Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance最新文献

Research misconduct, broadly defined as acts of fabrication, falsification and/or plagiarism, violate the value system of science, cost significant wastage of public resources, and in more extreme cases endanger research participants or members of the society at large. Determination of culpability in research misconduct requires establishment of intent on the part of the respondent or perpetrator. However, "intent" is a state of mind, and its perception is subjective, unequivocal evidence for which would not be as readily established compared to the objective evidence available for the acts themselves. Here, we explore the concept of "intent" in research misconduct, how it is framed in criminological/legal terms, and narrated from a psychological perspective. Based on these, we propose a framework whereby lines of questioning and investigation, as defined by legislative terms and informed by the models and tools of psychology, could help in establishing a preponderance of evidence for culpable intent. Such a framework could be useful in research misconduct adjudications and in delivering sanctions.

Although adherence to Mertonian values of science (i.e., communism, universalism, organized skepticism, disinterestedness) is desired and promoted in academia, such adherence can cause friction with the normative structures and practices of Open Science. Mertonian values and Open Science practices aim to improve the conduct and communication of research and are promoted by institutional actors. However, Mertonian values remain mostly idealistic and contextualized in local and disciplinary cultures and Open Science practices rely heavily on third-party resources and technology that are not equally accessible to all parties. Furthermore, although still popular, Mertonian values were developed in a different institutional and political context. In this article, we argue that new normative structures for science need to look beyond nostalgia and consider aspirations and outcomes of Open Science practices. To contribute to such a vision, we explore the intersection of several Open Science practices with Mertonian values to flesh out challenges involved in upholding these values. We demonstrate that this intersection becomes complicated when the interests of numerous groups collide and contrast. Acknowledging and exploring such tensions informs our understanding of researchers' behavior and supports efforts that seek to improve researchers' interactions with other normative structures such as research ethics and integrity frameworks.

The frequency of scientific retractions has grown substantially in recent years. However, thus far there is no standardized retraction notice format to which journals and their publishers adhere voluntarily, let alone compulsorily. We developed a rubric specifying seven criteria in order to judge whether retraction notices are easily and freely accessible, informative, and transparent. We mined the Retraction Watch database and evaluated a total of 768 retraction notices from two publishers (Springer and Wiley) over three years (2010, 2015, and 2020). Per our rubric, both publishers tended to score higher on measures of openness/availability, accessibility, and clarity as to why a paper was retracted than they did in: acknowledging institutional investigations; confirming whether there was consensus among authors; and specifying which parts of any given paper warranted retraction. Springer retraction notices appeared to improve over time with respect to the rubric's seven criteria. We observed some discrepancies among raters, indicating the difficulty in developing a robust objective rubric for evaluating retraction notices.

Background: A person's cultural background shapes how they interpret and navigate problems. Given that large numbers of international researchers work and train in the U.S. we sought to better understand how researchers use the decision-making strategy of seeking help to navigate ethical and professional challenges.Methods: Participants (N = 300) were researchers working or training in the U.S. who were born in East Asia (EA) or born in the U.S. They completed a screening survey; then a subset completed think-aloud interviews (n = 66) focused on how they would respond to three hypothetical research scenarios.Results: Thematic analysis of the transcripts showed that seeking help was a commonly endorsed strategy, with some nuances between groups. Themes included seeking help in the form of getting advice, seeking someone to help solve the problem, and gathering information. Endorsement of the seeking help strategy frequently depended on participants' relationships; desiring to seek help from people they trusted. Notably, EA participants tended to prefer seeking help in ways that avoided reputational harm to others.Conclusion: A better understanding of how researchers from different cultural backgrounds use decision-making strategies can inform how to make educational programs more inclusive and comprehensive to more effectively develop researchers' ethical and professional decision-making skills.

Ethical safeguards such as debriefing are often recommended or required for research studies in which participants are deceived. However, existing guidance on these safeguards seems insufficiently coherent and precise, which may be associated with their suboptimal implementation in practice. This study aimed to contribute to a more coherent and precise framework of ethical safeguards in deceptive studies through semi-structured interviews with a diverse sample of 24 researchers who had significant experience with deception. Interviewees discussed which ethical safeguards they implemented and how, as well as their relation to the notion of truthfulness (i.e., the intentional communication of true information). Moreover, interviewees provided a variety of reasons for and against implementing these safeguards, as well as how these reasons varied with the particular context of a study. Overall, the current study contributes to a more coherent and precise understanding of ethical safeguards in deceptive research that could be useful for guiding researchers and ethics reviewers in their ethical decision-making, although certain imprecisions and incoherent aspects remain in need of further investigation and normative reflection.

The Retraction Watch Database (RWDB) is widely used to retrieve retraction data. However, its lack of affiliation normalization hinders the retrieval efficiency of retraction data for specific research-performing organizations. A query for a university name in the RWDB may yield retraction data entries for other universities with similar names, giving rise to the issue of affiliation naming proximity. This study assessed the impact of this issue on the retrieval efficiency of retraction records for 2,692 Chinese university names in English. The analysis revealed that the retrieval efficiency of retraction records for 206 Chinese university names can be influenced by 408 university names. As of 2022, the retrieval efficiency of retraction records for 96 Chinese university names was compromised by the involvement of 402 university names, resulting in an overall retraction inflation rate of 37.9% and an average rate of 45.0%. The findings highlight the importance of curating retraction data through affiliation-specific queries in the RWDB, adhering to the official English names of Chinese universities for scholarly publishing, and adopting the Research Organization Registry system for affiliation disambiguation. Given the significance of this issue concerning the English names of universities in non-English-speaking countries, the identified causes of the problem and proposed solutions can offer valuable insights for improving the retrieval of retraction records for non-Chinese universities in the RWDB.

Background: The significance of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) education in higher education is well-acknowledged. However, the lack of interactivity in online RCR courses remains a concern for course designers and instructors. This research aims to identify types of interactivity embedded in RCR courses and examine graduate students' perceived interactivity in different course formats (online versus face-to-face) by two distinct samples.

Methods/materials: Study one, involving 191 participants, identified the model construct of the Learner Perceptions of Interactivity Scale for RCR. The result indicated a 15-item scale characterized by three factors: self-control, human-interaction, and information-access. Study two, involving a sample of 390 individuals who received both formats of RCR instruction, confirmed the instrument's reliability and explored students' perceptions of interactivity types within the two formats.

Results: Notably, students in Study 2 perceived a higher degree of human interaction in the face-to-face format while attributing more significance to self-control and information access in the online course. Approximately 80% of the students expressed a preference for a fully online course if given another opportunity to choose or recommend a format. This preference was attributed to their inclination toward more control and access, underscoring the significance of these elements in shaping their learning experiences.