Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) - a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science.

Noémie Aubert Bonn, Wim Pinxten
{"title":"Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) - a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science.","authors":"Noémie Aubert Bonn, Wim Pinxten","doi":"10.1186/s41073-020-00105-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture. We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research. Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity. Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers' compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured. Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>https://osf.io/33v3m.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807493/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00105-z","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

Background: Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.

Results: Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture. We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research. Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity. Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups.

Conclusions: Our findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers' compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured. Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science.

Study registration: https://osf.io/33v3m.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
反思研究中的成功、诚信和文化(第 2 部分)--关于科学问题的多方定性研究。
背景:过去几年,研究不当行为和有问题的研究实践越来越受到关注。但是,尽管现有研究成果丰富,但很少有实证研究还包括非研究者利益相关者的观点:我们对政策制定者、资助者、机构领导、编辑或出版商、研究诚信办公室成员、研究诚信社区成员、实验室技术人员、研究人员、研究学生以及转行的前研究人员进行了半结构化访谈和焦点小组讨论,以探究科学领域的成功、诚信和责任等话题。我们以弗拉芒生物医学领域为基线,以掌握系统环境中相互影响、相互补充的参与者的观点:鉴于研究结果的广泛性,我们将研究结果分为两篇系列论文,本篇论文将重点讨论影响诚信和科研文化的问题。我们首先发现,不同的参与者对影响科研诚信和科研文化的问题有着不同的看法。这些问题要么与个人性格和态度有关,要么与研究人员的工作环境有关。协理论文中)被描述为成功必备的要素往往被认为会破坏研究文化和研究诚信,从而加剧研究氛围的问题。尽管所有参与者都认为当前的研究氛围问题需要解决,但参与者普遍认为自己没有责任也没有能力发起变革。相反,受访者揭示了行为者群体之间的相互指责和不信任:我们的研究结果与近期的辩论产生了共鸣,并推断出了一些可能有助于推动讨论的行动要点。首先,关于研究诚信的讨论必须重新审视和解决评估研究人员的方式问题。其次,促进更好科学的方法需要解决研究氛围对研究诚信和研究文化的影响,而不是利用研究人员个人的遵纪守法情况。最后,必须优先考虑行为者之间的对话和共同决策,以确保掌握整个研究系统的观点。了解这些观点之间的关系和相互依存性是能够解决科学问题的关键。研究注册:https://osf.io/33v3m。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture. An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency. Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting. Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal. Perceptions, experiences, and motivation of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in South Africa: a qualitative study.
×
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