The topic of responsibilities of publishers, agencies, institutions, and researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record is relevant for each of these stakeholders in the research enterprise. The RePAIR Consensus Guidelines reflect conversations on this important topic among diverse stakeholders rather than a single constituency. As such, they provide a starting point for additional discussion around improving communication among those handling retractions. To advance the field beyond the Singapore and Montreal Statements and other referenced guidelines such as those produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the RePAIR Guidelines could serve as a springboard for articulating points of tension and offering solutions. If these guidelines seek to offer specific recommendations on procedural aspects of interaction between stakeholders, however, extension beyond existing procedural guidelines (e.g., COPE and CLUE, referenced in the article) would be necessary. Such extension would require thorough literature review and additional consultation to ensure feasibility and a clear focus. Most of the RePAIR guidelines are fairly general. Unlike the Singapore and Montreal Statements that emerged from the World Conferences on Research Integrity and set forth general principles of research integrity that transcend geographic and disciplinary boundaries, the RePAIR Consensus Guidelines reflect a US-centric approach, raising challenges for implementation in diverse contexts. Many “responsibilities” delineated for stakeholders arise from the US regulatory approach to handling research misconduct. One example is suggesting that regulatory or funding agencies should “notify [the] public of findings of research misconduct according to applicable federal or agency policy.” (p. 3). Since not all countries’ regulators or funding agencies publicize findings of research misconduct, further discussions could include exploration of whether making research misconduct findings public actually contributes to fostering a responsible research culture. If the guidelines were intended for application in a US setting, additional consultation with those handling alleged breaches of research integrity, along with legal counsel, editors and publishers, and researchers from various disciplines could lead to more precise guidance. Another suggestion set forth in the RePAIR Guidelines is the notion that “Research Integrity Officers [should] ... ensure accurate reporting of data in submitted manuscripts.” (p. 4). While it is unrealistic to assume that a single individual can ensure accuracy in all manuscripts submitted by each member of a large research institution, the concept of institutional responsibility for accuracy of submissions is a critical one. Discussion of improvements to systems involving coordination between authors and relevant institutional offices could no doubt contribute to ensuring accuracy in manuscript submissions. The RePAIR Guidelines would be significantly strengthened if practical recommendations could be articulated in connection with vague concepts, such as “protect whistleblowers.” These recommendations would need to address gaps in current guidelines and rest on a solid foundation of demonstrated effectiveness and comparative review. They would need to be described in sufficient detail so as to be practical and useful, and, where possible, relevant to diverse jurisdictions. The suggestion of “overcoming barriers to communication” is a laudable goal that could serve as a Correspondence: zhhconsulting@gmail.com Z Consulting, LLC, 49 South Kalaheo Avenue, Kailua, HI 96734, USA Research Integrity and Peer Review

中文翻译：

---

评论：关于RePAIR共识指南的更广泛观点（出版商，代理商，机构和研究人员在保护研究记录的完整性方面的责任）

出版商，代理机构，研究机构和研究人员在保护研究记录的完整性方面的责任主题与研究企业中的每个利益相关者有关。《 RePAIR共识指南》反映了不同利益攸关方（而不是单个选区）之间有关此重要主题的对话。因此，它们为围绕改进撤回操作的人员之间的交流提供了额外讨论的起点。为了使该领域超越《新加坡和蒙特利尔声明》以及其他由出版道德委员会（COPE）制定的参考指南，RePAIR指南可以作为阐明紧张点和提供解决方案的跳板。但是，如果这些指南试图就利益相关者之间的交互的程序方面提供具体的建议，则有必要将其扩展到现有的程序指南（例如，本文中引用的COPE和CLUE）之外。这种扩展需要彻底的文献审查和额外的咨询，以确保可行性和明确的重点。大多数RePAIR指南都相当笼统。与世界研究诚信大会上发表的《新加坡和蒙特利尔宣言》不同，该《宣言》提出了超越地理和学科界限的研究诚信的一般原则，《 RePAIR共识指南》反映了以美国为中心的方法，给在不同环境下实施提出了挑战。为利益相关者划定的许多“责任”源于美国处理研究不当行为的监管方法。一个例子表明，监管机构或资助机构应“根据适用的联邦或机构政策，将研究不当的发现通知公众。” （第3页）。由于并非所有国家的监管机构或资助机构都会公开研究不当行为的调查结果，因此进一步的讨论可以包括探讨将研究不当行为的调查结果公之于众是否真正有助于培养负责任的研究文化。如果该指南打算在美国使用，则与处理涉嫌违反研究完整性的人员，法律顾问，编辑和出版商以及来自各个领域的研究人员进行更多协商，可能会得出更精确的指南。RePAIR指南中提出的另一个建议是“研究诚信官员[应] ...确保准确报告所提交手稿中的数据”的概念。（第4页）。假设一个人可以确保大型研究机构每个成员提交的所有手稿的准确性是不现实的，但机构对提交内容的准确性负责的概念是至关重要的。讨论改进涉及作者与相关机构办公室之间协调的系统，无疑会有助于确保稿件提交的准确性。如果可以结合模糊的概念（例如“保护举报者”）提出切实可行的建议，则将大大加强《 RePAIR指南》。这些建议将需要解决当前指南中的空白，并基于已证明的有效性和比较审查的坚实基础。需要对它们进行足够详细的描述，以使其实用和有用，并在可能的情况下与不同的司法管辖区相关。“克服沟通障碍”的建议是一个值得称赞的目标，可以作为一个函电：zhhconsulting@gmail.com Z Consulting，LLC，美国南凯卢阿Kalaheo南大街49号，喜马拉雅州96734，美国研究诚信和同行评议