Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) — a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science (Papers: Noémie Aubert Bonn & Wim Pinxten | January 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on January 21, 2021
Keywords: Institutional responsibilities, Journal, Publication ethics, Research integrity, Research results, Researcher responsibilities

The Linked Original Item was Posted On January, 14 2021

Two street signs pointing towards "QUANTITY" and "QUALITY"

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.

The follow-on to yesterday’s paper about the interrelation between an institution’s approach to research culture, research outputs and incentives. Not surprisingly, this second paper finds an interrelation and a sense of powerlessness from the players. The implications here is that institutions should strive to support a culture that celebrates quality research, rather than publishing in a top journal. We have included links to a big list of related items.

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

Aubert, B N. & Pinxten, W. (2021) Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) — a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 6, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00105-z
Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00105-z

 

Related Reading

Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) — a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science (Papers: Noémie Aubert Bonn & Wim Pinxten | January 2021)

Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 1) — a multi-actor qualitative study on success in science (Papers: Noémie Aubert Bonn & Wim Pinxten | January 2021)

Collective actions to strengthen research integrity – Clarivate – Web of Science (Webinar: Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) | December 2020)

(Germany) Institutions can retool to make research more rigorous – Nature (Ulrich Dirnagl | October 2020)

Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk – Nature (Niels Mejlgaard, et al | October 2020)

Hong Kong Principles

(Canada) Do Tenure and Promotion Policies Discourage Publications in Predatory Journals? (Papers: Fiona A.E. McQuarrie, April 2020et al | )

Dozens of scientific journals have vanished from the internet, and no one preserved them – Science (Jeffrey Brainard | September 2020)

Why Professors Are Writing Crap That Nobody Reads – NewsIn Asia (Editor | July 2020)

Five better ways to assess science – Nature Index (Benjamin Plackett | August 2020)

The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity (Papers: David Moher, et al | July 2020)

(Australia) UTS loses application to appeal against reinstatement of academic sacked for not publishing enough research – Sydney Morning Herald (Anna Patty | July 2020)

Articles in ‘predatory’ journals receive few or no citations – Science (Jeffrey Brainard | January 2020)

How Frequently are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited (Papers: Bo-Christer Björk, et al | December 2019)

‘Broken access’ publishing corrodes quality – Nature (Adriano Aguzzi | June 2019)

(Australia) Industrial umpire lashes universities ‘obsessed’ with rankings and reputation – Sydney Morning Herald (Nick Bonyhady & Natassia Chrysanthos | March 2020)

How Academic Science Gave Its Soul to the Publishing Industry – Issues in Science and Technology (Mark Neff | January 2020)

When it comes to good practice in science, we need to think global but act local – Nature (Editorial | December 2019)

Working with research integrity – guidance for research performing organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement (Resource | February 2018)

Guest Post: Interesting Versus True? Measuring Transparency and Reproducibility of Biomedical Articles – Scholarly Kitchen (Anita Bandrowski and Martijn Roelandse | December 2019)

Turning the tables: A university league-table based on quality not quantity (Papers: Adrian G. Barnett & David Moher | July 2019)

Repairing an Institutional Reputation Tarnished by Fraudulent Publishing – Scholarly Kitchen (Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe | September 2019)

Australia ‘There is a problem’: Australia’s top scientist Alan Finkel pushes to eradicate bad science – The Conversation (Alan Finkel | September 2019)

Why India is striking back against predatory journals – Nature (Bhushan Patwardhan | July 2019)

Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey (Papers: Kelly D Cobey, et al | March 2019)

The Rise of Junk Science – The Walrus (Alex Gillis | July 2019)

Junior researchers are losing out by ghostwriting peer reviews – Nature (Virginia Gewin | May 2019)

Research integrity is much more than misconduct – Nature (C. K. Gunsalus | June 2019)

SPEECH: Actions to advance research integrity – Dr Alan Finkel AO (6th World Conference on Research Integrity | June 2019)

To move research from quantity to quality, go beyond good intentions – Nature ( Alan Finkel | February 2019)

The Foundation of Knowledge Production: Research Ethics Education in Taiwan (PowerPoint: Chien Chou | September 2018)

Publish AND perish: how the commodification of scientific publishing is undermining both science and the public good – Learning for Sustainability (Arjen Wals | December 2018)

Science isn’t broken, but we can do better: here’s how – The Conversation (Alan Finkel | April 2018)

NIH to researchers: Don’t publish in bad journals, please – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | December 2017)

The Rush to Publication: An Editorial and Scientific Mistake – JAMA Editorial (Howard Bauchner | September 2017)

Funding debate over paper quality vs quantity – Nature Index (Dyani Lewis | September 2017)

Greater risk of academic fraud as competition grows: Experts – The Straits Times (Yuen Sin | November 2017)

Upholding Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics – Wiley Exchanges (Chris Graf | July 2017)

Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century (Papers: Daniele Fanelli and Vincent Larivière | 2016)

Predatory Publishing as a Rational Response to Poorly Governed Academic Incentives – Scholarly Kitchen (David Crott | February 2017)

Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication (Review) (Papers: Ana Marusic et al 2016)

Related Links

  • About the contributors
  • About the keywords
  • Suggest a resource
  • Report problem/broken link
  • Request a Take Down

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books
  • Animal Ethics

Human Research Ethics

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in