Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance最新文献

Serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations undermine the quality of research and trust in science. When researchers engage in these behaviors, institutional officials (IOs) often develop corrective action plans. Ideally, such plans address the root causes so noncompliance or research integrity violations discontinue. The aim of this study was to identify what IOs perceive as causes and action plan activities typically prescribed. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 47 IOs at research institutions across the U.S. including: institutional review board and institutional animal care and use committee chairs and directors, chief research officers, research compliance and integrity officers, and institutional conflicts of interest chairs and directors. The most common root causes identified were: 1) lack of knowledge or training, 2) failure to provide research team supervision, and 3) researcher attitudes toward compliance. The most common action plan activities include: 1) retraining in compliance or research integrity, 2) follow-up and hands-on involvement with the researcher, and 3) mandated oversight or mentoring. Because the most commonly identified action plan activities fail to adequately address the majority of root causes, our findings suggest a need for IOs to rethink existing approaches to action plan development to more effectively target root causes.

Background: This autoethnographic study examines email invitations for health researchers to publish in journals outside their expertise, exploring implications for interdisciplinary research and knowledge production.Methods: Over three months, email invitations to publish outside the author's field were documented and analysed thematically and through reflexive journaling.Results: Five main themes in publication invitations were identified: emphasising novelty, promising rapid publication, appealing to research impact, flattering language, and persistent messaging. Reflexive analysis revealed complex factors shaping responses, including publication pressures, desires for prestige, and tensions between disciplinary norms and interdisciplinary collaboration. While invitations may present opportunities for novel collaborations, they often reflect predatory publishing practices.Conclusions: Navigating this landscape requires careful discernment, commitment to academic integrity, and reflexivity about one's positionality. The study underscores the need for researchers to critically interrogate the motivations behind such invitations. Further research could explore decision-making processes across disciplines and implications for academic publishing integrity and equity.

Background: Effective leadership and management practices contribute to responsible, high-quality research and the well-being of team members. We describe the development and initial validation of a measure assessing principal investigators' leadership and management practices and a measure of research team practices.

Methods: Using a cross-sectional survey design, 570 postdoctoral researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health reported on the perceived behaviors of their principal investigator (PI) and the research team. The PI leadership and management items factored into two dimensions: fostering relationships and directing research.

Results: Correlations of these new scales with existing, validated measures of ethical leadership and general leader behavior provided evidence of convergent validity. Providing evidence for criterion-related validity, scores on the new measures predicted lab climate for research ethics, self-reported productivity, and job satisfaction. Research team practices provided additional predictive value beyond leadership and management behaviors.

Conclusions: This study provides construct validity evidence for the new Leadership and Management in Science (LAMPS) Measure and the Research Team Practices (RTP) Measure. Qualitative responses to an open-ended item reinforced the importance of relationships and directive supervision for a positive environment. These measures can be useful tools for future research or may be useful for PIs seeking feedback about their practices.

Background: Even though replication research has gained traction within academia over the recent years, it is not often well-received as a stand-alone thesis topic by supervisors and university administrators.Methods: In this qualitative investigation, we delve into the perspectives of academic supervisors on the feasibility of replication as a thesis topic within the field of applied linguistics (AL). Drawing on Institutional Theory, administrative pressures facing supervisors on what to be considered permissible for a thesis were also explored. By conducting semi-structured e-mail interviews with a global cohort of AL supervisors and a thematic analysis of their responses, a nuanced landscape was brought to light.Results: Supervisors outlined numerous benefits associated with replication including fostering academic advancement as well as providing opportunities for reevaluating prior research. Nonetheless, they also pointed to several obstacles along the way, such as concerns over originality, constraints on time and resources, and the necessity for mentorship. Moreover, supervisors emphasized their pivotal role as decision-makers in accepting or rejecting replication for a thesis project, while acknowledging the partial influence of institutional pressures.Conclusions: Lastly, some implications and recommendations on allocating more resources to replication research are provided.

Background: The rapid acceleration of authorship inflation-increasing numbers of authors per publication in collaborative research-has rendered the traditional "substantial contributions" criterion for authorship and the lack of transparency in author contributions increasingly problematic.Methods and results: To address these challenges, a revamped approach to authorship is proposed, replacing the rigid requirement of "substantial contributions" with a more flexible, project-specific criterion of "sufficient contributions," as determined and justified by the authors for each project. This change more accurately reflects and accommodates the proliferation of scientific collaboration ("team science" or "group science"). It broadens the scope and granularity of roles deserving of authorship by integrating the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) and Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) systems. It mandates in-text documentation of who did what (e.g., who collected what data) and moves beyond the typical binary (all-or-none) classification by assigning a gradated contribution level to each author for each role. Contributions can be denoted using an ordinal scale-either coarse (e.g., lead, equal, and supporting) or fine-grained (e.g., minimal, slight, moderate, substantial, extensive, and full). To support the implementation of the revamped approach, an authorship policy template is provided.Conclusions: Adopting proportional, role-specific credit allocation and explicit documentation of contributions fosters a more transparent, equitable, and trustworthy scientific environment.

Background: Understanding review comments holds significant importance within the realm of scientific discourse. This study aims to conduct an empirical analysis of factors associated with praise in peer review.Methods: The study involved manual labeling of "praise" in 952 review comments drawn from 301 articles published in the British Medical Journal, followed by regression analysis.Results: The study reveals that authors tend to receive longer praise when they share a cultural proximity with the reviewers. Additionally, it is observed that female reviewers are more inclined to provide praiseConclusions: In summary, these discoveries contribute valuable insights for the development of a constructive peer review process and the establishment of a more inclusive research culture.

Background: This study explored experiences of quantitative researchers who work with marginalized populations.Methods/materials: Participants were recruited from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology forum, and asked questions regarding their struggles and best practices while working with marginalized populations in which they are or are not a member.Results: Responses included concerns regarding bidirectional trust, community norms, perceived bias, diversity and participant recruitment and compensation. We explore the benefits of qualitative understandings of bias (i.e. positionality, reflexivity), salient concerns reported by quantitative researchers, and our recommendations for the ethical inclusion of these practices across quantitative work.Conclusions: This paper contributes to understanding of current struggles and best practices while conducting research among marginalized populations. Additionally, we encourage quantitative researchers to engage in reflexive research practices, particularly for the benefit of marginalized group research. We extend the insider-outsider researcher discussion to quantitative researchers.

Research integrity (RI) is crucial for trustworthy research. Rules are important in setting RI standards and improving research practice, but they can lead to increased bureaucracy; without commensurate commitment amongst researchers toward RI, they are unlikely to improve research practices. In this paper, we explore how to combine rules and commitment in fostering RI. Research institutions can govern RI using markets (using incentives), bureaucracies (using rules), and network processes (through commitment and agreements). Based on Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action, we argue that network processes, as part of the lifeworld, can legitimize systems - that is, market or bureaucratic governance modes. This can regulate and support RI practices in an efficient way. Systems can also become dominant and repress consensus processes. Fostering RI requires a balance between network, market and bureaucratic governance modes. We analyze the institutional response to a serious RI case to illustrate how network processes can be combined with bureaucratic rules. Specifically, we analyze how the Science Committee established at Tilburg University in 2012 has navigated different governance modes, resulting in a normatively grounded and efficient approach to fostering RI. Based on this case, we formulate recommendations to research institutions on how to combine rules and commitment.

Organizational climate and culture are important for research organizations because they foster research integrity and responsible conduct of research, reduce questionable research practices, and improve job satisfaction. The aim of our study was to explore how employees and students perceive organizational climate and its consequences in the university setting. We conducted semi-structured interviews with senior students and employees (teaching and non-teaching staff) from two different university schools: School of Medicine and Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Participants were asked questions regarding perceived climate, working environment, and the role of the institution. The data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis approach. Three themes were identified. The first theme addressed the difference in the perception and understanding of organizational climate. The second theme dealt with institutional issues emanating from organizational climate. The third theme described the behavior of stakeholders in the formation of organizational climate. Organizational climate is important concept in academic organizations as it influences both employees, particularly early career researchers, and students. Institutional leadership can strongly influence organizational climate, which can in turn affect job and job satisfaction. Due to the importance of personal morality on everyday decision-making, virtue-based research integrity training could be useful in improving academic institutions' organizational climate.