.2025.2457100","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Knowledge on Open Science Practices (OSP) has been promoted through responsible conduct of research training and the development of open science infrastructure to combat Irresponsible Research Behavior (IRB). Yet, there is limited evidence for the efficacy of OSP in minimizing IRB.

Methods: We asked N=778 participants to fill in questionnaires that contain OSP and ethical reasoning vignettes, and report self-admission rates of IRB and personality traits.

Results: We found that against our initial prediction, even though OSP was negatively correlated with IRB, this correlation was very weak, and upon controlling for individual differences factors, OSP neither predicted IRB nor was this relationship moderated by ethical reasoning. On the other hand, individual differences factors, namely dark personality triad, and conscientiousness and openness, contributed more to IRB than OSP knowledge.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that OSP knowledge needs to be complemented by the development of ethical virtues to encounter IRBs more effectively.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

开放的思想，束缚的双手：对开放科学和不负责任的研究行为的认识、行为和推理。

背景：通过负责任的研究培训和开放科学基础设施的发展来打击不负责任的研究行为（IRB），开放科学实践知识（OSP）得到了促进。然而，关于OSP在减少IRB方面的有效性的证据有限。方法：对N=778名被试进行问卷调查，问卷内容包括OSP和道德推理，并报告IRB的自我承认率和人格特征。结果：我们发现，与我们最初的预测相反，尽管OSP与IRB呈负相关，但这种相关性非常弱，并且在控制个体差异因素后，OSP既不能预测IRB，也不能通过伦理推理调节这种关系。另一方面，个体差异因素，即黑暗人格三联性、严谨性和开放性对IRB的贡献大于OSP知识。结论：我们的研究结果表明，OSP知识需要辅以道德美德的发展，以更有效地应对irb。

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

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

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.