Research Integrity and Peer Review ( IF 7.2 ) Pub Date : 2021-01-14 , DOI: 10.1186/s41073-020-00105-z Noémie Aubert Bonn 1 , Wim Pinxten 1
|
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.
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
中文翻译：
重新思考研究中的成功、诚信和文化（第 2 部分）——关于科学问题的多参与者定性研究
背景
研究不端行为和可疑的研究实践在过去几年中已成为越来越受到关注的主题。但是，尽管有丰富的研究成果，但很少有实证著作也包含非研究人员利益相关者的观点。
方法
我们对政策制定者、资助者、机构领导、编辑或出版商、研究诚信办公室成员、研究诚信社区成员、实验室技术人员、研究人员、研究生和转行的前研究人员进行了半结构化访谈和焦点小组调查，以询问科学领域的成功、诚信和责任等主题。我们使用佛兰德生物医学景观作为基线，以便能够掌握系统设置中相互作用和互补的参与者的观点。
结果
考虑到我们研究结果的广度，我们将研究结果分为两篇论文系列，当前的论文重点关注影响诚信和研究文化的问题。我们首先发现不同的参与者对影响研究完整性和文化的问题有不同的看法。问题要么与个性和态度有关，要么与研究人员的工作环境有关。 （在副论文中）被描述为成功所必需的要素通常被认为会破坏研究文化和研究诚信，从而加剧研究氛围问题。尽管所有参与者都同意当前的研究氛围需要得到解决，但参与者普遍不觉得有责任也没有能力发起变革。相反，受访者透露了演员群体之间的相互指责和不信任。
结论
我们的研究结果与最近的辩论产生了共鸣，并推断出一些可能有助于推进讨论的行动要点。首先，研究诚信争论必须重新审视并解决评估研究人员的方式。其次，促进更好的科学发展的方法需要解决研究氛围对研究诚信和研究文化的影响，而不是利用个别研究人员的合规性。最后，必须优先考虑参与者之间的对话和共同决策，以确保捕捉整个研究系统的观点。理解这些观点之间的关系和相互依赖性是解决科学问题的关键。
学习注册
https://osf.io/33v3m
京公网安备 11010802027423号