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

Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding (Papers: Joanna Diong, et al | July 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on October 20, 2021
Keywords: Australia, Good practice, Institutional responsibilities, Research results, Researcher responsibilities

The Linked Original Item was Posted On August, 2 2021

Scientists working in a PC1 laboratory

Abstract

Background
Australian health and medical research funders support substantial research efforts, and incentives within grant funding schemes influence researcher behaviour. We aimed to determine to what extent Australian health and medical funders incentivise responsible research practices.

This great paper offers an extremely helpful analysis of how to promote good practice in the research integrity space.  For those of us working in this area, the findings will come as no surprise.  Research funding bodies and institutions can play an extremely positive role in incentivising good practice and rewarding the practice we want to see.  Conversely, it provides an insight as to why the current distorted incentives are encouraging bad behaviour.  A recommended read for research institutions and research funding bodies.

Methods
We conducted an audit of instructions from research grant and fellowship schemes. Eight national research grants and fellowships were purposively sampled to select schemes that awarded the largest amount of funds. The funding scheme instructions were assessed against 9 criteria to determine to what extent they incentivised these responsible research and reporting practices: (1) publicly register study protocols before starting data collection, (2) register analysis protocols before starting data analysis, (3) make study data openly available, (4) make analysis code openly available, (5) make research materials openly available, (6) discourage use of publication metrics, (7) conduct quality research (e.g. adhere to reporting guidelines), (8) collaborate with a statistician, and (9) adhere to other responsible research practices. Each criterion was answered using one of the following responses: “Instructed”, “Encouraged”, or “No mention”.

Results
Across the 8 schemes from 5 funders, applicants were instructed or encouraged to address a median of 4 (range 0 to 5) of the 9 criteria. Three criteria received no mention in any scheme (register analysis protocols, make analysis code open, collaborate with a statistician). Importantly, most incentives did not seem strong as applicants were only instructed to register study protocols, discourage use of publication metrics and conduct quality research. Other criteria were encouraged but were not required.

Conclusions
Funders could strengthen the incentives for responsible research practices by requiring grant and fellowship applicants to implement these practices in their proposals. Administering institutions could be required to implement these practices to be eligible for funding. Strongly rewarding researchers for implementing robust research practices could lead to sustained improvements in the quality of health and medical research.

Keywords
Grant, Fellowship, Medical, Research transparency, Research reproducibility, Research integrity

Diong, J., Kroeger, C.M., Reynolds, K.J. s, Barnett, A. & Bero, L.A. (2021) Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00113-7
Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-021-00113-7

Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding - Research Integrity and Peer Review
Background Australian health and medical research funders support substantial research efforts, and incentives within grant funding schemes influence researcher behaviour. We aimed to determine to what extent Australian health and medical funders incentivise responsible research practices. Methods W…

Related Reading

The unbearable lightness of scientometric indices (Papers: Matteo Migheli and Giovanni B. Ramello | November 2021)

(Australia) Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding (Papers: Joanna Diong, et al | August 2021)

(Russia) Unethical Practices in Research and Publishing: Evidence from Russia – Scholarly Kitchen (Anna Abalkina | February 2021)

(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)

(South Arica) The Unintended Consequences of Using Direct Incentives to Drive the Complex Task of Research Dissemination (Papers: Evelyn Muthama & Sioux McKenna | August 2020)

(China) China bans cash rewards for publishing papers – Nature (Smriti Mallapaty | February 2020)

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

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

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

Seven Costs of the Money Chase: How Academia’s Focus on Funding Influences Scientific Progress – APS (James McKeen | September 2017)

Metrics, recognition, and rewards: it’s time to incentivise the behaviours that are good for research and researchers – LSE Impact Blog (Rebecca Lawrence | November 2017)

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

Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition (Papers: Marc A. Edwards and Siddhartha Roy | 2017)

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