Outcomes of faculty training aimed at improving how allegations of research misconduct are handled.

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-20 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2025.2468964
Courtney Karmelita, Bridget Carruthers, Sanjana Gautam, Amanda Ferrara
{"title":"Outcomes of faculty training aimed at improving how allegations of research misconduct are handled.","authors":"Courtney Karmelita, Bridget Carruthers, Sanjana Gautam, Amanda Ferrara","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2468964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article discusses the development of a training program for faculty asked to participate in the research misconduct review process. The aim of the training was to improve the handling of research misconduct allegations. A needs assessment was conducted to determine what Research Integrity Officers (RIOs) and other officials handling research misconduct proceedings perceived to be needed training content for faculty participating in the review of research misconduct allegations. Based upon the results from the needs assessment, a training was created. Then, the study team sought to evaluate the perceived impact of this training through both the lens of faculty and Research Integrity Officers. The learning and self-efficacy outcomes of the training were also evaluated through a pre- and post-assessment. Key findings relate to the differences in opinion regarding the efficacy of the training and suggested alternative uses of the training. The training, Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct, is currently available online.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-30"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","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/10.1080/08989621.2025.2468964","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

This article discusses the development of a training program for faculty asked to participate in the research misconduct review process. The aim of the training was to improve the handling of research misconduct allegations. A needs assessment was conducted to determine what Research Integrity Officers (RIOs) and other officials handling research misconduct proceedings perceived to be needed training content for faculty participating in the review of research misconduct allegations. Based upon the results from the needs assessment, a training was created. Then, the study team sought to evaluate the perceived impact of this training through both the lens of faculty and Research Integrity Officers. The learning and self-efficacy outcomes of the training were also evaluated through a pre- and post-assessment. Key findings relate to the differences in opinion regarding the efficacy of the training and suggested alternative uses of the training. The training, Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct, is currently available online.

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
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
An overview of studies assessing predatory journals within the biomedical sciences. Assessing database accuracy for article retractions: A preliminary study comparing Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science. Outcomes of faculty training aimed at improving how allegations of research misconduct are handled. Peer reviewer fatigue, or peer reviewer refusal? Fake no more: The redemption of ChatGPT in literature reviews.
×
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