负责任的研究实践可以得到澳大利亚大学研究行为准则的更强有力的支持。

Yi Kai Ong, Kay L Double, Lisa Bero, Joanna Diong
{"title":"负责任的研究实践可以得到澳大利亚大学研究行为准则的更强有力的支持。","authors":"Yi Kai Ong,&nbsp;Kay L Double,&nbsp;Lisa Bero,&nbsp;Joanna Diong","doi":"10.1186/s41073-023-00129-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to investigate how strongly Australian university codes of research conduct endorse responsible research practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Codes of research conduct from 25 Australian universities active in health and medical research were obtained from public websites, and audited against 19 questions to assess how strongly they (1) defined research integrity, research quality, and research misconduct, (2) required research to be approved by an appropriate ethics committee, (3) endorsed 9 responsible research practices, and (4) discouraged 5 questionable research practices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, a median of 10 (IQR 9 to 12) of 19 practices covered in the questions were mentioned, weakly endorsed, or strongly endorsed. Five to 8 of 9 responsible research practices were mentioned, weakly, or strongly endorsed, and 3 questionable research practices were discouraged. Results are stratified by Group of Eight (n = 8) and other (n = 17) universities. Specifically, (1) 6 (75%) Group of Eight and 11 (65%) other codes of research conduct defined research integrity, 4 (50%) and 8 (47%) defined research quality, and 7 (88%) and 16 (94%) defined research misconduct. (2) All codes required ethics approval for human and animal research. (3) All codes required conflicts of interest to be declared, but there was variability in how strongly other research practices were endorsed. The most commonly endorsed practices were ensuring researcher training in research integrity [8 (100%) and 16 (94%)] and making study data publicly available [6 (75%) and 12 (71%)]. The least commonly endorsed practices were making analysis code publicly available [0 (0%) and 0 (0%)] and registering analysis protocols [0 (0%) and 1 (6%)]. (4) Most codes discouraged fabricating data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], selectively deleting or modifying data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], and selective reporting of results [3 (38%) and 15 (88%)]. No codes discouraged p-hacking or hypothesising after results are known.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct. Our findings may not be generalisable to smaller universities, or those not active in health and medical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10242962/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct.\",\"authors\":\"Yi Kai Ong,&nbsp;Kay L Double,&nbsp;Lisa Bero,&nbsp;Joanna Diong\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41073-023-00129-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to investigate how strongly Australian university codes of research conduct endorse responsible research practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Codes of research conduct from 25 Australian universities active in health and medical research were obtained from public websites, and audited against 19 questions to assess how strongly they (1) defined research integrity, research quality, and research misconduct, (2) required research to be approved by an appropriate ethics committee, (3) endorsed 9 responsible research practices, and (4) discouraged 5 questionable research practices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, a median of 10 (IQR 9 to 12) of 19 practices covered in the questions were mentioned, weakly endorsed, or strongly endorsed. Five to 8 of 9 responsible research practices were mentioned, weakly, or strongly endorsed, and 3 questionable research practices were discouraged. Results are stratified by Group of Eight (n = 8) and other (n = 17) universities. Specifically, (1) 6 (75%) Group of Eight and 11 (65%) other codes of research conduct defined research integrity, 4 (50%) and 8 (47%) defined research quality, and 7 (88%) and 16 (94%) defined research misconduct. (2) All codes required ethics approval for human and animal research. (3) All codes required conflicts of interest to be declared, but there was variability in how strongly other research practices were endorsed. The most commonly endorsed practices were ensuring researcher training in research integrity [8 (100%) and 16 (94%)] and making study data publicly available [6 (75%) and 12 (71%)]. The least commonly endorsed practices were making analysis code publicly available [0 (0%) and 0 (0%)] and registering analysis protocols [0 (0%) and 1 (6%)]. (4) Most codes discouraged fabricating data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], selectively deleting or modifying data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], and selective reporting of results [3 (38%) and 15 (88%)]. No codes discouraged p-hacking or hypothesising after results are known.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct. Our findings may not be generalisable to smaller universities, or those not active in health and medical research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10242962/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00129-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00129-1","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: 1

摘要

背景:本研究旨在调查澳大利亚大学研究行为准则对负责任的研究实践的认可程度。方法:从公共网站上获得活跃于健康和医学研究的25所澳大利亚大学的研究行为准则,并根据19个问题进行审计,以评估它们(1)定义研究诚信、研究质量和研究不端行为的程度,(2)要求研究得到适当的伦理委员会的批准,(3)支持负责任的研究实践,(4)劝阻有问题的研究实践。结果:总体而言,问题涵盖的19个实践中有10个(IQR 9至12)被提及,弱支持或强烈支持。9个负责任的研究实践中有5到8个被提及,弱或强烈支持,3个有问题的研究实践不被鼓励。结果按八国集团(n = 8)和其他(n = 17)所大学进行分层。具体来说,(1)6(75%)和11(65%)其他研究行为准则定义了研究诚信,4(50%)和8(47%)定义了研究质量,7(88%)和16(94%)定义了研究不端行为。(2)所有守则都需要获得人类和动物研究的伦理批准。(3)所有规范都要求声明利益冲突,但对其他研究实践的认可程度存在差异。最普遍认可的做法是确保研究人员在研究诚信方面的培训[8(100%)和16(94%)],以及使研究数据公开[6(75%)和12(71%)]。最不常被认可的实践是使分析代码公开可用[0(0%)和0(0%)]和注册分析协议[0(0%)和1(6%)]。(4)大多数法规不鼓励捏造数据[5(63%)和15(88%)],选择性删除或修改数据[5(63%)和15(88%)],以及选择性报告结果[3(38%)和15(88%)]。在结果已知之后,没有任何代码阻止p-hacking或假设。结论:负责任的研究实践可以得到澳大利亚大学研究行为准则的更强有力的支持。我们的研究结果可能不适用于规模较小的大学,或者那些在健康和医学研究方面不活跃的大学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct.

Background: This study aimed to investigate how strongly Australian university codes of research conduct endorse responsible research practices.

Methods: Codes of research conduct from 25 Australian universities active in health and medical research were obtained from public websites, and audited against 19 questions to assess how strongly they (1) defined research integrity, research quality, and research misconduct, (2) required research to be approved by an appropriate ethics committee, (3) endorsed 9 responsible research practices, and (4) discouraged 5 questionable research practices.

Results: Overall, a median of 10 (IQR 9 to 12) of 19 practices covered in the questions were mentioned, weakly endorsed, or strongly endorsed. Five to 8 of 9 responsible research practices were mentioned, weakly, or strongly endorsed, and 3 questionable research practices were discouraged. Results are stratified by Group of Eight (n = 8) and other (n = 17) universities. Specifically, (1) 6 (75%) Group of Eight and 11 (65%) other codes of research conduct defined research integrity, 4 (50%) and 8 (47%) defined research quality, and 7 (88%) and 16 (94%) defined research misconduct. (2) All codes required ethics approval for human and animal research. (3) All codes required conflicts of interest to be declared, but there was variability in how strongly other research practices were endorsed. The most commonly endorsed practices were ensuring researcher training in research integrity [8 (100%) and 16 (94%)] and making study data publicly available [6 (75%) and 12 (71%)]. The least commonly endorsed practices were making analysis code publicly available [0 (0%) and 0 (0%)] and registering analysis protocols [0 (0%) and 1 (6%)]. (4) Most codes discouraged fabricating data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], selectively deleting or modifying data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], and selective reporting of results [3 (38%) and 15 (88%)]. No codes discouraged p-hacking or hypothesising after results are known.

Conclusions: Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct. Our findings may not be generalisable to smaller universities, or those not active in health and medical research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
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. Peer review trends in six fisheries science journals. Enhancing reporting through structure: a before and after study on the effectiveness of SPIRIT-based templates to improve the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trial protocols. Promoting equality, diversity and inclusion in research and funding: reflections from a digital manufacturing research network.
×
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