Relationships between the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC) and self-reported research practices

Perceptions of the Research Integrity Climate in Egyptian Universities: A Survey Among Academic Researchers

Problem: Investigations regarding perceptions of the institutional research integrity climate in the Arab Middle East remain underexplored. Subjects: We surveyed faculty from three Egyptian universities. Method: We utilized the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SOuRCe) tool, which incorporates seven subscales that measure different aspects of the research integrity climate. Responses were obtained from a 5-point Likert scale. Findings: Of the 228 participants, the subscales 'Regulatory Quality' and '[Lack of] Integrity Inhibitors' received the highest mean scores, whereas the lowest scores pertained to 'Departmental Expectations,' 'Integrity Socialization,' and 'Responsible Conduct of Research´ indicating areas in need of improvement. Conclusions: Academic leaders should set fairer expectations for research and funding for their researchers, ensure junior researchers are socialized into research integrity practices, and promote effective RCR training and availability of RCR policies. We identify specific targeted interventions to enhance the research integrity climate within these institutions.

Mismatch in perceptions of the quality of supervision and research data management as an area of concern: Results from a university-wide survey of the research integrity culture at a Belgian university

Researchers of KU Leuven, a large Belgian university, were invited to complete a bespoke questionnaire assessing their attitudes toward research integrity and the local research culture, with specific emphasis on the supervision of junior researchers. A total of 7,353 invitations were sent via e-mail and 1,866 responses were collected (25.3% response rate), of which 1,723 responses are reported upon here. Some of the findings are relevant to the broader research community. Whereas supervisors evaluated their supervision of junior researchers almost unanimously as positive, fewer supervisees evaluated it as such. Data management emerged as an area of concern, both in terms of reviewing raw data and of data storage. More female than male professors emphasized open communication and supported their supervisees' professional development and personal well-being. At the same time, fewer female professors felt safe to speak up than male professors. Finally, researchers who obtained their master's degree outside Europe evaluated their supervision and KU Leuven's research culture more positively than researchers with a master's degree from KU Leuven. The results of the survey were fed back to the university's board and several bodies and served as input to update the university's research policy. Faculties and departments received a detailed report.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding plagiarism of postgraduate students in Myanmar

Information regarding the prevalence of plagiarism and its contributing factors are limited in Myanmar. We aimed to explore the knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported plagiarism practices of postgraduate students in Myanmar's universities and determine the factors associated with plagiarism. We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire study during 2019-2020. The questionnaire contained: 1) demographics, 2) knowledge on plagiarism, 3) attitudes toward plagiarism, and 4) self-reported plagiarism practices. We calculated attitudes and plagiarism severity scores (PSS). We conducted multiple linear regression analyses and binary logistic regression analyses. A p-value <0.05 denoted statistical significance. We enrolled 217 participants. Of our participants, 37.6% self-reported at least one plagiarism act. The mean attitude score (S.D.) was 62.24 (10.44), (maximum score was 92, higher scores represent disapproval of plagiarism). This attitude score reflects only a moderate attitude toward disapproval of plagiarism. The attitude score was significantly higher for doctoral students (9.2%) than master students (90.8%); p = 0.003; and for participants with publications (13.4%) compared with those without publications (86.6%); p = 0.005. The attitude score was a significant predictor of the PSS. We conclude that there is evidence to suggest that plagiarism represents a significant ethical issue in Myanmar and recommend that Myanmar universities provide training in responsible conduct of research.

Perception of organizational climate by university staff and students in medicine and humanities: A qualitative study

Organizational climate and culture are important for research organizations because they foster research integrity and responsible conduct of research, reduce questionable research practices, and improve job satisfaction. The aim of our study was to explore how employees and students perceive organizational climate and its consequences in the university setting. We conducted semi-structured interviews with senior students and employees (teaching and non-teaching staff) from two different university schools: School of Medicine and Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Participants were asked questions regarding perceived climate, working environment, and the role of the institution. The data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis approach. Three themes were identified. The first theme addressed the difference in the perception and understanding of organizational climate. The second theme dealt with institutional issues emanating from organizational climate. The third theme described the behavior of stakeholders in the formation of organizational climate. Organizational climate is important concept in academic organizations as it influences both employees, particularly early career researchers, and students. Institutional leadership can strongly influence organizational climate, which can in turn affect job and job satisfaction. Due to the importance of personal morality on everyday decision-making, virtue-based research integrity training could be useful in improving academic institutions' organizational climate.

Leaving academia: PhD attrition and unhealthy research environments

This study investigates PhD candidates’ (N = 391) perceptions about their research environment at a Dutch university in terms of the research climate, (un)ethical supervisory practices, and questionable research practices. We assessed whether their perceptions are related to career considerations. We gathered quantitative self-report estimations of the perceptions of PhD candidates using an online survey tool and then conducted descriptive and within-subject correlation analysis of the results. While most PhD candidates experience fair evaluation processes, openness, integrity, trust, and freedom in their research climate, many report lack of time and support, insufficient supervision, and witness questionable research practices. Results based on Spearman correlations indicate that those who experience a less healthy research environment (including experiences with unethical supervision, questionable practices, and barriers to responsible research), more often consider leaving academia and their current PhD position.

Perceptions of Research Integrity Climate in Hungarian Universities: Results from A Survey among Academic Researchers

Research integrity climate is an important factor that influences an individual's behavior. A strong research integrity culture can lead to better research practices and responsible conduct of research (RCR). Therefore, investigations on organizational climate can be a valuable tool to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each group and develop targeted initiatives. This study aims to assess the perceptions on integrity climate in three universities in Hungary. A cross-sectional study was conducted with PhD students, postdocs, and professors from three Hungarian universities. The survey included demographic questions, such as gender, age, scientific field, academic rank, and the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SOURCE). A total of 432 participants completed the survey. Our results show that postdocs and assistant professors perceived integrity climate more negatively than PhD students and full professors in every survey scale. Contrarily, PhD students perceive more positively than the other groups. Disciplinary differences show that researchers in the Biomedical sciences perceive regulatory bodies to be fairer when evaluating their projects than those in the Natural sciences. Natural sciences also perceive more negatively how the department values integrity when compared to Humanities. Humanities perceive more positively Advisor/Advisee Relations than Biomedical Sciences. Our results suggest that institutions should pay more attention to early career researchers, especially insecure and temporary positions like postdocs and assistant professors. They should provide RCR resources, socialize them in RCR, and set more reasonable expectations. Moreover, department leaders should develop initiatives to foster better integrity climates.

Reliability and validation of an attitude scale regarding responsible conduct in research

Background

Several studies reveal a problematic prevalence of research misbehaviors. There are several potential causes of research misconduct but ensuring that scientists hold attitudes that reflect norms of acceptable behaviors is fundamental.

Aim

Our aim was to evaluate the psychometric properties (factor structure and reliability) of an “attitude” scale that we adopted from a questionnaire we previously used to investigate the prevalence of research misbehaviors in the Middle East.

Methods

We used data from participants (n = 254) who were involved in our prior questionnaire study to determine the validity of an attitude scale that we adapted from this previous study. We performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the factor structure of the attitude scale followed by measures of convergent and concurrent validity. We assessed reliability by computing the Cronbach’s alphas of each construct of the attitude scale.

Results

EFA indicated that the attitude scale consists of two factors (constructs). Convergent validity was demonstrated by significant correlations of item-item and item-total. Correlation analysis revealed that the attitude constructs were significantly correlated with the Research Misbehavior Severity Score, thereby demonstrating concurrent validity. Cronbach’s alphas were greater than 0.75 for both constructs.

Conclusion

We demonstrated a valid and reliable 20-item attitude scale with two factors related to “acceptability of practices in responsible conduct in research” and “general attitudes regarding scientific misconduct”. The use of a validated attitude scale can help assess the effectiveness of educational programs that focus on participants acquiring attitudes that are instrumental in responsible conduct in research.

Assessing the climate for research ethics in labs: Development and validation of a brief measure

The environment researchers work in influences their ethical decisions and behavior. A "climate" for research ethics in a research lab exists when members of the lab perceive that the group values and is committed to principles of research ethics. In this study, we aimed to develop a short, reliable and valid measure assessing perceptions of climate for research ethics at the lab level. The resulting measure, Lab Climate for Research Ethics, was developed using standard scale development guidelines. In a large sample of postdoctoral researchers (N = 570), we found preliminary evidence that the new measure has adequate internal consistency reliability. It was also correlated with an existing measure of climate for research ethics and was not correlated with social desirability, demonstrating evidence of construct validity. The new measure can be used in a variety of contexts, including research administrators seeking information about climate within labs across an institution and researchers who study lab environments.

Reflexive Behaviour: How Publication Pressure Affects Research Quality in Astronomy

Reflexive metrics is a branch of science studies that explores how the demand for accountability and performance measurement in science has shaped the research culture in recent decades. Hypercompetition and publication pressure are part of this neoliberal culture. How do scientists respond to these pressures? Studies on research integrity and organisational culture suggest that people who feel treated unfairly by their institution are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour, such as scientific misconduct. By building up on reflexive metrics, combined with studies on the influence of organisational culture on research integrity, this study reflects on the research behaviour of astronomers with the following questions: (1) To what extent is research (mis-)behaviour reflexive, i.e., dependent on perceptions of publication pressure and distributive and organisational justice? (2) What impact does scientific misconduct have on research quality? In order to perform this reflection, we conducted a comprehensive survey of academic and non-academic astronomers worldwide and received 3509 responses. We found that publication pressure explains 10% of the variance in occurrence of misconduct and between 7% and 13% of the variance of the perception of distributive and organisational justice as well as overcommitment to work. Our results on the perceived impact of scientific misconduct on research quality show that the epistemic harm of questionable research practices should not be underestimated. This suggests there is a need for a policy change. In particular, lesser attention to metrics (such as publication rate) in the allocation of grants, telescope time and institutional rewards would foster better scientific conduct and, hence, research quality.

Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam

BACKGROUND

Concerns about research misbehavior in academic science have sparked interest in the factors that may explain research misbehavior. Often three clusters of factors are distinguished: individual factors, climate factors and publication factors. Our research question was: to what extent can individual, climate and publication factors explain the variance in frequently perceived research misbehaviors?

METHODS

From May 2017 until July 2017, we conducted a survey study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. The survey included three measurement instruments that we previously reported individual results of and here we integrate these findings.

RESULTS

One thousand two hundred ninety-eight researchers completed the survey (response rate: 17%). Results showed that individual, climate and publication factors combined explained 34% of variance in perceived frequency of research misbehavior. Individual factors explained 7%, climate factors explained 22% and publication factors 16%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the perceptions of the research climate play a substantial role in explaining variance in research misbehavior. This suggests that efforts to improve departmental norms might have a salutary effect on behavior.

Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective

Research integrity (RI) is usually discussed in terms of responsibilities that individual researchers bear towards the scientific work they conduct, as well as responsibilities that institutions have to enable those individual researchers to do so. In addition to these two bearers of responsibility, a third category often surfaces, which is variably referred to as culture and practice. These notions merit further development beyond a residual category that is to contain everything that is not covered by attributions to individuals and institutions. This paper discusses how thinking in RI can take benefit from more specific ideas on practice and culture. We start by articulating elements of practice and culture, and explore how values central to RI are related to these elements. These insights help identify additional points of intervention for fostering responsible conduct. This helps to build "cultures and practices of research integrity", as it makes clear that specific times and places are connected to specific practices and cultures and should have a place in the debate on Research Integrity. With this conceptual framework, practitioners as well as theorists can avoid using the notions as residual categories that de facto amount to vague, additional burdens of responsibility for the individual.

Assessing the Organizational Climate for Translational Research with a New Survey Tool

Promoting translational research as a means to overcoming chasms in the translation of knowledge through successive fields of research from basic science to public health impacts and back is a central challenge for research managers and policymakers. Organizational leaders need to assess baseline conditions, identify areas needing improvement, and to judge the impact of specific initiatives to sustain or improve translational research practices at their institutions. Currently, there is a lack of such an assessment tool addressing the specific context of translational biomedical research. To close this gap, we have developed a new survey for assessing the organizational climate for translational research. This self-assessment tool measures employees' perceptions of translational research climate and underlying research practices in organizational environments and builds on the established Survey of Organizational Research Climate, assessing research integrity. Using this tool, we show that scientists at a large university hospital (Charité Berlin) perceive translation as a central and important component of their work. Importantly, local resources and direct support are main contributing factors for the practical implementation of translation into their own research practice. We identify and discuss potential leverage points for an improvement of research climate to foster successful translational research.

A bibliometric analysis of academic misconduct research in higher education: Current status and future research opportunities

The literature on academic misconduct has seen unprecedented growth over the past 20 years. As the research into this vital topic has grown, there have been a few reviews attempting to consolidate the literature. While the extant reviews have been insightful, a careful analysis reveals that these have somewhat different emphases, methods, and time intervals. Our study employs a bibliometric analysis approach on a large set of studies (779) published between 2000 and 2020. The analysis uncovers the key clusters, countries' co-authorship and evolution of research over the past two decades. It enriches contemporary knowledge on multifaceted issues of academic misconduct and offers resonant insights for academics, students, and policymakers. The paper concludes with several promising opportunities for future research.

Individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors associated with questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific health services research publications

Background

Health Services Research findings (HSR) reported in scientific publications may become part of the decision-making process on healthcare. This study aimed to explore associations between researcher’s individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors and the occurrence of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific HSR publications.

Methods

We employed a mixed-methods study design. We identified factors possibly contributing to QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions through a literature review, 14 semi-structured interviews with HSR institutional leaders, and 13 focus-groups amongst researchers. A survey corresponding with these factors was developed and shared with 172 authors of 116 scientific HSR publications produced by Dutch research institutes in 2016. We assessed the included publications for the occurrence of QRPs. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify factors within individual, institutional, and environmental domains. Next, we conducted bivariate analyses using simple Poisson regression to explore factors’ association with the number of QRPs in the assessed HSR publications. Factors related to QRPs with a p-value < .30 were included in four multivariate models tested through a multiple Poisson regression.

Results

In total, 78 (45%) participants completed the survey (51.3% first authors and 48.7% last authors). Twelve factors were included in the multivariate analyses. In all four multivariate models, a higher score of “pressure to create societal impact” (Exp B = 1.28, 95% CI [1.11, 1.47]), was associated with higher number of QRPs. Higher scores on “specific training” (Exp B = 0.85, 95% CI [0.77–0.94]) and “co-author conflict of interest” (Exp B = 0.85, 95% CI [0.75–0.97]) factors were associated with a lower number of QRPs. Stratification between first and last authors indicated different factors were related to the occurrence of QRPs for these groups.

Conclusion

Experienced pressure to create societal impact is associated with more QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions in HSR publications. Specific training in reporting messages and conclusions and awareness of co-author conflict of interests are related to fewer QRPs. Our results should stimulate awareness within the field of HSR internationally on opportunities to better support reporting in scientific HSR publications.

The research misconduct post hoc inquiry as a measure of institutional integrity (DR)

The terms, institutional and scientific, integrity appeared in the literature 986 times from 2005 to 2015. How has the term integrity, with its dual definition, a) The accuracy, completeness and consistency of data and b) the adherence to a code of moral values, been applied to an institution? The authors suggest that a post hoc inquiry be instituted following the finding of an individual act of research misconduct to determine if the sponsoring institution, actively or passively, played a contributory role and if corrective action was taken. This would serve as one measure of institutional integrity.

Research ethics courses as a vaccination against a toxic research environment or culture

Hofmann and Holm’s (2019) recent survey on issues of research misconduct with PhD graduates culminated with a notable conclusion by the authors: ‘ Scientific misconduct seems to be an environmental issue as much as a matter of personal integrity’. Here, we re-emphasise the usefulness of an education-based countermeasure against toxic research environments or cultures that promote unethical practices amongst the younger researchers. We posit that an adequately conducted course in research ethics and integrity, with a good dose of case studies and analyses, can function in a manner that is metaphorically akin to vaccination. The training would cultivate the ability to analyse and build confidence in young researchers in making decisions with sound moral reasoning as well as in speaking up or arguing against pressure and coercions into unacceptable behaviour. A sufficiently large number of young researchers exposed to research ethics trainings would essentially provide a research community some degree of lasting herd immunity at its broadest base. Beyond passive immunity, a crop of research ethics-savvy young researchers could also play active and influential roles as role models for others at their level and perhaps even help correct the wayward attitudes of some senior researchers and initiate prompt action from institutional policy makers in a bottom-up manner.

Climate of Respect Evaluation in ICUs: Development of an Instrument (ICU-CORE)

OBJECTIVES

To develop a valid, reliable measure that reflected the environment of respectfulness within the ICU setting.

DESIGN

We developed a preliminary survey instrument based on conceptual domains of respect identified through prior qualitative analyses of ICU patient, family member, and clinician perspectives. The initial instrument consisted of 21 items. After five cognitive interviews and 16 pilot surveys, we revised the instrument to include 23 items. We used standard psychometric methods to analyze the instrument.

SETTINGS

Eight ICUs serving adult patients affiliated with a large university health system.

SUBJECTS

ICU clinicians.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Based on 249 responses, we identified three factors and created subscales: General Respect, Respectful Behaviors, and Disrespectful Behaviors. The General Respect subscale had seven items (α = 0.932) and reflected how often patients in the ICU are treated with respect, in a dignified manner, as an individual, equally to all other patients, on the "same level" as the ICU team, as a person, and as you yourself would want to be treated. The Respectful Behaviors subscale had 10 items (α = 0.926) and reflected how often the ICU team responds to patient and/or family anxiety, makes an effort to get to know the patient and family as people, listens carefully, explains things thoroughly, gives the opportunity to provide input into care, protects patient modesty, greets when entering room, and talks to sedated patients. The subscale measuring disrespect has four items (α = 0.702) and reflects how often the ICU team dismisses family concerns, talks down to patients and families, speaks disrespectfully behind their backs, and gets frustrated with patients and families.

CONCLUSIONS

We created a reliable set of scales to measure the climate of respectfulness in intensive care settings. These measures can be used for ongoing quality improvement that aim to enhance the experience of ICU patients and their families.

Perceptions of Ethical Climate and Research Pressures in Different Faculties of a University: Cross-Sectional Study at the University of Split, Croatia

We determined the prevailing ethical climate at three different schools of a single university, in order to explore possible differences in the ethical climate related to different research fields: the School of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Naval Architecture; the School of Humanities and Social Sciences; and the School of Medicine. We used the Ethical Climate Questionnaire to survey the staff (teachers and administration) at the three schools, and used the research integrity and organizational climate (RIOC) survey for early-stage researchers at the three schools. The dominant ethical climate type perceived collectively at the three university schools (response rate 49%, n = 294) was Laws and professional codes, which is associated with the cosmopolitan level of analysis and the ethical construct of principle. Individually, the same climate predominated at the schools for engineering and humanities, but the School of Medicine had the Self-interest ethical climate, which is associated with the individual level of analysis and the egoism ethical construct. In the RIOC survey (response rate 85%; n = 70), early-stage researchers from the three university schools did not differ in their perceptions of the organizational research integrity climate, or in their perceived individual, group or organizational pressures. Our study is the first, to the best of our knowledge, to show differences in perceived ethical climate at a medical school compared to other schools at a university. Further studies are needed to explore the reasons for these differences and how they translate to organizational outcomes, such as job satisfaction, commitment to the institution and dysfunctional behaviour, including research misconduct.

Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam

Breaches of research integrity have shocked the academic community. Initially explanations were sought at the level of individual researchers but over time increased recognition emerged of the important role that the research integrity climate may play in influencing researchers' (mis)behavior. In this study we aim to assess whether researchers from different academic ranks and disciplinary fields experience the research integrity climate differently. We sent an online questionnaire to academic researchers in Amsterdam using the Survey of Organizational Research Climate. Bonferroni corrected mean differences showed that junior researchers (PhD students, postdocs and assistant professors) perceive the research integrity climate more negatively than senior researchers (associate and full professors). Junior researchers note that their supervisors are less committed to talk about key research integrity principles compared to senior researchers (MD = -.39, CI = -.55, -.24). PhD students perceive more competition and suspicion among colleagues (MD = -.19, CI = -.35, -.05) than associate and full professors. We found that researchers from the natural sciences overall express a more positive perception of the research integrity climate. Researchers from social sciences as well as from the humanities perceive less fairness of their departments' expectations in terms of publishing and acquiring funding compared to natural sciences and biomedical sciences (MD = -.44, CI = -.74, -.15; MD = -.36, CI = -.61, -.11). Results suggest that department leaders in the humanities and social sciences should do more to set fairer expectations for their researchers and that senior scientists should ensure junior researchers are socialized into research integrity practices and foster a climate in their group where suspicion among colleagues has no place.

Five Dimensions of Research Ethics: A Stakeholder Framework for Creating a Climate of Research Integrity

The authors explore five dimensions of research ethics: (1) normative ethics, which includes meta-ethical questions; (2) compliance with regulations, statutes, and institutional policies; (3) the rigor and reproducibility of science; (4) social value; and (5) workplace relationships. Each of the five dimensions is important not only because it addresses an aspect of good research done in a good manner but also because it addresses the concerns of key stakeholders in the research enterprise. The five-dimension framework can guide institutions as they answer three questions central to any research ethics program: (1) Who should champion research ethics? (2) What should interventions look like? and (3) Who should participate in the interventions? The framework is valuable because the answers to these three questions are radically different depending on the dimension under consideration. An expanded vision of research ethics does not entail that institutions should require additional online training or approvals from institutional review boards. However, without acknowledging all five dimensions, programs risk missing an important aspect of research ethics or ignoring the interests of important stakeholders.

Main outcomes of an RCT to pilot test reporting and feedback to foster research integrity climates in the VA

BACKGROUND

Assessing the integrity of research climates and sharing such information with research leaders may support research best practices. We report here results of a pilot trial testing the effectiveness of a reporting and feedback intervention using the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SOuRCe).

METHODS

We randomized 41 Veterans Health Administration (VA) facilities to a phone-based intervention designed to help research leaders understand their survey results (enhanced arm) or to an intervention in which results were simply distributed to research leaders (basic arm). Primary outcomes were (1) whether leaders took action, (2) whether actions taken were consistent with the feedback received, and (3) whether responses differed by receptivity to quality improvement input.

RESULTS

Research leaders from 25 of 42 (59%) VA facilities consented to participate in the study intervention and follow-up, of which 14 were at facilities randomized to the enhanced arm. We completed follow-up interviews with 21 of the 25 leaders (88%), 12 from enhanced arm facilities. While not statistically significant, the proportion of leaders reporting taking some action in response to the feedback was twice as high in the enhanced arm than in the basic arm (67% vs. 33%, p = .20). While also not statistically significant, a higher proportion of actions taken among facilities in the enhanced arm were responsive to the survey results than in the basic arm (42% vs. 22%, p = .64).

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced feedback of survey results appears to be a promising intervention that may increase the likelihood of responsive action to improve organizational climates. Due to the small sample size of this pilot study, even large percentage-point differences between study arms are not statistically distinguishable. This hypothesis should be tested in a larger trial.

Neutralising fair credit: factors that influence unethical authorship practices

This study experimentally tests whether the techniques of neutralisation as identified in the criminal justice literature influence graduate student willingness to engage in questionable research practices (QRPs). Our results indicate that US-born graduate students are more willing to add an undeserved coauthor if the person who requests it is a faculty member in the student's department as opposed to a fellow student. Students are most likely to add an undeserving author if a faculty member is also their advisor. In addition, four techniques of neutralisation, 'diffusion of responsibility', 'defence of necessity', 'advantageous comparison' and 'euphemistic labelling', are associated with student willingness to act unethically. Participants who had received responsible conduct of research training were no less likely to commit the violation than those who had not. Knowledge of these influencing factors for QRPs will provide for opportunities to improve research ethics education strategies and materials.

Making Professional Decisions in Research: Measurement and Key Predictors

The professional decision-making in research (PDR) measure was administered to 400 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded and industry-funded investigators, along with measures of cynicism, moral disengagement, compliance disengagement, impulsivity, work stressors, knowledge of responsible conduct of research (RCR), and socially desirable response tendencies. Negative associations were found for the PDR and measures of cynicism, moral disengagement, and compliance disengagement, while positive associations were found for the PDR and RCR knowledge and positive urgency, an impulsivity subscale. PDR scores were not related to socially desirable responding, or to measures of work stressors and the remaining impulsivity subscales. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, lower moral disengagement scores, higher RCR knowledge, and identifying the United States as one's nation of origin emerged as key predictors of stronger performance on the PDR. The implications of these findings for understanding the measurement of decision-making in research and future directions for research and RCR education are discussed.

Research Misconduct in the Croatian Scientific Community: A Survey Assessing the Forms and Characteristics of Research Misconduct

The prevalence and characteristics of research misconduct have mainly been studied in highly developed countries. In moderately or poorly developed countries such as Croatia, data on research misconduct are scarce. The primary aim of this study was to determine the rates at which scientists report committing or observing the most serious forms of research misconduct, such as falsification , fabrication, plagiarism, and violation of authorship rules in the Croatian scientific community. Additionally, we sought to determine the degree of development and the extent of implementation of the system for defining and regulating research misconduct in a typical scientific community in Croatia. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed among 1232 Croatian scientists at the University of Rijeka in 2012/2013 and 237 (19.2 %) returned the survey. Based on the respondents who admitted having committed research misconduct, 9 (3.8 %) admitted to plagiarism, 22 (9.3 %) to data falsification, 9 (3.8 %) to data fabrication, and 60 (25.3 %) respondents admitted to violation of authorship rules. Based on the respondents who admitted having observed research misconduct of fellow scientists, 72 (30.4 %) observed plagiarism, 69 (29.1 %) observed data falsification, 46 (19.4 %) observed data fabrication, and 132 (55.7 %) respondents admitted having observed violation of authorship rules. The results of our study indicate that the efficacy of the system for managing research misconduct in Croatia is poor. At the University of Rijeka there is no document dedicated exclusively to research integrity, describing the values that should be fostered by a scientist and clarifying the forms of research misconduct and what constitutes a questionable research practice. Scientists do not trust ethical bodies and the system for defining and regulating research misconduct; therefore the observed cases of research misconduct are rarely reported. Finally, Croatian scientists are not formally educated about responsible conduct of research at any level of their formal education. All mentioned indicate possible reasons for higher rates of research misconduct among Croatian scientists in comparison with scientists in highly developed countries.

Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples?

Around 2% of the investigators admit to have falsified or fabricated data at least once. Also, 34% report to have been guilty to one or more questionable research practices, such as doing many statistical analyses and to publish only what fits their theoretical framework. Prevention of questionable research practices is very important. Universities should ensure that the training is in order and the research culture is adequate, and they should critically look at perverse incentives, such as a too high publication pressure, but also by ensuring proper guidelines, and by having a fair and transparent procedure for suspected violations of scientific integrity.

Initial Results from the Survey of Organizational Research Climates (SOuRCe) in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare System

BACKGROUND

In service to its core mission of improving the health and well-being of veterans, Veterans Affairs (VA) leadership is committed to supporting research best practices in the VA. Recognizing that the behavior of researchers is influenced by the organizational climates in which they work, efforts to assess the integrity of research climates and share such information with research leadership in VA may be one way to support research best practices. The Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SOuRCe) is the first validated survey instrument specifically designed to assess the organizational climate of research integrity in academic research organizations. The current study reports on an initiative to use the SOuRCe in VA facilities to characterize the organizational research climates and pilot test the effectiveness of using SOuRCe data as a reporting and feedback intervention tool.

METHODS

We administered the SOuRCe using a cross-sectional, online survey, with mailed follow-up to non-responders, of research-engaged employees in the research services of a random selection of 42 VA facilities (e.g., Hospitals/Stations) believed to employ 20 or more research staff. We attained a 51% participation rate, yielding more than 5,200 usable surveys.

RESULTS

We found a general consistency in organizational research climates across a variety of sub-groups in this random sample of research services in the VA. We also observed similar SOuRCe scale score means, relative rankings of these scales and their internal reliability, in this VA-based sample as we have previously documented in more traditional academic research settings. Results also showed more substantial variability in research climate scores within than between facilities in the VA research service as reflected in meaningful subgroup differences. These findings suggest that the SOuRCe is suitable as an instrument for assessing the research integrity climates in VA and that the tool has similar patterns of results that have been observed in more traditional academic research settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The local and specific nature of organizational climates in VA research services, as reflected in variability across sub-groups within individual facilities, has important policy implications. Global, "one-size-fits-all" type initiatives are not likely to yield as much benefit as efforts targeted to specific organizational units or sub-groups and tailored to the specific strengths and weaknesses documented in those locations.

Individual and organizational predictors of the ethicality of graduate students' responses to research integrity issues

The development of effective means to enhance research integrity by universities requires baseline measures of individual, programmatic, and institutional factors known to contribute to ethical decision making and behavior. In the present study, master's thesis and Ph.D. students in the fields of biological, health and social sciences at a research extensive university completed a field appropriate measure of research ethical decision making and rated the seriousness of the research issue and importance for implementing the selection response. In addition they were asked to rate their perceptions of the institutional and departmental research climate and to complete a measure of utilitarian and formalistic predisposition. Female students were found to be more ethical in their decision making compared to male students. The research ethical decision measure was found to be related to participants' ethical predisposition and overall perception of organizational and departmental research climate; however, formalism was the only individual predictor to reach statistical significance and none of the individual subscales of the research climate measure were significantly correlated to ethicality. Participants' ratings of the seriousness of the issue were correlated with their ratings of the importance of carrying out their selected response but neither was significantly predictive of the ethicality of their responses. The implications of these findings for the development of more effective training programs and environments for graduate students in research ethics and integrity are discussed.

A Modest Proposal to Move RCR Education Out of the Classroom and into Research

Requirements for training in responsible conduct of research have significantly increased over the past 25 years, but worries about the integrity of science have only intensified. The approach to training has relied largely on short-term experiences, either online or in person. Even if done well, such strategies remain separate from, and a negligible fraction of, the practice of research. A proposed alternative is to empower faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate student leaders to foster conversations about research ethics in the research environment.

Teaching responsible conduct responsibly

Requirements for educating the next generation of scientists in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) were published approximately 25 years ago. Over the years, an extensive collThe advancement of science requires trust – trust in the literature, in our collaborators, in the data we are handed, and most of all in ourselves. Policies issued by U.S. federal funding agencies (e.g., the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation) have been valuable in prompting institutions to initiate formal mechanisms for providing instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). However, the guidelines vary greatly in scope, detail, and the types of individuals to which they apply. Unfortunately, at many institutions, the provision of RCR instruction has become a bureaucratic exercise aimed at fulfilling a regulatory requirement, instead of an activity optimized for promoting a climate of integrity. We argue that for RCR instruction to be effective it should (1) be provided to everyone involved in the research enterprise, be they students, trainees, faculty, or staff, (2) be infused throughout one’s time at an institution. For graduate students, that would include from orientation to thesis completion, including integration into all “core classes” within their discipline, as well as into discussions at research group meetings. (3) We also advocate that the bulk of the instruction should be provided primarily by active researchers who know the issues and have relevance to, and credibly with, those being taught, and (4) that the instruction actively engages the learners. Not only will we be providing RCR instruction in a much more optimized manner, such an approach also emphasizes through our actions, not just in words, that behaving responsibly is an essential skill for researchers

Survey of Organizational Research Climates in Three Research Intensive, Doctoral Granting Universities

The Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SOuRCe) is a new instrument that assesses dimensions of research integrity climate, including ethical leadership, socialization and communication processes, and policies, procedures, structures, and processes to address risks to research integrity. We present a descriptive analysis to characterize differences on the SOuRCe scales across departments, fields of study, and status categories (faculty, postdoctoral scholars, and graduate students) for 11,455 respondents from three research-intensive universities. Among the seven SOuRCe scales, variance explained by status and fields of study ranged from 7.6% (Advisor–Advisee Relations) to 16.2% (Integrity Norms). Department accounted for greater than 50% of the variance explained for each of the SOuRCe scales, ranging from 52.6% (Regulatory Quality) to 80.3% (Integrity Inhibitors). It is feasible to implement this instrument in large university settings across a broad range of fields, department types, and individual roles within academic units. Published baseline results provide initial data for institutions using the SOuRCe who wish to compare their own research integrity climates.

Review of measurement instruments in research ethics in the biomedical sciences, 2008−2012

There is an urgent need in biomedical science to understand whether regulations are being met, prerequisite to goals of subject protection and integrity in research practice. This article presents an update of a 2006 summary of measurement instruments in research ethics with psychometric information in the years 2008−2012. A review of 25 instruments identified seven used in the time period 2008−2012 and which had accumulated at least one study of its psychometric qualities beyond its developmental phase. Many of these instruments had been accumulating psychometric information over more than a decade. Two additional but still underdeveloped instruments addressing important bioethical issues − coercion and therapeutic misconception − are included because they address important issues in research ethics. Bioethicists use a wide range of methods for knowledge development and verification; each method should meet stringent standards of quality. Measurement instruments that meet these standards have the potential to greatly ease the work of institutional review boards and other regulatory bodies as well as to enhance empirical work on human research ethics.

Development and validation of the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC)

Development and targeting efforts by academic organizations to effectively promote research integrity can be enhanced if they are able to collect reliable data to benchmark baseline conditions, to assess areas needing improvement, and to subsequently assess the impact of specific initiatives. To date, no standardized and validated tool has existed to serve this need. A web- and mail-based survey was administered in the second half of 2009 to 2,837 randomly selected biomedical and social science faculty and postdoctoral fellows at 40 academic health centers in top-tier research universities in the United States. Measures included the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC) as well as measures of perceptions of organizational justice. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded seven subscales of organizational research climate, all of which demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's α ranging from 0.81 to 0.87) and adequate test-retest reliability (Pearson r ranging from 0.72 to 0.83). A broad range of correlations between the seven subscales and five measures of organizational justice (unadjusted regression coefficients ranging from 0.13 to 0.95) document both construct and discriminant validity of the instrument. The SORC demonstrates good internal (alpha) and external reliability (test-retest) as well as both construct and discriminant validity.