Suchergebnisse

AbstractThere is little research on the content of research integrity (RI)–related guidance provided by pan-European discipline-specific learned societies, or how this guidance compares with recommendations made in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA code). Therefore, we aimed to (1) assess the availability of RI guidance from these learned societies, (2) compare learned societies' guidance with the ALLEA code, and (3) explore similarities and differences in guidance between learned societies of different disciplines. Using a scoping review, we identified 245 learned societies, from which we identified and conducted a content analysis of fifty-eight guideline documents, developed by forty-six of these learned societies. Less than 25 per cent of learned societies in any discipline provide guidance, and there are notable disciplinary differences. Recommendations made by learned societies, which are not reflected in the ALLEA code, relate primarily to research culture and environment. Medical and Health Sciences societies often focus on regulatory and procedural aspects of research, whereas Natural Sciences societies emphasize the importance of accurate and appropriate dissemination of results. Humanities and Social Sciences societies' recommendations are more heterogeneous and closely related to the nature of specific subdisciplines. Our results reflect differences in epistemological approaches as well as the specific roles and responsibilities of learned societies. We recommend that learned societies develop, or endorse, appropriate RI guidance.

To foster research integrity (RI), it is necessary to address the institutional and system-of-science factors that influence researchers' behavior. Consequently, research performing and research funding organizations (RPOs and RFOs) could develop comprehensive RI policies outlining the concrete steps they will take to foster RI. So far, there is no consensus on which topics are important to address in RI policies. Therefore, we conducted a three round Delphi survey study to explore which RI topics to address in institutional RI policies by seeking consensus from research policy experts and institutional leaders. A total of 68 RPO and 52 RFO experts, representing different disciplines, countries and genders, completed one, two or all rounds of the study. There was consensus among the experts on the importance of 12 RI topics for RPOs and 11 for RFOs. The topics that ranked highest for RPOs concerned education and training, supervision and mentoring, dealing with RI breaches, and supporting a responsible research process (e.g. through quality assurance). The highest ranked RFO topics concerned dealing with breaches of RI, conflicts of interest, and setting expectations on RPOs (e.g. about educating researchers about RI). Together with the research policy experts and institutional leaders, we developed a comprehensive overview of topics important for inclusion in the RI policies of RPOs and RFOs. The topics reflect preference for a preventative approach to RI, coupled with procedures for dealing with RI breaches. RPOs and RFOs should address each of these topics in order to support researchers in conducting responsible research.

"Co-creation is a qualitative research methodology that engages stakeholders in playful activities to produce user-centered outputs. Through an interactive and open approach, co-creation explores stakeholders' latent values, generates innovative ideas, and captures minority views, allowing for in-depth understanding of how stakeholders are affected by various factors. Therefore, co-creation is a promising methodology for developing guidelines on research integrity (RI), although there is no literature available about co-creation in this context. In our presentation, we share experiences of using co-creation to design institutional guidelines on RI together with research managers, funders and researchers across Europe. We conducted 24 co-creation workshops on topics ranging from RI education, to creating a responsible research environment, resulting in concrete guidelines that research institutions and funders can implement to foster RI. Our experience has provided us with valuable insights on using co-creation for RI guideline development. While motivating research stakeholders – often serious and analytically oriented people – to engage in creative exercises can be a challenge, particularly in the online setting, it is possible to achieve when 'play' and 'work' are carefully balanced. Additionally, to ensure the concreteness of guidelines while accounting for differences among institutions and countries, best practice examples can be used to show different approaches to implementing more general guidance. We have also learned that it is valuable to explore stakeholders' preferences regarding the guideline format, since implementability is not only influenced by the content. These insights provide practical considerations that other researchers can use when co-creating RI guidelines. "

AbstractEducation is important for fostering research integrity (RI). Although RI training is increasingly provided, there is little knowledge on how research stakeholders view institutional RI education and training policies. Following a constructivist approach, we present insights about research stakeholders' views and experiences regarding how research institutions can develop and implement RI education and training policies. We conducted thirty focus groups, engaging 147 participants in eight European countries. Using a mixed deductive-inductive thematic analysis, we identified five themes: (1) RI education should be available to all; (2) education and training approaches and goals should be tailored; (3) motivating trainees is essential; (4) both formal and informal educational formats are necessary; and (5) institutions should take into account various individual, institutional, and system-of-science factors when implementing RI education. Our findings suggest that institutions should make RI education attractive for all and tailor training to disciplinary-specific contexts.