Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance最新文献

With the increasing focus on issues of race/ethnicity and sex/gender¹ across the spectrum of human activity, it is past time to consider how instruction in research integrity should incorporate these topics. Until very recently, issues of race/ethnicity and sex/gender have not typically appeared on any conventional lists of research integrity or responsible conduct of research (RCR) topics in the United States or, likely, other countries as well.² However, I argue that not only can we incorporate these issues, we should do so to help accomplish some of the central goals of instruction in research integrity. I also offer some initial suggestions about where and how to incorporate them within familiar topics of instruction.

This letter to the editor suggests adding a technical point to the new editorial policy expounded by Hosseini et al. on the mandatory disclosure of any use of natural language processing (NLP) systems, or generative AI, in writing scholarly publications. Such AI systems should naturally also be forbidden from being named as authors, because they would not have fulfilled prevailing authorship guidelines (such as the widely adopted ICMJE authorship criteria).

A consistent mitigation strategy used in sponsored research to manage a financial conflict of interest (FCOI) is disclosure in publications. While federal funding regulations require mitigation strategies to be monitored through the end of the project's term, manuscripts are often published after the project term has ended. We examined whether it would be valuable to extend monitoring of publications for compliance with requirements for disclosure beyond the end date of a project's term and, if so, for how long after the term has ended. Using publicly available databases, we identified FCOI reports from public universities and analyzed disclosure completion in the years before and after the end of the project's term. We found that 80.2% of FCOI reports in our sample had a publication in which a conflicted Investigator served as an author, yet less than half (43.6%) of these publications contained disclosure statements acknowledging the known FCOI. We also found that publication most commonly occurred one year after the end of the project's term. These findings indicate that an effective way to support accountability and accuracy of the scientific record would be to extend monitoring of disclosure in publications through one year following the end of the project's term.

Integrity in research is essential so that research can do what it is supposed to do: help us discover - or get closer to - the truth about the world and how it works. Research integrity means conducting oneself in ways that are worthy of the trust that the public invests in science. Efforts over the past five decades to ensure that researchers conduct themselves with integrity have focused on regulating researcher behavior. The suite of regulatory requirements - over 100 of them - is typically managed by an office of research compliance at universities and research institutions. The regulations, and the accompanying rules and policies, have created a regulatory-industrial complex that, while necessary, should give us pause. With the proliferation of regulations, professional organizations and certifications blossom, providing much-needed training and vouching for expertise in particular regulations. This credibility is crucial, but it also gives a false impression that we can regulate our way to ethical science. Creating a regulatory-industrial complex will not achieve our goal of an ethical research enterprise. We need to build ethical institutional cultures, engage the commitment of the entire research enterprise, and do the hard work of holding accountable the entire research ecosystem.

The Dirk Smeesters case is one of the most well-documented and widely publicized cases of research misconduct to date. We investigate, using a case study approach, which of Smeesters' articles were found to be unreliable and recommended for retraction, which were retracted, and which were not. We also investigate by whom, when, and how these fraudulent articles were retracted. We found that only six retraction notices exist for the seven Smeesters' fraudulent articles that were recommended for retraction. For four of the six retraction notices, there were no explicit markers that clearly indicated who wrote them (e.g., the editor and/or the publisher). Smeesters' flawed articles were retracted in 97.6 days on average by the retracting journals. Retraction practices in these elite marketing and social psychology journals ranged from a seeming failure to retract (i.e., no record of a retraction notice) to a fair (i.e., informative and transparent) retraction. We also emphasize the ramifications of failing to retract an article whose findings are based on fabricated data. We conclude by listing the lessons learned from the Smeesters case.

In this paper we will describe the arguments to adopt a jurisprudence platform for scientific misconduct, we argue that this will increase the principle of legal certainty, improve procedures, and will promote scientific integrity in other, indirect ways. With the platform that we are currently setting up in the Netherlands as a motivating example, we finally also describe the prerequisites for such a platform, its contents as well as its value in the international context.

Researchers, organizations, and governments are trying to foster research integrity. In France, the law recently permitted the appointment of research integrity officers (RIOs) in each university, to promote research integrity and handle misconducts. Since we assumed that having adequate bodies to deal with research integrity could foster research integrity, we wanted to understand how this might work more concretely. We interviewed 11 newly appointed RIOs in medical schools about how they perceive their role and cope with their responsibilities. We analyzed data following the Paillé and Muchielli's thematic analysis approach. The RIOs report a strong and interesting appropriation of concepts of research integrity, which allows them to warrant their role. Although they report that they did not seek their appointment, they show a real desire to cope with their responsibilities. They are willing to build a role which is currently poorly defined. They assert their legitimacy through their position and experience. They identify themselves with a preventive and corrective role, in an altruistic way. They emphasize their independent and collective role, congruent with other actors. The RIOs intend to be enablers of a responsible conduct of research. These results are encouraging about the potential impact of RIOs to foster research integrity.

With the continued spread of the rise of online teaching, and the massive use of 3C products (computer, communication, and consumer electronics), the cases of academic plagiarism or using others' works as own works caused by inappropriate use of the Internet are occurring all the time. However, very little research has been conducted on the cyber ethical climate in relation to cyber academic dishonesty. This study investigates the structural relationship between cyber ethical climate, cyber self-efficacy, cyber ethical attitude and cyber academic dishonesty, among university and graduate students, and develops a multiple mediation model. A total of 812 university and graduate students from 32 universities in Taiwan completed the online questionnaire. The results of the study show that the multiple mediation model is valid and find that the cyber ethical climate creates a favorable context for organizing members to demonstrate cyber ethical behavior, demonstrating the importance of mutual influence on cyber academic dishonesty between the cyber ethical climate created by teachers and the cyber ethical climate of class peers. Based on these results, we deeply examine the practical implications and make specific recommendations to improve the cyber ethical behavior of university and graduate students.